Sitting of 17 July 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent figures for male and female unemployment in the Ogmore constituency, Ogmore borough, Mid Glamorgan county areas and the total in Wales; and what were the equivalent figures in June 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): On 8 June 1989, there were 1,981, 3,080, 14,919 and 68,021 unemployed males in the Ogmore constituency, Ogwr borough, the county of Mid Glamorgan and Wales respectively. The comparable figures for unemployed females were 626, 1,147, 4,727 and 24,783. Unadjusted figures for June 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.
    Mr. Powell: All Opposition Members will be grateful to the Secretary of State for finding time in his busy diary to answer Welsh questions. I am grateful for his comprehensive answer to my question. I am sure that many unemployed people in Wales will be shouting hallelujah because unemployment is coming down. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that unemployment will come down to the figure that he and his Government inherited in 1979? Will he bear in mind the fact that many people who are now unemployed could he employed in the Health Service as doctors, nurses and auxiliary workers? If he were to consider the dews that Opposition Members would like to express to him in the Welsh Grand Committee—
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Powell: This is my last point, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State mark in his diary 19 July or 26 July for a debate on the Health Service?
    Mr. Walker: I shall answer the parts of the hon. Gentleman's question that were in order and then, if Mr. Speaker permits me, I shall answer the points that were out of order. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted that in the first year that I had the privilege to be Secretary of State for Wales, unemployment in his constituency fell by 17·5 per cent. He will be even more delighted to know that last year it fell by 23·7 per cent. Such progress in reducing unemployment has never been seen in his constituency or in Wales.
    Mr. Raffan: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his latest inward investment success and the major part that he played in bringing the Toyota engine plant to Shotton in the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, who could never have brought it there had he tried. My right hon. Friend did so without costing the taxpayer a penny. How many jobs will be created by that project in the engine plant Itself and among local component manufacturers and service industries?
    Mr. Walker: The Toyota engine plant is an important investment. In fairness to the hon. Member for Alyn and

    3
    Deeside (Mr. Jones), he was enthusiastic and delighted about the decision that the plant will be in his constituency. It presents enormous opportunities for component manufacturers and shows the world at large that north Wales can offer a good labour force, good communications and good facilities. As a result, I hope that there will be much more inward investment in the months ahead.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware of the announcement in the past few minutes of the proposed closure of the Merthyr Vale pit at Aberfan? That is one of the worst acts of industrial vandalism perpetrated in the south Wales coalfield. Is he aware of the investments and developments that he has supported and the efforts that have been made to reach targets? I know that he made representations about the future of the colliery a few weeks ago. May I plead with him to intercede at the highest level with the chairman of British Coal to try to get the decision reconsidered?
    Mr. Walker: I understand the real distress and anxiety of the hon. Gentleman at the announcement affecting his constituency. Like the hon. Gentleman, I heard of the announcement literally only half an hour ago because the meeting with the miners ended around lunchtime. He also knows that I conveyed the information with which he provided me to the chairman of British Coal and asked him to consider the representations carefully. I will have a look at the detail of the announcement and see what matters arise.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in expressing concern about the closure of Merthyr Vale. Many people in my constituency who have lost their jobs in the coal industry not once or twice but three times, and they will be made redundant again by this announcement. Is the Secretary of State concerned by the recent report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which shows that the Cynon valley ranks third in the country for the death rate among men? Is he aware that the Cynon valley has the highest male unemployment rate for Wales? Does he now accept the link between unemployment and ill health? What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that unemployment causes a range of health problems. However, in the Cynon valley, as in other parts of Wales many health problems are connected with the coal industry. It has been a major factor in ill health in a number of the valley regions, including the hon. Lady's constituency. There is a connection with employment and with unemployment.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I ask for urgent help regarding the grave closure faced by the community. Recognising the importance of the Welsh Development Agency to employment creation in Wales, may I ask the Secretary of State to explain why the two suspended officers of the west Wales office of the Welsh Development Agency were allowed to continue their plans for the management buy-out? Why were they allowed to believe that they had the support of the agency, with which they say they had six months of detailed discussions?
    Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Development Agency has made clear its attitude to
    4
    the offer by the management of one part of the agency and that it has constantly rejected that proposal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, while I have had responsibility, I have increased massively the activities of the Welsh Development Agency. I am pleased to say that its budget for this year alone is more in cash terms than the total amount spent by the agency in the whole period of office of the previous Labour Government. The agency has an important and positive role to play and I am pleased to say that it turned down those proposals.

    Education—Industry Links
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress being made to establish better links between schools, training and industry in Wales.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): A network of eight advisers, operating within local education authority boundaries, has now been appointed. They are actively encouraging all employers in their areas to participate in creating new or strengthening existing links with educational establishments and to contribute towards the prime objectives of providing work experience for all young persons before they leave school and business experience for teachers.
    Mr. Jones: In view of the close relationship between economic and industrial development, and the special training needs of the work force, does the Minister now agree that the responsibility for education-industry links and special training in Wales should be transferred to the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Roberts: We have anticipated the hon. Gentleman to a large extent, in that my right hon. Friend and the Welsh Office have a responsibility for training in Wales and work closely with the Training Agency. We are actively involved with the training advisory group in setting up training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. Rogers: In examining the link between industry and training, will the Minister consider carefully some of the activities in the Polytechnic of Wales—an institution of which I am proud, having been chairman of the governors for eight years? With the publication of the National Audit Office report this weekend, will the Minister find out whether other senior people in the polytechnic have been involved in activities in which taxpayers' money may have been wasted?
    Mr. Roberts: As a former chairman of the governors, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that responsibility for staffing lies with the local authority and that dealing with the two cases involved is and has been a matter for that local authority.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if there are any plans under consideration for the privatisation of part or all of the functions of the Welsh Development Agency.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The agency has constantly reviewed the scope for increasing private sector involvement in the range of its activities, in accordance with its statutory responsibilities and the policy guidelines laid down by the

    5
    Government. Accordingly, over the past year—as in previous years—it has sold assets worth some £12·5 million to private sector interests. It has also contracted out its legal, press and information services and it has announced an intention to seek the adoption of utility services by the statutory providers on a number of its estates.
    Mr. Williams: May I express my anxiety about the circumstances surrounding the suspension of the two officers who have been removed from west Wales? Were not those two men guilty simply of jumping the gun and making public proposals that the agency is considering in a larger way? Will the Secretary of State confirm whether there have been detailed discussions between the WDA and Barclays de Zoete Wedd Ltd., the merchant bank arm of Barclays bank? There have been tremendous comings and goings during the past six months. Will he confirm that the agenda includes hiving off services, more private funding—with perhaps a 50–50 public-private structure—and possibly even outright privatisation?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. The proposals of the two officials were for a straight management buy-out of the services and assets operating in one region of the WDA. There are constant examinations with, I would guess, all sorts of advisers about gearing up the money coming into the WDA from the private sector. If successful proposals and suggestions were put forward, I expect that the hon. Gentleman would warmly welcome them.
    The WDA is an important agency, carrying out enourmously important functions. If the main desire was to see that it was sold off to somebody quickly, there would not have been the enormous increase in activity that there has been during the past two years. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. If there are any ways in which we can bring more money into Wales by gearing up the activities of the WDA, I hope that hon. Members of all parties will welcome them.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not all too typical of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) that he is fussing about the structure and ownership of the organisation when what really matters are its functions and activities and that it should continue to attract industry to Wales and to promote industrial development within Wales?
    Mr. Walker: During the next few years, the WDA is committed to firm programmes with a considerable dimension, including the biggest-ever derelict land clearance programmes, and the biggest-ever advanced factory building programmes, and we must not forget the range of services that it is providing at present. As I said in answer to an earlier question, in the coming year alone we shall be spending more money on the WDA than was spent during the previous Labour Government's entire period of office.
    Mr. Coleman: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the security of the Welsh Development Agency, but will he go a little further? On behalf of the Conservative party and Conservative Members, will he now recant their actions which, had they succeeded, would have prevented the setting up of the Welsh Development Agency, in which the right hon. Gentleman now takes so much pride and pleasure?
    Mr. Walker: I have been the biggest user of the Welsh Development Agency of any Secretary of State since it was started, so the hon. Gentleman should enthusiastically support the manner in which I have given it a considerably expanding role and a new dynamism which never attained under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing wrong with employees of an organisation such as the WDA making suggestions about what could be better privatised? Such employees may be well placed to offer their employers advice on those matters. May I urge my right hon. Friend, if necessary, to continue to examine all such proposals on the basis of what is best for the achievement of the WDA's objectives and for the taxpayer who has to pay the bill, rather than following dogma for dogma's sake?
    Mr. Walker: I knew nothing of those proposals until they were announced by the press. Officials of the WDA knew of them and had rejected them, and a number of my officials knew that the rejection had taken place. The proposals were firmly rejected at an early stage there was great surprise in the WDA and the Welsh Office that such proposals were eventually made.
    Mr. Barry Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman did not know, he should have known. He has given us wriggling answers. Is it not the case that the two west Wales officials simply jumped the gun by making public a proposal that the WDA was examining in a wider way? Does that explain why the WDA finance director spent time with the privatised National Freight Corporation? Will the Secretary of State explain those matters?
    Mr. Walker: The WDA is perfectly free to explore any ways of bringing more private capital into its activities. I see nothing wrong with that. I should be surprised if it was the Labour party view that the WDA should refuse gearing or additional investment for Wales on the grounds that it was tainted because it came from private enterprise. The only proposals for the WDA involve continuing its present activities. The proposals made by the two men to whom the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred had nothing to do with the sort of proposals that the WDA had been examining.

    Milford Haven Business Plan
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Welsh Development Agency to publish the Milford Haven business plan. and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: This is a matter for the WDA and the South Pembrokeshire and Preseli district councils which are jointly working to identify opportunities within Milford Haven for developing existing businesses and encouraging new ones. I am advised that they expect to launch their Milford Haven concept early in the autumn.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present problems affecting the west Wales office of the WDA will have no effect on the timing and announcement of the Milford Haven business initiative?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I can.
    Mr. Barry Jones: On the west Wales WDA buy-out proposals and the questions that the Secretary of State did not answer, was a prestigious merchant bank—BZW—involved in drawing up plans for privatisation?
    Mr. Walker: It may have been involved in drawing up plans to bring private participation into a range of WDA activities. I see nothing wrong with that.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail services in the Principality.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend is in frequent correspondence and discussion with senior staff of British Rail at regional and national level. He expects to meet the chairman again soon.
    Mr. Anderson: In the light of the incompetence shown by the chairman and his senior staff in the current rail dispute, can we in Wales have any confidence that they will show the necessary dynamism or vision in respect of matters of great importance to Wales such as the electrification of lines and preparing for the Channel tunnel? If the Prime Minister does the dirty on the Secretary of State for Wales, can we expect him to apply for the job of chairman?
    Mr. Roberts: I understand the hon. Gentleman's position as he is sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen. However, he will be aware that the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen have accepted the 8·8 per cent. offer. I am sure that the House will come to its own conclusion about British Rail's conduct of its affairs. With regard to the Channel tunnel, the hon. Gentleman will know that British Rail has been conducting meetings throughout the land with a view to preparing a document, outlining its plans, for publication before the end of the year.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail will he suggest sending a task force to France to see how the French are linking their railway system into the Channel tunnel and emphasise to him the need for direct rail links from south Wales to the main continental centres?
    Mr. Roberts: I am sure that British Rail will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are well aware of the preparations on the other side of the Channel. However, preparations are being made in this country.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in north-east Wales, particularly among business men and industrialists, that the Welsh Dragon does not stop at Flint or Prestatyn, although it stops at Stafford, Lichfield and Nuneaton? Will he suggest to the chairman of British Rail that the Welsh Dragon either stops at more stations in north-east Wales or is renamed the English Unicorn?
    Mr. Roberts: I am well aware that the train does not stop at Flint, but British Rail tells me that that is for a good reason—that very few passengers get on or off there.
    Mr. Wigley: How can they get on or off if the trains do not stop there?
    Mr. Geraint Howells: The Minister will be aware that there are two major railway stations in my constituency—Aberystwyth in Cardiganshire and Fishguard in north Pembrokeshire with its vital Irish connection. The next time the Minister meets the chairman of the board will he press him to spend more on those two stations to make sure that they can play a major part in the economy of Wales? Will the Minister write to me afterwards?
    Mr. Roberts: These matters are among those that are discussed with British Rail. I am well aware of the position of those ports and their importance not only to the hon. Gentleman but to the whole economy of west Wales. I am also aware of their importance in trade with Ireland.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of British Rail about the quality of service between Swansea, Milford Haven, Haverfordwest and the other stations in Pembrokeshire where we are forced to suffer 25-year-old diesel multiple units? They are filthy, hot in summer and cold in winter and do not have enough accommodation for passengers' luggage on this holiday line. Will he also tell the Opposition that their continued support for the National Union of Railwaymen against the passenger has meant that my constituents have been unable to keep hospital appointments in Swansea, Carmarthen and London on the days on which the railways are not operating?
    Mr. Roberts: I can tell my hon. Friend that British Rail is investing at a record level—some £781 million in the current year—and that is due to increase over the next three years. I hope that some of the money may find its way into some of the services that are being criticised in Wales.
    Mr. Michael: As the Minister previously acknowledged the success of initiatives by Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan county councils with British Rail in opening new stations and new services, does he recognise that the spending plans of the Government and the high inflation rate for which the Government are responsible imply a real cut this year of £104 million, or 20 per cent., in British Rail's external financing limits? Is that not the cause of most of the complaints that have been made by hon. Members? Does the Minister accept that this constraint and his refusal to put in more Welsh Office money is undermining the public interest? Will he offer more money to expand local services and reopen lines such as the Vale of Glamorgan line, with a spur to Cardiff Wales airport to benefit the whole region, as was argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not in touch with the Labour county council of south Glamorgan. It is entirely up to that council whether to make a proposal about the Vale of Glamorgan line.
    Mr. Michael: Not true.
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman says "Not true." I defy the hon. Gentleman: the statement that I have just made is true.

    Countryside Commission
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Countryside Commission; and what issues were discussed.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I spoke to the chairman of the Countryside Commission last week when we discussed the proposed merger of the commission and the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales which has been widely welcomed.
    Dr. Thomas: May I widen that welcome? Of course, we welcome the fact that the Government have established an independent conservation body for Wales which the previous Labour Government failed to do. How does the Minister see the merger of the two bodies taking place? For example, is it the intention that the two existing advisory bodies should remain in place until the transition in 1991? Is it the intention that Professor Gareth Owen and Mr. Meurig Rees should remain as chairmen of the advisory bodies until 1991 to ensure a smooth transition? Will he ensure that the body will be a statutory agency that is entirely accountable to his Department?
    Mr. Roberts: I certainly confirm the latter point. With regard to the first point, the hon. Gentleman will know that the progress of reorganisation requires legislation. Meanwhile, we shall consult the various bodies that are involved in this merger in Wales. At present we have two advisory committees and it is our intention to make them an executive body.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister recognise, however, that the welcome is not entirely unqualified, especially as the purpose of the merger is to ensure that there is no independent conservation voice on matters which will be within the remit of the new body in Wales? Can he give a guarantee that the body will be free from direct political control? As most conservation bodies have an international dimension, can he tell us whether the new body will be present at international conferences? If so, will the Welsh Office now he responsible for ratifying international conventions in so far as they apply to conservation issues in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: Issues that require to be addressed at United Kingdom national or at international level will continue to be the responsibility of the central bodies in England. I think that that is a wise move on our part. The single body that we shall have in Wales will be concerned with Welsh matters.

    Marginal Land Farms
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why certain marginal land farms in Wales have been excluded from the latest less-favoured area status review.
    Mr. Peter Walker: All those farms whose owners or occupiers put forward representations or appeals against exclusion from the LFA, after the 1984 extension, had their cases fully considered during the recent review. Some 974 farms satisfied the initial land quality tests and, of these, 500 satisfied the strict economic and demographic criteria laid down by the EC. A case to include those 500 farms in the LFA has been submitted to Brussels.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is extremely unfair that only half of the farms that were originally passed are now included—500 of them, in Dyfed, Clwyd, Gwynedd and Gwent—and that none of the 139 farms submitted for Powys is included at all? Does
    10
    he agree that that is a disgraceful situation which he and his Department should investigate immediately and put right?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. The Commission's proposals were that the basis of stocking rates should be one livestock unit per hectare. I decided to put forward proposals which go for a higher stocking rate than that as I believe that there was an argument for so doing. We have put forward all those cases which submitted not just one, but 1·2 livestock units per hectare. I am afraid that no application in Powys had a stocking rate of less than 1·57 livestock units per hectare. There is no way of negotiating that with the Commission under the present proposals. To do so would damage my negotiating position, which is to seek an extension of what the Commission proposed.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State not concerned that these marginal lands and other lands in Wales may have been treated with the fungicides identified by the United States as causing an additional 100,000 cancer deaths? Is he aware that those fungicides will not be tested or examined in the Harpenden, Hertfordshire laboratory in Britain possibly for 10 years, because staffing there is 25 per cent. below strength? How much longer must we go on eating food treated with chemicals that have not been properly tested and which present a threat to our lives?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that before this matter is properly examined the hon. Gentleman will not yet again create an enormous scare which may not be well founded. As his question has nothing to do with this application to the European Commission, I shall reply to him separately.

    A55
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what economic effect will result from the completion of road improvements on the A55; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Economic opportunities in north Wales will be greatly enhanced by the dualling of the A55, which will improve accessibility between north Wales, including Holyhead, the motorwork network and continental Europe. Journey times between Bangor and Chester will be reduced to around one hour.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent answer, which shows clearly the Government's commitment to the development of the infrastructure of north Wales. Can he tell the House how much all the works will cost, when they will be completed and their effect on inward investment into north Wales?
    Mr. Walker: We believe that the cost, at current terms, will be about £550 million. The work will be completed in the mid 1990s. The impact is already considerable. I believe, for example, that decisions such as that of Toyota to come to the area, and the substantial reductions in unemployment along the length of the A55 over the past two years have been influenced by that improved communication.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind the eulogy that the Secretary of State has been able to give about the benefits of the A55 to north Wales, will he adopt a similar strategic

    11
    approach to the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth route, so that mid-Wales and west Wales can gain the same strategic economic benefits?
    Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that the road improvements throughout the Principality including mid-Wales and west Wales, when one considers their use, density of traffic and population, show that Wales has done exceedingly well compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Second Severn Crossing
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the proposed changes to the routes of the approach road to the second Severn crossing on the Welsh side.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: At the recent public exhibitions at Caldicot and Rogiet, 24 representations were recorded. Those and all other views will be carefully considered before a final decision is taken on the route.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals for changes to the route on both sides of the Bristol channel have been largely welcomed? Indeed, there is a general belief that the road should now go ahead as quickly as possible. Does my hon. Friend further agree that the one thing that might possibly hold it up would be any attempts to hold down the toll regime on either of the new bridge or of the old one to less than economic levels?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is well aware that the increase in toll charges is still subject to inquiry and decision, but certainly we are most anxious that the second Severn crossing should go ahead. We have expedited as far as we can the appointment of four consortia as full tenderers, and we hope that the successful tenderer will be announced around the end of the year.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Why did the Secretary of State conspire with Cardiff to have Newport removed from road signs on the M4 motorway? Does he appreciate the harm that has been done to the commercial interests of Newport, which has a more favourable geographical location on the eastern seaboard than Cardiff? Those signs had been there for 25 years—many years before Cardiff even had a motorway—so why were there no discussions with Gwent county council or Newport borough council before the signs were removed? Is this yet another example of open government, and what is the Minister doing to remedy the situation?
    Mr. Roberts: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Newport is still very much on the map and is becoming more so as the Government continue in office and continue to bring more industry and new development to Newport. The hon. Gentleman is right that the directional sign for Newport has been removed at one point, but the reason for that was that when the sign was put up the M4 did not reach Cardiff. Hon. Members who represent Cardiff will agree that it is important that Cardiff should also be on the map.

    Planning Appeals
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he gives to the wishes of the local community when considering appeals against planning
    12
    refusals by local planning authorities in Wales; and how many planning appeals he has upheld against authorities' decisions during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Peter Walker: All representations made to the Department about the planning merits of an appeal are taken into account in arriving at my decisions. Out of 1,060 appeals decided during the past 12 months, 343 were allowed.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that when large-scale tourist projects are considered by local authorities they should be given the go-ahead only if the local community wants the project in that form, and that if there is a threat to the environment, the social fabric or the culture of the area, the project should not go ahead? Given the threat posed by some such projects, and the fact that when tourist projects occur it is important that they have the backing of the local community—which, after all, is supposed to welcome the people who come to its area—should not the final decision rest with the local authorities and not with the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is really saying that there should be no rights of appeal on certain projects, but that would be a dangerous position to adopt. Many planning applications are made in Wales and in the rest of the country to which people in the immediate locality object, but to which a wider range of people do not object because of the job opportunities and the new activities created—indeed, they probably support such projects. So far, under all Governments, there has been a right of appeal, and that is perfectly correct. The figures that I have given show that out of 1,060 appeals, 343 were allowed, so the large bulk were rejected. To take away the right of appeal because a local authority has made a decision would be a mistake.

    A55
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accidents there were on the A55 in Wales for the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: One hundred and ninety three personal injury accidents were recorded in 1988 on the A55 trunk road in Wales.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister admit that his penny-pinching policies in previous years regarding the construction of the A55 led to some of those accidents? In a spirit of co-operation with the opposition that is felt by everyone in north Wales, will he undertake to ensure that the dangerous right turns into oncoming traffic on the dual carriageway sections of that road are closed off and grade separated underpasses provided instead?
    Mr. Roberts: All the improvements that we have carried out on the A55 have improved the accident rate. Currently the A55 is a mix of single and dual carriageways and its accident rate is equal to the national average. The total number of fatal and serious personal injury road accidents on the A55 has fallen in each of the past three years. We are, of course, always looking at ways in which to improve road safety.

  THE ARTS

    Imperial War Museum
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Minister for the Arts what improvements have been made to the Imperial War museum in the last 12 months.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): On 29 June I attended the opening by Her Majesty the Queen of a substantial redevelopment of the Imperial War museum's main building.
    This impressive project has significantly increased the museum's gallery space and is an excellent example of the many imaginative developments both under way and in planning at the national museums and galleries.
    Mr. Mans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that project is an excellent example of co-operation between the public and private sector? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the staff and the director of the museum on the recent refurbishment work and the way in which they carried it out?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I certainly join him in congratulating the director and staff on a remarkable achievement. It is interesting to note that that redevelopment cost £16·7 million altogether. The Government contributed just over £12 million and the rest came from the private sector. The project is a fine example of joint funding by the public and the private sector.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: While welcoming the improvements in the Imperial War museum, will the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to those other museums which, in the words of the Public Accounts Committee which took evidence on this matter in October last year, have faced
    "a major breakdown over many years in the proper stewardship of major national assets"?
    Museums are a striking example of failure to deal with the problem of inflation as well as the problem of lack of repair work over many years. The problems that we are now facing at the Victoria and Albert museum and other major national institutions must be dealt with properly and can be dealt with only by the injection of substantial sums of money.
    Mr. Luce: That is exactly why, over the four years beginning 1987–88, I took the decision to increase by 53 per cent. the amount of money available for building and maintenance. The money allocated for building and maintenance this year will amount to £48 million, rising to £55 million by 1991. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is three-year funding, but I have retained a certain flexibility in relation to building and maintenance so that in years two and three I can respond to the particular demands of particular institutions. I naturally attach great importance to the maintenance of such buildings.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Imperial War museum is bound by national agreements on pay and staffing levels and what effect that has upon that and other museums? Is it right to straitjacket museums in that way? Should they not make their own arrangements on pay and staffing levels as they see fit?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Since 1963, all the main national institutions have been linked to Civil Service pay and conditions, but some of the national institutions are looking for new ways in which to approach this problem and are coming forward with ideas. I believe that the main way forward must be more flexible pay arrangements for each institution. Museums are free to operate such a scheme under present arrangements and there is nothing to stop them moving forward in that direction.

    Museums (Staff Costs)
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the proportion of staff salary costs to total central Government grants in the national museums.
    Mr. Luce: In 1988–89 the total salary costs of the Office of Arts and Libraries sponsored national museums and galleries represented 90 per cent. of annual Government grant-in-aid for running costs and 56 per cent. of the institutions' total grant-in-aid from the arts programme.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that the percentage is creeping up? For example, this year for the V and A 98 per cent. of the total grant is used for running costs. Will the Minister try to correct the problem not by cutting the number of museum staff or their salaries, but by ensuring that the funding for museums is put on a proper basis so that staff have a high morale and good salaries, and the pictures and exhibits are not at risk, as stated in the letter from the five chairmen of the national musuems which is on the Prime Minister's desk this afternoon?
    Mr. Luce: Before responding to the hon. Gentleman's point, I must make it absolutely plain that the past few years have seen an unprecedented expansion and refurbishment of our national institutions—ranging from the Tate galleries to the Imperial War museum and the National Portrait gallery, which has extended its position in north Wales, to a range of other refurbishments which have been quite dramatic and unprecedented. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course—it is essential to ensure that the buildings are maintained in good condition. That is why since 1979 there has been a 50 per cent. increase in real terms in the amount of money for building and maintenance, and why I am putting extra money into that work in the present four-year period. I take my responsibility for the welfare of those institutions very seriously, and I take serious note of the views expressed by the chairmen and directors.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that substantial increase in real terms since 1979 is highly important? Does he further agree that inflation is the one thing which threatens to erode the benefits of that increase? Does it not follow, therefore, that the museums—like everyone else—should support policies which bring down inflation?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend must be right. Inflation is, of course, the biggest threat to museums and galleries. That is why the Government's highest priority is to tackle inflation.
    The issues that we are discussing arise from my request that all institutions should have corporate strategies, forecasting five to 10 years ahead what they need to remain

    15
    in good shape, and from their untying from the Property Services Agency, which has revealed certain additional requirements. Those issues have been revealed in the past few months and I shall take them on board.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister agree with the five chairmen of the national galleries and museums who, having prepared corporate plans as requested, have written to the Prime Minister today to say that unless the Government provide extra money before the next pay round in the autumn, galleries will close, exhibitions will be fewer, staff will be cut, opening hours will be shorter and works of art will be at risk? Does the Minister agree that the present situation is the result of 10 years of neglect by the Government of our museum world, as documented by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, and in particular the result of a grant increase this year of only 2·5 per cent. when inflation is 8 per cent. and wage rises are 8 per cent. plus? Will the Minister go to the Chancellor and fight for more money for our national museums, or will he sit idly by and let them crumble?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman should be careful about suggesting that there have been cuts to the national museums and galleries over the past 10 years. If he makes such suggestions, I shall make comparisons with what happened under Labour Governments, which would not show his party in a healthy light. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in real terms in overall funding for our national institutions and a 50 per cent. increase for building and maintenance. That was our response to the urgent demands of the chairmen and directors of those institutions. As I said, the corporate strategies have now revealed further priorities. For example, officials at the Victoria and Albert museum have said that they require £100 million over 10 years. I have already earmarked a minimum of £25 million for the next three years. The gap between what the museum requires and what it is likely to receive from the Government is not very large.

    Small Theatres
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to assist small theatres.
    Mr. Luce: Through its funding of the Arts Council and the regional arts associations, the Government give substantial support to theatre in all its forms.
    Mr. Bowis: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will agree that this week the theatres should not miss the opportunity to pay tribute to the great actor whom we have lost in the past few days, Lawrence Olivier. We shall greatly miss his stage presence, but the memory of his acting and production will, I suspect, never leave us. He had a great interest in theatre of all sizes, but not even Archie Rice would have appeared on the stages to which this question refers.
    Small theatres are having enormous problems, as my right hon. Friend knows, because they are expected to meet the absurd requirements applying to cinemas, drinking clubs and large theatres. Some small theatres are having to close because of the 48-hour rule. Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Home Secretary to see whether that burden can be lifted?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the sad death of Lord Olivier and to his great achievements, and I should like to add my tribute. His
    16
    genius added new heights of achievement to British drama, and his contributions as a director of the Royal National theatre and the Chichester theatre led to great achievements for both institutions.
    My hon. Friend has been in touch with me about small theatres and pub theatres and I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, especially about the licensing laws, which are principally a matter for him. It may help, however, if I explain that the Greater London Arts Association has invited the pub theatre network to put together the necessary information so that an approach can be made to the London boroughs so as to ensure that the law is operated as fairly and consistently as possible.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Induction Course, Sunningdale
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received seeking the introduction of an induction course at Sunningdale for all new hon. Members after the next general election.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Introductory briefing sessions about the Civil Service were held for hon. Members of all parties during 1988. The facility for briefing Members remains available at any time through the usual channels.
    Mr. Allen: The briefings that took place were exceptionally good and I commend them to new Members who are elected next time. It is important that new Members find their way around. Novices and virgins in parliamentary procedure such as myself need all the assistance that we can get. That particularly applies to Conservative Members, who have to learn all the techniques of planted questions and planted supplementaries with which Opposition Members are unfamiliar. Does the Minister agree that it will be all the more important to hold an intensive induction course after the next election, when there will be more than 100 new Labour Members?
    Mr. Luce: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took advantage of that facility and thought it valuable. It is available not just for new Members but for any Member who feels at any time that he needs to know more about how the Civil Service operates and about the changes and reforms taking place.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when he arranged such a course for Labour Members after the last election, only three turned up? Does he feel that that was value for money for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Luce: It might mean that Labour Members were pessimistic about their chances after the next election. Whatever the reason, the existence of such a facility is valuable, especially to new Members who knew little about the Civil Service, in helping to get rid of some preconceptions and teaching Members a little more about how it operates.

    Government Information Officers
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has received further representations from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants seeking talks about the code of ethics for Government information officers.
    Mr. Luce: I have received no such representations from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister be meeting Bill Brett on this subject?
    Mr. Luce: I am happy to meet him if he would like to do so to discuss any matter to do with the Civil Service.

    Child Care Facilities
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will encourage child care within the Civil Service to encourage recruitment and retention of staff.
    Mr. Luce: Yes, I am already doing so. The Civil Service seeks to employ staff of the highest quality of both sexes and recognises the importance of providing good child care facilities if it is to recruit and retain such staff.
    Mr. Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that the effects of the demographic trough of which we are all aware, which mean that in Nottinghamshire 30 per cent. fewer children will be leaving school by 1995, underline the importance of good-quality child care, of career breaks and of other ways of encouraging part-timers back to work?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the demographic changes. There will be a substantial fall in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds in the next five or six years. That means that we shall have to look more widely to recruit the most able people, to keep up the standards of the Civil Service. I hope that as a result of our equal opportunities policy we shall be able to recruit more women to the service. There are a number of schemes—self-financing holiday schemes, care-parent schemes, and value-for-money nurseries—being established. There is also the evolution of part-time work, job-sharing and flexible working opportunities, all of which should help to recruit more people, particularly women, in the next five or six years.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As this country has one of the worst records in Europe on child care provision, why do the Government not put their money where their mouth is and enable local education authorities to make statutory provision for child care facilities?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Lady must put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My concern is with the provision in the Civil Service. We are providing facilities to enable us to recruit and retain the best and most competent people, including women. We have to grapple with that problem. We are providing an increasing range of facilities which should encourage able women to stay rather than leave, as well as encouraging more to join the service.

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I met members of the Council of Civil Service Unions on 27 June to discuss the future of the Civil Service Commission.
    Mr. Barnes: Has there been any discussion about the freezing of the mileage allowance over the past two years, which seems a particularly mean-minded approach to the Civil Service? Have there been any consultations about shifting the Civil Service Commission to agency status, or is that, too, to be done without consultation? Should not the Government at least adopt a policy of no annihilation without consultation?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman's first question is principally for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have already announced on behalf of the Government that, except for high grades, more recruitment can be done by Government Departments and that a Government agency is to be established which can recruit on a competitive basis for all levels and grades within the service and for all Departments. I have already had discussions with trade union leaders about that. It will lead to an improved service and an even more effective way of recruiting the best people.
    Dr. Marek: A few weeks ago, staff at passport offices had to take industrial action to make the point that the service provided by the Government was not properly staffed. The Prime Minister said that the civil servants could not care a damn. What is the Minister's view?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been an increase in the number of civil servants at the passport office. Incidentally, he should note that the passport office is a candidate to become a Government agency, where targets can be established to provide the best possible performance, including performance to the public. That is an important part of the reforms announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in February last year, which are designed to improve the service to the public.

    European Community
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many persons in the Civil Service are engaged in the consideration of matters relating to the European Community; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: All civil servants are alerted as necessary to the implications of the European Community for their work. Some are directly involved, others indirectly.
    Mr. Taylor: As Britain seems to get a particularly rotten deal from the Common Market with the highest ever net contribution and trade deficit and as all member states except ourselves are blissfully ignoring decisions of the European Court, would it not be appropriate for some civil servants to watch the position to see whether Britain could get a relatively fairer deal rather than the present dreadful one?
    Mr. Luce: To leave aside my hon. Friend's general remarks about the Community, it follows from what he

    19
    said that whether he is right or wrong it is essential that the civil servants who advise Ministers are well equipped to do so, knowledgeable about the Community and heavily involved in it. If we want British interests to be served properly, that is the right thing to do. That is why we provide a range of facilities, courses and assistance to civil servants.

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I met members of the Council of Civil Service Unions on 27 June to discuss the future of the Civil Service Commission.
    Mr. Fisher: What assurances did the Minister give the trade unions about the level of staffing at the new British library, and about the future level of staffing at our national galleries and museums?
    Mr. Luce: I have not had discussions with the union leaders about the level of staffing at the British library, but hon. Gentlemen should note that the support for the British library from the taxpayers is substantial. We have committed no less than £400 million of taxpayers' money to the new British library, based at St. Pancras. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that warmly.

    Civil Service (Establishment)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants there are in his Department at the current time; how many there were on 3 May, 1979 and 1974, respectively; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: There are 944 civil servants within the responsibility of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service. Of these, 640 are employed in areas which have assumed, or are planning to assume, agency status.
    As the office did not come into being until 1 October 1987, there are no previous comparative figures.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give the overall number for the Civil Service? In so doing, will he note that there are far fewer civil servants now than there were 10 years ago, and will he join me in congratulating the reduced number of civil servants on a greatly improved output of work? Does this not show that we did not need a vast army of civil servants to run this country and never shall?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the size of the Civil Service, which has been reduced by 21 per cent. in the last decade. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that we now have not only a slimmed down Civil Service but a highly professional service, which does an outstanding job in advising the Government of the day.

Economic Summit (Paris)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With Permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the economic summit held in Paris from 14 to 16 July, which I attended with my right hon. and Learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The texts of the various declarations issued at the summit have been placed in the Library of the House. As the main declaration recalls, the seven-year round of summits beginning in 1982 has been one of the longest periods of sustained growth since the second world war. These summits have permitted effective consultations and offered the opportunity to launch initiatives and to strengthen international co-operation.
This summit dealt with four main issues: economic matters, including Third world debt; the environment; drugs; and international relations.
The economic declaration reaffirms the sound economic policies which have brought greater prosperity to all our countries. It stresses our common commitment to bring down inflation. It underlines the need for further progress in reducing external imbalances. It emphasises the importance of structural reforms—that is, improving economic efficiency and getting rid of subsidies and restrictions.
The declaration also confirms our determination to fight protectionism in all its forms and to avoid any policies which would undermine the prospects for the successful completion of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations by the end of next year.
The declaration reaffirms the case-by-case approach to debt problems, and welcomes the recent decisions taken by the IMF and the World bank to encourage debt and debt service reduction for middle-income countries. It notes that the measures agreed at the last economic summit to help the poorest countries are being successfully implemented. It confirms that the most effective way to deal with the problems of the developing countries is through the existing international financial institutions, rather than by creating new bodies or structures.
The declaration gives particular weight to the problems of the global environment, and especially the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. These are matters of deep and growing concern, because of the accumulating weight of scientific evidence.
The summit endorsed the United Kingdom's call for a United Nations framework convention on global climate change, similar to that which we already have for the ozone layer. It also underlined the need to make sure that our policies on environmental protection are both scientifically and economically sound. It pointed out that clear assessments of the costs, benefits, and resource implications of environmental protection help Governments to take the necessary decisions. There is no incompatibility between economic growth and environmental protection—indeed, the former is essential to create the wealth to finance measures to protect our environment.
The declaration calls for the strengthening of existing international bodies dealing with the environment, particularly the United Nations Environmental Programme, rather than the creation of new ones.
22
It also gives strong support to the international effort to preserve the world's tropical forests, while recognising the sensitivities and the sovereignty of the developing countries for whom these forests are an important natural resource.
The declaration signals the very strong determination of all seven Governments to tackle the drugs problem, which has reached such devastating proportions, particularly with the growing threat of crack. We agreed on a number of measures, in particular. The first was greater help for efforts to counter illegal production of drugs. The second was action to reduce demand for drugs; here, I was able to draw attention to the international conference which Britain will host next year on demand reduction for drugs and cocaine in particular. The third was the establishment of a financial action task force from summit countries and others to investigate, and recommend measures to prevent, money laundering. The fourth was the conclusion of further bilateral agreements for the tracing, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and crime. These problems can be solved only by growing international co-operation.
In our discussion of political and regional issues, and in particular of East-West relations, we agreed to provide practical support for political and economic reform in eastern Europe and especially in Poland and Hungary. We also agreed to help meet Poland's urgent need for food. For this purpose, we asked the European Commission to co-ordinate the necessary arrangements.
We issued a strong condemnation of repression in China. Our statement also underlined the common interest of all seven summit countries in a stable and prosperous future for Hong Kong; and confirmed the importance of support from the international community to maintain the confidence of Hong Kong's people, which has been badly shaken by recent events.
We issued a strong denunciation of terrorism, referring in particular to the Lockerbie disaster, and reaffirmed the policy of making no concessions to terrorists. We called on those holding hostages to release them immediately and unconditionally.
This was an exceptionally friendly and worthwhile summit—[Laughter.]—an exceptionally friendly and worthwhile summit. Much credit is due to the skilful chairmanship of President Mitterrand. The desire to work together to resolve the problems of the world economy, the environment and drugs was very marked, and the United Kingdom is making a major and positive contribution to this. I am sure that the results of the summit will be warmly welcomed in all the seven summit countries and more widely.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I thank the Prime Minister for her statement, and welcome especially the proposals for combined international action against the production, distribution of and trafficking of illegal drugs? Will the Prime Minister tell us what reply she would wish to make to Mr. Gorbachev's letter to the summit, which was rightly welcomed by President Bush as a
"fascinating manifestation of the exciting changes under way in eastern Europe"?
On a matter which is not unrelated, does the Prime Minister agree that, while co-ordinated and urgent food aid to Poland is certainly necessary, both Poland and Hungary also need a considerable programme of technical and economic assistance to ensure that their steps towards

23
democracy are both protected and strengthened? What will be Britain's contribution to the European Community's co-ordinated effort in this respect?
In her statement, the Prime Minister reported the group of seven's reaffirmation in its economic declaration of what she described as
"the common commitments to … reducing external imbalances"
and
"to bring down inflation."
As the result of the Government's policies is that Britain now has the largest proportionate current account deficit and the highest inflation rate of all G7 countries, was not the right hon. Lady's authority on these matters something less than convincing at the meeting in Paris?
When the Prime Minister commented in Paris that in countries where inflation had not risen, it was because sound policies had been rigidly adhered to, which country did she have in mind as having most clearly failed to pursue sound policies?
Does the Prime Minister accept that the Group of Seven's preference for allocating prime responsibility for dealing with Third-world debt problems to the private banking system will simply ensure that the problem remains a persistent drag on the world economy for many years to come—not only perpetuating poverty in the South of the world, but seriously impeding policies to protect the global environment? Before the next summit, will the Prime Minister come forward with proposals for action by Governments that will help to deal more speedily and effectively with the Third-world debt problem?
On the vital question of the global environment, to which the summit rightly paid so much attention, does the right hon. Lady agree that, while exhortation has its place, the highest priority must be given to effective action? With that in mind, why, under her Government, will expenditure on research into global warming this year be only one quarter of 1 per cent. of all research funded by the Government? Why are the resources that the Government subscribe to the intergovernmental panel on climatic change, referred to in the communiqué, simply money being reallocated from research into clean coal techniques?
The Prime Minister endorsed the section of the summit communique that condemned the indiscriminate use of oceans as dumping grounds for polluting waste. How does she explain the inconsistency between that position and the fact that Britain, is now the only country dumping sewage sludge into the North sea, with no plans to make changes?
The summit communiqué urges action on energy conservation. Why have the Government cut, and why do they intend further to cut, spending on energy efficiency? Why do the Government still propose to block the all-party amendment that would impose an obligation on the British electricity industry to give conservation and efficiency the highest priority?
The summit appeared to show full understanding of the need to assist Third-world countries in their efforts to protect the environment. How does the right hon. Lady justify the fact that, during her time in office, development aid as a proportion of gross domestic product has been cut in half? How does she excuse her enthusiastic support for International Monetary Fund regimes that require many countries to put compliance with imposed economic programmes far above environmental security?
24
I applaud the right hon. Lady for giving credit to what she called
"the skilful chairmanship of President Mitterrand."
That quality of the president was exceeded only by the skill that he showed in making seating arrangements.
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, he would do well to take some lessons in courtesy and skill from President Mitterrand. With regard to the more serious questions that he asked, I can tell him that Mr. Gorbachev's letter was sent to the president of the summit, President Mitterrand, and he will respond to it. We all have copies of the letter, which essentially calls for more interdependence in global economics—a call to which we shall gladly respond. As Mr. Gorbachev says, it will require perestroika to be satisfactory before the Soviet Union can play a full part in that global co-operation.
On the question of food aid for Poland, we first called for that at the Madrid summit, and the actions that Britain agreed to take were announced when General Jaruzelski was here. They consist of agreeing to reschedule the debt for 1989 due this year to the Paris Club without awaiting IMF reform. That is a considerable amount, and we have agreed to a five-year period of grace, after which the debt must start to be repaid. We also agreed to ask the European Community—and have done so—to get rid of some of the quotas on Poland's trade with the Community. If Poland is to pull out of its problems, it must be able to trade more with the Community. We further agreed to provide £5 million per year for five years for management training, and to send my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to Poland, with a group of industrialists, to investigate joint ventures.
The rest of the improvement will come, as with other countries, after proper agreement is reached with the International Monetary Fund. We do not feel that it would be right to open more credits now. In the past, much credit was wasted and turned to debt that Poland must now repay. We want to be certain that there is a different economic reform programme before more aid is given.
The external imbalances refer mainly to Germany and Japan, which do not always open their markets to our goods as easily as we open our markets to theirs. They operate a number of artificial trade barriers that we do not have. Our membership of the Community helps to bring down Germany's artificial barriers by majority voting on some directives. That means that Germany must get rid of some of the barriers that it would otherwise gladly maintain. Germany also operates greater subsidies than we do, and the Community will bring those down too, to ensure fair competition.
Last year, under the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we agreed to write off the debts of the poorest sub-Saharan countries. We have now done that, and so has France. Before this year's summit, under Mr. Brady's proposal, we agreed to help countries with middle-income debt. As a result of those two measures, £20 billion-worth of dollars have been rescheduled in the Paris Club since we met in Toronto last year. Some of the debt was, of course, written off. Those were two very good initiatives.
Much of the debt is the responsibility of the commercial banks that lent it. Government may become involved to the extent that, if the loans turn into bad debts, or bad debts in part, a provision can be made against the banks' profits for tax purposes. By that combination, the

25
commercial banks meet part of the debt and the taxpayers meet another part. We think that such debts must be dealt with case by case. We met many Heads of Government at the summit, and some pointed out that countries which are conscientious and did not borrow more than they are able to repay would take it very hard if the debts of profligate countries were written off wholesale. That would make it very difficult for the Heads of State of conscientious countries to continue their wise policies.
On the subject of global climate change, this country has one of the world's four climate research stations, because we have some excellent meteorologists. Twenty per cent. more is spent in real terms on basic research now than when we first took office. How that money is spent is a matter for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to decide, in dividing it between the various research councils. At present, there is not a great demand for more money to be spent in that respect, so we spend a great deal more on research in the Antarctic, which gives the first warning of global climate changes.
At the recent North sea conference, we agreed on a number of measures to reduce pollution. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the dumping of sewage sludge. According to the OECD, 84 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population is served by waste treatment plants, but the percentage is lower in Finland, France—where it is only 50 per cent.—and Spain—where it is only 29 per cent.—and elsewhere. Some countries are better than we are in that respect, but many are worse. Our country has sufficient growth and increasing prosperity to be able to spend far more on improving the situation than was ever the case under the last Labour Government.
The Electricity Bill will require electricity supply companies for the first time to provide their customers with guidance about efficient use of electricity: that will be a licence condition which the director general can enforce.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the amount spent on energy efficiency. It is interesting to note that he always equates efficiency with the amount of money spent. That is not correct. In 1986, Energy Efficiency Year, expenditure was heightened because of the awareness programmes that were launched. This year we are spending £15 million on energy efficiency—about six times as much as was spent in 1979. We are spending only about 0·32 per cent. of GNP on development aid, but our spending under the second heading—private flows to developed countries—is among the best, and well above target.
The right hon. Gentleman's last question—referring to economic reform being placed before the environment—suggests that he cannot have listened. A successful economy is essential if we are to be able to spend money on environmental protection. That is why the east European Communist countries, whose system he admires so much, are not able to spend money on it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House for brief questions. I shall give some priority to those who were unable to be called following the Prime Minister's last statement.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her clear statement that economic growth and a solution to environmental problems can go together is very much to be welcomed as a balanced appraisal, in contrast with the view expressed by others
26
that, if the environment is to be protected, economic growth must be stopped? Does she agree that there is a clear link between aid to Third-world countries and the environment—in the context of Brazil, for example—and can she tell us whether any progress has been made in that regard?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The western countries are now prosperous enough to make special provision to ensure that the environment is protected—both its global and its local aspects—unlike some of the east European countries, which pour so much into the rivers that run into the German bight in the North sea.
We were particularly aware of the importance of keeping the tropical forests going and not allowing them to be cut down at the same rate. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have signed the first agreement with Brazil on the maintenance of tropical forests and research into how their ecologies can be maintained, the pharmaceuticals that can be obtained from the trees and their effect on climatic change. That is another first for Britain: we have led the way.
In the environmental statement, we expressed particular concern that the work should continue and that further measures should be sought to maintain the forests. We were very much aware that we must handle the matter carefully and keep in view the sovereignty sensitivities of the countries involved. We are doing this to try to help, and we can put some of our research and our aid in that direction. We have given a lead. We have also given an extra £40 million to India to help it to protect some of its tropical forests.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I congratulate the Prime Minister and other heads of the Group of Seven on placing the environment so high on their agenda? We must now hope that what was a collection of words will become a collection of effective actions.
On a different topic, I note that the Prime Minister said that the summit had
"confirmed the importance of support from the international community to maintain the confidence of Hong Kong's people".
Will she tell us, in specific, practical terms, what that means and how it will benefit the people of Hong Kong?
The Prime Minister: I think that it will be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that Hong Kong is a very prosperous centre, and that it must retain that prosperity. To do so it must also retain the confidence and support of the international community. I think that it is extremely good that, whether at a European or an economic summit, we all think sufficiently highly of Hong Kong, and are concerned enough about her to mention the matter in every communiqué. This one is no exception, and I hope that it will bring forth practical action. If we say that we are going to support Hong Kong and enable it to remain prosperous, it means that we are concerned to retain that prosperity.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recognition by the major economic powers of the singular importance of Hong Kong and the need to maintain its survival will be a substantial reassurance to the people of Hong Kong? Will she commit herself to trying to get the free nations of the world, particularly the European Economic Community and the

27
Commonwealth, to back her in her positive attempts to ensure the survival and protection of the colony for the future?
The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, we know exactly how the people of Hong Kong feel after the events in China. Whatever international forum we are in—we shall raise the matter again in the Commonwealth forum in October—we seek the support of all nations for the problems of Hong Kong. The communiqué was very good, as it said:
"We recognize that the continuing support of the international community will be an important element in the maintenance of confidence in Hong Kong."
We shall continue to seek further such support from the international community.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister agree that, as a result of the economic summit and the one that preceded it, attempts by adults at organised happiness at these parties and binges always result in tears and recriminations because somebody turns up to spoil fun? Will she reveal to the House whether she intends to go to all the economic summits right up until the general election?
The Prime Minister: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should so limit his question in time.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the principal imbalance in the economies of eastern Europe is between the excesses of Socialism and a lack of capitalism? Will she therefore take the greatest care before offering any further credit to Socialist countries, which inevitably dissipate it, until they reform their ways and follow the capitalist path, as Mr. Gorbachev is now tentatively suggesting? Secondly—[Hon. Members: "Briefly."]—I shall be perfectly brief when I can be heard above the noise opposite. Will my right hon. Friend say whether any progress was made on determination—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Tebbit.
Mr. Tebbit: I am not prepared to shout above the rabble, so I may take a long time. Was there any renewed determination to deal with the problems of agricultural subsidies, which are a principal cause of the risk of an outbreak of protectionism in the world?
The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend and agree with him that political freedom cannot persist unless it is backed by economic freedom, which means having the overwhelming majority of the property in the hands of people. It is interesting that the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man", contains a right to private property. Without that economic reform, and much more responsibility, initiative and personal effort political reform will not persist; nor will Communist countries achieve greater prosperity.
The Communist countries produce neither liberty nor prosperity. Now that they are achieving greater political liberty, we are not prepared to give them substantial assistance until they have agreed a programme of economic reform with the International Monetary Fund. Many of them may welcome that, as it is evident that they do not now how to set about producing economic reform
28
or free enterprise. Under the aegis of the IMF, they should have a very much better idea of that, and the World bank and other international institutions will then provide extra credit and grants to help them.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Molyneaux.
The Prime Minister: On my right hon. Friend's next point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Briefly."] The Leader of the Opposition asked about 10 questions and I answered them. My right hon. Friend asked but two, and they are far more perceptive than the 10.
Agricultural subsidies also have to come before the GATT in the Uruguay round. We started the process at the Toronto summit last year and have agreed again this year that agricultural subsidies must be brought down. The place to do that is between the three blocs within the summit nations Japan, the United States and Canada, and the Europeans—through the mechanism of the Uruguay round.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does not the Prime Minister agree that aid to Poland and Hungary without too many strings attached could pave the way for the reunification of that wider European family, which would be very different from and wider than the Delors vision or nightmare of the European Community?
The Prime Minister: The aid to Poland and Hungary is by way of a special position there. They are the two countries in eastern Europe which are changing from their former totally centralised political control to something far more akin to democracy. In making the political change and in having much more political freedom, we wanted to help them to go further before the International Monetary Fund has come in and fully agred programmes of reform. As I have said, we are giving a certain amount of immediate aid for that.
In both cases, it involves negotiating with the European Community more exports from those two countries to the Community and dropping some of the quotas they have already. We have achieved that with Hungary through a fairly long negotiation and we shall achieve that with Poland. We shall, of course, always look carefully at the politics of the situation, but at present we feel, rightly, that every enlargement of liberty in those countries is to the advantage not only of the people there, but of mankind as a whole.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Would my right hon. Friend express warm congratulations to the French authorities on the combination of a highly successful festival—the 200th anniversary—and an extremely successful summit?
Mr. Tony Banks: What was it the anniversary of'?
Mr. Dykes: Does that not emphasise the fact that relations between Britain and France are extremely cordial, despite what the press has been saying, and does it not presage a good period of co-operation between the two countries for the EC presidency?
The Prime Minister: Yes, relations are good. The summit was very successful and augurs very well for the future. The European Community was there, with M. Delors, Mr. Christophersen and Mr. Andriessen, and it took a full part in all the discussions. There was more

29
agreement on that occasion than ever before, perhaps because we have been meeting for quite a long time and have come to know the right economic recipes. We do not need to dwell on them long and we can go on to other measures, including political co-operation.
Mr. Harry Ewing: When is the Prime Minister going to learn to behave herself when she goes to Paris? Is she aware that the press and television in this country gave us a good picture of her behaving like a party pooper? Does she understand that, when she conducts herself in that way, she damages the standing of this country abroad? When will she apologise to the people of France for her conduct towards them, and to the people of this country for damaging our standing in Europe?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is totally and utterly wrong, as he knows. I do not even recognise the expression that he uses, or know its meaning. We had a very dignified summit, with excellent discussions and excellent arguments coming to a very good communiqué. It is interesting that, when the seven summit countries and the whole of the European Community have had a good and constructive summit and are united, somehow the Opposition think that they know better.
Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a major problem of tackling drug abuse is the ease with which drug dealers can launder their profits through the banking system? As that matter was discussed at the summit, were any steps suggested to deal with that matter?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As she knows, a United Nations convention was signed in 1988, requiring all countries to make provisions in their criminal codes for those dealing in drugs; to trace where the assets went; and to include sentences for money laundering. We were ahead of that convention in our statute in 1986. We have also signed reciprocal agreements with other countries to trace assets. It is interesting to note that, since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 came into effect, over £8 million of drug-related financial assets have been confiscated by the courts under that Act, with a similar amount under restraint. In addition, we are getting increased co-operation with other countries through the reciprocal agreement. That is our effort.
However, the summit countries still felt that we did not know enough about how the money was laundered and through what channels. Therefore, in addition to the United Nations convention, which most of the signatories have ratified and some are putting into effect, we are seeking the help of the international financial institutions to set up a task force to see whether we can find out more about the channels through which the money is laundered, because if we know more about it, we can stop it.
Mr. Eric S. Hefter: Would the right hon. Lady explain why she consistently comes here to talk such utter nonsense about the free market, as if all countries with a free market have political democracy? She must be aware of the fact, but we know that her history is not very good, so I shall try to explain to the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heffer:—that throughout the world many Fascist and military dictatorships have totally accepted the free
30
market economy but, nevertheless, have no democracy. Therefore, should not the right hon. Lady begin to learn some history and to understand that, before the 1688 revolution in this country, we had the 1640 revolution, when we cut off a king's head and established Parliament as the basis of democracy in our country?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is going back on arguments that we used to have many years ago in the House. They can be summed up in this way. Every free country is a capitalist country—[Interruption.] Wait a moment, wait a moment. Capitalism is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of liberty, but every free country has to be a capitalist country. Of course, the free market operates within a framework of law. That is why we have rules to keep competition; it is why we have rules against monopoly; and why we have rules about health and safety. We have set up a framework of law, agreed in this House, and free enterprise is left to prosper to the benefit of a rate of growth and prosperity in this country that we never had when the Labour party was in power.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that everybody concerned with drug misuse will commend this Government's international lead m such matters? Will she reassure the House that, with the advent of crack and the horrors associated with it, this Government, from their economic strength, will make sufficient extra sums available to fight that battle, especially among the young in this country?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely vital to fight that battle. That drug has not hit this country to anything like the same extent as in the United States. We are taking action to try to see that it does not. We have called an international conference for next year—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced it some time ago—to warn young people about the approaches that they may receive and about the dangers of the drug. It is a conference on demand reduction. It addresses specific problems related to heroin, cocaine and its derivatives, marijuana and amphetamines, as well as methods of reducing demand, education, treatment and rehabilitation, law enforcement and the extent of the problem. We believe that we must tackle the problem at both ends. We must warn people and reduce the demand at this end and also stop the supply. We believe that we are most likely to stop the supply by stopping the money.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On the subject of energy efficiency, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to explain to the other G7 leaders why the cuts in the United Kingdom's energy efficiency budget this year are such that the budget is only marginally greater than the funds devoted to refurbishing the Department. of Energy's new offices opposite Buckingham palace? Will we see a change in the spending priorities as a result of the summit?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman always thinks that energy efficiency is dependent upon the amount of propaganda which the Government put out. That is just not so. Since 1973, energy usage in the United Kingdom has fallen by 4 per cent., although we have had a 26 per cent. increase in gross domestic product. Also, for the last four years for which figures are available, the United Kingdom's ratio of energy use to GDP growth has been

31
improving at twice the Community average. Of course, the private sector is spending an enormous amount on improving energy efficiency. That is vital to keep costs down and that is where the improvement comes from.
Mr. David Sumberg: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in the past, the economic summits have been derided as capitalist clubs. Now that Mr. Gorbachev wants to join, how long will it be before the Opposition recognise that only free-market capitalism effectively guarantees personal prosperity and personal freedom?
The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is amazing, after our success in this country in freeing up the economy, with tax incentives and putting into private enterprise industries which should never have been in the hands of Government, how many other countries now wish to follow the same path—and that includes Communist countries—because they have seen the success of a Government who have had the courage to do the right thing.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I come back to the Prime Minister's style at the summit? Did she set out deliberately to be offensive to the French people with her ill-informed comments about the French revolution and the "Declaration of the Rights of Man"? Was she in any way surprised that she was abused on the streets of Paris, or did that make her feel at home?
The Prime Minister: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" lists freedom of speech, opinion and expression? May I also remind him that President Mitterrand agreed with me at the end of the summit that there were other accounts of human rights which started long before the French revolution? May I remind him that is a matter of history that that is so? There were very few people on the streets of Paris who were against me—[Interruption.] Opposition Members were not there. The overwhelming majority were cheering and saying, "Madame Thatcher, Madame Thatcher!"
Mr. Derek Conway: Despite some of the cheap gibes from Opposition Members about the French celebrations, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not be deflected from her determination to uphold Britain's interests as a world leader in tackling drugs, world debt and the environment—a position which will be opposed and gibed at by the mean-mouthed Members on the Opposition Benches?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we have taken the lead, as I have said, in getting the legislation through and in tracing the assets of those who traffick in drugs. We took the lead before the United Nations convention and we shall give the lead through the new international conference as we did with the ozone layer. My hon. Friend should not worry very much about the Opposition: I do not.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year there was a net outflow of capital from the poorest countries in the world to the richest? This year there will be an even greater net outflow of capital from the poorest to the richest countries. In that context, could she tell us what the Group of Seven
32
proposes to do to increase the living standards of people in the poorest countries, to protect their environment and to increase the real prices that they get for the commodities that they are forced to sell?
The Prime Minister: They are not forced to sell commodities—what nonsense. Those countries wish to grow more to sell, and they also wish to diversify. For that they must have an investment code, because people will not invest in those countries if they cannot get a reasonable return of profit or if their investment will be nationalised. More and more, those countries are realising that, and more and more private flows of capital and expertise will go to those countries, which will help them to build up their prosperity as we built up ours. One cannot build the strength of a country just by giving it constant grants. One must also see improvement in the whole economic programme at the same time.
Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the summit reasserted the important role of nuclear power in energy generation? Does not this endorsement of the Government's current position stand in stark contrast to the muddled policies of the Opposition parties, which will be bad for energy generation and bad environmentally in terms of global warming?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course nuclear power is one of the very important ways to reduce global warming. The summit statement said:
"We are committed to maintaining the highest safety standards for nuclear power plants and to strengthening international cooperation in safe operation of power plants and waste management, and we recognise that nuclear power also plays an important role in limiting output of greenhouse gases."
That was signed by all the countries which were represented.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the 90 per cent. that she claims were cheering in the streets of Paris were cheering the 10 per cent. who were booing her? If a foreign statesman came to this country for a summit set to coincide with a great national celebration and gratuitously set about denigrating that national celebration, would she regard him as an influential and skilful diplomat or as a self-satisfied ignoramus?
The Prime Minister: I assure the hon. Gentle that he is incorrect about many people in the streets of Paris. I am very happy that he and his fellow Members are reduced to such pathetic, small-minded comments. That is just what the Opposition are like. They cannot criticise the results of the summit countries so they show their true small-mindedness. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: As for human rights, one was asked the simple question as to whether one believed that human rights started in 1789 with the French declaration of human rights. The simple answer in historical terms is no.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The whole House should congratulate my right hon. Friend on her contribution to this excellent summit. May I also congratulate her on putting the drug issue at the top of the agenda? She spoke earlier about how to reduce the

33
demand for drugs and on laundering. Could she say what international steps should be taken to reduce the supply of drugs, especially in producer countries?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has lit upon what is perhaps the most difficult thing. We know where the drugs are grown and the extent to which they are grown. They are grown in sovereign countries and we are not able, except by exhortation or by getting at the money which those drugs fetch on the international market, to reduce the amount that is sold. Of course there are United Nations programmes for substitute crops, but they bring in but a small income compared to the amount that people get for drugs; it is difficult to get at the problem in that way. Therefore, we have decided that the best way to do it is to try to track down the money, to see if we can find out where it is being laundered so that we can confiscate it and stop the traffic by that means.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I shall allow three more questions from each side, then we must move on.
Mr. David Winnick: Was it recognised, particularly by President Bush, that if the countries of eastern Europe are to be able to go their own way, which I certainly support, the same should apply equally to countries in central and south America? One thinks of what happened in Chile in 1973, and the United States involvement there. Could the Prime Minister simply answer this question—why is it that, of all those Heads of Government who went to the summit, she was the only one who considered it appropriate to denigrate the events of 1789 and to act in such an impertinent way when she was asked questions on French television?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member likes freedom of speech for himself but not for anyone else. I was asked a straight question—did I think that human rights began with 1789 in France? The honest answer can only be no. Surely the hon. Member is not saying yes.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that she is entitled to some sympathy in having to attend events that commemorate bloodshed and terror which led to the suppression of freedom and to one of the worst tyrannies that Europe has ever known, by comparison with which what the Chinese Government did to their own citizens in Peking recently would appear trivial? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assurances given by the economic nations to the people of Hong Kong are worth very much more than the Yeovil plan to allow 3·25 million people to have the right of residence here?
The Prime Minister: Tyranny does not vary very much from country to country where it is practised; that is what comes out of all the history books. With regard to Hong Kong, yes, we understand precisely the lack of confidence which people there feel because of events which have taken place in China, which is why we constantly raise the matter in every international forum. We have to try to bring back some confidence to the people of Hong Kong and to make sure that the agreement which we honourably entered into is honoured when it comes to 1997 so that the way of life of the people of Hong Kong can continue to be maintained. The best chance of that is for Hong Kong to
34
continue to be prosperous and to have its way of life as now, although we shall obviously increase the amount of democracy there. We have full international support for that. I hope that the financial institutions will continue to give their full international support to Hong Kong.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: In discussions on global warming, did anyone agree with the Prime Minister's rather eccentric view that nuclear power is the answer to the greenhouse effect, or was there a wider consensus that energy conservation, insulation and efficient use of energy are the answer?
The Prime Minister: Obviously, a great deal can be got from energy efficiency, as I have already said.
We are now producing a quarter more gross domestic product using less energy than we were in 1973. That shows the much greater efficiency we have now, and that efficiency has been stepped up in the past four years for which figures exist
With regard to nuclear energy, I said that paragraph. 4.1 of the communiqué—I will not read out the whole paragraph again—stated:
"we recognize that nuclear power also plays an important role in limiting output of greenhouse gases".
We are not suggesting that we rely totally on nuclear power, but I doubt very much whether we shall be able to get the output of greenhouse gases down sufficiently without the use of nuclear power. Of course, France is the lead country in the proportion of electricity generated from nuclear power.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in coping with Third-world debt, the principle of fairness is extremely important? Should all Third-world countries that have an equal state of development not be treated equally, whatever the state of their external debt? I am thinking particularly of Chile, which has an excellent record of repayment and servicing of debt.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware of what has been done about the debts of the very poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we agreed to write off their debts, because they were never going to have a chance to get out of their great difficulties. For the middle-income countries, we have the special Brady plan. Beyond that, much of the debt is, of course, debt from commercial banks and must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis between the commercial banks and the countries concerned. My hon. Friend is aware that some negotiations are going on at present. Otherwise, I agree that it must be on a basis of fairness. We should recall, too, those many countries which have borrowed not more than they could afford but smaller amounts, and have never failed to repay and service their debts on time.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Prime Minister's views of the French revolution can perhaps be best summed up by saying that there is no vinism like chauvinism. In contrasting her ozone-friendly words with her pollution-infected deeds, can she tell the House whether this week she intends to provide some back-up action to those brave declarations by telling her Energy Secretary that he should accept the spirit of the cross-party amendment to bring in an obligation to consider energy efficiency and conservation on Thursday, when we will

35
consider the Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill? Or are we to assume that, when the Prime Minister says that she intends to fight for protectionism in all its forms, she includes environmental protectionism as well?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at all the facts and figures, he will be aware that this country's record on environmental protection is better than it was under any previous Government and is going ahead fast—whether it is in taking out the sulphur dioxide from our coal, which is costing some £2 billion, in the vast amount of more than £1 billion that we are investing this year to provide better water supplies or in energy efficiency. The Electricity Bill will for the first time require electricity supply companies to provide guidance to their customers about the efficient use of electricity, which will be a licence condition that the director can enforce. The trouble with the Opposition is that they canot hold a candle to the excellent record of the Government, whether it be in economic growth or in providing environmental protection.
Mr. Keith Raffan: I join in welcoming the setting up of the financial action task force to attack the laundering of illicit profits from the drug trade. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the international conference on drugs next year will have as one of its main objectives a multilateral agreement to back up that task force, so as to ensure that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 can be implemented even more effectively?
The Prime Minister: We shall do that. The conference is to reduce the demand for drugs. We are not waiting for an international conference to try to get more bilateral agreement so that we can trace the profits of the drug peddlers. That will continue to be the case.
The international task force is due to report to us in April 1990, so that we can consider its proposals in the next economic summit.

Economic Summit (Paris)

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That the European Community Document No. 8337/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 10th July 1989 relating to the control of discharges of dangerous substances to water be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents &c.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Football Spectators Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
4.23 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Football Spectators Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
  Committee
  1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 27th July 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before that day.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and on that day—

  (a) the proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and

  (b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20

  37
  stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplememting the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Football Spectators Bill [Lords];
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
  The House will be familiar with the aims of the Bill from our debate a few weeks ago. It has two major objectives—first, to provide the statutory framework for a national membership scheme for football spectators; and, secondly, to enable the courts to impose restriction orders on hooligans to prevent them from travelling to key matches abroad.
  The Bill was introduced because powerful measures are needed to break the link between football and hooliganism. That was apparent when the decision to legislate was taken after the serious incidents at the European championships in 1988. It is still apparent now in the light of the events that spoiled the end of the 1988–89 football season—more than 100 arrests only a week after the Hillsborough tragedy and other serious incidents right up to the last weekend of the season when a pitch invasion at Crystal Palace resulted in 16 injuries, including a stabbing.
  Against that background, it would be totally irresponsible for the Government to waste the progress that has been made on this Bill and to throw away, for another year, the opportunity to deal with hooliganism. That is why I am introducing this motion today, to ensure that there is proper consideration of the Bill, but also steady progress. We cannot neglect our responsibilities while serious incidents continue to disrupt matches, to drive potential spectators away and to harm the reputation of the game.
  The tragic events at Hillsborough meant that we delayed consideration of the Bill. That was entirely seemly and proper. But acts of hooliganism and violence did not cease after Hillsborough and it would be totally irresponsible to go on delaying while we wait for further incidents to confirm the low regard in which English fans are held across Europe. The Government do not accept the

  39
  argument that the Bill should be postponed until we have seen the findings of the Taylor inquiry. We fully recognise the importance of this inquiry into safety matters and we have, at all stages, promised to look with care at its recommendations, particularly any that may be relevant to the setting up of the football membership scheme.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: If Lord Justice Taylor says that a football membership scheme such as is proposed would have contributed to the events at Hillsborough or even made them worse, will the Government abandon the scheme?
  Mr. Wakeham: It is not helpful to have a hypothetical discussion of such matters. We shall have a proper debate on them when we have the report to consider. As I have already said, we have promised to look with care at the Taylor inquiry recommendations, particularly any that may be relevant to the setting up of the football membership scheme. However, as has been explained before, the Bill does not implement the national membershiip scheme. It provides an enabling framework within which the football membershp scheme will be set up. The Government recognise that the Taylor inquiry's findings may be relevant to the scheme and that Parliament will want to be aware of them before final decisions are taken. There is no question of the Government rushing through the scheme before those findings have been considered, but Government amendments have been tabled to the Bill to meet the concerns about safety matters.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Minister has just said that the Government have no intention of rushing the scheme through without the House being given a chance to consider the Taylor report. Should the final report of the Taylor inquiry not be published until December, does that mean that the Government are willing to hold back on the Bill until such time?
  Mr. Wakeham: No. We are proceeding with the Bill. What we are talking about is its implementation, and we have given an undertaking that the national membership scheme will not be set up until we have had a chance to consider the Taylor report. That does not mean that we shall hold up the Bill.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I am obliged to the Leader of the House for giving way, as this is an important matter. What he is now saying is that the House will have no opportunity to write into the Bill any conclusions that we draw as a result of the Taylor proposals. What he is saying is that the Football Membership Authority, or the Secretary of State acting under the powers in the Bill, will have that opportunity, but not this House. That is thoroughly objectionable.
  Mr. Wakeham: The important point is that the House will have the opportunity to approve or to reject such proposals. There will be two opportunities for full parliamentary consideration of the scheme after the inquiry's report—one before the FMA is appointed and one after the scheme has been submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.
  40
  We cannot afford to lose, for another year, the chance to deal with these important matters, especially with the approach of the world cup in 1990. I have therefore tabled this motion. It is, of course, not a matter for me how time in Committee is allocated, but I think that I have allowed reasonable time, given that there is substantial agreement about part II of the Bill. Having said that, it is important that we get on. The Committee has still to discuss some important matters in part I, in particular the role that the licensing authority might play in safety issues. The House agreed to the instruction allowing safety matters to be considered and the relevant Government amendments were tabled on Thursday. Given the great concern about safety, I should have thought that everyone would be anxious to reach that part of the debate. Some progress has been made, but it has been rather erratic.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: If the Leader of the House has had a chance to look at the Hansard reports of the Committee stage, he will note that, in respect of clauses 2 and 3, his ministerial colleagues have told the Committee and given undertakings that they will consider suggestions made by the Opposition. Does he agree that this occurred only because of the lengthy discussions which took place and the evidence produced by Opposition Members? Bearing in mind the fact that the spirit of the Bill should produce co-operation between Front-Bench Members and others to ensure that we solve the problem of hooliganism and put forward suggestions which will benefit football and that Ministers have said that they will consider suggestions, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to allow us more time in Committee would permit more suggestions to come forward that would help to make the Bill a constructive vehicle which ensured that football progressed?
  Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Minister of Sport said that he would consider a number of points raised, and certainly he will do so. The substance of my case is that there is plenty of time, both in the remaining Committee sessions and on Report, for answers to be given. There will be a Report stage and a Third reading and, in my judgment, that is adequate time.
  After nine sittings over 37 hours the Committee has reached the first set of amendments to clause 5 of this 24-clause Bill. It is not even half time yet, which is not surprising since the first two sittings were largely repeats of the Second reading debate. I have already explained about the future opportunities to consider the Taylor recommendations, although it is difficult to understand why the Opposition are so keen to Implement a report that they have not seen, but not to push ahead with measures in line with the Popplewell report, which we have all had a chance to read and consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The measures are in line—[Interruption.] Keep calm.
  The Popplewell report suggested that the clubs should consider a membership scheme. It was the clubs which said that they were not prepared to do so unless the scheme had statutory backing. Therefore, I stick to my point.
  During the first two sittings of the Committee—
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Is it not the case that in an interim report—not the final report—Popplewell said that he recommended that urgent consideration be given by football clubs to introducing a

  41
  membership system so as to exclude visiting fans? He recommended only consideration of a scheme, which is utterly different from the Government's recommendation.
  Mr. Wakeham: Of course, the Popplewell scheme was not identical to the Government's. He was suggesting a voluntary scheme. It was the football clubs' failure to come up with one which led us to take action. These matters can and will be the subject of great debate. It does not mean that we need not get ahead and deal with these matters.
  During the first two sittings of the Committee, the Opposition team was ruled offside on no fewer than 17 occasions and asked to remain within the scope of the debate. Events since then have made it difficult to know what to expect from the players in a team who seem unable to settle their team tactics from one sitting to the next.
  On clause 1 there were 13 groups of Opposition amendments to consider, but after four of them were discussed, there was a change of heart. The remaining nine sets were withdrawn and the Committee went straight to the clause stand part debate. This encouraging progress continued on clause 2 where all the Opposition amendments were once more dropped. Clause 3 went to the other extreme, and a closure motion was needed to get on; and so it continues. I should like to think that, by introducing this motion, I am doing a favour to everyone on the Committee by focusing their minds on a reasonable timetable which will allow sensible and steady progress through the remaining stages of the Bill. Otherwise, I fear that we shall not be able to act in time for the 1994 world cup, let alone the 1990—
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Despite the long list that the Leader of the House read out and the fact that there have been more than 30 hours of debate, does he accept that the Government Whip moved the closure only once in all that time—so how could there have been filibustering?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: I gather that it was moved twice. I am not arguing that there has been filibustering. It has never been my case that there has been. My case is that we need a structured debate to achieve finality on this matter in a reasonable length of time.
  As I am often reminded, I have introduced a number of timetable motions in my time as Leader of the House, so I have had the opportunity to explore the various philosophies on the use of the guillotine. I have often had cause to quote the distinguished expert on the subject, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who believes that guillotines are justified only towards the end of the Session to get Government measures through.
  I have favoured an early introduction of timetable motions to allow proper time to be assigned to each part of the Bill. I have tended to rely on my judgment rather than on that of the right hon. Gentleman who, as he well knows, was the only Leader of the House since the war to lose a guillotine motion and to fail to pilot one of his guillotined Bills to Royal Assent. But on this occasion, the motion meets his test and mine, which convinces me that I am right to introduce it, and I look forward to his support.
  The provisions of the motion are entirely adequate. Thirty-seven hours have already been spent on part I, which is the more contentious part of the legislation. This
  42
  timetable allows at least 30 more hours to consider the rest of the Bill, depending on when the Committee chooses to sit. After that, there will be a full day for Report and Third Reading, when proceedings on Third Reading can continue until midnight.
  I stress again that this will not be the last opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of these measures. In all, I see this motion as a happy release for everyone. We can go off for the summer in the knowledge that we are well on the way to completing the necessary measures. For the first time, we shall have an effective way of keeping troublemakers out of football matches at home and abroad and to restore the reputation of the game. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: There are three main reasons for today's guillotine motion to curtail debate on the Football Spectators Bill: first, the Government's business managers are no good at getting their legislation through the House; secondly, the Bill is a ludicrous measure; thirdly, the Government are so embarrassed by the way in which they are losing the argument that they want to bring debate to an end as soon as possible.
  Let us look first at the record of the Government's business managers. In the first Session of this Parliament, we sat for 218 days, the fourth longest Session in history. The Government curtailed debate by use of the guillotine on no fewer than six Bills—the highest ever number of guillotines in one Session.
  Despite all that, the Government got through only 49 Bills, the lowest total in the first Session of a Parliament in modern times. The average for a first Session is 70 Bills, and the record is 104. So far in this Session, the Government have introduced just 33 Bills which, if the final total, would be the lowest number in any Session not interrupted by a general election.
  However, to get these 33 Bills through, the Government have had to limit debate by guillotining six of them. So almost one fifth of this year's business has had to be guillotined. Clearly, much of this low production results from the effectiveness of the Opposition. The only other explanation is the incompetence of Members on the Government Front Bench—in particular, the ineptitude of the Chief Whip and of the Leader of the House. That, presumably, is why, with a majority of 100 and having made so little progress, they feature so largely in all the rumours about a Cabinet reshuffle.
  Let us examine the Bill itself. Despite objections from us, it was introduced first in the House of Lords. By custom, controversial measures are not first introduced in the Lords, but this one was. Surely that was not because their Lordships had any special experience of, knowledge of, or insight into what happens on the terraces or even in the stands of English and Welsh football grounds. In my time they have always been regarded as experts on "huntin', shootin' and fishin'"—certainly not on football.
  Whatever the reason, it is a fact that the Bill introduced in the Lords related only to hooliganism at football matches and to no other problem. It recognised no danger to the safety of football spectators other than that posed by hooligans. Then came the Hillsborough disaster, at

  43
  which point even the Government had to acknowledge that other factors affected the safety of football spectators, so they deferred consideration of the Bill.
  At that point, we suggested that the Government should withdraw the Bill and await the outcome of the judicial inquiry into the disaster. We suggested that, once the country had the benefit of Lord Justice Taylor's report, football authorities, the police and representatives of the supporters, together with the Government and the Opposition, should sit down to work out practical proposals designed to reduce hooliganism and to make it safer for men, women, children and old and handicapped people to watch football matches in comfort and security.
  We offered to help to formulate such proposals and we promised that we would help the Government to get the necessary legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. The Government refused point blank—
  Mr. David Sumberg: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the reverse of the question put to my right hon. Friend by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)? If the report from Lord Justice Taylor says that a football membership scheme would help to defeat the hooligan, will the Opposition withdraw their objection to it?
  Mr. Dobson: We shall consider it—[Interruption.]—and so should the Government. We shall consider any proposition from the Taylor inquiry, but as the Government continually say that Mr. Justice Popplewell recommended this scheme, and he did not, we should need to examine closely anything that they claimed emanated from the Taylor report.
  After what they considered a decent interval, the Government pushed the original Bill through the Lords. When it arrived before this House, it was still so exclusively concerned with hooligans that amendments designed to deal with other aspects of safety would have been out of order, so the Government had to introduce a special procedural motion to empower the Committee to deal with any aspect of crowd safety. The Committee cannot do that properly, because Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster finished taking evidence only last Friday.
  Instead, we are told that the Bill will leave everything on crowd safety to the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill will enable him, after Lord Justice Taylor reports, to look at the recommendations of the judicial inquiry, and will give the power to him alone to accept, reject or vary its recommendations in any way he chooses. He will then propose regulations relating to crowd safety. Any regulations that he comes up with will not be capable of amendment by the House. We know his track record on regulations and on safety, because on Wednesday this week—
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend mentioned the Secretary of State for the Environment. Has he had a chance to see the reply to my parliamentary question, in which I asked the Secretary of State to list the number of football matches that he had attended and the number of football grounds that he had visited over the past year? Is he aware that the Secretary of State has not visited a single football ground or attended a single match in the past year? Does he agree
  44
  that it would be appropriate not to proceed with the Bill until the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to attend one?
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman is more familiar with the Eton wall game than with Britain's national sport. On Wednesday, he is asking the House to approve no fewer than 15 sets of regulations under the Water Act 1989. That Act is the brainchild of the Secretary of State and he has drawn up the regulations. The House will have just three hours in which to debate 15 sets of regulations. That is less than a quarter of an hour per set. At least the context of those water regulations should have been partly covered in the debates on the Water Bill, but that will not be the case for any regulations made by the Secretary of State based on the recommendations of the Hillsborough inquiry which, if the guillotine motion is passed, will not have been considered in Committee at all. Less than a day will be provided to consider them on Report. They will be the product of those who introduced this barmy Bill in the first place.
  If his record is anything to go by, the Secretary of State will be more concerned with the control of ordinary citizens than their safety. He was previously Secretary of State for Transport. London Regional Transport was enjoined by law to secure the efficiency, economy and safety of its operations. The Secretary of State decided to spell out his priorities for LRT in a letter. In his 823-word letter he talked only about efficiency and economy, and about cutting costs and staff. It was not that he did not put safety first; he did not put it anywhere. The word "safety" was not mentioned once in his letter.
  His record shows that when it comes to the safety of ordinary people the Secretary of State literally does not give a damn. That is why any safety measures to be implemented following the Hillsborough inquiry cannot be left to him. Nor can they be left to any other Ministers or to any of his successors because, as we know, they are just as bad. After all, his successors permitted the installation of the death-trap ticket barriers on the tube. The recommendations of the Hillsborough inquiry must be discussed in detail and decided in the House. The guillotine motion will deny us the opportunity to do that.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): That is pathetic.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is pathetic. It was pathetic of him to pay no attention to the safety of people on London transport, and it is just as pathetic to introduce a Bill that pays no attention to the safety of football spectators.
  All those objections to the guillotine relate to what is left out of the Bill. What it includes is just as ludicrous. The greatest victims of hooligans in football grounds have been the rest of the spectators. They have suffered from what the hooligans do. The Government do not propose to deal with the minority of troublemakers. The Bill is not targeted on them. It proposes to inflict a form of collective punishment on the innocent victims, the law-abiding spectators. It will impose extra costs on them and interfere with their right to watch a football match. It will impose on them the inconvenience of having to obtain an identity card. It will erode their civil liberties by requiring compulsory selective identity cards in a country which does not require such cards to be carried by any comparable group.

  45
  Against all those costs to spectators, what would be the benefits? Most people in football, most of those who go to football matches and most of the police believe that the proposals will not improve matters, but make them worse. Set against that wealth of experience, we have a Prime Minister whose direct knowledge of football grounds seems to have commenced at a Wembley cup final which she saw from the royal box, an old Etonian Secretary of State who does not even claim that, and a Minister for Sport who would do anything if he thought that it would help him keep his job, even volunteering to be a target at a clay pigeon shoot.
  Those are the people who insist, for example, that women should be included in the scheme. There is no evidence that women have been involved in violence at football matches. What do the Government fear? Apparently, they are frightened that hooligans will dress up as women or girls. If Ministers lived in the real world they would know that the average heavily tattooed skinhead does not look right in a frock. These Ministers do not know that, because they do not live in the real world.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Many thousands of football supporters will be upset that the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are all heavily tattooed skinheads. Is he aware that at Newport some 40 men went to the local Oxfam shop, bought clothes and dressed up as women in order to get into the game? As such, many were arrested. That could happen again if women were exempted from the scheme. That is the problem with the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
  Mr. Dobson: In response to the hon. Gentleman, who spends as much time representing Johannesburg, South as Luton, North, I would say that not all football supporters are skinheads—and, for that matter, not all skinheads are hooligans. I was talking about hooligans who, in the fantasies of the Government Front Bench and apparently the hon. Gentleman, might dress up as women. We should not pay any attention to what he said.
  The Government also insist on pensioners having identity cards. The consequence of that will be rotten. What about the grandad who has not been to many matches in recent years, but who reminisces about Stanley Matthews or Jackie Milburn or, going further back, Dixie Dean? One fine Saturday or perhaps a Boxing day his children or grandchildren may say to him, "Come on then, it's a nice day, we'll take you in the car. We'll be able to get a seat. They're playing Wolves. See how you rate this new lad Steve Bull." The old man will perk up but then they will say, "Oh no, you haven't got a flaming ID card. We won't be able to go." That is what will happen in the real world inhabited by football spectators but not by the Government.
  Mr. David Martin: If we assume that we have a scheme where people have to put a card through a machine, surely the more exemptions there are, the more bunching there will be, so the less safe it will be to arrive at the gates. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that danger is the more likely one?
  Mr. Dobson: All sorts of provisions could be made for various types of spectators. There could be separate turnstiles, children's enclosures and family enclosures. All sorts of practical, targeted measures can be taken to reduce
  46
  hooliganism so that non-hooligans who go to football matches feel safe. The whole preposterous scheme will not achieve that.
  The final reason for the guillotine is the Government's embarrassment about losing all the arguments. They have lost the argument with the public, in the House of Lords and on Second Reading when my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, to be fair, some Conservative Members, ripped the Bill to shreds in a cracking series of speeches. The same has been happening in Committee. The Government have only one answer to the weight of the arguments—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) says, "Oh." On one occasion when I listened to the Committee he was talking about compulsory ID cards for pensioners. He said that pensioners would be encouraged to get involved with Bury football club by being forced to have an ID card. That is a peculiar form of encouragement.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: It is to his disadvantage that the hon. Gentleman did not stay longer. My point was that the violence has discouraged several pensioners in Bury and elsewhere from going to the game. My point was that there are already safe enclosures which are advertised as such, and many people take out membership of them. I argued that that concept should be extended to the whole ground. In that way, the whole ground would be safe, and pensioners would benefit.
  Mr. Dobson: Why is the answer to make it compulsory for pensioners to have ID cards? If the scheme, in dealing with people below pensionable age, results in the grounds being safe, pensioners will be safe wherever they go in those grounds. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are just preposterous. We have this guillotine because the Government have lost the argument and are using the crude weight of their majority.
  Mr. Alan Meale: My hon. Friend may not have had time to read the Official Report of last Thursday's sitting, which shows the statistical evidence about people aged over 65 who committed offences in the last season. Only three cases could be found. The first involved a pensioner who was arrested while trying to steal a car outside Chelsea football ground; the second was an over-65 person found illegally selling hot dogs outside Norwich; the third was a very elderly gentleman arrested outside Southampton ground late one afternoon in an inebriated condition and pretending to be Father Christmas. Charges have not been brought against that man.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, who so rightly and heartily speaks for Mansfield Town, has exposed the threadbare nature of the argument that pensioners should be forced to carry ID cards.
  The Bill is like the Government: it ignores the things that it ought to do and fails to do the things that it claims to do. It is out of touch. It owes everything to the Prime Minister and nothing to common sense. Its only role is propaganda and publicity. It flies in the face of practical experience. It will create more problems that it resolves. It is not up to the job—it never has been and it never will be.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. David Evans: The Opposition object to the motion on two grounds—that it has come too early in the Committee proceedings and that we should wait for Lord Justice Taylor to produce his report on the Hillsborough tragedy. I reject both grounds.
  On the first ground, my argument is that the motion should have come earlier. In 1985, the Procedure Committee recommended timetabling of Bills. The automatic timetabling of contentious Bills would make good sense. Under present procedures, when a Bill gets bogged down in Committee or looks as though it will, a guillotine motion is introduced. That happens under all Governments. Precious time on the Floor of the House is wasted discussing the motion. The Opposition, of whichever party, criticise the motion and the Government of the day defend it. It is all a load of nonsense.
  A rational timetable aids sensible debate and ensures that all parts of the Bill receive consideration. It does not rob the Opposition of any of their rights. As the Procedure Committee recognised in 1985, the power of delay is a myth. Attempts at obstruction reduce rather than enhance the likelihood of the Government making concessions. In the interests of more rational debate, I support the motion and I hope that we can look forward to the automatic timetabling of Bills in the future, thus avoiding the need for motions such as this.
  As for the Opposition's contention that we should not rush proceedings but wait until Lord Justice Taylor's report is to hand, I take the contrary view. The Bill is an enabling Bill and deals with an issue that is different from that being considered by the Taylor inquiry. To wait for the Taylor report would confuse rather than clarify the issue. The Bill is about separating the true football fans from the cowards, the bullies, the hooligans, the criminals and others of that type. Safety at football grounds, and at all sporting stadiums, is an important issue which needs careful consideration, free from the controversy that surrounds the subject of hooliganism and membership card schemes.
  Contrary to what opponents of the Bill may like to think, nothing has changed as a result of the awful tragedy at Hillsborough. Hooliganism was ruining our national game and dragging this country's name through the gutters of Europe before Hillsborough and, unfortunately, it has continued to do so unabated since then. The need for action to tackle the problem of hooliganism is as strong now as it has ever been. The events of the last two months of the season bear this out. In the Littlewoods cup final at Wembley, when Luton played Nottingham Forest, mounted police had to separate rival fans who were fighting outside the ground. There were 66 arrests and 65 were subsequently charged. Not one was a Luton fan. The scheme had worked there.
  On 22 April, just one week after the tragedy at Hillsborough, 94 people were arrested and 28 were ejected from the ground during a match between Chelsea and Leeds United. Arrests took place before, during and after the game. Something similar happened at the game between West Ham and Millwall, during which 24 people were arrested and 24 were ejected. On 13 May, the last Saturday of the season, trouble throughout the country culminated in over more than 200 arrests and dozens of injuries. After a pitch invasion by Birmingham fans at Crystal Palace, 16 people ended up in hospital, the game
  48
  was held up for 26 minutes and 24 people were arrested. Some 200 Sheffield United fans went on the rampage in Weston-super-Mare after the team had lost to Bristol City, and 24 were arrested. Some 40 Leeds yobboes were arrested after fighting in a pub on their way back from a match with Shrewsbury. Chelsea fans celebrated promotion by causing thousands of pounds' worth of damage.
  Mr. Wareing: Would the hon. Gentleman care to give the House the advantage of his experience and explain how 52 people from Luton in a coach coming back from a game with Ipswich Town managed to damage the coach, and spent some time in a local lock-up? Why did the Luton ID card scheme not prevent that from happening? The incident involved 52 arrests and was not the one mentioned by the Minister in a parliamentary answer.
  Mr. Evans: Had the Government's scheme been in place, those 52—they were not members of Luton—would have been banned from football grounds for two years.
  On 13 May, there was also trouble involving Plymouth, Bournemouth and Bristol Rovers fans—the latter were returning from Gigg lane, Bury—and on 27 May more than 150 were arrested after the England v. Scotland game at Hampden. Offences included a breach of the peace, spitting on shoppers, resisting arrest, fighting and swearing. One fan was charged with being in possession of a CS gas canister and discharging it into the crowd. This was all immediately after the Hillsborough disaster.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give a detailed list of the matches at which no people were arrested, or hardly anyone was arrested, or after which few were charged and no convictions followed? We need a full picture of what is happening. We cannot base our response on specific instances, although we want them to be dealt with.
  Mr. Evans: I do not intend to go though all the matches at which there were no arrests. I am trying to explain to the House the seriousness of problems affecting the national game, and its possible demise if we are not careful. I am all for identifying the bullies and the hooligans, and stopping them attending football matches for two or three years afterwards, or perhaps for ever.
  The Government are right to bring forward this enabling Bill, and it is right to proceed with it now and to try to get it on the statute book during this parliamentary session. Only then can we hope to salvage a dying game. Let us by all means address ourselves seriously to improving crowd safety when the Taylor report is published, but let us not confuse that with the need to do something now about the scourge of hooliganism. Once the Bill is passed and in place, it will be much easier to take action after considering any recommendations from the Taylor report. Let the Football Membership Authority, which will write the scheme, include them if it wishes. The guillotine motion is eminently reasonable, and I support it.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: The Leader of the House has said that I am an expert on guillotines. I can tell him that I am a greater expert on watching football. I have probably watched more away games than most hon. Members put together. First, in 1934, I watched my team—Plymouth Argyle—taking two points from Tottenham Hotspur at White Hart lane on Christmas day. I have been

  49
  watching away matches ever since, and I have seen some home games as well. I have had plenty of opportunity to see what really happens at away games.
  I am bitterly opposed to the Bill because of the widespread injury that it will inflict on football, especially the small teams. There is not the slightest doubt that, if the proposed scheme is introduced, it will reduce the number of away supporters who attend matches, at least for a number of seasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) drew attention in Committee to the consequences. The numbers of casual supporters who decide on the afternoon that they will attend a match, or only a day or two before, will be seriously reduced. In addition, the paraphernalia of an identity card scheme will reduce numbers.
  Many of the smaller teams, perhaps in the third and fourth divisions, will be driven out of business, but the Government seem not to give a damn that. What will happen in the towns and other places where young people have been reared to give allegiance to their clubs? It is a proper pursuit that many of us have followed over many years. In the places where clubs are knocked out, the increase in hooliganism will be incalculable. The Government do not understand the cause of the hooliganism that has increased so rapidly during their period of office. If clubs throughout the country are caused to close, the chances of many young people to attach themselves to a club and see it prosper will be swept away by a Government who do not give a damn what happens in football and have never taken the trouble to find out.
  Anyone who examined the facts could see what was likely to happen outside football grounds. By pursuing the Bill, the Government will add to all the problems of bitterness, rows and arrests. Many more Hillsboroughs could be provoked by the scheme. That is the view of many police forces, but the Government do take no notice of what the police say on these matters. They are apparently not interested in what the police have to do outside the grounds. The risks and dangers will be enormously increased by the Bill. In effect, the Government are saying, "We are not even going to listen; notwithstanding what happened outside the ground at Hillsborough, we intend to go ahead with the scheme." There will be a far greater risk of roughhouses outside grounds. It is scandalous for the Government to proceed in such a way.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has said, in effect, that the police have forecast trouble. I trust that he will acknowledge that the police were members of the original working party and that they have had a major input in the discussions on the proposed scheme. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman made some serious remarks about the Hillsborough disaster. I put it to him with all due respect that it is dangerous to allege that Hillsborough could happen again as a result of the introduction of the membership scheme. If a membership scheme had been in existence at Hillsborough, the police might have had a better facility by means of a filtering process to prevent many people from getting to the ground. First, they could have ensured that people had tickets. Secondly, they could have ensured that individuals had membership cards. In those circumstances, the police might have been able to prevent some of the trouble by ensuring that those without tickets did not get to the ground.
  Mr. Foot: That was not a proper intervention. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, let him make one. I shall reply, however, to the issues that he has raised. It cannot be denied that the police have been opposed to the scheme from the beginning. The Government have used every method available to them to try to persuade the police to produce different evidence. Anyone who has studied the facts knows that when the Government first came forward with their cock-eyed scheme the football clubs were against it. Only a few supported it. I understand that Luton, for example, has a scheme designed to stop away supporters from attending matches. That is a scandalous interference with the individual's right to watch a football match. If such a scheme were applied throughout the country, football would be wrecked. What is football but a contest between two sides at which supporters can express their support from both sides? The Luton scheme would wreck British football, but the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) apparently supports it.
  As I have said, the police were against the proposed membership scheme from the beginning, and I am sure that that is still their position. I am sure that, whatever differences of view emerge as a result of the evidence given about the Hillsborough disaster, the police will still be against the scheme, but the Government are not prepared to take any notice of that. I shall consider it an amazing event if the Taylor report comes out in favour of the scheme. Of course, it would be a great victory for the Government. If the Government do not bring pressure to bear on Lord Justice Taylor—I am sure that he would be able to resist it if they did—there is an overwhelming certainty that the report will only add to the arguments that those who know about football have advanced from the beginning. In other words, the Taylor report will fortify the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath and many others.
  The Government are wasting a great deal of parliamentary time. There may be a few obscure recommendations in the Taylor report which will be used by the Government to support their argument. I believe that the report will be written clearly and will not support the Government, but if the report blurs the issue, w hat will happen? It is monstrous for the Government to say that they will wait until the Taylor report is produced, consider what it recommends and then bring forward proposals which cannot be altered by amendment in the House. The Leader of the House should be in his place to respond to this. The Minister for Sport merely takes the orders of the Prime Minister. The Bill is clearly the Prime Minister's responsibility. If the Government had a real leader of the House, a real Minister for Sport and a real Cabinet, the Bill would never have been presented to the House. Unfortunately, Cabinet members are afraid to oppose the Prime Minister and simply agree with virtually everything she says.
  That attitude should have changed over the past few months. The Prime Minister's authority has been greatly weakened following the elections. The atmosphere in the Cabinet, in Parliament and throughout the country is changing. Secondary Ministers who might have some interest in their future careers should have plucked up the courage to tell the Prime Minister that it is nonsense that a measure such as this Bill should be proceeding through the House. It is shameful that the Minister for Sport supports the Bill, and it is even more shameful that

  51
  members of the Cabinet—many of whom will probably be shunted into other jobs when our discussions on the Bill come to an end in a few weeks' time—have lent their support to it.
  The Minister for Sport has never been able to persuade the football authorities, the police or anyone else that the Bill has merit. One of the reasons for that is that, when he meets the clubs and others, he spends far too much time talking and scarcely listens to anything that others have to say. That applies even more to the Prime Minister. It would be best if we could finish off the Bill here and now, but if we cannot, let it be finished off soon. The Minister for Sport will go into obscurity as the Minister who tried to ram through a measure that will do nothing but injury to the greatest of British sports.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. David Sumberg: I follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) with some reluctance, not least because his reputation as a parliamentary speaker has no equal, but also because his knowledge of the guillotine probably makes him the world's greatest expert on it.
  I support the motion because of the experience of my membership of the Standing Committee. At times I felt isolated and lonely because at every juncture when hon. Members on both sides felt obliged to speak, they prefaced their remarks by expressing their love, devotion, commitment and knowledge of the game of association football. After a time, I began to think that that commitment was a condition of membership of the House. Hon. Members combined that commitment with pointing an accusing finger at the guilty men—those who, especially in the eyes of the Opposition, know nothing about football.
  I must make it clear that although I have attended the occasional match, I am not the world's greatest expert on football. I make no apology for that, for three main reasons. First, since coming to the House it has been my experience that lack of knowledge has never prevented hon. Members from making speeches either in this Chamber or in Committee. Secondly, in view of the state of association football, the declining gates, the conditions of the grounds and the way in which the game is perceived both here and abroad, I realise that those responsible for all that are people who know about the game. Perhaps it is time for those who do not know very much to have their say—
  Mr. Denis Howell: If the football authorities are responsible for the malaise of the game, why are the Government proposing to put them in charge of the Football Membership Authority which will regulate this ludicrous Bill?
  Mr. Sumberg: They are being involved simply because of force majeure. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he is prepared to consider the involvement of other people and other bodies in the football membership scheme. I hope that he will do so.
  Thirdly, I make no apology for supporting the motion because it gives me an opportunity to speak for the
  52
  forgotten majority—not the majority of decent, honourable, peaceful football supporters, because powerful and influential voices already speak for them, but for the vast majority of the population who never go to a football match, and never want to go to one, but who foot the bill for the behaviour of the mindless few who create all the mayhem at football games. If it can be argued, as I believe it can, that law-abiding football supporters have had a raw deal from football, it can be argued that the millions of people who never go to the game have had an even greater raw deal.
  Mr. Meale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about 32 million people in Britain support one sport or another? Is he further aware that hooliganism occurs across the whole spectrum of sport, including rowing, rugby union and cricket, to almost the same degree as in football? Why does he not argue that a similar scheme should be introduced for every sport?
  Mr. Sumberg: I sometimes wonder what Labour Members do and where they have been. Of course there are outbreaks of violence at most sports, but the predominant problem is with the game of football. If the Opposition do not recognise that, we shall not make much progress. Every Saturday throughout the season, our cities and towns become almost semi-military encampments with masses of police patrolling the streets. The ordinary people have to think about changing their plans as they face the fact that there may be violence against themselves or their property. Above all, the cost of providing protection for them and their property falls on the ratepayers and taxpayers. They are entitled to be heard in this House.
  Without the guillotine, the behaviour of some Opposition Members will continue unabated. There will be yet more hypnotic law lectures from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz); we will hear yet again the same stories from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) about his wartime RAF experiences and his distinguished service for the Crown on the railway stations of Britain; we will hear again about the wonderful moment in the career of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) when he discovered, or so he thought, the fatal flaw in the Luton Town membership scheme. We have heard those stories time and again. Indeed, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) retold, even today, the story of three old-age pensioners who apparently were arrested outside a football ground. Having heard those stories many times, I have a great deal of sympathy for Members' wives and husbands who have to listen to the old jokes and stories and smile politely each time we tell them at every meeting that we attend.
  Another theme that came out in Committee is worthy of mention—the class war. Conservative Members thought that in the modern, chic, radical, cordless-telephone Labour party, the class war was dead and gone. I have news for the House—it is alive and kicking in Committee. "This is a working-class game," runs the Opposition argument, "and we do not want it interfered with by the public-school twits on the Conservative Benches." If it is a working-class game, the working classes have had a pretty raw deal from it. They stand on awful terraces supporting clubs that will spend £1 million on a player but not a penny on their grounds. They watch their

  53
  favourite clubs being bought and sold in boardroom coups over which they have no control. They suffer violent attacks from the mindless hooligan minority.
  Mr. Jim Lester: Although my hon. Friend may be right to suggest that some clubs do not do their best by their supporters, no one is compelled to attend a football match or to endure such conditions if he chooses not to do so. The only element of compulsion entering football is the introduction of the Bill, whereby one is not allowed to watch a football match unless one becomes a member under the Football Membership Authority scheme.
  Mr. Sumberg: My hon. Friend's point goes to the fundamental principle of the Bill, but I happen to believe that it is not the greatest infringement of civil liberties to compel a person to hold a membership card to prevent the sort of behaviour to which I referred.
  The party of the working class may think that the conditions that I mentioned are good enough for the working class, but we do not. Such conditions are not good enough for the working, middle, upper or any other class. That is why the Government mean to do something about them.
  At the start of my remarks, I freely confessed to knowing little about association football—but because many of my constituents are interested in football, I thought that I should know more about it. I accepted an invitation from the chairman of Manchester United, Martin Edwards, whom I know, to visit that club's ground, together with one or two Opposition Members, to watch a match. During the interval, I met another guest, who was Asian. He told me that he was a keen football fan but did not regularly attend matches. I asked him why not. He answered, "Mr. Sumberg, if the colour of your skin was the same as mine, you would not go to football matches either. At best, you would receive taunts and jeers—at worst, a brick or bottle on the back of your head."
  Mr. Vaz: That is nonsense. Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. Sumberg: That is an appalling indictment of' the game. If the Government fail to do anything, it will be an appalling indictment of them. I do not pretend that the Bill is the whole answer to football violence, but it can play a vital part. It is time that football had a better deal, and time that the Bill became law.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Such is the nature of the Government's majority in the House that I harbour no doubt that the motion will pass at the due moment. When it does, that will be eloquent testimony to the Government's obduracy and intransigence, because there is no need for the motion. To go beyond that, there are very good reasons why it should not pass.
  Those right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the Committee stage have known since it began that the passage of the legislation is much more important to the Government than its intrinsic merit. That belief is based on an ill-concealed, blind and insensitive determination on the Government's part to drive the legislation through. The less time the Bill spends in Committee, the less time there will be for the scrutiny which is required—and which would make it obvious that
  54
  the Government have created expectations that they are unable to satisfy. The more detailed the examination. the more flawed the Bill has appeared.
  The guillotine is not being introduced as an expression of the Government's frustration: it is provoked by their realisation of the extent to which the Bill exposes them to political and intellectual embarrassment. The guillotine is not justified by the nature of the legislation. Such legislation should in any case be non-partisan and ought to command the support of right hon and hon. Members in all parts of the House. Notwithstanding that, however, the Government are determined to press ahead.
  The guillotine is also not justified by the views of many right hon. and hon. Members who, while they oppose the legislation, are as determined as any Conservative Member to find a solution to the problem of football hooliganism and to ensure, so far as they can, the speedy return of English clubs to continental competitions. Neither is the guillotine justified by the parallel inquiry of Lord Justice Taylor, whose preliminary report may be available by the end of this month. Instead, the guillotine will prevent the Standing Committee appointed by the House to consider the Bill from examining Lord Justice Taylor's proposals. That is why many right hon. and hon. Members find the introduction of the guillotine at this stage so objectionable.
  In Committee, the mask has slipped on occasions—usually in the absence of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)—and reasonableness has made a brief appearance. From time to time, the Minister for Sport has conveyed a properly constructive attitude to matters brought to his attention in the context of safety. That is hardly surprising, because in the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), the Committee has two Members who were present on the occasion of the Hillsborough disaster, and who bring to the Committee's work not only considerable experience of and a deep love for football but an appreciation of at least some of the conditions which gave rise to that most tragic occurrence. That spirit of constructiveness could have been more effectively utilised if the Government had been willing to exercise greater sensitivity towards Opposition Members who, while opposed to the principle of the Bill, are none the less determined to ensure that the eventual legislation is the best possible.
  If we must have a Bill, it should be the best Bill possible. That requires proper scrutiny of the terms of the legislation and adequate time for that scrutiny. If we must have a Bill, it should be based on the best available information—which requires consideration at least of Lord Justice Taylor's interim report. The guillotine will allow neither. For that reason, it ought to be opposed.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: I follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his reminiscences, and I am pleased to be the first Conservative Member to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). As the House may know, we share the same metropolitan borough and often find that we have both parallel and tandem interests. My hon. Friend confessed that he was speaking for a group of people who are not football supporters and who attend few matches, but who have a legitimate interest in

  55
  the outcome of the Bill. I speak for a different group of people again—for those who were football supporters but who are no longer.
  My credentials follow more those of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South. I spent my formative years as a football supporter following a small town club. I refer to my local team, Bury. My father has been a season ticket holder at that club for 40 years, which is a triumph of hope over experience. The club had occasional cup triumphs, with victories over West Bromwich Albion and over Middlesbrough, when they were a force in the first division. They have had good cup runs, poor seasons and good seasons, but Bury has always been a friendly club and I am grateful for the support and friendship that I have enjoyed from its chairman and directors—
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the debate should concern itself with the question of whether or not there is a need for a guillotine. It is not another Second Reading, or an opportunity to reminisce.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), but he has said nothing out of order. It is in order for a debate on a timetable motion to be fairly wide-ranging.
  Mr. Burt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will seek to catch your eye when he has a chance, so that he can give his views.
  The kind attention that the local club has paid to my work on the Bill is very welcome and I appreciate the attempts of the current chairman, Terry Robinson, and the other members of the board to develop the club over the past few years. There is no doubt, however, that the game has changed, as has its impact on local society. Years ago it had a positive image in Bury—people were interested in the club's affairs and results, and wanted to be involved—but that is no longer so. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent properly drew attention to the fears among small clubs about the membership scheme as a result of declining attendances. I wonder where he has been for the past 30 years.
  Mr. Steve Norris: He has been leader of the Labour party.
  Mr. Burt: I missed that bit.
  Over the past few years, as a result of the constant decline in attendances, my club and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been put into a precarious financial position, and they are now wondering what to do. They are worried less about what will happen in the future than about the damage that has already been done.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How wide is "wide" in this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Bury, North that is out of order.
  Mr. Burt: I am answering a point made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I cannot remember
  56
  whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was in the Chamber at the time, but he certainly arrived relatively recently.
  Our reason for wanting a speedy enactment of the Bill is our concern about the decline in attendances, and the part that violence has played in removing spectators from the terraces. I have expressed that concern on behalf of sports clubs.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: The hon. Gentleman asked where my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) had been for the past 30 years. I must ask where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past three. Since closed-circuit television has been placed in every ground and segregation and policing have been better organised, gate takings have increased year by year, up to the past three years. That applies to the hon. Gentleman's own team. He must ensure that his information is up to date before bringing such charges against my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Burt: The past 30 years show a pattern of continuous decline, followed by a rise in the past two or three years. If the hon. Gentleman turns his attention to other spectator sports, he will observe that there has been a return to attendance at them as well. It is a general and common trend. Our argument is that the damage done to football, and to football clubs in particular, is peculiar to violent hooliganism and it is lasting damage which will take more than a small rise in attendance over the past two or three years to correct it.
  Conservative Members need no lessons or diktats from the Opposition about the purpose of a guillotine. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was kind enough to say that he knew all about them—and so do Conservative Members. Five in a day is quite a record. Timetable motions happen—Governments of all persuasions use them, and ours is no exception. I am quite prepared to give the reasons why we need this Bill.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made two points in particular which require answers. The first referred to the serious issue of safety: was it correct for the Bill to proceed without due reference to the findings of the Taylor report? I feel strongly that, although Hillsborough was a watershed in terms of safety in football grounds, it was not—sadly—a watershed in terms of dealing with violent spectator behaviour. That has been amply chronicled by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) who described what happened immediately post-Hillsborough. I say "imm—ediately post-Hillsborough" because, according to my recollection, within four days Blackpool and Bolton supporters had been reported for fighting. I accept that Hillsborough has made an enormous difference to the way in which we shall look at public safety in football grounds in the future, but it has not had the same impact on the way in which violent hooligan spectators are dealt with, which is the main point of the Bill.
  The Government must consider carefully what Taylor has to say about every aspect of the problem. There will be some overlap, which I believe will be covered by the fact that the Bill will have to return to the House in the autumn, and also by the fact that the scheme cannot be put into effect without a further order of the House—long after the Taylor inquiry has reported. If, as is quite likely,

  57
  major safety flaws are revealed, we should produce either separate orders relating to safety in grounds or a separate Bill. I feel that the point about safety made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, although well meant, is wide of the mark.
  Mr. Dobson: If the Government do not want the Bill to reflect the Taylor report, why did they move an instruction to enable safety to be dealt with in the Bill?
  Mr. Burt: As I said earlier, there will be a degree of overlap between aspects of football hooliganism and violence and what the Taylor inquiry is considering. We know that the causes of the Hillsborough disaster were many and various, and that they do not relate to the substance of the Bill. I feel that it is perfectly sensible to allow a small overlap, but that it is far more important to wait for a Bill which will deal fully with public safety.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras questioned the benefits to spectators that would result from the Bill. Earlier I drew a distinction between two points of view. On Second Reading and in Committee, the hon. Gentleman and his friends took the side of committed present-day football supporters, and defended their right to the status quo above all else. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) described clearly what the present status quo in football means to many spectators—standing around in inadequate grounds, standing on the terraces in the open, or being handled with the most utmost rigour and control by security forces.
  Let us consider the average Saturday afternoon spent by a group of away spectators visiting a large first-division ground. They may have committed no offence, and may intend to commit none. They arrive by train—free of drink, because they have been deemed not responsible enough to travel on a train providing it. Arriving at the railway station, they are met by policemen, often with dogs and horses if the game and the crowd are big enough. They are then marched to the ground, under guard, enclosed—imprisoned—in the appropriate section and physically segregated from other supporters, because they cannot be trusted to mix. During the ensuing 90 minutes they are watched constantly by means of closed-circuit television. At the end of the game they are detained, possibly against their will—no one says anything about civil liberties in such cases—until the other spectators have gone; then they are marched back to the station, under police protection, at great cost to the ratepayer and everyone else.
  Mr. Lester: When those same people are members of the football membership scheme, will they be treated any differently?
  Mr. Burt: If my hon. Friend will look into the future, he will see that that is possible. [Interruption.] Hon. Members on both sides of the House may scoff, but I am making a serious point. We live in what is all too often a cynical and defeatist world, and one of the problems is that over the past 20 to 30 years no one has successfully tackled the virus afflicting football. We have all believed in some form of gentle containment, but no one has stood out against the problem because we all assumed that it could not be beaten.
  Opposition Members say that the Bill cannot tackle the problem because, in their heart of hearts, they do not believe that it is possible to change the attitudes on the
  58
  terraces. I believe that it is indeed possible, as do other Conservative Members, because 30 or 40 years ago people attended football matches in large crowds and in greater safety without the abuse and the problems on the terraces which have contributed so much to the game's collapse. That is one reason why attendances have fallen so much and the game no longer has a positive image. That is why the casual supporter who used to take his children to football and may have been taken to matches by his father no longer goes to football. I genuinely believe that Opposition Members do not care whether those people come back to the terraces, but it is absolutely vital that they do.
  The Bill at last tries to tackle the problem of attitude. If there is a changed attitude to the game, and if supporters change their approach, segregation can in time be broken. Most membership clubs and supporters' clubs throughout the country maintain good relations with opposing supporters' clubs. Often they will meet in the morning before the game, there are football matches between them, and that builds up a good spirit. I was taken to Manchester City and saw the Junior Blues. That is happening everywhere. Most supporters look forward to a time when supporters of different teams can mingle together at the ground.
  I do not believe that the idea that the average football supporter can be herded around and filmed every moment he is at a football ground can go on for ever. If it does, we shall never attract back the people whom football needs to get the bums on the seats and the money rolling in. There must be a change in attitude. I believe that the problem can be broken down, and I believe that the Bill will help. The fundamental flaw in the argument put by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was that he addressed himself solely to present-day football supporters, who have gradually dwindled in numbers over the past 20 or 30 years, rather than to those whom the game needs to attract.
  In conclusion, I feel strongly that the failure of the game in the past 30 years to cope with the problems of modern competition has been exacerbated by its failure to deal with violent supporters. Various schemes have been tried in the past 20 years, sometimes when Labour Members were in government—and they were experts—but those measures have failed. We have not eradicated the cancer. The Bill is designed to change attitudes within the game. It will take time and it will be only part of a package designed to bring people back to the game. The casual supporter has been neglected for too long. He or she needs to be attracted back to football if the game is to survive the crisis and develop into the mass-supported activity that it once was.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: You have said that the debate can be a wide one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we could not disagree with your ruling. The hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) made our case for us. Whether or not we agreed with them, they made good Committee speeches. We should be listening to those speeches in Committee and not on a guillotine motion.
  When the Leader of the House first announced that the Bill was to go through another place first, Opposition Members rightly objected. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in particular

  59
  pointed out that it was a contentious Bill and should begin its passage in this House. The response from the Government was that it was contentious on both sides of the House, and that somehow made it all right. That was partially true at the time, but it was before the Leader of the House and the Government Whips ensured that their placemen and political Josephines were on the Standing Committee—with one honourable exception, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester).
  Mr. Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pendry: No. I may refer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and he may well want to intervene then.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe understands football, came to the Committee with an independent mind and on occasion voted with the Opposition.
  The disgrace of the Government is that they are hurrying through the measure instead of facing up to the new problems and issues that have arisen since the Hillsborough disaster. They have set out to impose ID cards upon all football supporters at any price. As we have argued in Committee, that is no solution; nor is the blinkered approach of the Government relevant to the difficulties experienced by our national game.
  Admittedly, as has been said, the Government have decided to add safety to the remit of the Committee, but what is the use of that if the Committee is not to be allowed to scrutinise, analyse or debate safety issues? We have only reached clause 5 of a 24-clause Bill, without the Opposition in any way delaying the proceedings.
  There are contentious issues in the Bill which need to be fully debated. Already much of the Bill has been endorsed by the other place without any discussion of its contents. I refer, of course, to part II. It is well known that the Opposition have a great deal of sympathy for its aims, but the details need proper discussion to ensure that they are fully relevant now and after 1992. The other place discussed part II for less than half an hour, after midnight, with just a few of their Lordships present. That is no way for legislation to reach the statute book—especially legislation which affects the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of our countrymen and women.
  One has only to look at what has happened so far in Committee to see that the timetable motion is a disgrace. During the fourth sitting, for example, we discussed how Wembley stadium and its special problems fitted in to the provisions of the Bill. It became quite clear that, even at this late stage of the legislative process, the Government do not know what they will do with our national stadium. Will it be included in the ID card scheme? Will it be excluded for internationals but included for club matches? Will foreign tourists have to buy ID cards, or, equally absurd, queue with their passports to seek entry? The Minister even let slip the fact that we could face the crazy situation that English fans would have to carry ID cards when Scotland visits Wembley, but Scottish fans would not, because, luckily for them, they are outside the scheme.
  Will hooligans simply buy black market tickets for the Scottish end to cause trouble? At which end is a Scot who lives in London expected to be? Will an Englishman convicted of an offence face a five-year ban from football, while a Scottish fan gets a lesser sentence? All those are
  60
  legitimate issues raised in Committee and left in the air as the Government have not thought the scheme through properly. That was in clause 1. We have now reached clause 5 and issues which are just as worrying.
  The Government seem to think that pensioners and women are a serious threat to public order. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) about the number of pensioners who were caught who were not even inside the ground. The inclusion of women in the scheme does not make sense. The football authorities, and the Government have no record whatsoever of women having been arrested or ejected from grounds. Despite what the Prime Minister and others have said, for the first time women are being attracted to football, through voluntary membership schemes, family areas, creche facilities and so on. The ID scheme will set that back a long way.
  Are those matters such a serious threat to public order that all pensioners must be forced to carry ID cards to matches? That is nonsense, and Conservative Members know it and are embarrassed about it. Should important debates on such matters as civil liberties be curtailed simply so that the Government can railroad the Bill on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity? What is the hurry? We must ask the Government that. The Minister has said repeatedly that he would not put the legislation in place until the technology was there, and everyone agrees that it is not there at present.
  When one considers who has been delaying the Committee, the Government's tactics become clear. I cite the afternoon sitting of Thursday 6 July as a case in point. No fewer than 13 Conservative Members, including the Minister, spoke between 9 pm and the midnight Adjournment. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) spoke for more than 50 minutes and concentrated mainly on the relevance of the ferret to matches between Bolton and Preston. Progress may not have been made to the liking of the Leader of the House, and we know why.
  The reasons I have given so far for opposing the timetable motion are reasons of detail. The matter of principle is that Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry has not yet reported and will not report while the Committee is sitting. The inquiry has examined the tragedy on 15 April in detail and from every angle, yet the inquiry's findings—in particular, the final report—will have no bearing on the Committee's discussions.
  Just last Friday, as the inquiry finished, relatives of the 95 people who died decided to pursue criminal proceedings for manslaughter against the senior police officers involved in the incident. Senior police officers were criticised harshly for their actions and strategy on that fateful day, yet against that background, the Government proceed merrily with this irrelevant and possibly dangerous Bill.
  The Government retort that the findings can be taken on board at a later stage; we have heard that again today. How late will that stage be? The Government have already started to table amendments and new clauses on safety matters, even though Lord Justice Taylor himself has not reached any conclusions. There will be virtually no opportunity to debate the Taylor report in relation to the Bill, as just one day has been allocated for Report and Third Reading. We shall have only one day to take on board any serious findings and recommendations from Lord Justice Taylor's interim report alone. Even when the Bill becomes law and the new Football Membership Authority sets up the scheme, perhaps incorporating some

  61
  of the ideas of the Taylor inquiry, there will be no opportunity to amend the scheme in the House, but only to accept or reject it.
  Lord Justice Taylor's sensible approach is already a contrast to the Government's. The Government want to force the Bill through come what may, because the Prime Minister wants to be seen to be acting. The Taylor inquiry, on the other hand, is thinking ahead and has already asked the Football League for details of all matches in August at which it expects capacity crowds. Clearly, safety rather than expediency is at the heart of Lord Justice Taylor's approach. It is a disgrace that we are even debating a timetable motion to guillotine the Committee today. If Conservative Members had any real interest in football, the Bill would have been shelved long ago. As it is, the match is being halted before we have even reached half-time.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), whose knowledge of football is well known in the House and whose views command respect here and in the all-party football committee. His contributions in Standing Committee were similar to the opinions he expressed today in the House. They have been somewhat shallow and based on the old, tired remedies. New remedies have been lacking from the Opposition. The reasons he put forward for objecting to the guillotine are as spurious as most of the arguments from the Opposition.
  There is no doubt in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends—with one possible exception—who want the Bill to be passed, that the actions taken by Opposition Members have been such that the matters they have raised in Committee have been almost laughable in some cases. Their somewhat pious view that they represent the interests of football and the so-called "class" who go to watch football—again, a rather outdated notion—is totally refuted by Conservative Members, among whom are people with a deep knowledge of the game and an active interest in seeing it improved. That is why we have supported the Government consistently in this admirable measure. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is to be congratulated for his activity and the enormous amount of work he has undertaken in pushing the Bill forward and ensuring that it comes before the House at the earliest possible moment.
  In the decade in which I have been in this place, I have perhaps found favour with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and his predecessor, Sir Phillip Holland, in that I have not been able to become a member of a Committee that has been cut short. I was somewhat bemused by the fact that Bills were brought before the Floor of the House to be guillotined. My own feelings were that such a procedure was unfortunate.
  However, having sat through the proceedings of this Committee for almost 40 hours and heard the rantings, ravings and nonsense of the Opposition, I am going down the road of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on the basis that perhaps every Bill should be guillotined. There is no doubt in my mind, those of my hon. Friends and those of members of the public who come to listen to our proceedings and who will read about it in Hansard that the Opposition's tactics on the Bill
  62
  have been nothing less than wrecking. They could not have been considered helpful, or in the best interests not only of football but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) said, of those who could not care a toss about the game itself. That is the tragedy of the Opposition's tactics on the Bill.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I am in something of a dilemma. I too rather agree with my hon. Friend that most, if not all, Bills should be timetabled in some way. I came into the House today, therefore, happy to vote for the timetable motion. However, I have had to listen to the debate, and I am beginning to be a bit worried. I think that I shall still vote for the timetable motion, but I would not wish that to be interpreted as full-hearted support for the Bill. I voted for the Bill once out of loyalty and a desire for unity, rather than out of conviction. I am not sure that those emotions and feelings can be stretched too far on Third Reading.
  Mr. Carlisle: If my hon. Friend waits and listens to my words of wisdom, and those of my hon. Friends, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as the words of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Minister, he will remain wholly convinced that the Bill should be guillotined and put into practice as quickly as possible.
  I want to deal with some of the points put, rightly, by the Opposition, which were also brought up in Standing Committee about why the Bill should not be guillotined. At the heart of the Opposition's arguments right the way through have been the natural arguments and emotions surrounding the Taylor report. As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), he and his right hon. and hon. Friends seem to be treading on dangerous ground in pre-empting what Lord Justice Taylor will say. It is unfortunate that Opposition Members seem to assume that Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions will be what they believe and a solution to the problems in football.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) put the point cogently: what happened at Hillsborough will not necessarily be relevant to what has happened throughout the past decade and more in football. It must be taken into account, and that is why I fully support what the Government have done. I was one who urged some postponement of the discussion. The report must be taken into account and it is right that we should have a chance on the Floor of the House, when we return after the summer recess, to consider the interim report which, as most of us who take an interest in these matters will understand, will contain recommendations that could be included in the Bill if it is considered necessary.
  However, it is dangerous for the Opposition to keep quoting what Lord Justice Taylor may say. I hope that he will almost ignore the proceedings on the Floor of the House this evening and the proceedings in Committee in drawing up his conclusions. Hillsborough is important to the Bill, but it is not an essential part of it.
  The other basis to the Opposition's tactics has been reminiscence. Many of us who served on the Committee have enjoyed, indeed revelled in, the reminiscences of the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), both eloquent men. However, I wonder whether those comments are relevant to the modern world, which was seen in what happened in front

  63
  of the pavilion at Lord's on Saturday. I was present and saw a gang of youths, intoxicated—having had a long and enjoyable day at that ground, just as I had and—incensed to such an extent that they started fighting among themselves. I found the comments of Colonel Stephenson, the secretary of the Marylebone cricket club, somewhat interesting when he said—I paraphrase—"We do not usually have trouble, other than at the Benson and Hedges game, because that is the only major game that is played outside the football season." His comments were particularly apt—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was wrong."]
  Of course, those hooligans could well move from football into other sporting events. That is the essence of the Bill. I can never understand the Opposition's total antagonism to the Bill which, uniquely, says to football, "We will try to take the problem away from your game and where we put it is the Government's, society's or whoever else's problem. However, we will try to ensure that those who go to football matches can do so in peace and tranquillity and with the knowledge that their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, nephews and nieces will return home without having been molested, subjected to obscenities and jostled in the crowd on the way to the ground."
  Opposition Members who protest that the Bill infringes civil liberties and takes from individuals the chance to go to a game when they want to do so should remember those who live in and around our football grounds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South has said, those Opposition Members should remember the millions of people who are not interested in whether or not football games take place.
  Those are the reasons for the Bill, and that is why, purely because of the Opposition's tactics, the Government have had to table this timetable motion. As far as we can, all Conservative Members are anxious to see the measure through; hence our relative silence in Standing Committee. Conservative Members have a deep knowledge of the game and wanted to allow the Opposition the chance to advance their arguments.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I refer to the "relative silence" of Conservative Members in Committee. So far, they have made 50 speeches and have intervened, in debates on the five clauses that we have covered so far, 286 times. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) spoke for 50 minutes in one debate, during which the Minister for Sport intervened 17 times. That shows how ludicrous the hon. Gentleman's case is.
  Mr. Carlisle: How extraordinary for the Opposition to accuse Government Back Benchers, who are actively trying to discuss the Bill and to take up the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, of non-silence. That is an extraordinary attitude when so often Opposition Members have accused Conservative Members of saying nothing. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will recall the word "poodles" or "stooges". It is disgraceful that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is now saying that we should not say anything.
  Conservative Members have had their say and have disagreed with everything that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said. Perhaps that is what gripes
  64
  the right hon. Gentleman. What gripes him even further must be the fact that the sense and good reason expressed by Conservative members on the Committee will be cut short by the guillotine motion. Indeed, Conservative Members are sorry that we will not be able to sit for 100, 200 or even 300 hours so that we could go through all the points and put our case to Opposition Members.
  The most important reason why the Bill should proceed as swiftly as possible is that football is running out of time. That is the tragedy. As my hon. Friends have already said, even after the awful events of Hillsborough and the terrible events at Selhurst park and other grounds, we must ask when the so-called "football supporters" will learn that they should go to games to enjoy the game and not to enjoy a punch-up or to disrupt the match for the remainder who are attempting to see the match.
  As I said in Committee and in the House on Second Reading, I was present at the Millwall v. Luton game and never want to see such actions again. However, Opposition Members have adopted the regrettable attitude of saying that the Bill should be thwarted and defeated on the basis that they are happy with the status quo. In nearly 40 hours of debate in Committee, we have heard absolutely no alternative from them. The Opposition are, inevitably, the status quo party. They are happy that things should go on as they are.
  The Opposition have pointed to an increase in crowds. That has come about partly because there have been more games but also because, as one of my hon. Friends has said, this game in particular, and spectator sports in general, have been attracting more people. I refer to rugby league, rugby union and other sports.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Does my hon. Friend remember the occasion when he tried to take the Committee through the night to ensure that the Bill was properly debated but the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said that there were several elderly people among Opposition Members, so they could not go through the night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Well, I am sure that my hon. Friend can remember the occasion when the Opposition moved that the debate be adjourned, but did not have the guts to carry it through.
  Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt—
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way in a moment
  As the Bill proceeded, my hon. Friends seemed to get not a second or a third, but a fourth wind. We really got into the basics and—
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Carlisle: Yes, in a moment.
  We are debating the importance of the Bill. We heard some admirable speeches; our conviction about how right the Government were grew minute by minute.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) was wrong to allege that I said that elderly people would not be willing to go through the night? What I cared about—and expressed a care for—was the fact that the health of hon. Members could be affected. No other legislature in the world would discuss a controversial issue

  65
  such as this, which deserves positive and proper deliberation, at 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The Government moved the closure.
  Mr. Carlisle: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has said. However, in his position as an Opposition Whip, he must ask himself why the first five hours of discussion in Committee were spent on the sittings motion. If he was so anxious to get on with the Bill and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, to get on with part II, in view of the tight timetable and the fact that there was time to return to the Bill after the summer recess, why did he encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends to argue spuriously about the time we should take instead of getting on with the guts of the Bill? If the House is to have any sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument, it must be on the basis of the record. The hon. Gentleman knows how far we got, and he knows the basis of the Opposition's tactics.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has just let the cat out of the bag? He has welcomed the timetable motion, which will ensure that the whole Bill is debated properly and timetabled and that the hon. Gentleman will know what time he can go home to bed every night.
  Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have great respect for Opposition Members, especially senior Opposition Members such as the right hon. Member for Small Heath. who is making his swan song. Obviously, we should like to give him the opportunity to speak in the House with great eloquence and at great length and the opportunity to make his mark with this Bill for the first time in the 30 years that he has been in the House.
  The right hon. Member for Small Heath knows that I have the utmost respect for him. However, he must be aware that he will be soundly defeated, on the last major legislation in which he will be involved. The people of this country and his constituents will say to him in his dotage—hopefully, he will be in another place—that his one mistake was not to support this Bill.
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put it to you again that this is an abuse of the House. We are supposed to be debating the reasons for a guillotine on this Bill. We have heard from Conservative Members four Second Reading debate speeches which were full of jeers, scoffing and personal abuse. We have heard no arguments about the need for a guillotine. This is a very short debate. Can you bring Conservative Members to order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier when I told the House that allocation of time motions lend themselves to fairly wide debates. I have heard nothing that is out of order.
  Mr. Carlisle: I will conclude my remarks, because the House should have the opportunity to hear what Opposition Members have to say. Opposition Members have been an advantage to the Bill; the public will probably want to hear the Opposition's arguments to convince them that the Government are absolutely right.
  66
  It is sad that deliberation on this major and important Bill must be cut short because of the Opposition's tactics. However, the Opposition have this very much in their own court. They plead the interests of the small clubs, but they know in their hearts that when the Bill comes into effect and is successful the small clubs and not the larger clubs will be successful under the scheme. The Opposition plead that the Bill will do nothing to remove hooliganism inside or outside grounds. However, in their hearts they know that something had to be done because of the scourge of hooliganism and violence which has besmirched our national game for so many years.
  The Government are right to say to the House that enough is enough. There is still ample time to discuss Taylor after the summer recess. There is still ample time in Committee, between now and the end of July, to discuss the important measures before us. At least now we will know that those measures and our discussions will be relevant to the Bill and not consist simply of rhetoric and emotion from Opposition Members.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: All hon. Members must want to dissociate themselves from the disgraceful personal attacks made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who revealed one reason why the timetable motion had to be put before the House. His speech was similar to that made by the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), who has also made personal attacks on hon. Members both in the Chamber and in Committee. On one occasion in Committee, the hon. Member for Luton, North used parliamentary privilege to defame someone in the Public Gallery and invent an incident which took place when the Committee had risen.
  Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not invented. It is recorded and evidence can be made available to the hon. Gentleman or the House on the basis of the allegations that I made. What the hon. Gentleman has said is certainly a slur on my character and the comments that I made in Committee.
  Mr. Vaz: This is the most important Bill in the history of football and it deserves a great deal of parliamentary time to enable the Opposition to scrutinise its effects. My right hon. and hon. Friends are right to say that the Bill will have severe effects on civil liberties. Judging by the comments made by the hon. Member for Luton, North, the Government may be considering the possibility of imposing identity cards on cricket supporters and supporters of other sports. That is why it is extremely important that the House should devote a great deal of time to considering the Bill.
  We need more parliamentary time to consider the possible effects of the Bill on hooliganism, although we believe that it will have no such effect. We need more time to consider the costs involved in clubs installing the proposed machinery and we need more time to consider the inconvenience involved for all those who have supported the game loyally for so many years. We need more time to consider the non-registration of casual supporters and the social effects of the Bill on families who want to watch matches. We need more time to debate the

  67
  possibility of criminal offences involving the transfer of cards between holders and non-holders and to consider the various clauses restricting people's liberties.
  As the Bill proceeds through the House and is reported in the national and local press, I—and, I am sure, other hon. Members—receive many letters from football supporters who are keen to know what is happening and to express their opposition to the Government's scheme. Last Saturday I met supporters from Leicester City football club. Mr. Gary Sikle, secretary of the Fox editorial board which circulates a local football newspaper in Leicester, was anxious to raise several points which had been referred to by the Minister and other Members in Committee. Supporters wish to raise those matters, but they can advise members of the Committee properly only if they have time to consider the various clauses as they come before the Committee.
  I have also received a letter from my parish priest, Father Brown, who is a keen football supporter. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Luton, North said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), Father Brown wrote:
  "Denis Howell is the only successful Minister for Sport in recent memory; as no Tory Minister has ever understood the problems involved, or even cared about his job or soccer supporters in general … Instead of improving safety and facilities, the government and the Press are obsessed with the problem of hooliganism. Yet the majority of hooligans are not football supporters … Root out them, and treat the 99·9 per cent. who arc law-abiding, as human beings."
  Father Brown has supported Derby County football club for more than 30 years. He wants an opportunity to put before the Committee his views about the effects of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I am the president of two local football clubs, Hillcroft football club and Thurnby Lodge football club, and I continue to receive representations from both clubs about the practical effects of the Bill.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Bury, South is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General. I cannot understand why he and the Government do not want to wait for the outcome of the Taylor inquiry. As we are dealing with a major piece of legislation which will have severe consequences for football, it must be appropriate to await the outcome of a major inquiry commissioned by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Surely we should hear what the clubs have done in their schemes.
  We have heard a great deal about the scheme at Luton. Two members of Luton Town's football supporters scheme visited me on Saturday. They brought me their membership cards and told me about the various tricks that certain supporters get up to in passing their cards to other people. Those supporters do not even live in Luton, but their cards are passed to other people who gain admission to the ground. That shows the flaws in the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. David Evans: Irrespective of whether there are holes in Luton Town's scheme, does the hon. Gentleman agree that for three consecutive seasons there has been only one arrest inside or outside Luton's ground? We are well aware that supporters of other clubs belong to Luton
  68
  Town's scheme, but it is significant that they all stand together and enjoy the game as supporters used to 20 or 30 years ago without fear of being punched on the nose.
  Mr. Vaz: The supporters who brought me the cards do not like the bureaucratic principles which operate at Luton. They have proved that it is possible to live elsewhere and to misuse cards produced by Luton Town football club. They produced persuasive arguments showing the tremendous increase in crime in the city centre. Such crime may not occur during the games, but it certainly occurs in the city centre. Crime has increased.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: No, the hon. Gentleman had a chance to put his arguments but he chose to spend his time engaging in personal attacks on hon. Members.
  It is important for the Minister to look at the international evidence. I commend to him an article in World Soccer magazine this month which shows the effect that the experimental scheme is having in Holland. It says:
  "The dangers of the card scheme have been touted for some time and predictably made an international impact at what is for all Dutch people the most emotive confrontation of all: the international match against West Germany.
  The experiment has been deemed a failure."
  That is new evidence, but we shall not have the time to discuss it, because the Bill is to be guillotined.
  In addition, I discovered on Friday that the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has overall charge of the Bill, has not visited a football ground or attended a match in the last couple of years. I put down a question to the Secretary of State asking him to list the number of football matches that he had attended. Although the Minister for Sport says that he has attended about a dozen matches and that his hon. Friends in his Department have been to matches, the Secretary of State for the Environment has not even visited one.
  We need to take evidence and to understand what the police are saying. Certainly the police in Leicester are convinced that the scheme will not work. They have managed to fashion a good relationship with the football club. They have bought video equipment, they ensure that supporters are segregated, and they have worked in partnership with those who run Leicester City football club. I wish that they could work more closely with the supporters, and I hope that one of the effects of our deliberations in Committee will be to encourage more clubs to work with supporters.
  We need more time to expose the problems in the Bill, many of which have been accepted by the Minister. I referred to that in an intervention. Clause 2 creates an absolute offence in terms of the entry of supporters to grounds without cards. Because hon. Members on both sides of the Committee raised that issue and the serious nature of the offence to be created, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department decided to look again at the clause. On clause 3, in view of the nature of the Opposition amendments and the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, the Minister decided to look again at some of those amendments. That is why we need additional time.
  We need to debate in great detail the effects of the Bill and we must be able to bring to the attention of the Minister matters of which he may not be aware. His officials may not be aware of them either because they have been told to pursue the Bill with blind dogma. It is also

  69
  necessary to debate matters at great length in order to expose problems. As has been said, clause 5 creates two new offences, one of them a very serious offence of supplying false information. Another clause gives enormous power to the Football Membership Authority in terms of its dealings with private citizens. We need to debate that at great length to show why it will be a major erosion of civil liberties.
  I am not clear from the arguments of the Leader of the House as to why we have to proceed with such haste. No evidence was adduced by the Leader of the House or by the Minister in Committee to show why we should move so quickly. It is clear that the Government have something to hide and have to move quickly, that they are unaware of the consequences of the Bill or—this is the most likely explanation—they do not care at all about the future of the game. The Opposition care about the future of football. We know that the scheme has disastrous implications for the game, and we urge that more time should be given to discuss these serious and very important matters.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Steve Norris: I have listened to the entire debate, including the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and at this stage I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I shall vote for the timetable motion.
  In Committee I heard the clearest possible evidence from the Opposition that they are not interested in making progress on the Bill and never have been. A straightforward example of that is that they spent about five hours debating the sittings motion. As hon. Members will know, but as those who read Hansard may not, the sittings motion is merely to decide when and for how long a Committee will sit. It is usually decided that a Committee will sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays and it may sit mornings and afternoons. If both sides are prepared to get on with the business, the motion should detain the Committee for about 45 seconds. In this case it took longer because Opposition Members made a series of spurious points and did so with considerable repetition. That meant that we spent hour after hour simply debating whether to sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays. In view of that, it is beyond reason to imagine that the Opposition have taken a constructive attitude to the Bill.
  The Opposition are not the slightest bit interested in making progress. That is because they and we have fundamentally opposed views about the Bill. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), spoke about us losing the argument. He cannot have read his Committee Hansard very carefully, because it shows that the argument was lost by hon. Gentlemen—hon. Members—opposite. If I was their football manager I would say that I was as sick as a parrot because they have consistently managed to fumble the ball, and more often than not they kicked it into the back of their own net. Their fundamental assertion—we heard it again today—is that they do not think that football and violence are particularly linked. I could not believe my ears when I heard them say again today that there is violence in other games such as rugby, tiddleywinks and croquet. They must be blind and deaf.
  When the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was speaking, somebody was heard to ask where he had been. He has been the leader of the Labour party, but
  70
  we all know that that is hardly a position from which one is likely to get a realistic view of the world. None the less, one would have assumed that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have seen enough of the sickening scenes on television to know what every man, woman and child knows: that there is an inextricable and sickening link between violence and football. The reasons for that are many and varied and there is no point in yet another sociological lecture such as those that we had for hour upon hour from the Gentlemen opposite. The link exists, and it is high time that something was done about it.
  I agree on one matter with the Opposition. Hon. Members on both sides have tended to wring their hands rather too much and say, "Oh, isn't it awful? It is very difficult and has all sorts of sociological reasons which are somehow beyond our control and which we cannot do anything about." At last we have a Government who have said that they are sickened by what they have seen.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) spoke about the Crystal Palace game. I was at West Ham that week and, as hon. Members will know, at each Football League ground there was supposed to be a minute's silence for the Hillsborough victims. At that match between Millwall and West Ham, people could not keep quiet for even 60 seconds. They could not restrain themselves from shouting abuse at each other or from catcalling and arm waving in the hostile way that they do. It was revolting. I do not want to know about the history of this great and glorious working-class game of ours; I want to know what we must do to eradicate that sort of behaviour.
  First, we have to take the issue seriously. The Government are to be commended for being the first to be prepared to put together a Bill and to say, "We shall do something about it."
  Ms. Kate Hoey: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he agreed with absolutely everything I said in Committee, because he continually refers to hon. Gentlemen in Committee. Does that mean that he agrees that to link women in any way with football hooliganism or violence in or outside football grounds is disgraceful and that he is sorry that the Government and Conservative Members will not accept our amendment, which would exclude women from having to have identity cards?
  Mr. Norris: I thought that I had corrected myself when, referring to the Committee's composition, I talked about hon. Gentlemen. It would have been remiss of us all not to recognise the constructive role that the hon. Lady has played in the Committee's deliberations, although she has been somewhat at odds with some of her more experienced colleagues.
  The point that the hon. Lady raised is an important principle. The Bill, rightly or wrongly, is an enabling Bill. It creates a Football Membership Authority, which is charged with producing the details of the scheme. It is entirely consistent with that that we do not predetermine what the FMA will produce. We should allow it to consider all the issues and as much evidence as it can, and to bring forward a scheme which will tackle the problem in the round.
  It is self-evident that neither women nor pensioners are particularly dangerous groups when it comes to football attendance. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister

  71
  would be urged by me and by any sensible person to tell the FMA that, when it considers the issue, he will be sympathetic to that point of view. Although it is perfectly reasonable and straightforward to take that point of view, it is another matter to start to write the detail of the scheme, as Opposition Members are trying to do, before the FMA has had a chance to consider the issue. That is what seems to me to be so irredeemably stupid.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The plain fact is that the exemptions for disabled persons and for children accompanied by adults were written into the Bill in the other place. The attempt there to get exemptions for women and pensioners was voted down at the instigation of the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is detail."] It is not a detail that when Parliament seeks to put into the Bill the same exemptions as the Government have already allowed, they are beaten down.
  Mr. Norris: I will not repeat myself, as others want to speak. This is a straightforward enabling Bill. It creates a Football Membership Authority which is charged with the preparation of a scheme and with presenting it to the Secretary of State. If one accepts that general principle—the scheme cannot come fast enough for me—it is most illogical to bind the hands of the FMA by laying down conditions.
  It is perfectly reasonable to tell the FMA, "By all means consider the evidence that members of the Committee have adduced. By all means integrate it into the scheme and then present the scheme to the Secretary of State for him to consider and, we hope, approve".
  Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition, who want to exclude pensioners and women, may change their tune when they see the benefits that may accrue from holding such a card?
  Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend will know that I made precisely that point in Committee. The need to possess a membership card is presented as an appalling affront to civil liberties, and it is forgotten that the greatest loss of civil liberties is that occasioned to the tens of thousands of people who live around football grounds and whose lives are made an absolute misery on Saturday afternoons. Opposition Members seem to regard it as a mark of Cain to hold a card when the principle of most clubs of which one wants to be a member is that one will carry the card with pride. Setting aside all that, we have the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) in operating a scheme that is eminently successful in marketing terms—he has said that 32 companies are involved in it.
  I have no doubt that the House will ultimately divide on this simple issue. We have had delay and obfuscation from Opposition Members, and no doubt that will continue. It is ironic that, during consideration of the Bill, Opposition Members have covered themselves in the most appalling tactical confusion. When, in response to their opinion that there was not enough time to debate the Bill, we said, "Fine, in that case we will sit Wednesdays as well," they said, "Oh no, please don't let us do that." When we said, "Please don't let us stop now, it is only 1 o'clock in the morning and after all you should not have taken this job if you could not take a joke and go through the night,"
  72
  Opposition Members said that they might get sick and had elderly Members to consider. I appreciate the point, but it is the quintessence of everything that we have known about the Opposition for the past 10 years—when push comes to shove, they have no bottle.
  There are Opposition Members who have a vision of the game of football, which we have heard in colourful detail. I will not repeat them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I promise no ferret or whippet stories. Some of us find that vision of the game of football amusing, if only because it is so rose-tinted that it completely ignores what, sadly, the game has become.
  One's attitude to the Bill is dictated by one overriding consideration—
  Mr. Wareing: No. 10.
  Mr. Norris: There will be members who refuse, for whatever anarchic and quixotic reason, to have these cards and who will therefore deny a football club the opportunity to admit them and to be profitable as a result, and then there will be the dozens of people who will go along when the game is cleaned up and it is safe for women, children and families to go and watch. Those hundreds of thousands of potential supporters who are prepared to go to Luton because of the experience they have there, but who are not prepared to go to many other grounds in all four divisions of the football league, are the people at whom the Bill is aimed.
  I am happy that the Bill that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has so skilfully piloted through Committee so far should be on the statute book at the earliest possible moment.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The last 10 minutes of folly from the Conservative Benches have been a testament to the attitude taken by the Tory party, with the honourable exception of the rebels, to a Bill which affects millions of people in their pursuit of a decent national sport.
  Let us get one or two facts straight. We did not debate the sittings motion for five hours. We debated it, as is the rule in the House it is almost a convention—for two and a half hours on the morning it was presented. When, in indecent haste, only two sittings later, the Government brought forward another sittings motion, proposing that we should meet on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, we debated that for only about five minutes.
  This is called a guillotine motion, but in reality, the Bill has been guillotined from the outset. Our argument with the Government has been over the fact that they have been absolutely rigid about the Bill being out of Committee by 27 July. Why? Because the woman in 10 Downing street has decided. That all-wise all-powerful and all-knowledgeable Prime Minister, who never makes a mistake, must be obeyed. The date that the Government set was 27 July.
  Our argument was that there was every reason in the world to extend that into the overflow Session in October, because by that time we may have—we cannot be certain—Lord Justice Taylor's interim report. I have asked the Leader of the House whether the Government would still go ahead with the Bill in October if Lord Justice Taylor showed that he was opposed to it or suggested that there might be a fault in the Bill—perhaps even a teeny-weeny

  73
  mistake on the part of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House replied that the Bill would go ahead, but he used the word "implemented".
  If in the interim report in October there is a suggestion by Lord Justice Taylor that harm could be done and that it would not be in the interests of public safety to implement the Bill, when the Bill reaches the statute hook—unfortunately, the Government have the majority to enable them to get it there—will the Minister for Sport refuse to implement it? The whole world will be waiting for the answer. I say "the world", because in Committee on Thursday morning we were told that the scheme would be worldwide. We asked what would happen if an American tourist, when given the choice on a Saturday afternoon between the theatre, a cinema or a football match, chose to go to a football match. The Minister's answer was that he could not go unless he had had his photograph taken and his membership application had gone through the computer.
  We then asked the Minister what would happen if English clubs get back into Europe—as we all hope they will, except, perhaps, the Minister, who has done all he can to stop them—and, for example, Arsenal is drawn at home against Ajax of Amsterdam and 10,000 Dutchmen come over to see the game. The answer was that every one of those 10,000 Dutchmen will have to fill in membership forms and have their photographs taken before they can watch the match.
  Mr. David Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, because there is not time.
  When the Minister was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) whether the scheme would apply Communitywide, he said that it would apply worldwide. We can imagine the position of someone leaving, for example, the Soviet Union to visit the United Kingdom. When he applies for a visa, he will have to ensure that he fills in an application for a football club membership card just in case he should decide, when in London to see Chelsea or Tottenham play. Everyone in the country, with the exception of the Prime Minister, knows that that is nonsense.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asked us to imagine the situation at Wembley when the half of the fans who support England must have identity cards, but the half who support Scotland do not. However, suppose a Scotland fan lives in Manchester and travels to Wembley with his English friend, who is also from Manchester. When he gets to Wembley stadium, will he go into the Scottish end of the ground? Is the Scottish fan who comes from Manchester to be dealt with in a different way from the Scottish fan who supports Manchester United? There are a hundred and one different facets to the Bill. They all lead to one ludicrous conclusion. The Government have not done their homework, and they are acting on a whim—the whim of one woman, who knows as much about football as, these days, she appears to know about the British economy.
  The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is continually telling us how crowd numbers are down. They may he down at Luton—that is what happens when one bans away supporters—but that is not true elsewhere. Clubs up and down the country are making a real attempt
  74
  to improve attendances, with such things as closed circuit television, advantages to season ticket holders and family enclosure tickets. Everton football club, for example, can account for 24,000 people, which is three times the average gate at Luton Town—and that is before the season starts. That number represents the season tickets and other facilities that have been taken up by potential supporters. The picture is different from the one painted by the Government.
  During the 1987–88 season, 99·996 per cent. of people attending football matches were not arrested. Of course, we do not know from the Government what percentage of that small percentage who were arrested were actually convicted.
  Part II of the Bill, which needs to be properly debated, is at fault. When the Minister talks about the use of the Bill to deal with those convicted of offences abroad when they follow the England soccer team, we should ask the Minister how many people were convicted in, for example, West Germany. The answer would be none; it was a nil return. Even if the measure had applied last year. it would not have applied to any person attending football matches in West Germany.
  The argument that England is unique or has the worst problem is wrong. One only has to look at the position elsewhere. The security officer of the Dutch Football Association almost had his home bombed. In October 1987, there were riots at the Olympic stadium in Athens. Police were called in and tear gas was used. In December 1988, at Tilburg in Holland, 82 Ajax supporters were arrested and one was found to be in possession of a home-made fragmentation grenade. At the Den Haag match at that time, three people were injured in an explosion near the ground. In Enschede in Holland, there were 30 arrests when Feyenoord lost 6:1. In March 1987, a match between Den Haag and Ajax was abandoned at half-time because of crowd trouble. We tend to take all the stick, as we did for the Heysel stadium incident Italians were involved in that incident, but not one Italian—some of them were flaunting Fascist banners—has faced the same consequences as Liverpool supporters.
  It is a scandal that this country's name has been dragged through the gutter because of the way in which false criticism is aimed at people in this country because they invade football pitches. The only pitch that I saw invaded last year was the one at Seoul in South Korea, where the Minister for Sport could not contain himself when the England hockey team won a trophy. Perhaps he will understand the passion which is aroused in people with real red blood in their veins when they see our national sport being played. That is the reason for the excitement and why very often there is an invasion of the pitch. Who has heard of trouble when the Liverpool and Everton teams play? Why should the Liverpool and Everton fans be called upon to have identity cards when, at the last local Derby match at Anfield last December, there were only three arrests, and those were all outside the ground—two for attempting to break into cars and one for ticket touting? Of course, we know that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) loves ticket touts, so they are not so important as real football fans.
  There can be no doubt that there will be a breach of civil liberties. Conservative Members should ask themselves what would happen if they had to have identity cards to get into a cinema, a theatre or a race course. It would be an absolute scandal. That is what we are coming to as a

  75
  result of the Government's antics. It is, however, one more nail in the coffin of a Government whose ignorance is outstripped only by their arrogance.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: There are many compelling reasons for opposing the guillotine motion, and contempt for Parliament and its procedures is one of them. Throughout the Bill's passage in another place, on Second Reading and in Committee, the views or parliamentarians have been shown to be of no account. As Lord Hailsham said, that is one of the first proofs of an elective dictatorship.
  The Bill was conceived in the depths of the Prime Minister's prejudices, which are considerable, and it has been brought to us by her political pageboy. Throughout the proceedings, he has dutifully carried out the bidding of his mistress.
  Issue after issue has been properly raised, but they have been met not with rational argument, but with the brute force of a massive parliamentary majority. In Committee, although we have been told that there will be certain exemptions to the scheme, we have also been told—my intervention today reaffirmed it—that everyone within the European Community and in the rest of the world must register as a result of the Bill; otherwise, they will be under threat of being judged criminals for going to a football match here. No other civilised country in the world has adopted such a lunatic approach to such problems.
  The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—he stirs now and again—told us that the Government had picked out this problem and decided to deal with it. They have, of course, because they told us that they would get rid of violence in society. They were elected in 1979 to get rid of violence in society, but it is worse now than it has ever been; the incidence of violence has increased every year. The Bill has nothing to do with football; it has everything to do with camouflaging the Government's failure to deal with that violence.
  In Committee, the Government had sufficient logic to accept that accompanied children and the disabled should be exempt from the scheme. We have attempted to extend that exemption to women and pensioners. We had a song-and-dance act and we were told that women cannot be exempted because 40 male supporters might go to an Oxfam shop to buy women's clothes. What a basis for the great constitutional law of this country. Our exemption has been rejected because some people might turn up at an Oxfam shop to buy women's clothes. In Committee that argument has become known as the "doctrine of drag".
  No one has ever heard of one pensioner taking out his pension book and hitting another pensioner with it at any football match in this country, but we have been told that pensioners cannot be exempted. There is no other entertainment, be it theatre, concerts, sport or the cinema, that does not make special arrangements for pensioners. It is perfectly proper to extend the concept of family-member enclosures to take account of the other desirable classes of people. The Government have turned that down. At one stroke, they have managed to insult 26 million women and 10·5 million pensioners.
  The Government are not attacking the hooligan or the criminal. This is the only time in history that legislation
  76
  will be enacted in which the innocent will be singled out. The Government intend to take away their civil liberties and to make impositions on their rights. That is absolutely disgraceful.
  Morning, afternoon and night, the Government just churn it on in Committee. We have been told that we have been working morning, noon and night, and Committee members have become hallowed because of the hours that have been clocked up. In other words, the Government are not interested in the argument or in civil liberties: they are only interested in clocking up the hours. They have clocked up the hours to justify the guillotine motion. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and it is an absolute disgrace.
  Given the Government's tremendous speed, it is interesting to look at the history of the case. The Leader of the House has told us that the Bill arose from the Popplewell report. The interim Popplewell report was issued four years ago and the final report was issued three and a half years ago. If the problems are such that they require desperate legislation, what on earth have the Government done in the four years since Popplewell? Why did they not introduce this Bill earlier? If the Government are right about the need for the Bill, they are guilty of criminal negligence because they allowed four years to go by before doing anything about the problem. Now the Government are trying to rush the Bill through in about four days, and that is ridiculous.
  The Minister has already said that everyone in the world must register if they wish to attend a football match here. That is a classic case to consider. In other words, the 352 million people who make up the EC must register. Those people have rights, however, and if the Bill discriminated against them, as well it might, it could be unlawful under European law. We have had no opportunity to consider that possibility, but it is an important matter. Previously, we were told that overseas visitors would be allowed to produce their passports at the turnstile. The Minister has abandoned that; now, he tells us that they must all register.
  We are producing a Bill that will last for about 50 years. What will happen if, as we all hope, English clubs get back into Europe? Imagine that Anderlecht or Real Madrid is drawn away to play at Liverpool or Everton. Such a match would take place three weeks after the draw and those clubs might well want to bring 10,000 supporters with them. There is no way that any club secretary in this country could register, photograph, computerise and process 10,000 European visitors in the space of three weeks. That proposition is a prescription for another disaster. When that happens, it will be on the head of the Minister and his friends.
  During our discussions, the Government have said that the scheme is not negotiable. They have said that they know it all, and that they know best. They have said that they know better than the police, football supporters, the Opposition and everyone else. Therefore, the next disaster or the next public order disturbance will be the responsibility of those who know it all. Let there be no doubt about that; future problems have been accepted by the Government and their supporters.
  Today we have heard a lot about Lord Justice Taylor. We have been told that we should leave it all to the FMA. The proposition that Parliament should allow any outside body to enact legislation that affects the civil liberties and the public safety of our people is absolutely monstrous. It

  77
  is quite scandalous that we should allow that. The Opposition are certainly not prepared to do that. We are not prepared to say of the Football Membership Authority, even were it the repository of all wisdom—which even Conservative Members doubt—that Parliament has the right to pass legislative powers to such an outside body, over which it has no control. That is what Ministers are doing.
  Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry was set up after the death of 96 people and the serious injury to several hundred others at Hillsborough. He has had the most harrowing experience of listening to that terrible evidence, and he now has to decide on the matters and make recommendations. Any intelligent parliamentarian would wish to take account of his findings and what he had to say.
  Let us consider the list of issues to be considered. I told the Committee that I had identified 16 issues that Lord Justice Taylor—[Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) thinks that this is an opportunity for yet another of his cheap gibes.
  I have been told by some of my police friends that I was 50 per cent. out, and that 31 or 32 issues had been raised. Let the House think for a moment about the seriousness of these issues, because it is now deciding to pass this Bill without considering them. The list includes the following: crowd control outside the game and the surges of masses of people in a short period; how one controls the entry of 30,000 or more people at the turnstile; who is in charge of a football match—the police officer on duty or the football authority promoting the match; whether the police need more powers.
  The list includes the issue of the effect of alcoholic consumption in circumstances such as those at Hillsborough, the fences round the field and how many people were killed at the fences at Hillsborough because they could not escape on to the pitch. If the scheme becomes reality, we must consider the extra time needed to process the card at the turnstile.
  In Committee the Minister told us that the additional time needed to process one of these cards was 0·06 of a second per person. Such ludicrous futility! I timed myself using the smart card which the Minister favoured. I came up to the machine, put the card down, waited for the light to shine, and picked up the card. That process took 20 seconds. If 20 seconds were added to the passage of every one of the thousand people standing in the queue, the additional time needed for the queue to pass through the turnstile would be about half an hour, which would add to the aggravation. We want to hear about that issue.
  Other issues which should be considered include the video and loudspeaker systems and the total lack of co-ordination of the emergency services at Hillsborough. All these matters are of the greatest importance and require the judgment of Solomon. We are not even to be allowed to know the judgment of Lord Justice Taylor. That is the proposition which the Government put before us
  We are proceeding with this Bill in a vacuum. These matters have been raised and Lord Justice Taylor finished hearing evidence only last Friday. We are told that we must proceed, the Government know best, and members of the Football Membership Authority—made up of football administrators who have been castigated by the
  78
  Government and in Committee—are the very people to be charged with carrying out the football membership scheme. We are not prepared to accept that.
  My hon. Friends who do not sit on the Committee, and even some who do, have not yet had the opportunity to consider amendment No. 50, which, I think, is the next to come up in Committee. The amendment proposes that the football membership scheme must include such provision
  "in relation to the admission of spectators to the premises, as the Secretary of State may specify in writing".
  This Secretary of State—
  Mr. Ashton: He might not be here tomorrow.
  Mr. Howell: That may be true.
  This Secretary of State has never been to a football match in his life, but is placing powers in the Bill so that he and his successors, without coming back to the House or Committee, can lay down the law about what has to be written into this scheme and this Bill.
  The guillotine motion provides us with about another three or three and a half days of sitting twice a day in Committee. That means only one day for the scheme and licensing system, one day for the all-seater stadium—a subject which we have not yet even reached—and public safety, one day for part II of the Bill, which deals with offenders from overseas—which we have not discussed yet and which was hardly discussed in another place—and half a day for the rest of the business.
  In the light of Hillsborough and the criminality which is called hooliganism, Parliament has one overriding duty in this matter, and that is to get the Bill right this time. By this guillotine motion, Her Majesty's Government deny that obligation to get it right. This is a high-risk policy of great irresponsibility, and we shall vote against it tonight.
  7.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): We have heard a succession of predictable speeches from Opposition Members. Parties favour timetable motions in appropriate cases when they are in power because they need them to get their business through. But, of course, they oppose them when in opposition. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the Labour party never hesitated to introduce timetable motions during those far-off days when it was in office.
  There is no case for all the anger which we have witnessed about this motion. It is essential that we see the Bill on the statute book this Session—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We must take steps now to tackle the continuing problem of hooliganism and violence which is ruining football—that is why. We must enable genuine supporters to go to game in safety and return home in safety—that is why. I do not want to be for ever talking about the need for 5,000 police officers on football duties every Saturday. We want to see the day when those living and working in the vicinity of the football ground no longer dread match days. In response to the interventions of Opposition Members, those are good reasons.
  By enacting the legislation this Session we can ensure that the framework for a national membership scheme, and the means of preventing convicted hooligans from travelling to matches abroad, are in place. We can then move on rapidly with the scheme, if Parliament agrees that we should do so in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's report on the Hillsborough disaster. If the Bill is to reach the

  79
  statute book this Session, we need to complete the Committee stage far faster than we will if we continue with our present progress. This timetable motion will enable us to do so and to proceed with the Bill in an orderly and sensible fashion.
  We have heard much, just as we did on Second Reading and in Committee, about how wrong it would be to anticipate Lord Justice Taylor. I entirely agree. It would be wrong for me to speculate on the timing or the content of his report. His is an independent inquiry and his report is a matter for him. If he should comment on the national membership scheme, it is right that Parliament should decide whether to proceed with the scheme, in the light of his comments. The amendments that we made to the Bill in another place will provide Parliament with the opportunity to make that decision at the appropriate time—after we have seen his final report. Indeed, Parliament will have two such opportunities; the first before the Football Membership Authority is appointed and the second after the detailed technical scheme has been submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.
  Much has been made of why we thought it important for the football authorities to be involved in the preparation of the scheme and appointed as a central part of the Football Membership Authority. We regard that as an important way forward. It is welcomed by the football authorities, which wrote to the Secretary of State requesting first refusal. It was right and proper in the proceedings of the Committee that hon. Members on both sides should point out that it may benefit the running of the scheme and the Football Membership Authority if it is strengthened by outsiders and possibly even by an independent chairman.
  We agree with this proposal, which is why amendments have been tabled in Committee. But there is no case for delaying the Bill until we have Lord Justice Taylor's report. Part I provided a framework for the national membership scheme; it does not introduce the scheme. If we have that framework on the statute book and Parliament decides to proceed with the scheme when it has seen what Lord Justice Taylor has to say, we can have the scheme in place during the season that begins in August 1990.
  If we were to delay, we would throw away the progress that we have made this Session. We might have a new Act of Parliament by August 1990, but it is unlikely that the scheme would be in place for another year after that.
  Mr. Lester: If Lord Justice Taylor's report in any way questions the framework that we are rushing through the House, how will the Government react?
  Mr. Moynihan: As I have told my hon. Friend on many occasions, rather than pontificate about hypothetical circumstances it is right and proper that the House should consider in detail what Lord Justice Taylor says. In that way it will be able to make a proper judgment of the arguments on which he reached his conclusions. To hypothesise about what he might say, when we have provided in the Bill that Parliament should decide on the merits of what he says before we ask for a Football Membership Authority to be established and to start work—let alone before we have a scheme to consider—cannot be right. So my hon. Friend's question is redundant.
  Mr. George Howarth: Apart from the technical defects in the Minister's argument, does he realise that the failure to wait for the conclusions of the Taylor report will show the Government to be acting with stunning insensitivity, particularly on Merseyside?
  Mr. Moynihan: I reject that view on the following grounds. It was because of the need to respond sensitively that the progress of the Bill was delayed. It was because of the same need that we proposed amendments in their Lordships' House to take full account of what Lord Justice Taylor states. It was because of that need that we now have a different Bill from the one that we had before Hillsborough. We shall have the opportunity when the full Taylor report is before the House to consider in detail whether we should establish a Football Membership Authority and set up a scheme—
  Mr. Dobson: If, as the hon. Gentleman claims, the Government amended the Bill in the Lords so that safety considerations could be dealt with, why was it necessary for the Government to pass an instruction to the Committee to enable it to consider safety? Without it, safety would have been out of order.
  Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman surprises me. When we were just discussing the national membership scheme—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) keeps saying, "No, no, no." He should listen to the point that I am making and learn that there is a clear distinction in the Bill between proposals for a national membership scheme and the separate and important measures on safety.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our response to his suggestion that the Committee should be instructed to consider matters related to safety. If he carefully considers the amendments tabled last week he will find that they are enabling amendments to allow the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to take account of any measures on safety that Lord Justice Taylor may recommend and with which the House agrees. The House will have the chance to consider whether it wants to use the enabling framework on safety and on the anti-hooligan measures—the national membership scheme—to implement recommendations. That must be the right way to proceed.
  This way combines two important elements: first, the Government's deep desire to rid football of the hooligan element and to make sure that appropriate action is taken against the hooligans who have besmirched our national game; secondly, it ensures that we are capable of responding swiftly to the Taylor recommendations, whether on safety or on hooliganism, with which the House and their Lordships agree.
  During the Committee's first two sittings Opposition Members spent most of their time on the same subject on which they had laboured on Second Reading—the timing of the Bill in relation to Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. That is why I have spoken at length on this point. The Committee has now sat for 37 hours and reached clause 5. Its first sitting was on Tuesday 4 July, and it was entirely devoted to debating the sittings motion for two and a half hours. Two hours of the second sitting were taken up with the order of consideration, during which I made the only speech from the Government side. There were four and a half hours of

  81
  debate before even the first amendment was reached. When we finally reached it, we heard a remarkable series of interventions by Opposition Members.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made the same point that supporters of a club such as Tranmere might also want to attend matches in which Liverpool and Everton were playing—not once or twice, but four times. I hope that all Opposition Members realise that all that is required to visit any of the 92 grounds is one card.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) regaled the Committee at length with the history of his schooling, not once but twice. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), speaking to an amendment to restrict the scheme to divisions 1 and 2, spoke of the lack of a football club in Croydon, of the closure of Sheffield's nightclubs, of lager louts at the Notting Hill carnival, Trafalgar square and the coast, and of his experiences of dodging rail fares during national service.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) today displayed a staggering ignorance of the contents of the Bill and of the measures that the Government have already taken. He said that we had done nothing in the past four years, studiously ignoring the introduction of closed-circuit television—
  Mr. Denis Howell rose—
  Mr. Moynihan:—and the important agreement between the FA, the League and the Government. It was written into the agreement reached in February 1987 and which we have had to push and push and push
  Mr. Howell rose—
  Mr. Moynihan:—to ensure that football clubs up and down the country introduce it. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that we had to sit down—
  Mr. Howell rose—
  Mr. Moynihan: I have one minute left. The hon. Gentleman should consider the work done on closed-circuit television and on police segregation at the instigation of this Government. There is also better police co-ordination.
  Mr. Howell rose—
  Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman is blind to the steps that have been taken, and it is a great shame that he and his hon. Friends in Committee have not begun to address the issues that are relevant to the future of football. It is appalling that he has underestimated the vital work that is needed.
  Question put
  The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 221.

  Division No. 299]

  [7.28 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkins, Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Allason, Rupert

  Baldry, Tony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amos, Alan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Ashby, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  82

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorst, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Gow, Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ground, Patrick

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, William

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hannam, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butterfill, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heddle, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Hind, Kenneth

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David

  Irvine, Michael

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

  Irving, Charles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Key, Robert

  Evennett, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fallon, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Farr, Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knowles, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lang, Ian

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lightbown, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Lilley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gale, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  McCrindle, Robert

  83

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Maclean, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Mans, Keith

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maples, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marlow, Tony

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Speed, Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  Mellor, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Steen, Anthony

  Mills, Iain

  Stern, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stokes, Sir John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Sumberg, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mudd, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thorne, Neil

  Neubert, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tracey, Richard

  Norris, Steve

  Trippier, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Trotter, Neville

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Paice, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walden, George

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waller, Gary

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Portillo, Michael

  Ward, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Price, Sir David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Raffan, Keith

  Wells, Bowen

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redwood, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Renton, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Rost, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowe, Andrew

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Ryder, Richard

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Allen, Graham

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Alton, David

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  84

  Ashton, Joe

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Blair, Tony

  Home Robertson, John

  Blunkett, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Boateng, Paul

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Bradley, Keith

  Howells, Geraint

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Buckley, George J.

  Illsley, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Ingram, Adam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cartwright, John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lambie, David

  Clay, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Clelland, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Litherland, Robert

  Cohen, Harry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Coleman, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAllion, John

  Cousins, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Crowther, Stan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cryer, Bob

  McFall, John

  Cummings, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKelvey, William

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McLeish, Henry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maclennan, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  McNamara, Kevin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dewar, Donald

  Marek, Dr John

  Dixon, Don

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dobson, Frank

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Doran, Frank

  Martlew, Eric

  Douglas, Dick

  Maxton, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Meacher, Michael

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Michael, Alun

  Eadie, Alexander

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fisher, Mark

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flannery, Martin

  Morley, Elliott

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Nellist. Dave

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galloway, George

  O'Brien, William

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Patchett, Terry

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Pendry, Tom

  Gordon, Mildred

  Pike, Peter L.

  Gould, Bryan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Graham, Thomas

  Prescott, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  85

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Radice, Giles

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Randall, Stuart

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Redmond, Martin

  Stott, Roger

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Straw, Jack

  Richardson, Jo

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Robertson, George

  Turner, Dennis

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Vaz, Keith

  Rogers, Allan

  Wallace, James

  Rooker, Jeff

  Walley, Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilson, Brian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Winnick, David

  Short, Clare

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wray, Jimmy

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

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Committee
  1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 27th July 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before that day.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and on that day—

  (a) the proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and

  (b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a

  87
  Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplememting the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Football Spectators Bill [Lords];
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day
  Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords]
    Clause 1

      GENERAL. PROHIBITION
      7.43 pm
      Mr. Donald Anderson: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 12 at end insert
      ', and nationals and bodies incorporated under the laws of any colony, dependent territory or overseas territory for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 13 leave out subsection (3).
      No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out from 'below' to 'State' in line 15.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 17 leave out 'the Crown or another Contracting State'.
      No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25.
      Mr. Anderson: The nature of the problem is clear and was discussed in Committee. The ecosystem in the Antarctic is a unique and fragile system that needs to be protected. However, there is a danger, if minerals are to be researched, prospected and exploited, that international and multinational companies will take advantage of every possible loophole, including changing their place of registration. If the dependent territories of the United Kingdom are granted rights in the Bill, they should have corresponding and consequential obligations.
      We proposed a similar amendment in Committee, when the Government replied that it was possible to extend coverage of the obligations to the dependent territories by the Order in Council procedure, and it was their intention so to do. They argued that this procedure was adopted by convention, and that it was only a matter of courtesy to those territories that it was adopted.
      However, it is possible to extend jurisdiction directly to any territory for which we are responsible, and there are a number of precedents for doing it that way rather than by an Order in Council. We believe that this is a matter of some urgency, which demands a commitment from the Government. If there were to be an accident, there would be a major liability on us. As to the courtesies, it was possible for the Government, since the convention was signed in Wellington in June of last year, to have consulted each of the relevant territories, explained the importance of the matter and informed them that on this occasion, because of the special factors involved, it was their intention to apply the convention directly to the territories rather than by the Order in Council procedure.
      I hope that the Minister will recognise the dangers that could arise. He and I remember, during the Iran-Iraq war, how easy it was, when ships were under threat in the strait of Hormuz, for them to take on a British dependent territory registration so as to come under the protection of the Armilla patrol. That illustrates how easily people can flow from one area to another when it suits their

      89
      commercial interests. The danger is there. We hope that the Government will see that our amendments are a proper safeguard against that danger, and will accept them.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, this matter was debated at some length in Committee. As I said then, the amendments would breach the constitutional convention by which, when we extend international obligations to our dependent territories, we consult them about how this might best be done, rather than instruct them. I said that it was rather curious to find Labour Members arguing for what one might call the imperialist position.
      Mr. Anderson: There is nothing wrong with that.
      Mr. Eggar: I shall store that one up for future use.
      I assure the House that there will be no loophole. I can give a categorical assurance that nationals and bodies incorporated under the laws of any British colony will be obliged to comply with the Bill and with the convention.
      Mr. Anderson: Can the Minister give any timetable or target date by which he hopes that the Bill will be extended to all dependent territories?
      Mr. Eggar: We shall seek to proceed in a timely manner. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill will be extended by the time that the convention comes into force.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 2

      EXCEPTION FOR PROSPECTING ACTIVITIO
      Mr. Anderson: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 31, after 'activities', insert
      'means activities for the purposes of further scientific investigation which do not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 23, in page 3, line 16, clause 3, after 'damage', insert
      to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems'.
      No. 34, in page 4, line 28, clause 7, at end add
      'and especially if there is any risk of environmental damage'.
      No. 36, in page 4, line 36, clause 8, at end add
      'among whom shall be individuals nominated by either or both national or international organisations which have standing in the field of environmental protection.'
      Mr. Anderson: The lead amendment, No. 14, attempts narrowly to redefine "prospecting". The House will recall that the essence of the Bill is to allow only prospecting and to set out a new series of procedures before any country or licensee can proceed to the next stages of development and exploitation of any mineral resources that may be found. We are seeking to redefine prospecting and to distinguish it from existing scientific research. The key word is "further". We seek to limit prospecting to scientific investigations. Thus, prospectors would be able to undertake only activities that have a sound and purely scientific basis and are of a nature that is not damaging to the Antarctic environment.
      "Damage" is to be interpreted according to the convention, and is defined in article 1(15) of the convention:
      90
      "'Damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems' means any impact on the living or non-living components of that environment or those ecosystems, including harm to atmospheric, marine or terrestrial life beyond, that which is negligible or which has been assessed and judged to be acceptable pursuant to this Convention."
      We accept that, even under the limits of current scientific investigations, there can be grey areas. We are not always certain exactly who pays for the scientific investigations and what their motives are in so paying. We have discussed definitions in Committee, however, and we have made it clear that there should be definitions of what is permitted and what is prohibited. In our judgment, the Bill should be self-contained. Any definition should arise from the convention and not from definitions in other domestic legislation in the United Kingdom.
      Amendment No. 23 widens the definition of damage to include damage to the environment and ecosystems. We seek to move away from the purely commercial definition of damage, such as loss of profits, in this peculiarly sensitive area.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are the Government in a position to give the House any scientific advice on this issue? Is it their view that the ecosystem will necessarily be damaged in all circumstances if minerals are found? As I understand it, there has been mining at Spitzbergen for decades without great effect on the ecosystem there. I shall be interested to know the facts that are available to the Minister.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall take a little longer than my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), partly because two of the amendments, Nos. 34 and 36, stand in my name. I tabled those amendments and others because I share the view expressed by Greenpeace, that the Bill is fatally flawed. I deeply regret that the British position is not the one that has been adopted by France and Australia. I am delighted that France and Australia have taken what I believe is the only independent position that the civilised world could take.
      If the House had been debating the extension of the deserts 25 years ago, I believe that it would have taken the same attitude as it appears to be taking to the Antarctic this evening. If, 15 years ago, the House had been talking about the destruction of tropical forests, it would probably have taken the same attitude as many hon. Members are taking to the Antarctic now. In the past three or four decades we have seen the destruction of large parts of our planet with consequences that only now are beginning to be accepted. Indeed, the summit meeting could find agreement only by suggesting that there should be research before it is too late. That is the position on global warming. We have had sufficient experience over the past two or three generations to understand that we should approach ecosystems as large, substantial, attractive and important as that of the Antarctic with rather more sensitivity than the Government have displayed.
      I do not always agree with every organisation in the environment lobby, but in this instance I agree wholeheartedly with Greenpeace. I deeply regret that the Government must stand high on the list of the culpable. The Government have reacted far too late to past despoliation and they should be a great deal more careful before they run the risk of seeing an important part of our planet destroyed. I know that the Minister made some relevant comments in Committee, but I hope that he will

      91
      spell out on Report—[Interruption.] I note that the Minister is amused. I am glad that he finds this issue amusing. He should understand that some of us find it an extremely serious matter.
      I ask the Minister to respond to the latest batch of questions which Greenpeace has sent to hon. Members. For example, who will ensure compliance with the convention? Who will ensure compliance with the convention in the area of the Antarctic whose ownership is disputed by the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina? Do we supervise the Chileans? Do the Argentines supervise us? Who will accept responsibility? If development follows the arrangement that is before us, someone will have to accept responsibility to ensure that devastation does not take place.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: How can we trust the Government when they have given away Hong Kong?
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. I remind the Minister that I am accustomed to hearing fine-sounding words from denizens of the Government Front Bench, but I am still angry that on 16 January, when I stood on King's Cross station applauding the Prime Minister—
      Mr. Skinner: Did my hon. Friend do that?
      Mr. Hardy: I did. I know that my hon. Friend will be surprised. I stood on King's Cross station on the centenary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Those who were gathered there were addressed by the Prime Minister, who made the most heartening speech. She called for the protection of hills, wetlands, the coast, lakes, rivers and hedgerows. I left that meeting to come to the House to present, with all-party support and with the blessing of every conservation body in Britain, a Bill to protect our significant hedgerows. A Government Whip blocked that Bill.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has told us that he went all the way to King's Cross to cheer the Prime Minister. Is that the same Prime Minister who supported the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988, a Bill that we tried to stop night after night? We argued that it would destroy an area in which lovely little birds—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill is about the Antarctic. Let us return to the Antarctic.
      Mr. Skinner: I am talking about a Bill that will damage the environment at Felixstowe. That environment will be destroyed by the Government, who pushed the Bill through. I say to my hon. Friend: judge people by what they do, not by what they say.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend must recognise that I was brought up as nonconformist and I always rejoice when the sinner comes to repentence. I thought that the right hon. Lady had done so. I was heartened because I thought that it gave hope for Antarctica as well as for the English hedgerows. Imagine my distress when the Government blocked that Bill; imagine my anger when I wrote to the right hon. Lady saying that she had blocked that Bill, which was presented on the very day that she had called for hedgerows to be protected. One passage from her reply will ever stick in my mind. She said that we have to think
      92
      about other things as well as conservation—as though she had not always thought about things other than conservation.
      8 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was with me on that memorable occasion and shared my pleasure at the right hon. Lady's speech and my disappointment when my Bill was blocked. I speak today from an experience that makes me intensely suspicious of the Government's attitude—a suspicion increasingly shared in Britain by all the green organisations. They are right to be suspicious, as they are right to ask questions. The Minister will be aware of the questions posed by Greenpeace in its latest missive to hon. Members, and I trust that when he replies he will give answers which, although they might reassure trusting, docile Conservative Members, will also be sufficiently powerful to persuade my hon. Friends and I.
      The Government say, "We will ban exploration and ban exploitation, but we will not stop prospecting." That is ridiculous. The Minister may have read cowboy books or watched western films when he was a little boy. He may imagine that a prospector is a hoary old man riding on a mule with a backpack of beans and dried bacon, hoping to extract a few bits of rock with a hammer and a shovel and so discover gold.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Sounds like Nicholas Ridley.
      Mr. HardyThat description applies to a number of Conservative Ministers.
      Modern prospecting is a different kettle of fish. Prospectors have high academic qualifications; they have some understanding of the use of explosives; they can drill—
      Mr. Skinner: Yuppie prospectors.
      Mr. Hardy: They are indeed the yuppie prospectors that my hon. Friend conjures up in his mind.
      We are not talking about people with little hammers who chip off bits of rock; we are talking about people who could easily perpetrate an enormous amount of damage to an area, which our colleagues in Australia and France believe, as I do, should be a world reserve, and not subject to destruction by whatever interest group thinks that it can play ducks and drakes with an administration that does not have a record of constancy.
      I want to know whether the Minister will answer all the questions posed by Greenpeace. How will we avoid the worst implementers of legislation being those with responsibility for implementation? Will the least competent administrations in the world be relied upon to interpret the regulations to protect Antarctica? Will we leave that attractive and important area to the mercy of the incompetent, the greedy, the feckless and the irresponsible? Will we leave it to those interests that have already destroyed the tropical forests and allowed the deserts to expand at an astonishing rate over the past 30 years?
      Someone has to be concerned about the environment, because life must survive on this planet for a long time. I do not know whether it is appropriate to discuss the ecology of Antarctica on this group of amendments, or whether I should leave it until we discuss the next group.
      Mr. Eggar: Leave it.
      Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman prefers me not to mention the subject at all. If you think that it should be left until the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be happy to comply with your wishes.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned another reason for speaking in this debate—the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988. Every Conservative Member voted to break an international commitment—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can talk about ecosystems in Antarctica, but not Felixstowe.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise the citing of examples in passing during a speech. The Bill involves the administration of an area. If the Government support a particular system and a particular piece of legislation, surely it is necessary to point out their inconsistencies in previous legislation to show that they cannot be trusted.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course it is in order for hon. Members to draw analogies, but it is not in order for them to give a detailed description of them. I was advising the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) against doing that.
      Mr. Hardy: I am happy to accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My only reason for referring to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act was as a lead to discussing the Ramsar convention, an international agreement to which Britain was a principal signatory. To comply with the terms of that convention, Britain identified three or four sites in the British Isles that it pledged to the remainder of the world would be protected unless it be necessary to do otherwise because of the most grave and serious national predicament or interest. We selected the Orwell estuary for permanent protection, and said that it could never be touched other than in the most dire national extremity. Along came some people, aided and abetted by a few Conservative Members who smelt the possibility of making a bit of money, and the Ramsar convention went through the window, just as the Prime Minister's commitment to the British countryside went through the window.
      The Government must understand that growing numbers of people in Britain, and throughout our planet, want them to act with a little more wisdom than thay have shown in this legislation. I refer the House to a letter to hon. Members from Sir Peter Scott. I received my copy this morning. I do not know which political party Sir Peter supports, but I know that for many years—as some Conservative Members will appreciate—he has played a more active part than any other living human being in promoting the conservation of our planet. He has a particular knowledge of Antarctica, so the House should be aware of the letter written by that distinguished, experienced British citizen, who has given great international service. Sir Peter said:
      "Many assurances have been given that this is an `environmental bill'. However its primary concern is minerals exploitation, not the environment and its effect will be to facilitate the exploitation and almost inevitable despoliation of Antarctica.
      Concern for the protection of the environment is increasing both nationally and globally. Both Australia and France have declared that they will not sign CRAMRA, rather they would like to see Antarctica designated as a `Wilderness Park' I applaud their bold initiative and sincerely
      94
      believe that a Wilderness Park, with a permanent moratorium on minerals exploitation, is the only way to ensure that the Antarctic wilderness is really protected. Having been lo the Antarctic five times, including visits to my father's huts and to the South Pole, I have first hand knowledge of the potential vulnerability of the area."
      I refer also to some very interesting comments in a book by Sir Edmund Hillary. Like Sir Peter Scott, he is a distinguished person who is familiar with the most far-flung corners of our planet.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend quoted Sir Peter Scott's remark that he is so dissatisfied with the Bill that he urges right hon. and hon. Members to vote against it. If we are really concerned about environmental protection, we must take Sir Peter's recommendation seriously into account.
      Mr. Hardy: I hope that we shall act on Sir Peter's advice. Such advice from a man of Sir Peter's standing should be taken seriously. I have served on a number of national and international conservation bodies over a long period, so I have met Sir Peter occasionally and know of his record. I am aware of no other occasion on which he has given such advice. When such advice comes from a man who in the past has stood away from party politics, it should be taken very seriously.
      I also take seriously the advice of Sir Edmund Hillary. I remind right hon. and hon. Members of his contribution in flying the British flag at the summit of Mount Everest in coronation year, and of crossing Antarctica. Sir Edmund Hillary writes about his visit to McMurdo sound in 1982, when the talk was about mineral resources and krill farming. There was very little talk in the relevant circles about protecting the environment and an area of the world that he acknowledges as superbly beautiful. Sir Edmund Hillary comments in his book "Ecology 2000" that he dreads the thought of drilling and of the risk that Lt would pose to the Antarctic. He dreads the inevitable risk of inadequate supervision and of the lack of any control or protection of the environment. Sir Edmund Hillary observes that such activities would destroy a significant part of our environmental inheritance.
      In his book, Sir Edmund reminds us that the water in Antarctica has been frozen for 200,000 years. He notes that the pockets of air trapped in that water contain half the level of carbon dioxide that is to be found in the air that we currently breathe. There are many lessons to be learned from Antarctica.
      No one is suggesting that we should ignore the lessons that Antarctica can teach us. The Opposition amendments merely seek to ensure that Antarctica will not be destroyed or at least disfigured before those lessons can be learned. I have no objection to the scientific establishments in Antarctica that have fulfilled a useful role there for some time, for their activities are quite a different matter from unleashing the forces of commercial exploitation. It is that which we fear most. The fear of commercial exploitation and of the consequences that it could bring led me to table my two amendments.
      Amendment No. 34 would amend clause 7 by adding at the end the words
      "and especially if there is any risk of environmental damage."
      That amendment is perfectly reasonable. It represents a compromise. I do not like the Bill at all, but the Government could at least make a gesture to people who are concerned about the environment by adding the words that I suggest, as a way of reassuring environmentalists and of warning off the greedy whose depredations we fear.

      95
      Amendment No. 36 to clause 8 is also wholly reasonable. If there is to be an advisory committee, as there should be, the individuals who comprise it should be capable of giving proper advice. They should not necessarily be members of the Conservative party. Far too many Conservative placemen who have been appointed to such advisory bodies in recent years believe that their job is to tell the Government what they want to hear. The advisory committee should instead be comprised of individuals who are prepared to eschew lickspittling.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the governors of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is supposed to be responsible for protecting nature, have appointed a master of foxhounds? How can we have confidence in the Government when they allow an appointment such as that?
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge of such matters, as the Minister said. Perhaps we should not tread on the topic of quangos. In 1979, the Government declared that they would abolish quangos but then decided that if they could not beat them, they should join them. Governments should be able to obtain independent advice from people who know what they are talking about—not from people who seek to please the Government with comfortable words.
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the undertakings that were made to prevent the exploitation of Alaska did not stop the Exxon disaster earlier this year? Even though promises and undertakings about environmental protection, consultation, and emergency action to clear up pollution were given, they proved worthless. A disaster occurred because the companies operating in Alaska are there not for any philanthropic reasons connected with understanding the environment but to exploit and destroy it. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, although his amendments are important, companies would ignore such provisions and continue to destroy the environment?
      Mr. Hardy: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. But if the Government use their majority, as they will, to ensure that the Bill becomes law, the least that we can do is to incorporate in the legislation a damage limitation—if only so that should such a tragedy occur in Antarctica, we shall be able to say, "We told you so." That would give further encouragement to those who already recognise that the Government's service to the environment is grossly unsatisfactory.
      Ms. Primarolo: The company that markets Exxon products in this country is Esso. Its current advertising campaign, which features a barrage balloon, promotes unleaded petrol and uses the phrase "Caring for your future". Yet both Exxon and Esso have shown that they do not care at all about our future but only about their own profits.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may be unaware that I am particularly concerned about environmental matters. For the past three years, I have served as chairman of the Council of Europe's environment committee. During that
      96
      time, the committee has taken a number of initiatives with regard to marine pollution. It is sad that calls from my committee, from the European Parliament, and from committees of other national legislatures are ignored.
      The scale of that disdain was shown in Alaska. The part of Alaska in which the oil spillage occurred is remote, difficult to reach and a long way from centres skilled in harbour and coastal protection. If that part of Alaska is far from the reservoirs of support, how far away from them is a part of the world a good deal south of the Antarctic circle? There would be no guarantee, which is why it is essential that those people should at least be in a position to tell the Government what is needed. We should be able to exercise a very critical role if the Government ignore the resulting evidence; the Government, of course, might find it possible to appoint to the committee people who would be prepared to speak out should their advice be ignored, but we need to be sure that that advice will be tendered and officially and formally received.
      In the absence of such advisers, the Government would be able to say, "We did not know; we were not told." I should like to remove any possibility of such an excuse: hence the amendment, which I hope my hon. Friends will support unless the Government are prepared to accept it. I do not consider it unreasonable, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was somewhat critical because her hostility to the Bill is more root and branch.
      Mr. Skinner: During the economic summit, the Prime Minister has been gallivanting around Europe, spending taxpayers' money and indulging in parties and binges. Apparently, between bouts of sipping claret and Beaujolais, all those countries got together and decided to set up a 10-point plan for the environment. I find it a bit odd that the same Government, headed by the same Prime Minister, should not be prepared to accept my hon. Friend's amendment.
      My hon. Friend should remind the Minister that he may not be in his job much longer. There is going to be a big reshuffle, and he has not been sparking on every plug, has he? He has a chance of being kicked out. The course that should appeal to him is to adopt the 10-point plan and accept my hon. Friend's amendment. To do otherwise would be hypocritical, in view of all the great plans that were made at the summit.
      Mr. Hardy: The 10-point plan seems very strong on investigation and very weak on action. We have seen a good deal of investigation. I have been making speeches in the House for 15 years about the need to protect the environment, and on occasion after occasion have presented evidence to justify my arguments. In a small way I have contributed to the pursuit of the learning in which the Government have now agreed to engage. It is a form of paradox. The other day—I think that this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I attended a meeting with Lech Walesa, and I asked him a question.
      Mr. Skinner: He is a Catholic shop steward.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend's description, although less than generous, may be reasonably accurate.
      I asked Lech Walesa, "Are you familiar with a development that we watch in western Europe? Are you familiar with the phenomenon of western leaders visiting your country and saying one thing there and something

      97
      entirely different when they return to their own countries?" Lech Walesa does not speak English, but he stuck his thumb up and gave me a broad grin. Over the headphones I heard the interpreter say, "Mr. Walesa says yes, and now he is going to talk about paradoxes as well."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong Pole.
      Mr. Hardy: I shall now return—in a southerly direction—to the appropriate latitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could not resist the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who was, to some extent, leading me astray; I now return to relevance. I could not, however, overlook the fact that we were discussing a strange paradox. The Paris summit has been celebrating the French revolution: I only wish that it had met 200 years earlier for, as I am sure some of my hon. Friends will agree, I think that 1789 would have been a more appropriate date for such a gathering than 1989.
      Mr. Tony Banks: They might have chopped her head off.
      Mr. Hardy: I had always thought that my hon. Friend was opposed to capital punishment.
      Mr. Banks: I make exceptions.
      Mr. Hardy: The House is being offered reasonable amendments. If the Government wish to retain any vestige of consistency between their words and their actions, they have no alternative but to take a generous attitude. I do not think that I need say more; the case that we have advanced is utterly convincing, and I trust that the Minister's reply will be acceptable to us.
      Mr. Morley: I wish to concentrate exclusively on amendment No. 14, which deals with the definition of exploration. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that
      "'prospecting activities' includes field observations".
      There is no problem there; field observations are not particularly damaging, although if large numbers of people set up bases in the area that in itself could be damaging. We discussed that in Committee. As it stands, the Bill does not appear to limit the number of people who can take part in any kind of prospecting expedition in the Antarctic, with all the associated problems of waste and disturbance.
      "Prospecting activities", says clause 2, also include
      "geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations".
      Those are likely to involve the use of drilling rigs. The Bill lays down certain conditions, stating that such activities do not include, for example,
      "drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres or such other depth as the Commission may determine for particular circumstances".
      That would be helpful in certain circumstances, because drilling also involves the risk of dirt and waste and the possible danger of blow-outs, problems associated with the control of machines and the disturbance caused by mud that is used for cooling the machinery—although I imagine that it would not be very difficult to cool machinery in the Antarctic.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. Cooling material in the Antarctic might not be much of a problem, as for the most part the air is very cold anyway. Is he aware, however, of a serious problem that has occurred in some of the scientific stations
      98
      there? If fire breaks out, it is extremely difficult to extinguish it. All the water has, of course, turned to ice, and other forms of fire-fighting equipment are very difficult to use in such extreme temperatures. That is yet another reason for caution. Where fires have broken out in some scientific stations, it has been impossible to put them out and the entire station has had to be allowed to burn out, with considerable consequent pollution.
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the Antarctic is considerable. He has raised an important point. I understand that there has been only one large-scale fire in the Antarctic, but in the event of one we would not know what the effects would be, and fighting it would be extremely difficult, especially if it were associated with an oil rig blow-out. Those are difficult to extinguish even in the most favourable circumstances, and the possibilities in the Antarctic make one shudder.
      According to clause 2, prospecting activities also include
      "the use of remote sensing techniques and the collection of samples".
      I am willing to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong, but I suspect that the use of remote sensing techniques will involve the kind of geological survey that entails setting off an explosive charge. Sensors will be used to read the shock waves and to gain an idea of the geology of the area. I imagine that the Minister would feel somewhat anxious about any proposal to prospect for oil in this country and to set up explosive charges in, for example, Hyde Park for the purposes of establishing the geology of the area.
      The Bill permits companies to set up explosive charges without defining or controlling what that will do. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) told us that the ice build-up on the continental shelf is hundreds of thousands of years old. Explosive charges used for geophysical investigations could cause immense permanent irreversible damage and the history locked within the ice would be destroyed forever. The Bill does not contain adequate safeguards against that.
      8.30 pm
      The Bill defines prospecting activity as "the collection of samples". I give it credit for dealing with
      "dredging or excavation otherwise than for the purpose of obtaining small-scale samples"
      I should like a definition of "small-scale". Dredging of the seabed can cause enormous damage of which we may not be aware. We know that the Antarctic seas are an important source of krill and shrimp and therefore the beginning of an important food chain. I am not sure that we understand the possible scientific impact of dredging along the seabed and disturbing it. The Minister may say that the Bill quite clearly deals with "obtaining small-scale samples", but I should like to know the definition of small-scale and how the operations will be defined and controlled.
      The Minister should consider amendment No. 14 very carefully. In Committee it was quite clear that there was no difference between the two sides of the House in terms of protecting the sensitive and unique ecology of the Antarctic. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment. Bearing in mind the fact that the Bill deals with companies under United Kingdom control, the amendment would limit activities for the purpose of investigation to those which did not damage the Antarctic environment. That puts the responsibility on the

      99
      companies or individuals who apply for a licence to prospect. The pressure would be on those individuals or companies to demonstrate successfully that their prospecting would not destroy or damage the environment.
      There are further safeguards in later amendments, but amendment No. 14 goes to the root of the problem by putting the onus of the people who want to go to Antarctica. It will be up to them to demonstrate that they will cause no damage. I believe that that would be difficult, and that the Government will therefore oppose the amendment, but if we are truly serious about preserving the ecology of the Antarctic, we must accept the amendment and make it clear that people who wish to exploit it must bear the responsibility of demonstrating that whatever they do will not cause ecological damage.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I have listened with considerable interest to the arguments of Opposition Members in support of the amendments. Broadly speaking, I sympathise with the amendments, but there is a distinction between them and what Opposition Members have said about them. The amendments seek to make more certain the controls which are obviously necessary if scientific research continues and a process of prospecting is carried out under strict licensing, which surely must be better than a process carried out without those provisions.
      In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Government accepted their responsibilities and would ensure that they would be exercised effectively by the commission. However, hon. Gentleman ought not to give the impression that there is something undesirable about scientific exploration of the Antarctic or of prospecting there. We have had years of statements that there is untold wealth in the Antarctic which could be exploited. As long as we are not sure that just what is there, where it is and what would be the difficulties of seeking to exploit it, we shall hear comments such as those reported to have been made by one political leader: "There is gold in the Antarctic and we want our share".
      I do not know whether that is a fair interpretation of what that leader said, but it may represent the attitude of poor Third-world countries which find it much more difficult than relatively wealthy nations to take an objective view of preserving a wilderness and rejecting the opportunity for economic exploitation. If we are asking them to take an attitude similar to ours, we shall have to tell them that scientific exploration and careful prospecting is giving them the information that they require.
      Mr. Morley: There is a clear difference between scientific exploration and prospecting, which goes to the heart of the debate. Opposition Members do not object to scientific exploration, although there should be safeguards. The hon. Gentleman says that we need to know what is in Antarctica and that, until we know, there will always be pressure for exploration. There may be some truth in that, but surely the best way of finding out is through various scientific institutions and organisations rather than prospecting, which will be led mainly by multinational corporations which are in it for their own gain rather than for scientific knowledge or for the greater good of the entire community.
      Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I do not disagree with him. Obviously, commercial prospecting is carried out with an eye to some future advantage. But that applies to prospecting whether or not it is licensed. Because there are human frailties and the desire to take advantage of whatever wealth there may be, and perhaps not all countries will take the same view as the Government have taken in the Bill, we need to write in safeguards. I suggest that Opposition Members, in addressing their amendments, should not talk about oil rig blow-outs as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) did. Nothing in the Bill would permit an oil rig to drill for oil, or a blow-out. Such comments are unhelpful because they refer to something which the Bill would never permit.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I shall pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) in his excellent speech. I always knew that my hon. Friend was a great supporter of green issues, but I did not realise that he was quite as green as he reveals himself to be. He was very green if he cheered the Prime Minister and believed what she said about her sudden conversion to environmental issues. In my opinion, the Prime Minister is about as environmentally friendly as bubonic plague.
      Mr. Hardy: In my own defence, I got off one platform and got on another, because my train arrived at King's Cross. I was there as a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, although I had no part whatsoever in the invitation that was extended to the right hon. Lady to address that gathering.
      Mr. Banks: I realise that my hon. Friend has far more good sense than to want to have the Prime Minister there.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
      Mr. Banks: He has far more good sense than to want to have the Prime Minister—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Banks: I will give way to the hon. Lady. I always look forward to her highly constructive, intelligent and perceptive remarks.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Thank you very much. I have in my possession a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcoming the formation of the Conservative Conservation Society, which was written in the middle 1970s. My right hon. Friend is by no means a new convert to this concept. As she is a scientist, she knows a great deal more about it than most hon. Members here today.
      Mr. Banks: I accept what the hon. Lady says. If the Prime Minister wants to support the Conservative Conservation Society, that is a good thing. Personally, I would be happy to see the Prime Minister stuffed, mounted, put in a glass case and left in a museum, and I look forward politically to that day. The Prime Minister's wandering into King's Cross station was in itself an event—not only because she was there for the anniversary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but because that was the closest she has been to a British Rail train for a long time. She does not like travelling on trains and had not travelled on one since February 1987.

      101
      It merely goes to show that the Prime Minister is not the best source to quote when talking about the environment or the sincerity with which she holds views about the environment, in which we have suddenly found her so interested. Like many other Conservative Members, she realises that there are votes here. They are green if they believe that we are so green as to believe that the conversion of the Prime Minister or the Conservative party is genuine.
      Through the Bill, the Conservative Government are once again supporting the interests of the great mineral developers and prospectors. That is what the Bill is all about. We shall come later to the philosophy behind the Bill, but I will point out now that the Minister is saying in effect that there will be exploitation of the Antarctic. Rather than trying to stop that happening, he says that we should try to regulate that exploitation. He says, "Let us have it exploited, but let us do it on our terms."
      Amendment No. 14 seeks to probe how genuine the Government and the Minister are about protecting the Antarctic. If one looks at clause 2(2), one realises that the definitions of "prospecting activities" come from existing mining legislation in this country and not from definitions within the terms of the convention. That is why we are so worried and why we seek to limit the definitions and terminology in clause 2. We want to be certain that there will be genuine protection for the environment.
      Amendment No. 14 is specific, referring to
      "activities for the purposes of further scientific investigation which do not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems".
      That seems perfectly reasonable and I wait with great interest to hear what the Minister will say about the amendment if he is not prepared to accept it.
      So much evil is being done in the world at present under the guise of scientific investigation. One thinks, for example, of the Japanese, who, in the so-called interests of science and scientific whaling, are proposing to slaughter 300 minke whales to find out how large the minke whale population is. I can tell them straight away that it will be 300 less than when their ships started slaughtering the whales. What is happening there—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has that got to do with amendment No. 14?
      Mr. Banks: What is happening there is precisely what will happen in the Antarctic in the name of scientific investigation. There will be commercial exploitation, or a movement towards it, precisely as the Japanese are doing now in whaling. I will say one thing for the Government and Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: he is doing his best to prevent the Japanese from getting away with that blatant commercial exploitation of whales under the guise of scientific investigation. All we are saying is that we do not want the same to happen in the Antarctic.
      8.45 pm
      As my hon. Friend the Member of Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, field observations are acceptable within limits. However, geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations require far more tightening of definitions in the Bill. I am not a scientist or a geologist, but I know that, because the Bill is drafted so slackly and imprecisely, all sorts of activities may be carried out. I am assured that we shall vote against the Bill
      102
      on Third Reading, but if we are attempting to make the unacceptable remotely acceptable, the amendment must be carried.
      Clause 2(2) says that prospecting does not include
      "drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres or such other depth as the Commission may determine for particular circumstances".
      What circumstances are meant? The Bill is imprecise. If somebody said that he wanted to go to a depth lower than 25 m, he would need only to ask the commission and the commission could determine that he could do precisely that.
      Clause 2(2) also excludes
      "dredging or excavation otherwise than for the purpose of obtaining small-scale samples."
      An enormous amount of damage can be done to the ecosystem by the use of dredgers to obtain small-scale samples. Clause 2 does not set a limit on the size of dredgers, the scale of dredging or the scale of excavation.
      Given what we have said earlier about the Prime Minister and her failure to match her actions to her words—one judges politicians not by what they say, but by what they do—we do not believe that the Prime Minister or the Government are genuine in their concern for the environment. We believe that they are paying lip service to the issue because they realise suddenly that it threatens their electoral position. Nothing concentrates the minds of politicians more that the thought of losing votes. We are not prepared to accept the Bill as it stands. We wish to tighten up the definitions in precisely the way that amendment No. 14 seeks to do.
      Mr. Corbyn: Amendment No. 14 and several others go to the heart of the Bill. We are not talking about an end to all scientific exploration in the Antarctic, as the Minister and Conservative Members know. We are talking about an extension of those activities which will become part of prospecting activities and also about the damage to the environment already being done by a lack of control over many of the scientific experiments carried out in the Antarctic.
      I have here an excellent report, produced by the Greenpeace Antarctic expedition of 1987–88, on the conditions that it found at each of the bases it visited in the Antarctic. I wish that amendment No. 14 had been in operation some years before, because the damage being caused by irresponsible expeditions, which leave behind fuel drums and rubbish, which incinerate waste instead of taking it home and which are not sufficiently monitored, calls into question the commitment of many of the signatory nations to the treaty to preserving the environment as it is, never mind to averting the dangers that will flow inextricably from allowing any prospecting and thus, at a further stage, exploration for minerals in the Antarctic.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I have here an article from The Observer of 9 July which bears the legend:
      "Rescue or rape for the last wilderness?"
      It makes the precise point that my hon. Friend is making. It talks about Britain's abandoned base at Port Lockroy which had been broken into and from which coal had been stolen. It turned out that it was gentoo penguins which had stolen anthracite nuts to make their nests. The anthracite nuts did not hurt the gentoo penguins, but they might have taken something else that could have caused enormous damage to the penguin colony.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important and valuable point. No nation comes out of the Greenpeace report very well. That report contains examples of dangerous scrap metal, food waste and glass being left behind. On occasions, there has been incineration and if a large amount of plastic is included, dioxins are given off and pollution occurs. There is also at least one example of sewage being pumped raw into the sea from a base. Even when the sewage is chemically treated before being pumped out, the danger to the environment is still serious.
      Tragically, we are not dealing with an unpolluted place, but with a place that has already suffered some pollution and exploitation. We should cast our minds back into the history of European habitation of the Antarctic. In 1775, Captain Cook returned, having announced his discovery of the land mass of the Antarctic, as far as it was known then. By 1800—only 25 years later—17 ships were killing whales and seals in the Antarctic and had killed 122,000 seals. Only 22 years later, during the Weddell expedition to the Antarctic, 1·2 million seals had been killed, the fur seal population had become almost extinct, and the elephant seal population was damaged. The whaling industry then went in and carried out its carnage. The Antarctic has already suffered the most appalling carnage.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned penguins. He was perfectly right to do so because the sealing companies that went to the Antarctic to exploit the fur seal and the elephant seal used to boil penguins alive because they found them combustible. They destroyed those animals to provide themselves with oil. The carnage of wildlife in that period was appalling, and the carnage would continue today if the wildlife was still there to be exploited in such large numbers and if such activities were not controlled.
      Mr. Banks: I have just remembered a pathetic scene that I saw on television. Penguins were herded up a ramp and had to jump into a vat where they were being rendered down for oil. It was absolutely disgusting. The people who did that were the forerunner of the companies that the Bill would allow to run riot in the Antarctic. Having seen what was done in the past, and knowing what is done now, I am not prepared to let such companies into the Antarctic in the future.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Considerable damage was done to the environment in that period. When the whaling industry did its damage to the environment, it was only international pressure—not Government action—and pressure from ordinary people, like the many hon. Members who are concerned about such matters, that in the end forced the International Whaling Commission to put a ban on whaling. My hon. Friends have already pointed out the corruption of that system by so-called "scientific whaling", which even today threatens certain species of whale.
      I wish that the House were being televised now. Many people outside the House would be horrified that the House was about to agree a badly drafted Bill which will allow not only further exploration but prospecting for minerals in the Antarctic. I firmly believe that there can be only one reason for looking for various minerals and hydrocarbons in the Antarctic, and that is to exploit them at a later date for commercial purposes. We shall be saying that in one area of the world, which we know has a fragile ecosystem and an environment fraught with danger,
      104
      because we allow the exploitation of minerals, we are prepared to allow prospecting, with all its implicit dangers, to go ahead, too.
      I hope that the Government will at least give us credit for tabling amendments seeking a proper environmental investigation before any further "scientific" explorations for minerals take place because I believe that the damage from such explorations will be enormous.
      We are dealing with a dry continent and with a fragile place that has no human habitation on most of its land mass. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that ice remains there many thousands of years. A proper examination of that ice would allow us all to learn something about the history of this planet and from that, we could begin to look at some of the horrors of what we are doing to the planet. It is not a question of regarding every place on the planet as a potential place where the free market can let rip. We should look at the planet with a view to protecting it, because in so doing we are protecting our own lives and those of everybody and everything else.
      The Bill is fundamentally and badly flawed. Although the Government say that they are concerned about protecting the environment, they are simply opening the way for its commercial exploitation. The Government continue to say that it is reasonable to allow people to look for minerals. In debates on later amendments and on Third Reading, we shall point out the fundamental change that the Bill would bring about.
      The Antarctic treaty, which was willingly signed by a number of nations, went an awfully long way towards protecting the Antarctic. It made it a zone of peace. It stopped military overflying and the potential for nuclear testing. It stopped the area being used as a military base and allowed scientific exploration if the published results were circulated among all the signatory nations. That was an enormous step forward. However, I doubt whether all the information has been made available to all the signatory nations. Much of the scientific exploration there could rapidly become commercial exploration for minerals.
      I am looking for an Antarctic protection Bill from the Government which would limit and control any signs of exploration, which would ensure that all the results were published and that the exploration did not relate merely to commercial purposes.
      The crucial point of the amendment is that such information is supposed to be of a scientific nature. It is supposed to be published and circulated. There is supposed to be close co-operation between all the signatory nations. However, the Greenpeace survey of the Antarctic has suggested that that co-operation is not as close as it might be. The Bill simply allows those who have been granted a licence—from earlier debates, we know that they could be multinational companies or anybody—to maintain commercial secrecy about what they have discovered. Instead of the principle that the Antarctic should be a place of common heritage and common knowledge, it will become a place of commercial venture and commercial knowledge. Nobody can tell me that any oil company, mining company or anybody else will put in the money that is required for exploring the Antarctic for gold, coal, manganese or hydrocarbons, if they do not believe that they will ultimately be granted an exploration licence for the Antarctic.

      105
      I realise that some of my amendments have not been selected and therefore cannot be debated directly, but I hope that we can have a strict licensing regime with the genuine circulation and publication of all scientific and other information relating to the Antarctic. Above all, I should like a declaration such as the Australians have made, that we consider the Antarctic to be the common heritage of the whole world, not just a few nations or companies, and that it will be protected for ever.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred to what Sir Peter Scott said about these matters. He said that we should leave well alone and he is right. Any exploration in Antarctica will cause damage. Recently a ship carrying diesel fuel to a base in the Antarctic suffered a spillage. It was very difficult to find out what had happened. What would happen if there was a major accident involving an explosion, or spillage of chemicals—they are required in exploration work—or a seismic test explosion went wrong in a volcanic area? No one knows what would happen. Supplies could not be rushed in to deal with what might be an appalling catastrophe. Such an accident might be caused by the ignorance of Members of Parliament here, thousands of miles from Antarctica. It might be a result of our blind stupidity in allowing exploration to go ahead in the full knowledge of the great danger that that might pose to the continent.
      I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment as part of an environmental protection regime for the Antarctic and as part of the turning point in our attitudes towards all wildernesses. We should learn what we can from Antarctica and see it for what it is. Similarly, we should learn what we can from the rain forests instead of chopping them down to supply a little hardwood to make garden seats. We should learn from Antarctica, and we might gain more than all the temporary wealth that might arise from exploring for gold, manganese, coal or oil.
      This amendment goes to the heart of the Bill and I hope that the House will accept it.
      9 pm
      Mr. Cryer: I want to refer to amendments Nos. 34 and 36, because the criticisms by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Griffiths) were unfair. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) seeks to exercise supervision and jurisdiction over the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend demonstrated his great interest and expertise in this subject when he moved the amendment.
      The Minister seeks to give the House assurances today, but he may not hold his office much longer because there is about to be a reshuffle and he may be pushed on somewhere else during the kaleidoscope of plotting in which the Prime Minister is currently engaged. She wants to keep herself surrounded by friends and supporters so that she is not stabbed in the back before the next general election and replaced by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
      Mr. Skinner: That is a diplomatic illness.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) describes that as a diplomatic illness, and it may arise as a result of the machinations in Cabinet. We cannot guarantee that the Under-Secretary of State for
      106
      Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will still hold his office after the reshuffle, no matter how earnest and honest he considers his entreaties and assurances today.
      Amendment No. 34 would add the words:
      "and especially if there is any risk of environmental damage"
      to the end of clause 7. That qualifies the directions which the Secretary of State may give to persons or licensees. That qualification is sensible, especially if there is a risk of environmental damage.
      No doubt the Minister will cavil and object to some of the comments of Opposition Members to the effect that the Bill gives sufficient leeway for the multinationals to exploit the Antarctic which we want to keep as a wilderness. The Antarctic should be a preservation area so that the damage that has been wreaked by unchecked and uncontrolled multinationals elsewhere on our planet is not repeated in Antarctica.
      Mr. Skinner: It should be a multinational-free zone.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is quite right.
      Amendment No. 34 adds that qualification and ensures that the Secretary of State has that attitude at the forefront of his mind when giving directions.
      We must also consider the powerful multinational companies which have representatives in this place and down the Corridor. I was once a member of a Cabinet sub-committee which dealt with the mining of manganese nodules. There was much concern about obtaining important minerals and there was a north-south dialogue in which the deprived countries claimed that the minerals should be shared more equally among the nations on our planet.
      Mr. Skinner: Is this a Cabinet secret?
      Mr. Cryer: It may well be.
      During our discussions, a Member of the House of Lords who died several years ago said, "I saw Peter in the Corridor and Peter said to me, 'We are anxious about the decision over the mining of manganese nodules because we are uncertain about our investments'." The Peter concerned was Peter Carrington, who was chairman of Rio Tinto-Zinc. There was a direct input into the Cabinet sub-committee, but that was rejected by the other sub-committee members. None the less, there are influences at work in the corridors of power. We want to make sure that the Secretary of State is bound by legislation that he cannot edge round because people are getting hold of his elbow in the corridors of power and saying, "Look here, old boy, what about allowing a bit of excavation and exploration? It will be only preliminary, of course." Those people are ready to seize mineral rights and plunder them for profit, because that is the main motivation of the multinationals.
      Clause 8(1) would allow the Secretary of State to
      "appoint as inspectors to discharge such functions as may be prescribed"
      people who appear to him to be appropriately qualified for the purpose. Amendment No. 36 says:
      "'among whom shall be individuals nominated by either or both national or international organisations which have standing in the field of environmental protection.'."
      That ensures that the Secretary of State's absolute position under the legislation is qualified. Surely that is not unreasonable. The Minister may say that this is United Kingdom legislation and ask whether it is reasonable for

      107
      a Government to be subject to nominations by national or international organisations, but they are already subject to that sort of thing in a variety of ways.
      No doubt the Minister is a supporter of the European Economic Community and the Government have to accept nominations from the EEC. They make nominations to the EEC and the present Commissioner, the former Member for Richmond, Yorks, Sir Leon Brittan, was nominated by the Prime Minister as a reward for services rendered. It is not uncommon for nominations to be made by other bodies to this country and by this country to other bodies. There is nothing extraordinary in saying that the Government should have to appoint among the inspectors and advisers people of standing in the world of environmental protection. The Government should not merely accept that—they should welcome it because it will ensure that whatever the view of the Minister, who may well be in favour of the clause—
      Mr. Skinner: Here today and gone tomorrow.
      Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover says, the Minister may be here today and gone tomorrow. The amendment would provide some certainty for the future and would realise the purpose of my hon. Friends by ensuring environmental protection.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may like to refer to other examples. We are not suggesting that people should come here from abroad, command enormous salaries and immediately become captains of large sections of British industry. The powers to do that exist. The Government appointed an American citizen to head coal and steel and Canadian citizens have been appointed to head other great national industries. By now some of them may be helping to run the National Health Service. We are talking not about that sort of example, but about the precedents have been well established by the present Administration.
      Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is the important qualification that these persons must be nominated by national or international organisations with standing in the world of environmental protection. That will bind the Secretary of State so that he will have to have that sort of nomination in mind and make those appointments. It will ensure that there cannot be any back-door dealing, with the multinationals putting suitable people forward. That is the Government's record. They have been ruthless in appointing placemen and women to virtually every body in the country. They kicked out of the National Health Service people who were of any independent sort of mind and, of course, they booted out immediately anybody with a Labour pedigree and appointed their own hacks.
      I have strong suspicions that when the advisory group is appointed it will contain the representatives of capital and the multinationals so that they can edge round the restrictions in the legislation.
      Mr. Skinner: The Sultan of Brunei could make nominations.
      Mr. Cryer: I am receiving some useful advice from my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be helpful if we had solo speeches rather than duets.
      Mr. Cryer: I am receiving some helpful suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who will bear with me when I say that the sad record of the Government is of appointing lickspittle sycophants to positions of importance, whereas they should be appointing people of independence. Anyone who shows any independence of mind is kicked out and replaced by some wooden-headed, blank-faced, blank-minded, incompetent sycophant, whose strings can then be pulled. One example is the management of British Rail, who have created the present conflict because of the determination of the Government.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The same applies to the Cabinet.
      Mr. Cryer: The Cabinet's record of complete subservience to the Prime Minister and its lack of any sign of independent thought makes it even more important that amendment No. 36 should be carried. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who as usual is trying to break the democratic rules of Parliament with continual disgraceful shouts and disdainful sneers from a sedentary position, will reconsider her antagonism and decide to vote for the amendment.
      I support all the amendments, but amendments Nos. 34 and 36 suit me especially because they are modest, conformist improvements to the legislation. I suspect that the Minister will be determined to oppose them, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will have at least one token vote on this set of amendments, because they are important. We too often complain about the actions of Ministers, but Ministers are given power by this legislative body. We should qualify and contain that power if we are concerned about this issue.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue by my hon. Friend, but many Opposition Members strongly and seriously oppose what the Bill is doing to a vital area of the world. There will be no token votes—they will be serious votes in favour of a scheme to protect the Antarctic rather than to pave the way for its commercial exploitation.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but he has misunderstood what I said earlier. I was not saying that it was a token vote in the sense of a vote being a token—I meant that we would probably not vote on every amendment. The amendment on which we vote will encapsulate all the amendments, including the ones on which we do not vote. Our vote will represent a token of support for all the amendments, even though we choose to vote only on, for instance, amendment No. 14. If my hon. Friends so desire, I shall be happy to vote on all the amendments. We shall have to see how things work out.
      If, however, the Minister is reasonable and he says that he will accept the amendments, obviously a vote will not be necessary. There will not then be any accusations about the Government being an elective dictatorship and bringing in the rather seedy collection of estate agents and merchant bankers who constitute the Conservative majority here today to wend their way through the Lobby and trample on every decent amendment. My guess, however, is that they will do just that. We intend to ensure that all the amendments are treated with the seriousness

      109
      they deserve, and we shall attempt to ensure that they qualify and control the Secretary of State's future activities.
      Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that amendment No. 14 was a probing one to test the Government's real intention with regard to the Bill. Having listened to the analysis of amendment No. 36 given by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I could say the same of that amendment.
      Amendment No. 36 should commend itself to the Government, although the Opposition parties would prefer no such Bill to be before the House. I cannot see anything wrong with amendment No. 36 as it would ensure that there was some confidence in the inspectors and observers to be appointed. The notes on manpower in the Bill show that the observers and inspectors will not be appointed for some years and are likely to be appointed
      "on an ad hoc basis"
      If the Bill reaches the statute book, those inspectors and observers will have an important job to do, and if their work met with international approval, their hands would be greatly strengthened.
      9.15 pm
      The Government have had a problem trying to sell the Bill because no Opposition Member believes that it will end at prospecting—that is the first step. One does not have boreholes at Sellafield or Dounreay unless, ultimately, one hopes to dispose of nuclear waste in them. Companies will have to invest considerable sums of money if they want to undertake any operation in Antarctica. Do the Government genuinely believe that they will be content to invest all that money purely for the purpose of prospecting? What activities does the Minister expect to be undertaken in Antarctica? Surely he accepts that companies would be unwilling to stop if they found that mineral wealth in the region could be exploited later.
      It is easy to say that the Bill is just about prospecting, but prospecting involves considerable engineering work. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spoken of the report that has already been compiled on existing installations and operations in Antarctica. Those installations do not live up to the highest standards of cleanliness, tidiness and environmental integrity. If we are to embark on further major engineering operations, albeit prospecting operations, that involve fuel and mud it is clear that further damage could be done to the environment.
      The Minister should recognise that prospecting itself could lead to environmental harm. For that reason, I believe that amendment No. 14, moved by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), is important, as it restricts such prospecting to "further scientific investigation" coupled with the requirement that it does
      "not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems."
      That amendment focuses the concern that has been expressed by many Opposition Members. The Minister must give a convincing reply.
      Amendment No. 23 deals with insurance. The loss and damage that should be covered must relate to environmental damage, not to the usual economic loss that is often associated with insurance claims. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say what the Government have in mind for the conditions to be
      110
      attached to licences with respect to insurance. I note that clause 3(5) suggests that any requirement on the licensee will be discretionary. Do the Government intend to have a stipulation on insurance? Under clause 3(5)(b) the licensee must insure himself
      "to such extent as may be determined … under the licence".
      What do the Government have in mind regarding the extent of that insurance? The wording is rather vague. The Bill almost gives the Government a blank cheque to do what they like. It is important to know the Government's intentions.
      If we are talking about insurance, we are presupposing the possibility of some damage. For that reason, my party firmly believes that there should be no opportunity for such damage to take place and that is why we reject the drift of the Bill. We should be interested, however, to hear the Minister's detailed response to some of the points that I have made.
      Mr. Eggar: We have had a long and interesting discussion on this group of amendments. I shall start by referring back to the purpose of the Bill which, for the first time, regulates prospecting activity by United Kingdom nationals and entities. In addition, for the first time, it excludes exploration and development by such companies. There has been, particularly from hon. Members without the good fortune to have served on the Committee, confusion between prospecting, which the Bill covers" and exploration and development, which it explicitly excludes.
      I shall, if it is convenient for the House, go through the various points made by hon. Members. I can tell the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is not in his place at the moment, that I shall certainly deal with the Government's response to the letters of Sir Peter Scott and Greenpeace. It may be more convenient for the House and more orderly if I do so on the next group of amendments.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the experience in Spitzbergen. It is true that there has been some mining in Spitzbergen for a number of decades. However, it was not prospecting, but development as defined under the terms of the covention. That development work has had some limited environmental impact but certainly has not caused the damage to the ecosystem to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his brief intervention.
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked a number of detailed questions. I shall try to deal with them now, and if the hon. Gentleman would like further clarification in writing, I shall be happy to give that. He asked about the size of any prospecting team. Size will be a key factor which the Secretary of State will have to take into account when he decides whether to give a licence.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about what he defined as seismic exploration. I am informed that, in practice nowadays, seismic exploration rarely uses explosives. The most frequently used technique is known as an air gun which is, effectively, a sound wave echo analysis. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman that explosives have already been used for scientific research under the Antarctic treaty system. I hope that I have been able to set his mind at rest. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no samples will be permitted which would be commercially valuable in themselves, so that method could not be used as a route to development through the back door. The

      111
      precise definiton of "small-scale", which was the hon. Gentleman's point, will be decided during the process of issuing a licence.
      The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised the problem associated with existing scientific research and the despoliation of the environment which followed from that. He raised the issue of sewage. He should put this in perspective. He should imagine the sewage output of a colony of 100,000 gentoo penguins and compare that with the sewage ouput of, for example, a scientific research station of 10 individuals. He would then see that the two are relative and that a problem associated with sewage from the local inhabitants already exists—if one can describe penguins as inhabitants. It is true that the environmental effect of the issue of nutrients—if we can refer to penguin and human sewage in that way—is exactly the same. That is part of the regenerative cycle in Antarctica.
      Mr. Corbyn: It is not a fair analogy to describe what 12 scientists in a cabin might be eating and excreting and to compare it with 100,000 penguins' diet, which consists exclusively of fish. Fish becomes part of a natural cycle, but humans eat a variety of foods. Pollution levels in rivers and seas around this country show that there is a serious problem. Some of that sewage is partly treated; some of it does not degrade or decompose; some of it lies around in still water for a long time.
      A small number of humans and all the rubbish that they produce can cause a great deal more damage—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether everyone is listening to this important point. The Minister should address his mind to the problems of large volumes of rubbish and of the incineration of plastics which pollute the air. His point was rather silly.
      Mr. Eggar: I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was so sensitive. I was just trying to put his remarks into context. He made his other points in Committee too, where I took considerable trouble to try to answer them. I assure him that we shall raise a number of them in the October meeting. They are not covered by Bill: they are covered under the terms of the Antarctic treaty.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) discussed the definition of prospecting. That definition comes from article 1, paragraph 8, of the convention. It does not come from United Kingdom legislation. The purpose of the definition of prospecting in the Bill is to ensure that no entity in Antarctica will be able to licence any activity which will have any more effect on the environment than the sort of scientific research that is already going on and is covered by the Antarctic treaty.
      The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to Opposition amendment No. 14. Perhaps it would help him if I explained why that amendment gives us some difficulty. The definition of prospecting in the Bill already reflects the definition in the convention. Scientific research within the meaning of the Antarctic treaty is expressly excluded by the convention. Defining prospecting activities in terms of scientific investigations, as his amendment does, would be incompatible with the convention and would cause serious confusion between
      112
      scientific investigation carried out under the Antarctic treaty and prospecting activity carried out under the convention.
      The qualification that the amendment would introduce, relating to damage to the Antarctic environment, is unnecessary. The avoidance of such damage in relation to all Antarctic mineral activity is the purpose of the convention, article 4 of which provides in detail for assessing possible environmental impact. Clause 3(3) requires that the Secretary of State does not issue licences other than in accordance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
      Similar points may be made about amendment No. 23, although the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke specifically about insurance. It is highly likely that any licensee would insure himself against liability for environmental damage, and it is also likely that any licence would include a condition requiring him to insure. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
      The hon. Member for Wentworth spoke to amendment No. 34. There will be an international obligation on this country under articles 2 and 4 of the convention to avoid the risk of environmental damage in Antarctica. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ratify the convention, so the amendment is not necessary.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: If, for one reason or another, the convention is not ratified, what do the Government estimate will be the ecological damage to Antarctica, given the circumstances that would then prevail?
      Mr. Eggar: Potentially, it is extremely serious. At present no prospecting is being carried out because of a voluntary moratorium, pending the timely entry into force of the convention. If it becomes clear that the convention will not come into force, it will be only a matter of time before one country or another agrees to prospecting being carried out in an unregulated way. The consequences for the environment in Antarctica would be extremely serious. That is why the convention is so desirable and why we are moving rapidly to ratify it.
      Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Eggar: With respect, I am trying to deal with the points that have been made.
      The hon. Member for Wentworth asked how the inspectors would be appointed. The Secretary of State and the Government are responsible for the appointment of inspectors. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we intend to appoint inspectors in an ad hoc way. Clearly, the skills and experience required will vary depending on the type of prospecting activity to be inspected. The Secretary of State will take into account the skills that are necessary. I imagine that the qualifications or experience of environmental protection referred to in the amendment will be called for.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also expressed some anxiety about that point. If hon. Gentlemen are unhappy about the appointments that may be made by the Secretary of State, I remind them that any other party is entitled to appoint people to inspect prospecting activity that is licensed by the Government. If that does not satisfy them, the Commission that is set up under the convention can also appoint inspectors. There is

      113
      a three-tier system of appointment and even with the most vivid imagination no one could believe that all the inspectors would be flawed and would fail to take account of environmental protection.
      With those remarks I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are considering a group of amendments and I understand that you will call at least the first one for a Division. Will the Division on amendment No. 36 be recorded in Hansard at the end of the debate, which would be convenient, or when it is put to the vote?
      Mr. Speaker: If there is a Division it will be taken when the amendment is put to the vote. I have just taken the Chair and I am considering whether that action is appropriate.
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Report stage, not a Committee. The hon. Member can speak only once.
      Mr. Corbyn: With the leave of the House—
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member does not have the leave of the House.
      Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
      Mr. Corbyn: It is simply this. The Minister did not answer the points put to him reasonably and legitimately, so I sought the leave of the House to find out more from him. The Minister gave way at one point when I asked about inspectors, and I wished to reply to what he said.
      Mr. Speaker: If the House does not give the hon. Gentleman leave to speak again, I am afraid that I cannot give it to him.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 194.

      Division No. 300]

      [9.34 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Haynes, Frank

      Beggs, Roy

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

      Hinchliffe, David

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Howells, Geraint

      Buckley, George J.

      Illsley, Eric

      Callaghan, Jim

      Janner, Greville

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Clelland, David

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cohen, Harry

      Livsey, Richard

      Cryer, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dewar, Donald

      McFall, John

      Dixon, Don

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McWilliam, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mallon, Seamus

      Fisher, Mark

      Maxton, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Meale, Alan

      Fyfe, Maria

      Michael, Alun

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Graham, Thomas

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hardy, Peter

      Morley, Elliott

      114

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mullin, Chris

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Nellist, Dave

      Vaz, Keith

      Parry, Robert

      Wallace, James

      Pike, Peter L.

      Walley, Joan

      Prescott, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Redmond, Martin

      Richardson, Jo

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Tony Banks and

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Gow, Ian

      Allason, Rupert

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Amess, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Amos, Alan

      Gregory, Conal

      Arbuthnot, James

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Hague, William

      Ashby, David

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

      Batiste, Spencer

      Harris, David

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Benyon, W.

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Irvine, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Irving, Charles

      Bottomley, Peter

      Jackson, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Jessel, Toby

      Bowis, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Key, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Kilfedder, James

      Brazier, Julian

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Bright, Graham

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Burns, Simon

      Knowles, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Latham, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Cash, William

      Lightbown, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Chope, Christopher

      Lord, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Maclean, David

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Couchman, James

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Cran, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mans, Keith

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

      Maples, John

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Day, Stephen

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Devlin, Tim

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Dover, Den

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Durant, Tony

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Eggar, Tim

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Evennett, David

      Mills, Iain

      Fallon, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Favell, Tony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Moss, Malcolm

      Franks, Cecil

      Nelson, Anthony

      Freeman, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gale, Roger

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Gill, Christopher

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Page, Richard

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Paice, James

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      115

      Portillo, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Price, Sir David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Raffan, Keith

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Redwood, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thurnham, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Trotter, Neville

      Rost, Peter

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Shelton, Sir William

      Ward, John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shersby, Michael

      Watts, John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, John

      Speed, Keith

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wilshire, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stokes, Sir John

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. Alan Howarth and

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      GRANT OF LICENCES
      Mr. Anderson: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 45, leave out
      'may, if he thinks fit',
      and insert
      'shall establish a British Antarctic Licensing Commission whose purpose shall be, in appropriate circumstances and subject to the provisions of this section, to'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4) and insert—
      '(2A) The British Antarctic Licensing Commission shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and shall comprise five members, including at least one representative from each of International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, International Whaling Commission, and the Commission for the European Communities.
      (3A) The Chairperson and two other members of the Commission shall be persons appearing to the Minister to have no financial or commercial interests as are likely to affect them as members independent of the mining industry.
      (4A) An application for a license shall be accompanied by such fee (if any) as may be prescribed and an environmental impact statement.
      (5A) An environmental impact statement comprises a document or series of documents providing for the purpose of assessing the likely impact upon the environment of the activity proposed to be carried out the information specified in (6A) below.
      (6A) The specified information is—

      (a) a description of the activities proposed, comprising information about the site and design and size or scale of the activity;

      (b) the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which that activity is likely to have on the environment;

      (c) a description of the likely significant effects, direct and indirect, on the environment of the activity, explained by reference to its possible impact on—

      116

      human beings;

      flora;

      fauna;

      soil;

      water;

      air;

      climate;

      the landscape;

      the inter-action between any of the foregoing;

      material assets;

      the cultural heritage;

      (d) where significant adverse effects are identified with respect to any of the foregoing, a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce or remedy those effects; and

      (e) a summary in non-technical language of the information specified above.

      (7A) An environmental impact assessment may include, by way of explanation or amplification of any of the specified information, further information on any of the following matters—

      (a) the physical characteristics of the proposed activity, and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;

      (b) the main characteristics of the prospecting activities proposed, including the nature and quality of the materials to be used;

      (c) the estimated type and quantity of expected residues and emissions (including pollutants of water, air, or soil, noise, vibration, light, heat and radiation) resulting from the proposed activity when in operation;

      (d) (in outline) the main alternatives (if any) studied by the applicant, appellant or authority and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the activity proposed;

      (e) the likely significant direct and indirect effects on the environment of the activity proposed which may result from—

      (i) the use of natural resources;

      (ii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances, and the elimination of waste;

      (iii) the forecasting methods to assess any effects on the environment about which information is given under the subparagraph (e); and

      (iv)any difficulties, such as technical deficiencies or lack or know-how, encountered in compiling any specified information.

      In paragraph (e), "effects" includes secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent, temporary and negative effects.
      (8A) Where further information is included in an environmental statement pursuant to (7) above, a non-technical summary of that information shall also be provided.
      (9A) The British Antarctic Licensing Commission shall not grant a licence to any person unless it is satisfied

      (i) that the person is suitably qualified to hold a licence; and

      (ii) that the carrying on by that person of the authorised activities will be consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.

      (10) A licence shall be granted for a maximum period of two years and subject to such conditions as the British Antarctic Licensing Commission thinks fit.".'
      No. 20, in page 3, line 5, after 'with', insert 'all'.
      No. 27, in page 3, line 6, at end add
      `and that such a licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is completely satisfied that no pollution will result from its implementation'.
      No. 22, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'such loss or', and insert 'any'.
      No. 24, in page 3, line 17, after 'activities', insert
      `such loss or other damage'.
      No. 25, in page 3, line 17, leave out 'and'.
      No. 29, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'providing for' and insert 'requiring'.
      No. 26. in page 3, line, 19, at end insert

      117
      'and

      (d) requiring the licensee, within twelve months from the grant of his license and prior to commencing any prospecting activities, to prepare, and from time to time modify, a statement setting out the manner in which he proposes to prevent damage to the environment or ecosystem of Antarctica arising out of the tarring on by him of authorised activities; and

      (e) requiring the licensee, before preparing or modifying a statement, to consult with the Commission and with the Nature Conservancy Council or such other body as the British Antarctic Licensing Commission shall consider appropriate.'.

      No. 28, in page 3, line 19, at end add
      'and
      (d) and that a bond equal to twice the sum required for insurance purposes shall be deposited before a licence is granted and which shall be forfeited if there is any oil spillage or other significant pollution as a result of or during the exercise of that licence'.
      No. 46, in page 3, line, 19, at end add—
      '(d) any licensee must give a report each six months to the Inspectorate and the Environmental Protection Agency on the effects of the exploration and its environmental impact.'.
      No. 47, in page 3, line 19, at end add—
      '(e) the numbers of persons involved in the exploration shall be agreed with the Secretary of State and names involved submitted and agreed by him.'.
      No. 48, in page 3, line 19, at end add—
      '(f) all license applications must be reported to Parliament by the Secretary of State and his subsequent decisions.'.
      No. 49, in page 3, line, 19, at end add—
      '(g) the license shall specify the exact quantities of minerals that may be extracted for samples; all extracted minerals remain the property of a license commission appointed by the Secretary of State to oversee all licensees.'.
      No. 50, in page 3, line 24, at end add—
      '(7) No person found guilty of an offence under section 10 below shall be permitted to apply for a licence.'.
      No. 30, in clause 4, page 3, line 30, after 'complied with' insert
      'or is likely not to be complied with'.
      No. 31, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, at end add '
      and
      (c) that evidence provided by individuals or organisations maintaining interest in these matters is such as to suggest that the exercise of the licence may or will have disadvantageous effect upon the environment.'
      No. 45, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, at end add—
      '(4) Before any licence is operated there shall be an opportunity for environmental protection groups to visit the site(s) and at any other time during the life of the licence.'.
      No. 51, in clause 8, page 4, line 36, at end add—
      `There shall be sufficient inspectors to ensure that each licence has a detailed inspection of its activities every six months in whatever part of the Antarctic it is sited.'.
      Mr. Anderson: This is a crucial series of amendments. They are the key to providing safeguards in the Bill and a test of the Government's environmental intentions through the Bill and the convention.
      We oppose the Bill in principle because circumstances have changed, but the Government have been inflexible and not prepared to move in tune with those changed circumstances. Although we voted in favour of the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, our prime motives since then have been to "green" the Bill, to put each clause through an environmental sieve and to provide as many environmental safeguards as possible. We also want, as far as possible, to remove the discretions available to the Minister.
      118
      The amendments relate to the licensing provisions. They are essential because, as the Minister confirmed in Committee, Britain is further down the legislative road towards implementing the convention than the other countries which intended to ratify it. The safeguards that we build into the Bill will therefore set a precedent for other countries to follow.
      When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will confirm that that is so. As we are leading the field, it is all the more important that we get the Bill right, build in safeguards and not allow loopholes to remain which are ripe for exploitation by people with no concern for the Antarctic's unique ecosystem.
      The purpose of the amendments is to establish the British Antarctic Licensing Commission and set out its terms of reference, which include an obligation on companies seeking licences to provide an environmental impact statement of their intentions before their licences can be considered. The concept of a licensing commission is not new, in either international or domestic law. The convention itself proposes a commission to regulate the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica. Under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, for example, the Cable Authority is charged with allocating franchises on criteria which include standards of decency and impartiality. The British Antarctic Licensing Commission, or BALC, will be accountable to the Secretary of State, though its decisions are more likely to come under judicial scrutiny. Clearly it would be more practicable for the commission's decisions to be taken by way of judicial review than by the Secretary of State. We envisage the accumulation by case law of much more stringent environmental safeguards.
      Other amendments relate to the commission's terms of reference. They are set out in extenso in amendment No. 19, but it is not my intention to describe them in detail. Suffice it to say that the amendment begins by setting out the commission's proposed membership. It stresses
      "The Chairperson and two other members of the Commission shall be persons appearing … to have no financial or commercial interests …"
      Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed the extent to which people with commercial interests could easily intrude, particularly in respect of licence applications.
      Amendment No. 19 goes on to stipulate:
      "An environmental impact statement comprises a document or series of documents providing for the purpose of assessing the likely impact upon the environment of the activity proposed to be carried out".
      The information required for the environmental impact statement is also detailed, and the amendment describes certain discretionary activities.
      Finally, amendment No. 19 states:
      "A licence shall be granted for a maximum period of two years and subject to such conditions as the British Antarctic Commission thinks fit."
      It is important that the licence should not be held indefinitely. The suggested maximum of two years will concentrate the licensee's mind, and provide a requirement additional to that in clause 4, which empowers the Secretary of State to revoke or suspend a licence if he is not satisfied with the activities of the licensee.
      Amendment No. 19 also sets out organisations which could suitably be represented on the licensing commission. They might include the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the International Whaling Commission, the Nature

      119
      Conservancy Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Commission for the European Communities and the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research.
      We believe that the requirements set out in the amendment, although lengthy, are very reasonable and are standard environmental impact assessment criteria. The format has not been snatched from the air or devised by people whom Conservative Members might label eco-freaks. It has been drawn from the Government's own precedent—the statutory instrument, Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. Those considerations for environmental impact assessments on new developments in the United Kingdom are a legal requirement.
      We feel that the criteria developed in Britain are equally relevant internationally. Although the Government may be tardy in translating such criteria from the domestic to the international stage, we believe that that translation must inevitably come. In any case, the convention requires contracting states sponsoring prospectors to submit advance notification of prospecting, along with an environmental impact assessment, which must be circulated to all contracting parties.
      In our judgment, this is not an onerous requirement, but rather a litmus test of the Government's commitment—so much trumpeted of late—to the environment. As I said earlier, our Government have taken the lead in terms of implementing the convention domestically. They now have the opportunity to set a worthy precedent for other Governments to follow.
      Mr. Hardy: I shall try to make a shorter speech than I made on the previous set of amendments, but I think that it would be appropriate for me to make some comments, as amendments Nos. 27 to 31 are in my name.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that these were the most crucial amendments before the House, as they—quite properly—sought improved safeguards for the Bill. I remind the House that, in the short time that has elapsed since the debate started a little after 7 pm, at least a dozen species on the planet have become extinct—species that may have lived on earth for a thousand years, or perhaps for as long as the ice has existed in Antarctica. That pace of extinction is normal on our planet.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It is a pity that the process is not catching on the Conservative Benches.
      Mr. Hardy: I am a little kinder than my hon. Friend; when the Conservatives are reduced to one Member, I should like him to be preserved as an endangered species.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: We could keep him in a zoo.
      Mr. Hardy: I have certain reservations about zoological gardens.
      Britain has a reputation as the country where conservation was born. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East has reminded us, we are the lead Government in that regard. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that we give a new lead in seeking to retain the position that we once enjoyed.
      We have been pretty cavalier with the environment in many parts of the world. I have referred to the tropical rain
      120
      forests and the encroaching desert. I have only to look at parts of my own constituency to see what untrammelled commercialism can do, as 1,000 acres of land have become derelict and very little is being done.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Hardy: We have enough evidence in these islands of what can happen if greed is untrammelled, legislation is unsatisfactory and Government priorities are inadequate. We are fearful of what may happen in Antarctica. When he replied to the debate on the previous set of amendments, the Minister expressed some anxiety about what might happen if there were inadequate controls.
      To ensure that we set an example as the lead Government, we have tabled amendments which would toughen environmental protection within the Bill. The five amendments in my name would require the Secretary of State to be completely satisfied that no environmental damage would follow the issue of a licence. My amendment seeks to remove the word "providing" and replace it with the word "requiring", which makes the restriction a little tighter. In my view, a bond is required to ensure that there will be sufficient resources to make good what damage is done and at the same time to build another hurdle against the force of greed.
      Antarctica should remain an international reserve or wilderness area as we do not have enough of those. I have never visited Antarctica, but I once had the magnificent opportunity to fly over the North pole on an extremely clear and cloudless day. That gave me ample ground to intervene in the debate to say that, when we consider the environment of Antarctica, we should consider the topography and the landscape, which should not be cluttered with all the rubbish that may be produced even by scientific research which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, is inadequately controlled.
      I am also concerned about the retention of species. Most people are aware that there are penguins in Antarctica; the Minister will know that there are seven species of penguins there. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has already referred to the gentoo penguin raiding the cold store of a vanished scientific station.
      Altogether, 43 species of birds are seen regularly in Antarctica. Some of those birds range far more widely than the Southern ocean. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is not in his place, because he is a highly skilled ornithologist. Earlier today I asked him whether he had ever seen the wandering albatross, which is a bird of the Southern ocean, and he was fortunate enough to have seen one. It is a very large bird with a 11 ft wingspan. Even birds with 6 or 7 ft wingspans, such as the other members of the albatross family which are large and formidable creatures, are extremely vulnerable to loss of food reserves or the despoliation or poisoning of habitat.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a belief that "The Ancient Mariner", written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, was inspired by Cook's voyage to the Antarctic and that one interpretation of the voyage of the

      121
      ancient mariner is that we should protect the natural environment and not destroy what we do not know or understand?
      Mr. Hardy: There is a line in that fine work of literature which says:
      "Water, water, every where … nor any drop to drink."
      We are not suggesting that water will disappear, even if it is privatised, but it may be unfit to drink. DDT and other pesticides are already found in Antarctic waters.
      The degree of commercial exploitation on which some seem eager to embark could lead to the destruction of krill, which is the basic food supply of many of the species that inhabit Antarctica. The development of commercial exploitation in Antarctica will not merely disfigure the environment and make an area that should remain an outstanding international wilderness ugly and unpleasant, but that it will eventually destroy the food supplies and poison the environment of the four types of seal to be found there and the 43 species of birds based there, although they sometimes visit European areas.
      The cape pigeon is one such bird. It was seen in the Netherlands not long ago. I am sure that it is a true pigeon, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe could comment on that. It is an interesting species. If it sees itself under threat or likely to be treated badly, it spits at those who present the threat. I wish that we had some cape pigeons in the House this evening.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It sounds like the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Hardy: If we had cape pigeons here, I would wish that the Prime Minister was here as well.
      Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of wildlife in the Antarctic when the first human beings arrived was that they had no fear of them? The penguins stood still while sailors walked up, one after another, and clubbed them to death in their thousands. The seals were treated in the same way, because they came across an enemy about which they had no notion.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many penguins today are not very suspicious, although, as he has explained, they have great cause to be. I remember taking some children to a zoological garden. It was many years ago, because I have been in the House for a long time. One boy asked me, "Sir, are penguins dangerous?" I said that they were not. I picked one up and the children handled it. They expected it to be oily and unpleasant, but it was quite attractive. That penguin should not have allowed any human to pick it up because we have treated that species barbarously. We have treated all the wildlife of our planet barbarously until relatively recently. The green movement that we have discerned in Britain relatively recently suggests that an increasing proportion of the population requires the higher standards that I hope are embodied in our amendment.
      Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend was referring to penguins in the Antarctic. I have an extract from Time magazine of 23 January which talks about the destruction of 1,000 Adele penguins through the construction of the French research base at Dumont-D'Urville. An airstrip is being built at Pointe Geologie. There is a picture of the earth movers and the penguins are standing there being destroyed. They obviously do not know what is confronting them. I wrote to the Minister with a number
      122
      of questions about the destruction of the penguins at Pointe Geologie. I know that it is the responsibility not of the British Government, but of the French Government. However, it emphasises what my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth is saying.
      Mr. Hardy: As my hon. Friend will be aware, from time to time we disagree with some of our French colleagues in the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I can think of a good reason, as can my hon. Friend, to pursue that aspect of French Antarctic policy at a relatively early stage, perhaps when we meet next in September. We could draw this matter to the attention of the French Government, especially since Mr. Mitterrand—rightly in this connection—holds up France as a model. Despite what my hon. Friend has said, I am sorry to say that the position of the French Government is a great: deal more attractive and honourable than our own. Therefore, we should suggest to our French colleagues that their position would be improved by stopping the destruction of the Adele penguin.
      I am worried about the seals. Although I said that there were four types of seal, the elephant seal is not strictly an Antarctic creature. The seals are vulnerable. Although their numbers may not have been reduced on the scale of the seals in the Mediterranean, where the numbers deteriorated fairly rapidly not many years ago and are now a matter of serious concern for European conservationists, a threat does exist, not merely because of disturbances to the environment, but because of the other problem in the Antarctic, which is the proper control of the resources of the marine heritage—the krill and the fish. If there is overfishing greedy eyes are certainly fixed on that marine resource—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members disputing that, because only a few years ago some experts demanded the annual harvest of thousands of tonnes of krill, which could not have been supported for more than a short period.
      We are entitled to expect the Government to recognise that, as my hon. Friends have said, they are in a lead position in relation to the environment. We should not surrender that lead and watch Australia and France adopt entirely commendable positions while laying ourselves open to serious criticisms as a nation.
      The amendments do not go anywhere near as far as some people might like. However, as was the case with the previous batch of amendments, I believe that they have merit and should command attention from this Administration, together with the acceptance that we must demonstrate that Britain will retain high standards, that we fully recognise the environmental inheritance that the Antarctic offers and that we will not, through inadequacies in our own legislation, provide a threat which future generations—and perhaps, in time, our own—will find grievously unacceptable and utterly inadequate.
      Mr. Julian Amery: I apologise for not having participated in much of the debate. I feel a good deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and with the natural desire to keep the Antarctic in its virgin state for longer. I see that point. However, there are vast resources there that cannot easily be extracted. They are under the ice cap, but they could help millions of people, such as the millions of

      123
      people in Africa and elsewhere, who are suffering from drought or hunger or war. We must strike a balance in this matter.
      The whole object of the treaty is to make it possible to exploit the wealth that is in the Antarctic, although that it is difficult to do. My noble Friend Lord Shackleton—perhaps I should not call him my "Friend" because he is a Labour Peer, but I have worked with him for many years—Lord Buxton and others have left me in no doubt that extracting the wealth is an extremely difficult operation.
      That wealth exists and we should not make it impossible to develop the resources of Antarctica in the interests of mankind as a whole, particularly when we consider what has happened in Ethiopia, Somalia or the Sudan. I intervene in this debate partly from filial piety. My father annexed great chunks of the Antarctic to the British empire. He did that because he thought that nothing could be done with it in those days, but he wanted to stake a claim in case an opportunity arose in time to develop the wealth in that part of the world.
      10.15 pm
      Less than 10 years ago, we had a conflict with Argentina over the Falklands. The Falklands are the nearest that I have ever been to the Antarctic. The Argentines and the Chileans also have claims on Antarctica, some of which overlap with ours. I have sometimes wondered, in the interests of Anglo-Latin American friendship in the south Atlantic, whether we might enlist the co-operation of Argentina, Chile and other countries in the gradual development of Antarctica and its resources as laid down in the treaty. The Falklands under British sovereignty could provide a base for doing just that, with their airfield and improved naval facilities. The Falklands are perhaps the nearest modern developed location to the Antarctic continent.
      We should not forswear the possibility of co-operation with Latin American countries and others which have interests in the ultimate development of Antarctica, so long as that is well policed and organised under the Antarctic treaty. The resources of the Antarctic might be made available for the benefit of all mankind and perhaps specifically benefit this country and our citizens who participated in its development.
      Mr. Hardy: If the right hon. Gentleman is taking the long view and saying that, in X number of centuries, we might need the reserves in Antarctica, perhaps I could agree in large measure with what he has said. However, our anxiety is that man's greed outstrips his common sense at the moment. Although the Exxon oil disaster off the Alaskan coast was some distance from civilisation, it was a great deal nearer the technical and physical resources necessary to contain the spillage. Even so, it had a dramatic impact on that part of our planet. If such an experience was repeated in the present state of man's capacity and knowledge in the Antarctic peninsula or in the Bellingshausen or Weddell seas, the damage might be colossal and we would not have sufficient resources close enough to such a disaster to respond to what would be a tragedy.
      Mr. Amery: I do not suggest that we should wait centuries. It may be wise and possible to tackle the problem sooner. However, if we followed the hon.
      124
      Gentleman's recipe, we would not exploit anything. The Californian, Latin American and South African goldfields would not have brought wealth to the local populations or to the world as a whole. We cannot ignore the need of people who are dying today in central Africa and sub-Saharan Africa simply to preserve a national or universal park for ever. As I understand it, the Antarctic treaty offers all the safeguards that are required for a reasonable and logical approach to the problem.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I abstained in the Division on the last amendment. I find myself somewhat out of tune with hon. Friends whose causes I normally support. I should like to explain to them and to the House why that is so. The convention is the best that we are likely to get—and heaven help us if we do not get it, because people could run amok.
      I am greatly influenced by the good fortune of having been able to attend a conference on the Antarctic at Ditchley about a year ago. At that conference I listened not only to the Americans arguing strongly and with considerable information the case for such a convention, but also to the best of my recollection to the representations of the Germans and certainly—without doubt, because I checked my notes—to the representations of the Australians. It is a bit rich for Australian politicians now to say that they want to keep the Antarctic in pristine condition when we all know very well that the real influence was the victory in Tasmania of five Greens in a local election. That does not reflect great credit on Australian politics or on the Australian politicians of all hues who tried to appear as knights in shining armour.
      I am concerned about certain problems. I have a strong recollection of the powerful argument advanced at Ditchley and Edinburgh by Dr. Steele, the distinguished Scottish-American director of the Woods Hole laboratory. He said that the problem of waste is very real. I agree with my hon. Friends that the shit of Gentos penguins is not so bad as human excrement or many of the things that will remain for years.
      First, what will be done about waste? Secondly, I am somewhat put out—I put it no higher—to see my hon. Friends producing the Scott letter. I agree with them that there must be some answer, and when Sir Peter Scott writes such a letter there must be a fairly full reply. Equally, powerful colleagues of ours, of whom Eddie Shackleton is one, take the view that I and others put forward—and not, in many respects, the view of my hon. Friends. However, there are distinguished experts on both sides. I should like an answer to those questions.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for setting out his views. I have an enormous respect for his work in exposing the Government's deviousness over the Falklands and on many other issues. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with him on this issue, but I have great regard for what he says. Essentially, his argument boils down to the fact that he and I agree on the need to preserve in its entirety the environment of the Antarctic. He believes that the convention which is on offer is the best way to protect that environment, because he thinks that it is achievable and can be done now. A few years ago, many of us might have agreed with that view, but things have moved on. We have

      125
      seen the change of view by the Australian Government, who say that they now support the wilderness park idea that New Zealand promoted some time earlier.
      The amendment proposes a licensing authority, which would be free from the commercial pressures, as far as that is possible, that we think are implicit in everything that the Government have so far put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that amendments Nos. 17 and 19 were the important ones in the group—which they are. Amendment No. 17 provides for the setting up of a British Antarctic licensing commission. Amendment No. 19 goes through the details of that commission and the environmental impact surveys that it will he expected to undertake. As my hon. Friend pointed out, everything said on environmental impact surveys in the two pages of the amendment—it is one of the longest that I have seen—is taken from existing British Government legislation—the regulations contained in the Town and Country Planning Acts. Therefore, it is all eminently sensible and achievable.
      We are saying that, before any exploitation, be it prospecting or what we believe will lead on to the exploitation of minerals in the Antarctic, an environmental impact assessment must be made. It must go into all the aspects involved, such as the type of activities proposed, information on the site, the size and scale of that activity and the data that will be necessary to identify the main effects, and then it must consider the possible effects of all the matters mentioned.
      It is easy to say that what we are talking about is the search for minerals, but clearly many other matters arise from that. If there is mineral exploration in a particular ice-free or partially ice-free area of the Antarctic, inevitably that will also be the wintering ground for many birds and other wildlife. If there is any human habitation, that could drive the wildlife away—which, of itself, may upset the ecosystem.
      For example, if shoals of fish are driven away, penguins may leave too, because there will be insufficient fish for them to eat. They may go somewhere else where there is insufficient food, so they, too, may start to decrease in numbers. That phenomenon is recognised in many other places.
      There must be a serious examination of all the effects. We must not just examine the possibility of oil spillage from a ship going to the site, serious as that would be, but we must examine all the knock-on effects on the wildlife. It is for those reasons that we have put forward a detailed series of proposals. I would be disappointed if they were not accepted by the Government as a reasonable basis for the survey.
      Equally important, we say that the members of the proposed licensing commission shall be people who do not have a commercial interest in what is going on in the Antarctic. We do not deny, and we never have, that we are prepared to support and recognise the use of the Antarctic as the basis for scientific research. Indeed, if it had not been used for such research, we would not know of the damage that we are already doing to the environment through the destruction of the ozone layer. We would not know much about the increase in carbon dioxide within the atmosphere, because we would not be able to take accurate samples of air that has been untouched for possibly 100,000 years. It is essential that it be pure research and that the information gained should be publicly and freely available.
      126
      As I said before, I am concerned about the fact that the Greenpeace survey of scientific sites in the Antarctic showed that considerable damage has already been done to the environment immediately around them, and that requires rectification. The Minister in Committee and again on the Floor of the House has promised to take up our concerns at the October meeting.
      Another worry is what will be the cut-off point between scientific research, which will provide information which is freely available in the public domain, and mineral exploration which becomes a commercial benefit. I believe that the Bill crosses that Rubicon, which is why I and many others are so worried about it. The Bill paves the way for commercial exploration, the results of which would not be in the public domain but would be commercial secrets available to only those companies which had invested considerable sums of money in the search for that crucial information.
      One cannot imagine that a company the size of Exxon, BP, Consolidated Gold Fields, Rio Tinto-Zinc or Lonrho—or any large mining exploration companies—would be prepared to invest the millions necessary to undertake the research in the Antarctic if they did not feel at the end of the day that they would get something out of it. That would be the purpose of going there. It might be a bit of a shock to Conservative Members, but none of the companies I have mentioned are charities. They are dedicated to making large sums of money out of the mining industry. They have no charitable intent. That is why the difference between publicly funded scientific research and privately financed exploration is so crucial. In that regard, the Bill is seriously defective.
      10.30 pm
      Together with amendments Nos. 17 and 19, I tabled other amendments, designed to strengthen the environmental protection agency that I envisage or the licensing commission that is envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East. It is important that a number of criteria are laid down. It is important that such an organisation should report regularly on the effects of exploration an its environmental impact. That does not mean that those reports would be made at the end of the period of a licence—such a licence could run for several years—rather, that the effects of any exploration should be investigated and reported upon as it goes along.
      We should be clear about who is in the Antarctic and what they are doing there. It is all very well for the Minister or for the Secretary of State to grant a licence to any one company to undertake exploration in the Antarctic. The company may or may not be reputable, but that remains to be seen. The company, however, may be the subject of a takeover and in the subsequent takeover battle the value of its prospecting licence could be brought to bear. The nature of the exploration could then change significantly, as could the character of the personnel. Amendment No. 47 asks that the numbers of personnel and their names be agreed with the Secretary of State.
      Clause 10 deals with the penalties for people who infringe the conditions of the licence or damage the environment. If such damage is to be avoided and such persons are to be prevented from taking part in another exploration at a later date, there must be a register of those who initially go to the Antarctic. That is why amendment No. 47 asks that the Secretary agrees all the names of those who go to that region and that a register of them be kept.

      127
      If any of those people are found guilty of infringing the terms of the licence or of wilfully damaging the wildlife, flora or fauna, they could be prevented from going to the region again under another licence. That is an important consideration.
      We also believe that the Secretary of State should report to the House all the licence applications that he has received and his decision on them. In that way those applications and the subsequent decisions would be in the public domain.
      It is also important to specify the volume of minerals allowed to be extracted for sample purposes. As my hon. Friends have already said, scientific whaling is the grossest abuse of science. That whaling is commercial; it is a deliberate attempt to thwart the intentions of the International Whaling Commission that has finally banned such whaling. Whaling is continuing under the guise of science, and it is a cruel deception. I do not want to see something similar happen in the Antarctic.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It is worth placing on record the efforts that have been made in this regard by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as it shows that our attitude to the Bill and, in this respect, to the Government, is constructive. The Parliamentary Secretary has stood up to defend the interests of the world's whale population against the approach adopted by the Norwegians, the Icelanders and, in particular, the Japanese by their slaughter of the minke whale.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whenever we pass conservation measures, such as those to stop the slaughter of whales, commerce finds a loophole. Exactly the same will happen if the ban on ivory sales is successful. In a short time, someone will say that it is necessary to slaughter some African elephants for scientific reasons, and that will rapidly become a basis for commerce.
      The licence must state clearly what volume of minerals can be extracted under research conditions. Minerals that are extracted for sample purposes should not become the property of the commercial organisation that dug them out, but of the licence commission, so that there can be no commercial benefit in someone extracting excessive quantities, perhaps beyond the terms of the licence.
      What I propose in amendment No. 50 may already be covered in the Bill or in regulations. I read the Bill carefully during the weekend and I did not see any such provision, so I tabled the amendment. It is obvious that, if the convention system is to work—some people believe that it can—and punishment is to be meted out to those who wilfully destroy the environment and go beyond the licence, they must be denied the opportunity to commit those crimes again.
      Amendment No. 50 would not permit such people to apply for a licence under their own name. Amendment No. 47 proposes that the names of all such people should be submitted to the Secretary of State. There is, therefore, the possibility of strict control of what is happening to the environment.
      Amendments Nos. 31 and 45 are similar. Non-governmental organisations must have a right of inspection. Without Greenpeace's work in the Antarctic and the
      128
      North sea on nuclear dumping, for example, we would not know what is happening. It is under-resourced, but I pay tribute to its contribution to monitoring. It has shown that the damage that has already been done to the Antarctic environment would be a thousand times worse as a result of mineral exploration. It is therefore essential that non-governmental organisations should be able to visit sites.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East proposed a commission which is not commercially dominated. I would not have much confidence in an Antarctic environmental protection agency whose board members were representatives of all the major oil and mining companies in the world. They would quietly carve the Antarctic up between them. Such an agency has to include people with no commercial interest but with a deep scientific knowledge of the continent. Sir Peter Scott would make an excellent member of such a commission.
      Non-governmental organisations must have the right to investigate and inquire into what is going on. Amendment No. 45 proposes:
      "Before any licence is operated there shall be an opportunity for environmental protection groups to visit the site(s) and at any other time during the life of the licence.".
      At present, if Greenpeace undertakes another expedition around the Antarctic to visit all the sites—I hope that it does—it does not have to be allowed to visit all of them or to go into all the detail necessary to write a report. It experienced some difficulty at some scientific sites that it visited during its last expedition in 1987–88.
      Amendment No. 51, which is crucial too, refers to the number of inspectors who shall be appointed. Perhaps due to an oversight, the Minister did not reply to that point earlier; perhaps he will this time. Those of us who have been active in trade union matters for many years have experienced the factories inspectorate. It is not that we dislike it; it is just that we find it inadequate. There are never enough inspectors, and they do not come often enough. The employers often know when they are coming, in any case. We want a large number of independent inspectors who can visit not only the sites licensed by the national Governments on their territorial claims, but every other site throughout the continent. We want them to communicate what they find every six months. Their report will give an account of all activities in that time.
      This may seem expensive and excessive, but the issue is so important that we need this degree and regularity of reporting. If we let commerce dominate the commission and the exploration that goes on, and let it own the information that it obtains, that will lead to ecological disaster. Unlike temperate climates, in which partial recovery from such disaster is possible, in the Antarctic there can be none.
      In Antarctica one can see the petrified remains of a husky that Captain Robert Scott rather short-sightedly destroyed. Had he used dogs instead of ponies, he might have got to the south pole, probably before Amundsen, who relied entirely on dogs. Scott ended up towing his sledges himself. The dog is petrified in the ice for ever more because it was frozen suddenly. It is mummified, like an Egyptian mummy or like the bodies found in the northern deserts of Chile. So any serious spillage would not biologically degrade as it would in a more temperate clime—it would remain. Oil would freeze into the ice for ever more, just as any other pollutant would.

      129
      I hope that the Minister accepts that our amendments are designed to protect this fragile environment. We recognise the work done in the past by the British Antarctic survey, which I do not want to be involved in private enterprise. It should be entirely publicly funded and in the public domain. We applaud the work done by Greenpeace to draw to our attention the fragility of the Antarctic environment.
      When Captain Cook first set eyes on the Antarctic, he realised what a special, fragile place it was. Tragically, he did not live long enough to be able to write enough about his discoveries, but all the signs from his letters and diaries are that he was appalled at what was done afterwards to the places that he discovered—in a European sense—in the name of commerce.
      I hope that tonight we will decide to play our part in protecting the Antarctic and not to allow it to be divided up into national claims, and subdivided into commercial claims. I hope that we shall support the idea of a world environmental park, and eventually take the continent out of the hands of the treaty nations and make it part of a truly international park, owned for ever through the United Nations, and exploited never.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It was appropriate that as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned the "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner", the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) seized his cue and rose to make a speech. Conservative Members will know that the opening lines go:
      "It is an ancient Mariner
      And he stoppeth one of three.
      `By thy long grey beard and glittering eye, Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?"
      The right hon. Gentleman has a fine grey beard and a glittering eye. I am glad that he stopped us, because he has shown us that we were right to have said all along that the Bill is about exploitation—something that the Minister has been denying. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he thinks that we should extract the wealth of the Antarctic for the benefit of the world. That is not what we want to do. We do not accept that that is necessary. The Bill has no mechanisms that make it likely that the wealth that is exploited is used for the benefit of mankind. Multinational mining companies will go in there and make money for their shareholders.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend may have forgotten the debates in the other place, in which the Government spokesman let the cat out of the bag. He said that the objective of the Government was to get the largest possible share of the economic returns from the activities in the Antarctic.
      Mr. Banks: It was always clear to us, but it is becoming manifestly clear to all, that whatever the Minister is saying, for whatever reason he is saying it, we are not being given the whole story. We cannot accept that this is only about exploring, not exploitation. The Bill talks about exploration, but that is only the thin end of a very obvious wedge. The Minister cannot expect us to accept his bland statements, which do not match what was said in another place, or by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. In his robust and honest way, the right hon. Gentleman stated what we know to be the philosophy behind the Bill. We are indebted to him.
      130
      The Bill has no mechanisms for making sure that if the mineral resources of the Antartic are properly explored—that is what we are moving towards with the Bill, which is merely the first step in the softly, softly approach to exploitation—mankind as a whole will benefit. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the trickle effect, which the Prime Minister has mentioned—one allows the people at the top to make vast sums of money and, magically, it will trickle through to everyone. We know that that does not work.
      Why should we exploit the resources of the Antarctic? As far as I can see, there is no shortage of the minerals that are in the Antarctic. They are in abundance everywhere, waiting to be exploited. Why do we need to move to virgin territory? The right hon. Gentleman said that minerals are difficult to get out, but mining technology is changing. Lessons have been learnt in Alaska by British Petroleum and other mining companies, so they have the expertise to get over many of the difficulties of extracting minerals from the Antarctic. Such expertise is increasing by the day. There is no economic reason for such exploitation, and it is not needed to benefit the world.
      We know what would happen, and I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman knows it, too. If there is exploitation, there will be pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth has already described in some detail the destruction of the wildlife in the area, with consequences that we are not competent to judge. We at least know from experience of events elsewhere that when human beings start exploiting, they pollute and destroy. There is no reason for us to believe that anything (Efferent will happen in the Antarctic, if there is the exploitation that the right hon. Member for Pavilion expects.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not only not in his place now, but he is not with us on this Bill, which is a disappointment to Labour Members. As he said, we usually stand shoulder to shoulder on matters such as this. I still find it difficult to grasp his position on the Bill. I note that my hon. Friend comes timely upon his entrance. I can now say to him directly that I am disappointed that he is not with us. He said that the agreement is the best that we can get. He said, in effect, that there will be exploitation and that it is better that it should be regulated. That comes close to what the Minister is saying. Surely that is a counsel of despair—as we cannot stop it, let us regulate it. I think that we can stop it. We can take great heart from the position adopted by the Australian and French Governments, and by the Belgians. There is the possibility of establishing an international wilderness reserve because of what has been said in Australia and by President Mitterrand.
      There has been rapid change since the Bill appeared in another place. There was a massive green vote in the Euro elections, and I do not believe that that was a vote for the Green party. Instead, it was a declaration by the electorate that the environment is at the top of the political agenda. The time is ripe for us to return to the drawing board. Let us reject the Bill and re-examine these matters.
      Mr. Dalyell: Who, physically, is to keep out unwelcome intruders in the Antarctic?
      Mr. Banks: That is something that can be developed. If an international wilderness reserve is declared in the Antarctic, under the supervision of the United Nations, for example, or a special environmental protection agency,

      131
      all the countries that have an interest in the Antarctic could fund the necessary policing to ensure that intruders are kept out and that the area is used for scientific research that is in the interests of mankind. We do not need exploitation by multinational mineral companies. Let us have scientific exploration in the name of true science, of real knowledge. We can learn from the past. Much that remains frozen in the permafrost would tell us a great deal about the early days of the planet. To destroy all that to extract base metals and oil, which exist in abundance elsewhere, would be destruction on the grand scale.
      If there is a political will among the nations to preserve the Antarctic as an international wilderness reserve, the means can be found. That is what national or international politics are all about. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow takes such a defeatist attitude. He is such a spirited attacker of the abuse that he sees in this country. It is strange that he is not prepared to defend the Antarctic in the robust way that he has tried to defend the rain forests of Brazil. I am surprised at my hon. Friend, but I am sure that we shall be able to talk him round.
      The climate of opinion has changed since the Bill emerged in another place. The declaration at the G7 summit in Paris was the final piece of evidence that we needed. It was unique for such a group of countries to produce a statement in which the environment played such a major role. That is why we ask the Minister to examine the amendments and to meet our point.
      If amendment No. 17 were accepted, it would establish a British Antarctic Licensing Commission—
      Mr. Corbyn: It occurs to me that the Group of Seven's declaration was essentially one of setting enterprise loose on the remaining open spaces of the world so that it could destroy them. I accept, of course, that it states at the end that it is concerned about the environment. With the policies that most of the Seven are following, it should be concerned about it.
      Mr. Banks: That is true, but at least the Seven have had to pay lip service to the environment. That is something that they have not done previously. It is for national Parliaments and public opinion to turn the lip service of G7 into political reality. World opinion on environmental matters is changing, and it is in that hopeful climate that we can move forward.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the G7 statement. Although it acknowledges the need for environmental protection, it says that it should be scientifically well founded and economically well based, or words to that effect. Does my hon. Friend agree that the words "economically well based" could be dangerous? If it proves easier to exploit the resources in the Antarctic than in other land masses, the economic base becomes one of cost. There may be no economic base at all in protecting the environment; indeed, there may be an economic penalty. The G7 declaration could simply be dangerous lip service.
      Mr. Banks: The matter becomes more complicated. We could be talking about the difference between short-term and long-term economic gain. There could be a great deal of long-term economic gain from leaving the resources unexploited because that would save all the horrendous
      132
      problems of over-industrialisation and over-exploitation that are coming home to Europe and other parts of the world.
      I am not so green as to believe that all are genuine in their sudden conversion. Once again it is a case of politicians, whether in Britain or elsewhere, understanding votes. They have recognised the sea change in world opinion that is pushing environmental matters to the top of the political agenda. It would be a very, very stupid politician—there are many of them around—who wilfully chose to ignore that public demand. I repeat that the climate is different from that which existed when the Bill first surfaced.
      Amendment No. 19 is exceedingly long, but it tests the Government's sincerity. It proposes that an environmental impact statement be attached to any form of exploration in the Antarctic. The EEC has proposed that any form of environmental scheme should have an impact assessment attached to it. Even in this House, we have said that private Bills relating to dock work and the building of railways should have environmental impact asessments attached to them. That is in line with EEC proposals, and something which the Government will no doubt follow. It would be appropriate to apply that to the Antarctic.
      I do not want to go into detail about the amendment. I hope that the Minister has read it. If he accepts it, that will show the House that what he has been saying is what lies behind the Bill, not what has been said in another place and by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. There is a dichotomy between what the Minister has said in Committee and today and what was said by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. I hope that the Minister will tell the House why his right hon. Friend is wrong. If he is not wrong, the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment.
      11 pm
      Mr. Eggar: It may be for the convenience of the House if I first deal with the points made by Greenpeace. It states in its letter that the convention means that in the interim there will be no international supervision of prospecting activities. That is wrong while the moratorium survives in the period prior to the convention coming into force.
      Greenpeace asks who will ensure that prospectors comply with the convention in the area of overlapping claims, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). As I said in Committee, each of the three states will be able to ensure that their nationals, and anyone else in their claimed territories, comply with the convention—and each state will be able to inspect the other licensees' activities. Greenpeace asks also who will ensure that non-United Kingdom nationals will not be engaged in explorations in United-Kingdom claimed territory. Greenpeace has lost sight of the fact that the convention is specifically designed to prevent exploration until a decision is reached by consensus.
      Greenpeace states that prospecting could be a hazardous undertaking. It is of course right—and that is precisely the reason why the convention has been negiotated and why we want to ratify it. Greenpeace makes the nonsensical assertion that United Kingdom implementing legislation will be only as good as the worst implementing legislation in another country. That is incorrect.

      133
      Finally, Greenpeace claims that we shall be unable to control events in our own Antarctic territory. To the contrary: the convention provides the means to do so in respect of mining.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Eggar: No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a brave speech, which showed that he has followed events in the Antarctic for a considerable number of years. Without wishing to offend any other right hon. or hon. Member, the hon. Member for Linlithgow knows most about Antarctica. He has studied the situation there and followed the negotiations on the convention over a long period of time.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me, quite reasonably, to comment on Sir Peter Scott's letter to right hon. and hon. Members. He pointed out that the other son of that famous pair, his noble Friend Lord Shackleton made in another place a strong speech in support of the Bill. Sir Peter Scott's letter was similar to that which he wrote to The Times. A few days after it was published, Mr. Nigel Bonner, who at one time was deputy director of the British Antarctic survey, replied. It may assist the hon. Member for Linlithgow and other right hon. and hon. Members if I quote the critical paragraph of Mr. Bonner's letter:
      "Without CRAMRA"—
      the convention—
      "and without a World Park, some governments may regard themselves as unrestricted in the search for minerals. Sir Peter and Australia may find that by refusing to support CRAMRA, they have deprived Antarctica of the very protection they wish it to receive."
      That is the bald answer to Sir Peter Scott.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked also about rubbish disposal. I agree with him that there is a critical difference between rubbish disposal and sewage. I was trying to make the point that there is little to distinguish between the excrement of gentoo penguins and that of humans. Rubbish disposal relating to scientific discovery is a significant problem in Antarctica, and for that reason we and other parties to the Antarctic treaty have been working on an agreement to govern rubbish disposal there, which will be discussed at the meeting in Paris in October.
      The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), whose questions I always try to answer, raised the issue of inspectors. The Government intend to appoint sufficient inspectors, and we shall have to examine the particular terms of the licence application to ensure that we have the right inspectors in each case. The Bill makes it clear that inspectors will be appointed on an ad hoc basis to deal with specific licence applications
      The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, rightly, that Opposition amendment No. 19 goes to the core of the difference between the Opposition and the Government. There is no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition: we both wish to ensure that the necessary environmental safeguards exist in Antarctica. The amendment, however, provides us with a number of difficulties.
      First, the proposed procedures simply are not consistent with the convention. Secondly, and very critically, the adoption in British law of any such procedures at this stage would bind the hands of future negotiators in the commission who sought to elaborate on
      134
      reasonable and acceptable environment impact assessment procedures. The hon. Gentleman, I think, recognises that those procedures are critical.
      Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister saying, in terms, that any of the criteria set out in the amendment are unacceptable?
      Mr. Eggar: What I am saying is that it is entirely wrong to seek to bind the negotiators in the way proposed in the amendment.
      Other features of the amendment—which the hon. Gentleman himself has said is based on domestic legislation—are not likely to be appropriate: rules that apply in Swansea are not necessarily appropriate in Antarctica. Many elements in that amendment will, however, be covered. This brings us back to what was said in Committee should the need for flexibility—the need to consider specific approaches in detail rather than imposing an inflexible framework.
      For those reasons, the Government are unable to accept the amendment, and others in the group whose intent is similar.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 190.

      Division No. 301]

      [11.07 pm

      AYES

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Beggs, Roy

      McFall, John

      Beith, A. J.

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McWilliam, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Madden, Max

      Callaghan, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Meale, Alan

      Clelland, David

      Michael, Alun

      Cryer, Bob

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Darling, Alistair

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Dewar, Donald

      Nellist, Dave

      Dixon, Don

      Parry, Robert

      Dobson, Frank

      Patchett, Terry

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Richardson, Jo

      Flannery, Martin

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Skinner, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Spearing, Nigel

      Graham, Thomas

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hardy, Peter

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Haynes, Frank

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Home Robertson, John

      Turner, Dennis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Vaz, Keith

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Wallace, James

      Howells, Geraint

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Illsley, Eric

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Wilson, Brian

      Kennedy, Charles

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Livingstone, Ken

      Mr. Elliot Morley and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

      Livsey, Richard

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Allason, Rupert

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Ashby, David

      Amess, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Amos, Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arbuthnot, James

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      135

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kilfedder, James

      Benyon, W.

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Knapman, Roger

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Knowles, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Latham, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Lightbown, David

      Bowis, John

      Lilley, Peter

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Lord, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Bright, Graham

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

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

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Mans, Keith

      Burns, Simon

      Maples, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Butcher, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Butterfill, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Carrington, Matthew

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Cash, William

      Mills, lain

      Chapman, Sydney

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Chope, Christopher

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Couchman, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cran, James

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Nelson, Anthony

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

      Neubert, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Devlin, Tim

      Norris, Steve

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Dover, Den

      Page, Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Paice, James

      Eggar, Tim

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Evennett, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Favell, Tony

      Raffan, Keith

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Redwood, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Franks, Cecil

      Rowe, Andrew

      Freeman, Roger

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      French, Douglas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gale, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Gill, Christopher

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Gow, Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Shersby, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Gregory, Conal

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Speed, Keith

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Hague, William

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Stern, Michael

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Harris, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Stokes, Sir John

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

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Sumberg, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Hunter, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Irvine, Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Jessel, Toby

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Thurnham, Peter

      Key, Robert

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      136

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Wilshire, David

      Waller, Gary

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Wood, Timothy

      Watts, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Wheeler, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. David Maclean and Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 8

      APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS
      Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 4, at end add
      'among whom shall be individuals nominated by either or both national or international organizations which have standing in the field of environmental protection.'—[Mr.Hardy.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 189.

      Division No. 302]

      [11.19 pm

      AYES

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Livingstone, Ken

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Livsey, Richard

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Beggs, Roy

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Beith, A. J.

      Macdonald, Calum A.

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

      McFall, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Buckley, George J.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Callaghan, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Madden, Max

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Clay, Bob

      Meale, Alan

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Michael, Alun

      Cryer, Bob

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Darling, Alistair

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Nellist, Dave

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

      Parry, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      Patchett, Terry

      Dixon, Don

      Pike, Peter L.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Richardson, Jo

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Spearing, Nigel

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Vaz, Keith

      Gordon, Mildred

      Wallace, James

      Graham, Thomas

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Haynes, Frank

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Home Robertson, John

      Wilson, Brian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Howells, Geraint

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Illsley, Eric

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Peter Hardy and Mr. Elliot Morley

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Allason, Rupert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Boswell, Tim

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Amos, Alan

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Ashby, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Brazier, Julian

      Batiste, Spencer

      Bright, Graham

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Benyon, W.

      Burns, Simon

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Burt, Alistair

      137

      Butcher, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butterfill, John

      Hague, William

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Cash, William

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Harris, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cope, Rt Hon John

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

      Couchman, James

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Irvine, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kilfedder, James

      Dover, Den

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Durant, Tony

      Knapman, Roger

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Evennett, David

      Knowles, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Latham, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lightbown, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lilley, Peter

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Franks, Cecil

      Lord, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gale, Roger

      Maclean, David

      Gill, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Gow, Ian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mans, Keith

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maples, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      138

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mills, lain

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Stokes, Sir John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Sumberg, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Summerson, Hugo

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Neubert, Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Norris, Steve

      Thurnham, Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Page, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Paice, James

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Portillo, Michael

      Warren, Kenneth

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Watts, John

      Raffan, Keith

      Wells, Bowen

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wheeler, John

      Redwood, John

      Whitney, Ray

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Yeo, Tim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Speed, Keith

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr.Eggar.]
      11.31 pm
      Mr. Anderson: Although we are grateful to the Government for acceding to the request for a debate, we would not have had a debate in prime time if it had not been for the insistence of the Opposition. The Government had hoped that this important Bill would glide through on a sea of consensus. I hope that the Government now recognise that the debate has been a worthwhile exercise which has highlighted many of the key problems in this important area.
      For me, the debate has been an education. It has revealed the deep reservoir of knowledge among my hon. Friends on this matter as on so many others. We accept that if there is to be prospecting there must be proper safeguards. As we have made clear throughout, our preferred option is the creation of a wilderness park, but because of the provisions in the Bill, that option is not available to the House.
      We recognise that the climate of world and, indeed, domestic opinion has altered in respect of environmental questions. That is reflected particularly in the response of Australia. Hence, what seemed unattainable a few months ago, is now within reach. We were much moved by the evidence of people such as Sir Peter Scott who wrote to all hon. Members today.
      The Government have not adjusted to the new circumstances. There is an Australian veto, and Australia is not alone. She has been joined by the French. I gave the Minister chapter and verse on that in Committee. Now we understand that the Belgians have joined the French in refusing to accede to the convention. As I have said, we would prefer a wilderness park and our policy would be to work with the Australians and others for an environmental protection convention.
      In Committee we saw our role as basically to "green" the Bill as far as possible, to ensure greater control and supervision and stricter enforcement and to reduce as far as possible the discretion available to the Minister, who in his usual dulcet and soothing tones said, "Trust in me-it will all be all right on the night." We were not prepared to give the Minister the blank cheque that he sought.
      One basic difference between the Opposition and the Government is that the Government have said throughout that we are discussing prospecting and that the Opposition must accept that this is a limited Bill. That is like the housemaid's argument that it is only a small baby. Our reaction was wholly sceptical. As we have said, if multinational companies are prepared to lay out substantial amounts of shareholders' funds on prospecting, it must be the first stage of a two or three-stage operation. As my hon. Friend for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, they are not doing it as charities, but with the clear expectation that they will be able to move on to subsequent stages. There is what is known in our domestic planning context as a creeping commitment. It is rather a unique process for the Government to bring to the House tonight, but it is the first stage of what is clearly a multi-stage operation, with the second and third stages inevitably to follow. We therefore expressed scepticism about the Government's "softly, softly" approach.
      140
      I paraphrased earlier what Lord Glenarthur said on behalf of the Government in the other place. He said that, throughout the negotiations, the Government's motive had been to maximise the commercial advantages to British companies of the exploitation of the Antarctic. The Government's position was starkly revealed. All the Government's soothing arguments about concern for the environment must be seen in the context of that clear admission by their spokesman in the other place. We recognise, of course, that any loophole will be exploited and that the Government have taken a rather starry-eyed view. We are worried about the loopholes with respect to offshore companies and we have, therefore, proposed the use of inspectors, the establishment of a commission and the environmental impact survey.
      We remain convinced that there has been a sea change in world opinion and, indeed, in domestic opinion in respect of green and environmental issues. However much the green tendency is derided by the Minister, who is supposedly responsible for green questions, the new combination of forces will probably make the Bill entirely non-operative because of the Australian veto. There is a new momentum generally on environmental issues and the Government should properly have come to the House, in the light of those changed and new circumstances, and revealed their contingency plans on the basis that, when the contracting parties meet in October, Australia will exercise its veto—followed by other countries such as France and Belgium. The Government cannot respond as though nothing has changed and they need not change with it. On basic issues, such as the future of the Antarctic, we believe that we have to choose and we, the Opposition, are confident that we have chosen correctly.
      11.38 pm
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I presume that it is almost inevitable with such a Bill that much time is spent in criticising it for not covering some areas which it might have included or in suggesting that it is not as strong as it might have been in those areas that it does perceive to control. I suggest, however, that it is important to look at the Bill as it is written—the Bill that the House has been considering in Committee and in later stages. High-sounding phrases regarding the environment, whether in the Antarctic or anywhere else, will not bring any protection. What is necessary is for the Bill to provide for a sovereign Government to exercise their power over their corporate citizens in those areas where they have authority. That, in the long run, is the only way to achieve effective protection for the environment in any part of the world.
      There is nothing in the Bill that will guarantee that the Antarctic will remain pure and unsullied for ever. It would be hypocritical for the House to pass a resolution that suggested that it was within our power and remit to insist upon that. Those of us who have looked at the Bill as the means of doing what is possible as early as possible have sought to ensure that the British Government will do their level best to protect the environment of those areas over which we have authority for the benefit of our people and that of all others.
      The tenor of tonight's debate has meant that the Bill as a whole has not been considered, but those who re-read our debates will, given the context of the Bill, decide that it deserves the support of the House and general support, particularly of those who care about the environment.
      11.40 pm
      Mr. Morley: I know that it is late and that some people have asked why we have spent so much time discussing an issue that concerns a bunch of penguins. It is important, however, and it will not come before the house again for many years. It also concerns our global future, as the Antarctic represents the last unspoilt wilderness on this planet. It has a vital part to play in the complete ecology of our planet and it must continue to be protected in its entirety rather than be subjected to the risks that will come with being opened up for commercial exploitation.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill the argument has been that it is just about prospecting and identifying what is there. If we pass the Bill and we agree to the convention on minerals, the door will be open for the commercial exploitation of the Antarctic—that is the inevitable outcome.
      The basic argument is that the British Government should support the Bill and the convention as there are no alternative means of stopping the uncontrolled exploitation of Antarctica. There is a risk of such exploitation and it is important that it is controlled, but that does not mean that we should accept a convention on mineral exploitation. The same end could be achieved by arguing for a world wilderness park in the Antarctic under the control of the United Nations. That idea is not as far-fetched as some Conservative Members might think.
      I remind the Minister that the United States, the Soviet Union, Belgium, South Africa, Japan, Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany do not currently recognise any sovereign claim to any part of the Antarctic. Thus, a group of powerful, influential nations do not recognise any claim to that continent. That is a good basis for moving towards the idea of a world wilderness park.
      As long ago as 1948, the United States proposed a condominium of joint sovereignty. That idea was later supported by India and New Zealand, who argued that instead of a condominium of nations, the Antarctic should be subject to United Nations control. The idea of a world wilderness park under United Nations control is not new and it already has the basis of support.
      Australia has argued that we should have a world wilderness park, and there is some dispute over whether France has taken the same line. I took the trouble to look up the French statements. On 20 June a joint statement was made by Mr. Hawke and President Mitterrand in which they called for the establishment of such a park. The French support the Australians, who have suggested the only viable means by which to defend the Antarctic's interests.
      The convention on the exploitation of marine resources was welcome as it controlled, to some extent, the fisheries of the Antarctic. We can see how it works, however, and some of the weaknesses which I believe will emerge with any convention on mineral exploration. With regard to the convention on marine resources, for some species we need a ban on their being fished. One is the Antarctic cod, notothenia rossii, which has been fished to the verge of extinction. Although scientists agree on the need for a ban, under the convention, one was vetoed by Japan and Russia. That comes as no surprise in view of their record on whaling, but it demonstrates that, even when there is a convention, there are still problems with national needs and priorities.
      142
      A world park could be an exciting and viable venture. If the Government argued for it, and did not maintain their present stance, it would redound to their credit. In 1972, the idea of a world park was supported by the world conference of national parks. It was also supported by New Zealand in 1975. I realise that New Zealand has since changed its view, but I understand that there are signs that it could be persuaded to support Australia and France.
      The north-south issue is involved here. An increasing number of the southern nations argue that they should have a share of Antarctica, which was carved up when many Third world countries were colonies of the richer northern countries. That is a further complication and another dimension when negotiating and policing such a treaty. It is also an argument for having a world park
      Organisations such as Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature—we have seen the letter from Sir Peter Scott—support the concept. In France recently, 200,000 people signed a petition which supports the concept of a world park. I suspect that a similar petition in Britain would easily command such support. We know that accidents are not preventable and of the terrible impact of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska.
      An Argentine ship, the Bahia Paraiso, recently went aground in Antarctica. It caused immense damage. It spilt 250,000 gallons of diesel oil which was in drums and therefore less damaging than if it had been in a tanker which ruptured its tanks. Nevertheless, New Zealand conservationists who went to the scene of the accident said that the damage from the oil spill will be visible for 100 years because it takes oil up to 100 times longer to break down in Antarctica than in more temperate climates. Cath Wallace, New Zealand's convener of the Antarctica and southern oceans coalition, said that it was only a matter of time before a large oil spill seriously upset Antarctica's fragile ecology.
      In Britain, forecasts of major damage were made by Mr. Bernard Moran of the British Antarctic survey in Cambridge. He said that, as traffic in the Antarctic increased, there was a growing risk of similar incidents. The more exploration and development of the Antarctic there is, the more likely it is that there will be accidents.
      We have heard that the Group of Seven recently argued that action should be taken to reduce the greenhouse effect. Why, if the Government agree with the G7 nations that we should co-operate to reduce the greenhouse effect, do they also argue that we should open the Antarctic for exploration of its non-renewable resources? Would it not make more sense to argue that we should concentrate on renewable energy and other resources rather than open the Antarctic, which will be damaging and, even with the best will in the world, only a short-term solution to problems such as we have in Britain?
      There is a statue in the Antarctic of Richard Byrd, one of America's greatest Antarctic explorers. On its base the legend reads:
      "I am hopeful that Antarctica in its symbolic robe of white will shine forth as a continent of peace as nations work together there in the cause of science."
      That is what we want for the Antarctic. We do not want the thin end of the wedge to be introduced by allowing the multinational companies to exploit the place.
      In the end, the convention will not protect the Antarctic. It will protect it only if one regards the exploitation of its minerals as inevitable. But t is not inevitable: there is another option. Things have changed

      143
      since the negotiations on the convention started. Large, influential countries are arguing for a world park. The convention may not be ratified, but we cannot argue that if there is no agreement there will be unrestricted exploration. I accept that that is a risk, but the treaty has been in place since 1959 and it has not been breached by a single nation exploring for minerals. So why cannot the moratorium of 1959 be maintained while we switch the discussion away from the convention towards the idea of a world park? That is a more imaginative and realistic prospect, and future generations would thank us for it, not for what we are doing tonight.
      11.51 pm
      Mr. Hardy: I want to endorse the approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Because of his speech, I need not address the House at great length.
      These are the last kickings of colonialism. I am not suggesting that the northern nations should opt out. Speaking in the House during the Falklands war, I pointed out that South Georgia is as far from Buenos Aires as London is from Athens. This resource should not be left to the control or sovereignty of the southern states, either. As posterity will confirm, the only correct answer is to make the continent an international resource, recognising that the environment is far more important than any mineral resource.
      The position adopted by Australia and France, which would readily be followed by a number of nations, is perfectly legitimate and logical. It is a matter of deep regret that the United Kingdom has once again forfeited its position as a world leader in environmental matters in favour of that of laggard.
      As a result of this debate and the House's decision tonight, there will be a scramble to unlock the resources of the Antarctic and to maintain the profligate approach that humanity has adopted to the planet's resources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, we could take a more conservationist line on energy and fuel. We could and should be far keener and more enthusiastic about recycling mineral resources; but so long as those resources can be easily found and profitably extracted, the often perfectly reasonable lust of commercial organisations to extract them as quickly and rapaciously as possible will prevail.
      It must be the duty of politicians to inject other considerations into the decision-making process. I regret that the considerations that will be injected into the Antarctic debate will be unsatisfactory. In some ways I regret the Government's failure to accept the advice offered to them by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. They desperately need to win friends. As a party politician, I should rejoice when I see the Government forfeiting support and respect. If they carry on with the approach that the Bill embodies, they deserve to forfeit respect. They will be criticised for this measure not merely in our time but for many years to come.
      11.54 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: A marker should be put down on the urgent need for an international secretariat to look after the Antarctic, and to carry out the day-to-day work of the convention.
      11.55 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: Most Labour Members remain opposed to the Bill. We tried, both in Committee and on Report, to improve it, but the Government have not been prepared to do anything to meet the fears that we expressed through our amendments.
      The philosophy behind the Bill is clear. In effect, the Government have said that, because they cannot stop the move towards exploitation of mineral resources in the Antarctic, they should move to regulate such exploitation.
      Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
      Mr. Banks: The Minister shakes his head, as he is entitled to do, but he knows that, although the Bill is supposed to be about exploration, we shall be talking about exploitation in the end. The Bill is an early warning and we are looking beyond it to what we know will shortly follow it.
      If regulation is needed because nothing can be done to stop future exploitation, that attitude is, at best, a counsel of despair. We think that it is more. At worst, it is the green light for mineral exploitation, and for the multinationals to move into the Antarctic. The Government are saying that they are willing for the Antarctic to be exploited at some future date.
      Despite being asked to do so several times, the Minister has not defined either exploration or exploitation, and there is no such definition in the Bill. As Labour Members have said, the Bill is the thin end of an obvious wedge. No company that has a commitment to its shareholders will become involved in exploration without the possibility of exploitation. We have made it clear that we are not against scientific investigation, as there is so much still to be learned. The Antarctic has to deliver up many secrets that will teach us both about the past and how to avoid some of the obvious mistakes that we might make in the future.
      If the Bill were about scientific research and controlling and regulating such research, we would be far more enthusiastic about it. However, it is not. It is about multinational companies that will not be going in for scientific exploration for altrustic reasons. They will be doing it because they are looking for future exploitation. That is why we continue to oppose the Bill.
      The Bill provides further proof that the greening of the Government is nothing more than a shallow sham. The Prime Minister recently made a speech in France, in which she said:
      "There are rights that you can't take back but there are people who talk about the right to social protection. This is not a right in itself. You don't have the right to a good environment, either."
      That is a fine example for the green goddess to be setting the world. She went on to talk about what happens in an earthquake, a hurricane, a flood or a fire. Obviously we are talking not about natural calamities but of man-made calamities, which are the hidden part of the Bill. I believe that they will be revealed in due course.
      The Government should follow the recently set examples of the Governments of Australia and France and the statements that are being made by the Belgian

      145
      Government about declaring the Antarctic an international wilderness reserve under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked how we could enforce such a reserve. My hon. Friends and I say that that could best be done through the United Nations, and the setting up of a special environmental agency, which would be funded by the major industrial nations such as the United Kingdom. We are moving towards the time when the United Nations must set up an environmental protection force and an environmental disaster force. Ecological disaster worries us more now than at any other time.
      The Antarctic is one of the last great unspoiled areas of the planet. It is significant in terms of the ecological balance of the world and it is still not fully understood. There are still many secrets for the Antarctic to yield. That is why we would support proper and genuine scientific research, but not exploration that is a thinly veiled disguise for future commercial exploitation. We must preserve and protect the Antarctic and prohibit all exploration leading to exploitation.
      Everyone is so much more attuned to what is happening nowadays. We see all around us the consequences of past over-exploitation of the environment. Terms such as "the greenhouse effect" have crept into everyday language around the world. We are aware of polluted rivers and polluted seas. Rotting algae has been discovered in the Adriatic and it is putting tourists off swimming from the beaches. The authorities do not know how it got there, but they know that it is something to do with pollution. We must be aware of the great dangers that face the planet, which essentially have been created by our own activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow talks about the destruction of the rain forests and rightly brings the issue to our attention day by day. There is acid rain. Cancers and brain damage are known to be caused by contact with lead. How much more evidence do we need in Britain that it is our past follies that have caused the litany of environmental disasters that now face us?
      Yet we are contemplating moving in to one of the last great unspoiled areas of the world without knowing the consequences that will flow from such a decision. We oppose the Bill because we want to preserve the planet. The green party is to be found on the Opposition Benches. The only thing that is green about the Government are the empty Benches on their side of the House. It is—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and some of his hon. Friends have woken up. I assumed that his somnambulant position was a form of political osmosis, which the hon. Gentleman had assumed in the hope that somehow information would seep through the green leather into his brain. I am glad that I have woken him up. I am saying that the Bill will add only to the great possibility of major environmental and ecological disasters. If that does not concern the hon. Member for Selly Oak, I do not know what does. That is why we oppose the Bill and that is why we shall vote against its Third Reading.
      12.4 am
      Mr. Keith Speed: I was not moved to intervene in the consideration of the Bill, but having heard some of the speeches of Labour Members I shall make a short contribution. I cannot speak with great knowledge of
      146
      the Antarctic—the furthest south I have been is to the Falklands—but I can speak with some knowledge of Longyearben in Spitsbergen, having been there just seven weeks ago. I suppose that in Labour Members' terms that place has been exploited. It is between 78 deg and 82 deg north.
      About 1 million tonnes of coal is mined there annually, and not a pound of it at a profit. It is mined jointly, at a considerable loss, by the Norwegians who have one mine—the only one in Norway—with about 1,000 miners and the Soviet Union, which has the other mine with about 2,000 miners. They both make fantastic losses.
      I saw both mines and their settlements and there was not the terrible pollution that we have heard about today. I was fortunate to fly around the thousands of square miles of Spitsbergen and the surrounding islands and saw the flora and fauna. There has been a mining operation there for many years, going right back to the Spitsbergen treaty of 1920. All the signatories have the right to carry out not only scientific investigation but the exploitation referred to today.
      I yield to no one in saying that we do not wish to rape the Antarctic or any other area, but there must be a sense of balance. Those who have seen what is happening in Longyearben and Spitsbergen know that even after 40, 50 or 60 years of intensive exploitation through mining the consequences have not been those suggested in the hysterical speeches of Opposition Members. I do not believe that the Bill will cause anything like the catastrophe that they forecast.
      Conservative Members are as concerned as anybody about the ecology of the south Atlantic and the Antarctic. I reject the Opposition's hysterical nonsense. They should go and see what has happened over 40 years of extensive mining, properly carried out on a basis of co-operation and partnership between Norway and the Soviet Union.
      Opposition Members referred to the Bill's effect on wildlife. When we went to bed at night in the old miners' huts, we were warned to lock the doors because of the polar bears. That was good because it showed that the wildlife had not been affected by the 3,000 human beings working there. We do not do the ecology of the south Atlantic or the Antarctic any good by getting carried away on party-political green points, which in many cases are bogus. I hope that the House will support the Bill.
      12.7 am
      Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) was talking about the wrong pole. It is interesting that he went there not in winter but in summer, and he examined the flora and fauna from the windows of an aeroplane. I am sure that he has good sight and well understood everything going on beneath him.
      We are about to pass a Bill—there is a large payroll vote hanging about—that admits that we cannot control multinational capital and its voracious desire to destroy the environment of the Antarctic through mining and exploitation. The heart of the Bill is, quite simply, the contention that, unless we sign the treaty by November, mineral exploitation will begin, with no restrictions or control. That is all the more reason to insist that the treaty meeting in November takes an enormous step forward instead of ratifying the convention and rubbishing the Australians.

      147
      The history of the Antarctic is of great interest. There has been ruthless exploitation of seals, whales, fish, penguins and many other creatures during the past 200 years. Other steps away from ruthless exploitation would be through the Antarctic treaty of 1959, ratified in 1961, which declared it a zone of peace, through the United Nations General Assembly motion of 1981 and through successive statements by large numbers of international bodies supporting the concept of a world park.
      Is any part of the world to be fair game, at any time, for exploitation—regardless of the scientific information that it could otherwise yield or the necessity for that information—or shall we instead say, "No, we will not destroy our fragile environment. We will not destroy a continent. We shall not allow the multinationals to do so. Rather, the time has come to consider the sustainable rate at which the world's resources can be sensibly exploited."
      The history of the past few hundred years shows, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) remarked earlier, that thousands of species have been wiped out. Some have been saved by international action, including certain species of whales—perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently. However, smaller species of whales, such as the minke, are being destroyed. The lesson we should learn from that is not to rush in and exploit an environment without knowing or understanding the consequences.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is an articulate and passionate defender of the world's rain forests. To destroy them is to destroy a major source of oxygen and a major contributor to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Research into rain forests has also revealed species of plant and animal life of which nothing was known previously, and herbs with medicinal effects that we cannot even begin to think about. Will the same happen in the Antarctic? I do not pretend that plant life will be found there, but it is a fragile place that can be seriously harmed by exploration.
      In Committee, the Minister always drew a distinction, which I understand, between exploration and exploitation. However, as I said earlier, there has been a move from scientific research to commercial exploration. I do not believe that any of the companies involved in the Antarctic have any intention other than to return there in the future, armed with a licence and the legislation now before the House, which will allow them to extract the minerals they want. The damage done will be incalculable.
      We argued the case against the Bill very strongly on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report. I hope that the Bill will be defeated tonight, but I observe the payroll vote hanging around and growing very impatient. If the Bill is passed, the scene moves to the treaty meeting in November. The Australian and French Governments now say that they support the environmental park, and the Belgians are apparently about to express the same view. I understand that other Governments are likely to move in the same direction.
      Will the Minister return from the November meeting and tell the House, "We couldn't put over our view, so we support the world park now"? Or will the Government heap a barrage of abuse on the Australians—and anyone else who takes the same stance—because they stand up against the multinational mining interests? My hope is that
      148
      the Minister will instead propose a Bill to protect the Antarctic as an environmental park, to be used only for genuine scientific experiments and not those leading to exploitation—and will promise that Antarctica's sovereignty will be re-examined.
      Some countries claim title to parts of the Antarctic, while others claim title to parts already claimed. And there are no claims at all to other parts. Is there not a classic case for arguing that Antarctica should be handed over to the United Nations so that it will become the property of the entire planet—rather than Britain trying to hand over to multinationals something that is not ours in the first place?
      Britain has an important role to play in preserving and protecting the environment, and it should not pass legislation that will, bit by bit, stage by stage, lead to a great deal of environmental destruction. If we are serious about protecting our planet, we should refuse to allow the Bill to pass tonight.
      12.14 am
      Mr. Home Robertson: It is a sign of the times that the House is as well attended as it is for Third Reading of this important Bill—
      Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Where have you been?
      Mr. Home Robertson: I have been in my place listening carefully to the debate on this important piece of legislation since it began. But I do not wish to detain the House for more than a couple of minutes.
      The Minister assured the House that the purpose of the Bill is simply to control scientific exploration of the "wilderness continent" of Antarctica. I am afraid that he has been let down on several occasions by two of his Back-Bench colleagues—first the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and then the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed)—who have acknowledged the intention in a number of people's minds that such exploration should move towards commercial exploitation of the continent. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that that could cause terrible long-term damage to an area that must be protected.
      I am particularly concerned because I am acutely aware that one of my constituency's most famous sons—John Muir, who left the little town of Dunbar 100 years ago to settle in the United States of America founded the national park movement in North America. He realised, a century ago, the vital importance of protecting the wilderness areas of that continent. How alarmed he would be now at the suggestion that Antarctica—the last continental wilderness—may be under threat.
      I only hope that this and other Governments will acknowledge the importance of the area—even at this late stage—and will take steps to protect it not only against unnecessary and avoidable exploration, but against exploitation, too.
      12.16 am
      Mr. Eggar: The House is united on the need to protect the environment in Antarctica—the debate has been about how best to achieve that aim. The Government firmly believe that the antarctic minerals convention—with the Bill, which is based on that convention—is the best means of protecting the Antarctic environment. It is the best means because it is the only practical means and because

      149
      it ensures, by international agreement, a level of safeguards and controls unparalleled in any legislation on similar activity anywhere else in the world.
      On Second Reading and in Committee, I explained that the Bill is the opposite of the miners' charter that some people—particularly Back Benchers—have portrayed it to be. The Bill bans any activities in the pursuit of mineral resources in the Antarctic which might cause more damage than scientific research—and scientific research is already specifically permitted under the Antarctic treaty system. Furthermore, the whole House—and, indeed, the whole country—recognise that it is invaluable to the international community.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in a brief intervention, raised the question of the appointment of a secretariat. As he knows, we fully appreciate the need for an Antarctic treaty secretariat. We believe that it could do much to assist in the Antarctic generally, and we hope that progress will be made on that critical issue at the Paris meeting in October.
      The Bill is the vehicle for Britain's ratification of the convention. We consider it vital that we play our part to bring that convention into force, not just because we believe that it is a remarkable international achievement—as, indeed, it is—and not just because we think that it offers the best chance of preventing possible disastrous exploitation of Antarctic mineral resources, but because unless it is implemented in a timely manner the voluntary moratorium on Antarctic minerals activity will definitely be put at risk. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) recognised that.
      A fragile consensus—a consensus with no legally binding force—is all that currently inhibits mineral activity in the Antarctic. That consensus is conditional. If it ever became clear that the convention was unlikely to come into force, it would be only a matter of time before one of the parties decided that the conditions on which it had agreed to the moratorium no longer applied and that the moratorium was no longer valid. We already know that at least one country had engaged in prospecting activity under the guise of scientific research. We simply cannot run that risk.
      Without the Bill and the convention, there is a real risk of a mining free-for-all, of heightened tension and possibly conflict, and of the collapse of the Antarctic treaty system which has served so well to keep Antarctica peaceful and stable for more than 30 years.
      Mr. Morley rose—
      Mr. Eggar: It has been implied that to suggest that such risks existed is merely scaremongering, but that is not the view of the other Antarctic parties. However slight the risks may appear to Opposition Members, the Government are not prepared consciously and deliberately to incur those risks.
      The Bill gives the Secretary of State a certain amount of flexibility and discretion in some areas. The Opposition argue that allowing the Secretary of State such discretion would make him too vulnerable to commercial pressures. I may say that I have more confidence in the impartiality of our Secretary of State than the Opposition, by implication, have in any future Labour incumbent, should there ever be one. That flexibility and discretion are essential for the Secretary of State to respond to different situations, new technology, new environmental concerns,
      150
      changing perceptions and new rules and regulations which the commission established under the convention will inevitably devise.
      It is not a question of "trust me", as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) put it. It is essential that further rules applicable to mineral activity be agreed internationally. That is the purpose of the commission. We must be able to ensure that we in the United Kingdom can comply with the commission's new rules.
      In Committee there was an attempt to insist on environmental impact assessment procedures drawn from local government legislation, but laws which are appropriate for Aldershot may not necessarily be appropriate for the Antarctic. The commission will have to decide standards and procedures within the strict requirements of the convention. I can assure the House that once the commission has been established, however, the Government will press for suitably tough environmental impact assessment procedures to apply to all prospecting activity. The Secretary of State will then come to the House with regulations to put those procedures into United Kingdom law.
      The subject of inspection was discussed at length. I can give the House an assurance that the Government entirely accept the need for rigorous, independent and efficient inspection procedures.
      The hon. Member for Swansea, East also stressed the importance of making publicly available all information resulting from prospecting activity. I am happy to tell the House that all information about prospecting activity which would be of environmental significance and without commercial value will be put in the public domain. We shall bring forward regulations to that effect.
      I can also assure the House that we shall work within the commission for measures to avoid the duplication of prospecting activity, thus cutting the risk of further impact on the environment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), as usual, is making sedentary interventions. As he has not been following the procedures in Committee, he is not aware that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made a specific request and I am commenting on it so as to assure him that we have paid attention to the point that he raised.
      The Government care passionately about what happens to the ecology and environment of the Antarctic. At the next Paris meeting of the Antarctic treaty consultative parties in October, we shall be pressing for a range of new protection measures for the Antarctic, such as better safeguards to prevent marine accidents and tighter rules on waste disposal. We want to build up a network of regulations to ensure the safety of the Antarctic. The convention is one element of that network. The other proposals that I have mentioned can operate in parallel, but they cannot be a substitute for the convention—and for the convention to become effective, the Bill must be passed.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 65.

      Division No. 303]

      [12.25 am

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Allason, Rupert

      Ashby, David

      Amos, Alan

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      151

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Harris, David

      Benyon, W.

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hayes, Jerry

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Irvine, Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Bowis, John

      Key, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Brazier, Julian

      Knapman, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

      Knowles, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Latham, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Butcher, John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Butterfill, John

      Lightbown, David

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lord, Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Cash, William

      Maclean, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Mans, Keith

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Maples, John

      Couchman, James

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Cran, James

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Devlin, Tim

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Durant, Tony

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Eggar, Tim

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evennett, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Fallon, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Favell, Tony

      Neubert, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Norris, Steve

      Franks, Cecil

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Freeman, Roger

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      French, Douglas

      Page, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Paice, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Gow, Ian

      Portillo, Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Raffan, Keith

      Gregory, Conal

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Redwood, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hague, William

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      152

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Waller, Gary

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Speed, Keith

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Watts, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wells, Bowen

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wheeler, John

      Stern, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Stevens, Lewis

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wilshire, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stokes, Sir John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Sumberg, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Summerson, Hugo

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Thurnham, Peter

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Livsey, Richard

      Beggs, Roy

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Beith, A. J.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McFall, John

      Buckley, George J.

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Meale, Alan

      Clay, Bob

      Michael, Alun

      Clelland, David

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Morley, Elliott

      Cousins, Jim

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Cryer, Bob

      Nellist, Dave

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Patchett, Terry

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

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dewar, Donald

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Dixon, Don

      Richardson, Jo

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gordon, Mildred

      Turner, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Vaz, Keith

      Hardy, Peter

      Wallace, James

      Home Robertson, John

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Howells, Geraint

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Illsley, Eric

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ingram, Adam

      Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)
  12.36 am
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I beg to move,
  That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to reform the law relating to the investigation and detection of crime, and to revise the law on evidence. In both structure and content, it is closely in line with the provisions already enacted and being successfully operated in England and Wales through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—or PACE as it is known—which was largely based on recommendations in the report from the Royal Commission on criminal procedure and the criminal law revision committee's 11th report.
  In view of the broad affinity of the general criminal law in the two jurisdictions, those recommendations were also valid for Northern Ireland. We are therefore now introducing measures similar to those already adopted in England and Wales.
  The detail of the order was covered in the explanatory document published together with the draft order last July, and a period of consultation followed. Therefore, I shall describe the content of the order only in general terms and simply highlight some of its more important provisions and draw attention to changes that have been made since the proposal was first published.
  The powers currently available for stop and search are fragmented and inappropriate to meet the demands of modern policing. Accordingly, article 3 introduces new powers which will allow the police to stop and search persons and vehicles on reasonable suspicion for stolen goods, offensive weapons, and other dangerous articles. Those powers are accompanied by a range of safeguards to ensure that they are used fairly and responsibly, and with due regard to the rights of individuals who come into contact with the police.
  Part III of the order deals with powers and procedures under which the police may enter and search premises and seize and retain property. The basic procedure is set out in article 10 under which the police may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to search for material which is relevant evidence of an offence. However, the police will not be able to use that procedure for certain categories of material held in confidence, which are to be given special protection. In those circumstances, the police must apply to a county court judge.
  Those procedures are fully in line with those that apply under PACE, except that for Northern Ireland there is an additional ground on which the police may base an application for a search warrant rather than a production order and that is to protect, for example, sources of sensitive information in cases of serious fraud. Of course, that does not mean that the police will always obtain a warrant, because the decision whether one is granted will remain entirely a matter for the courts.
  Part IV of the order again follows PACE by restructuring and clarifying the law on arrest. The most important change is that the more serious common law
  154
  offences such as kidnapping, false imprisonment and conspiracy to defraud will now become arrestable offences as they are already in England and Wales.
  Having outlined the new police powers that the order will introduce, I should now like to describe the arrangements set out in parts V and VI of the order which will regulate the detention and safeguard the rights of suspects in custody. The basis of the new system for the detention of suspects has three important elements. First, a number of police stations which can provide adequate interview and cellular accommodation for suspects must be designated by the chief constable. Secondly, at each designated station a custody officer must be appointed who will have independent responsibility for the welfare of suspects and the protection of their rights. Thirdly, the police will be required to take any suspect to one of the designated stations if he is likely to be detained in their custody for longer than six hours. This means that the suspect will come under the immediate protection of the custody officer and will have an opportunity to exercise the rights available to persons detained by the police.
  The system itself operates on the necessity principle. In other words, the need for a suspect's detention must be independently reviewed at regular intervals by a senior police officer who at each stage must be satisfied that the grounds for detention continue to apply. In serious cases and where the suspect is detained without charge. he may be detained for 36 hours only on the authorisation of the police. If further detention is necessary, it must be authorised by a magistrates court at which the suspect will be entitled to legal representation. No one may be held in police custody on any authorisation for longer than 96 hours.
  By placing a considerable responsibility on the police and on the courts to ensure that no one is detained for longer than is absolutely necessary, the new arrangements will provide a much more effective means of regulating the detention of suspects and of securing their rights. Part VI of the order deals with the questioning and treatment of persons in custody and gives a suspect rights to have someone informed of his arrest and to consult a solicitor privately. Any delay with regard to these matters must be authorised by a senior police officer, and even then for a period not exceeding 36 hours and only in cases involving a serious arrestable offence.
  Article 60 provides for the tape recording of interviews with suspects. Trials will soon be carried out in Northern Ireland, and when they have been evaluated, the arrangements will be brought into operation as soon as practicable. Articles 62 and 63 incorporate the existing provisions from the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under which the police in Northern Ireland can take body samples. The main difference between these provisions and those which apply in England and Wales is that for Northern Ireland a swab taken from a suspect's mouth has been defined as a non-intimate sample and, accordingly, may be taken without consent. These powers have been available to the police for almost a year and the courts in Northern Ireland have found DNA evidence of value in cases already brought to trial.
  Part VIII of the order provides for the issue of codes of practice, drafts of which I hope to publish shortly. These codes will complement the order by providing detailed rules and guidance to the police on the exercise of their powers, and will supplement the statutory safeguards both to the public and to suspects in custody.

  155
  Parts VIII and IX of the order deal with evidence. This is an extremely technical area of the law, but the overall purpose is simple. It is to clarify the nature of what may be admitted as evidence in court and to ensure the fairness of proceedings. The courts will be required to exclude any confession obtained by oppression or under circumstances that would adversely affect its reliability. It may also exclude evidence that would adversely affect the fairness of proceedings.
  Article 81, relating to evidence through live television links, has been amended to cover initially only child witnesses and those in fear within Northern Ireland, but we have included powers to allow for extension in due course of live television evidence to such witnesses from Great Britain and outside the United Kingdom.
  In part X, article 82 places a responsibility on the police authority, in consultation with the chief constable, to make appropriate arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing. This is particularly important in Northern Ireland, where it is vital to promote a wider understanding of the role of the police and to assist the police in appreciating the needs of the community. In order to enable their efforts to succeed, I hope that all responsible public representatives in Northern Ireland will give their support to this process.
  Finally, I should point out that article 86 was added following publication of the proposal in order to enable a system of ordinary postal service of summons to be introduced for cases before magistrates courts in Northern Ireland, as already happens in England and Wales.
  This wide-ranging order represents a considerable step forward in our efforts to tackle serious crime. Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary do a most impressive job in difficult conditions, for which they deserve our respect and gratitude. These new powers will enable them to enforce the law more effectively, to bring offenders to justice and to protect the community that they serve. But with new powers comes added responsibility, and it will be important for the police to use their new powers properly and only as and when necessary. The most important factor in effective policing is the relationship between the police and the community. If the public can be assured that the police will act responsibly and impartially in the exercise of their powers, that will enhance the ability of the police to protect the whole community, to understand its needs and to uphold the rule of law.
  I believe that the order strikes a fair and proper balance between police powers and the rights of the individual, and I commend it to the House.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I apologise to the Minister and to the House for not being in the Chamber for the first minute of the Minister's dissertation.
  The order has been largely inspired by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but there are significant differences between the order and the Act, both in the content and in the manner in which the order has been introduced. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the 1984 Act, it was preceded by a long investigation, by a royal commission, and it responded to a clear need. In Northern
  156
  Ireland there has been some concern that the order has not been shown to be necessary, and from what the Minister has said tonight, that appears to be the case.
  The case for new legislation has not been adequately made. It is merely assumed that because similar legislation has been adopted in Great Britain it must also be necessary in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland statutory provisions should take into account local conditions, and not simply be copies of legislation which may be inappropriate or unnecessary in the particular context of Northern Ireland. That principle is implicit both in the specific institutional arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland and in the legislative procedures through which Northern Ireland legislation is adopted.
  When one compares the situation in Northern Ireland with that on the mainland, two major differences are immediately apparent. On the one hand, Northern Ireland has not experienced the substantial increase in crime over which the Conservative Government have presided elsewhere, and neither has the problem of the declining effectiveness of the police force become apparent. In the statistics published in the RUC Chief Constable's reports, the figures for indictable offences reported since 1981 do not show a strong thrusting upward trend, but fluctuations around a weak upward trend. By contrast, a strong upward trend is apparent in the detection rate, and that must be welcomed.
  The Government have argued in the past that one cannot take a statistical approach to the problem. That may be so, but it is equally unwise to assume that the strengthening of police powers automatically leads to an improvement in crime statistics. The success of a police force depends, among other factors, on the degree of public confidence in it. Given the political situation in Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary enjoys remarkable success in dealing with non-paramilitary crime. We should acknowledge and understand that and be careful not misguidedly to make the job of the police more difficult by giving them excessive powers which might reduce public confidence. I believe that greater effort is needed to justify the Government's legislation.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If I have followed the hon. Gentleman's line of thought correctly, he seems to be under the impression that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in the United Kingdom is somehow boosting the police powers and restricting the powers of the individual citizen accused. In practice, that is the very opposite of what is happening in Britain, where the Act is proving to be a substantial protection for the individual person accused. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the new measure for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that the Government had not made out the case for the order in Northern Ireland because the crime figures and the conviction success of the RUC, particularly on non-paramilitary crime, did not merit the powers given in other parts of the United Kingdom. The RUC is far more successful than other United Kingdom police forces. In any society one must be jealous of extending the powers of the police unless the case to do so is adequately made.
  Many people in Northern Ireland will conclude that the Government made up their mind to pursue this course

  157
  whether or not there was evidence to warrant it. Those of us who took part in the consultation phase will certainly have our suspicions as the order before us now is virtually identical to the draft presented more than a year ago. I commend the RUC and the police authority for setting out to establish the type of consultative system for community policy that was suggested by the Labour party. That system goes significantly further than the minimalist position set out in article 82 of the order.
  In the recently published review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement there is a commitment in paragraph 9 to look at the harmonisation of criminal law in the two parts of Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House to what extent the order has been framed with that objective in mind.
  We are concerned about the order and we shall look carefully at the way in which it is operated. We are particularly concerned about the differences between the order and the corresponding Act for England and Wales. Those differences are to be found, inter alia, in the procedures for DNA profiling, in the use of television links for witnesses and in access to special procedure material. The order perpetuates a substantial difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in respect of DNA profiling, which was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The provisions for obtaining DNA samples in articles 53, 63 and 64 represent a somewhat disturbing departure from practice under PACE. Although we welcome technological developments in the fight against crime, confidence in the criminal justice system requires that such new technology should, initially, be viewed critically in order to enjoy eventual public credibility.
  We are therefore concerned that mouth samples should be defined as non-intimate and therefore obtainable without consent. Several questions arise from this. There are serious questions about what constitutes an effective and useful mouth sample. If this is simply a question of taking a swab from between the lip and lower gum, as the former Minister of State suggested in the House in 1988, it is clear that the scientific community is divided over the validity of the claim that such a useful sample can be taken. If a scientific controversy exists, it would be over-optimistic to expect the general public to endorse the use of such methods.
  In the continuing correspondence that I have had with the Secretary of State, he has made several claims that the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory has been able to provide DNA profiles from mouth swabs. If that is the case, I hope that we shall see the early publication of those findings in a reputable scientific journal. The danger is that, without peer examination, DNA testing could fall into disrepute, depriving the RUC of a valuable instrument of detection.
  The alternative scientific opinion is that, for a mouth sample to provide sufficient material for DNA profiling, it must take the form of scraping the inside of the mouth with a blunt instrument and not, as has been suggested by the former Minister of State, merely by a swab between the lip and the gum. Such a procedure would be extremely difficult to carry out in the absence of consent. Again the methods could fall into public disrepute. At the same time, police officers could find themselves at risk physically and at risk of being the objects of legal action for compensation as a result of injuries that would almost inevitably result from forcibly taking a swab by such means. I know that
  158
  the standing advisory commission on human rights expressed similar anxieties about this problem in its 14th report.
  A further element of worry concerns the destruction of samples and records of those who are not convicted. Article 64 compels the destruction of samples and fingerprints after the person to whom they relate has been cleared or has had proceedings against him dropped. That is unnecessary with DNA samples, as the testing process effectively destroys the samples as a matter of course, but this provision is seriously weakened by the fact that the information gained by such methods does not have to be destroyed. Information on people who have not been convicted in any court may be held on file as though they were convicted criminals. Such a procedure is unjust, and the standing advisory commission recommends that a statutory duty to destroy such records should be included in the order. We supported that view and regret that it contains no such provision.
  When this matter was discussed in the other place, the Minister said, when questioned:
  "I want to give … an assurance that our practice will be to destroy both samples and DNA profiles … We should prefer to keep the legislative provisions in line with those applicable to the rest of the United Kingdom"—
  but not, of course, in the case of intimate mouth swabs—
  "and to achieve the objective by administrative means."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1989; Vol 499, c. 1659–60.]
  What administrative means have been taken to ensure that such profiles have been destroyed when a person has not been convicted in any court? What regulations apply to the keeping of profiles while awaiting an action in court? Will the regulations appear in the code which is shortly to be published?
  Another worrying difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in the order is the use of live television links for witnesses. We recognise that there are circumstances in which the use of such facilities is desirable, particularly for children under the age of 14—there have been some horrendous cases recently in which it has been necessary to protect the child from having to relive recent experiences under the eyes of the perpetrators of foul crimes—but we are deeply suspicious of the other provisions in the order. The inclusion of another ground for giving evidence by television is designed to allow witnesses, who would otherwise not do so because of fear, to present their testimony in court. I believe that that is a dangerous extension of the use of television. It seems blatantly obvious that Northern Ireland is being used as a testing ground for this innovation. Whatever the merits of such a development, if such exist, the use of Northern Ireland for legal experimentation of this kind is offensive to many people in the Province.
  I do not believe that this extension of televising witnesses is a positive innovation. So long as the adversarial system of justice prevails, witnesses have to be subject to effective examination and cross-examination. Witness demeanour under questioning has long been recognised as a vital part of the evidence, as many judicial summings-up have made clear. A television performance cannot provide the authenticity of the court room—no studio link can equal the ordeal of the witness box.
  There is also a serious problem of logic in the Government's case. If the witness is intimidated by spectators or by the defendant, the presiding judge has the

  159
  right to clear the court. Overtly threatening behaviour in court is also likely to constitute a criminal offence in its own right, as well as being contempt of court. It is accepted by all, I think, that potential witnesses have been intimidated in the past, especially by paramilitary organisations. The problem, however, is one of guaranteeing the security of the witness before and after the trial. It is difficult to see how the use of television can overcome this problem.
  It is also to be noted that article 81 differs from the article in the original proposal in so far as it gives a power to the Secretary of State to enable this latter category of witness to make use of television links. It is not clear whether the article is designed to allow the Secretary of State to intervene in individual cases and in individual trials, as he did on the right to silence in the Winchester case, or whether it is a general rule-making power. In either case, it is unacceptable. If such matters are to be introduced, they should be left to be decided by the courts.
  The power being given to the Secretary of State is astounding. It seems—unless the Minister corrects this when he winds up—that the Secretary of State
  "may by order (a) direct that this Article shall apply—(i) to a witness falling within head (i) or (ii) of paragraph 1(b) who is in Great Britain or (ii) to any witness who is outside the United Kingdom".
  That gives enormous scope. Does it mean outside the whole area in which the Queen's writ runs? What sort of protection will there be, for example for a defendent and defendant's counsel, to enable them to know the nature of the proceedings by which a witness is being examined by television? How can we be certain that in some far distant land, a witness will not be rehearsed by someone, out of the range of camera, in the sort of answers to be given to the questions being put to him or her? This is a serious and dangerous extension. I am surprised that members of the legal profession have not expressed more concern about it, but the House at least should examine it carefully.
  In other matters the police can show that serving notice of their intention to seek a production order would seriously prejudice an investigation. In England, they have the alternative of applying to a court for a search warrant. In England and Wales, the search warrant applies only to the investigation in hand, but in Northern Ireland, there is another dangerous extension. We are being asked to extend the scope of this power so that it covers other investigations. As that would potentially cover investigations that have not even commenced, it seems an all-embracing power, better suited to a repressive than to a reforming Government.
  We have still not had a convincing response from the Government about why this great extension of the police power of discovery of documents should be necessary in Northern Ireland, but not in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Finally, the codes of practice promised by the draft order must be dealt with. It is obvious that the key to the implementation of the order lies in the codes of practice. So I am disappointed that, apart from the one dealing with the taking of samples, they have not yet been published in so far as they are to apply to Northern Ireland. Given that the order is not a simple copy of the 1984 Act, one cannot assume that the respective codes of practice will be the same.
  160
  The codes of practice, whatever their as yet unknown contents, are somewhat undermined by the reliance on the RUC as their sole enforcer, since violations will be disciplinary matters dealt with by the chief constable, or by those acting for him. Although I do not doubt the determination of the RUC to police itself effectively, enforcement of the codes must not only be rigorous, but must be seen to be so.
  The damage done to confidence in the RUC by the Stalker affair remains to remind us strongly and harshly of this principle. Given the status of the RUC, people whose rights are violated under the terms of the codes have no personal redress. Although RUC officers may be punished, the victim cannot directly obtain redress for a mere breach of the codes. Therefore, although the codes may be effective managerial instruments within the force, the citizen does not see them in that light.
  It is not enough to say that the code of practice may be used as evidence in civil actions. They should also be statutory. This would help to overcome one of the major problems that has been apparent in the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which deals with England and Wales. There has been widespread criticism that the sections of the legislation relating to the rights of suspects has not been sufficiently respected and that the judicial interpretation of the Act as to the status of the code has somewhat watered down the safeguards. By giving statutory effect to the codes of practice, the Government would give a clear sign that the extension of the powers of the police is to be paralleled by the protection of the rights of the citizen—rights that were laid down in the Act.
  In this respect, there is another difference between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. In England and Wales, suspects arrested under emergency legislation are covered by the codes of practice. In Northern Ireland, that will not be the case. In cases of serious terrorism and crime in Great Britain, interviews will be recorded, and the defence will have access to the tape recordings. In Northern Ireland this will not be the case. With even a minor infringement of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act in the Province, tape recordings will not be available to the defence, while in a major drugs case, in which there might be just as much horror and wealth, with as many frightening matters, the tape recording will be accessible to the defence. That is a serious deficiency.
  The Government's reason for this is that it might be possible for someone to gain access to the tape recording and tease out of it some information that might be of value to the terrorist. I understand that, but if terrorists are as skilful and well trained as we are told they are, in their own de-briefing by their associates, whether it takes place before or after conviction, the evidence of where that information to the security forces came from will be as evident to them as it would be in a tape recording. Even if that were not the case, it should have been possible for the Government to find some method by which application could be made to the courts for deletion of the parts of the recording that have specific signs of the source of the intelligence that led to the arrest and questioning. That is a fundamental weakness in the way in which serious terrorist crime is tackled in Northern Ireland.
  What status will the codes of practice have in the operation of the independent police complaints commission for Northern Ireland? Will the commission be able

  161
  to use the codes of practice as a measure to determine whether a complaint is justified? Is it to be the mean or will they he able to go beyond it in carrying out their duties?
  The position of the individual police officer must also be considered. What safeguards will be enshrined in statutory provisions to ensure that police officers are themselves fairly treated under the terms of the codes? Given the fact that the RUC, like many large organisations, has not been free of industrial relations difficulties, the need to ensure a commitment to the codes on the part of each officer also requires that safeguards be introduced for the officers themselves. For both the sake of the individual police officer and for public confidence in the police, it is essential that complaints are dealt with openly, effectively and rapidly.
  In terms of safeguards for both suspects and police officers, I welcome the introduction of the provision requiring the tape-recording of interviews, as far as it goes. However, we have already pointed out some of the difficulties that may arise in that case. The visual recording of interviews is not included; nor are suspects arrested under the emergency legislation. We know that closed-circuit television already exists in interrogation centres, but that system has its failings. There is only a monitoring, not a recording, of what goes on. There are inevitably times when the screens will not be monitored, and that is what may have happened in the disturbing Gillen case. It is important, therefore, to have an adequate video recording of what takes place. That is not an expensive measure, but I believe that it will present the Government with a great opportunity to remove all the credibility from periodic complaints about the ill-treatment of suspects in custody. The complaints are sometimes founded on fact, but often they are not, and they are often used by the paramilitary forces to discredit the police and their work.
  The Minister will be aware that there is a continuing and wide-ranging debate in Northern Ireland on human rights, and it is one that I welcome. One of the positive aspects of the order is that it provides for statutory rights where none previously existed, and we welcome that. I am sure that the Minister will agree, however, that we should be giving more attention to providing statutory protection for human rights in Northern Ireland. We shall not have time to go into that debate tonight, but I am sure that it is one to which hon. Members will wish to return again and again in the near future.
  1.11 am
  Mr. Ian Gow: There is agreement between my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about one matter, and that is the importance of the order.
  I begin my remarks by reminding the House of an astonishing paradox. Not one Member of this place representing a constituency in Great Britain would have tolerated for one moment a measure of this importance, comprising 90 articles and seven schedules, being passed into law with only one and a half hours of debate in the House and one and a half hours in another place.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, made some fair comments about the order, and it would have been right in normal circumstances for his reservations to be tested by the tabling of amendments to proposed
  162
  legislation. The Minister would have had the opportunity to reply to the speeches of Opposition Members and of his hon. Friends. I protest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about legislation in this form for one part of the United Kingdom which none of us would accept for our own constituents if it applied to them.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor have agreed in the House on many occasions that they do not like legislation in this form. They agree with the criticism of it, yet nothing is done. We go on year after year denying to the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland and to Members of this place the normal legislative procedures that we accept without reservation when they apply to Great Britain.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was correct when he said that the largest part of the order is based upon the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I welcomed that Act, as did almost all my right hon. and hon. Friends. Although the Act has been operative for only a short time, I believe that the central principle enshrined in it has been beneficial in England and Wales. The provisions in that Act have proved sensible in giving additional powers to the police and in giving additional protection to the innocent. Why has there been a delay in introducing this legislation to that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland?
  I find myself in respectful disagreement with the shadow Secretary of State. It is one of those astonishing paradoxes that, if we leave aside the evil of terrorism, on the basis of non-terrorist crime Northern Ireland is the most law-abiding part of the United Kingdom. It might be said that, therefore, that the case for legislation for Northern Ireland similar to that for England and Wales is not so strong because it is more law-abiding. I advance that argument only to dismiss it. Although the levels of non-terrorist crime in Northern Ireland are lower than in any other part of the kingdom, even there crime is still a serious problem. The provisions in the order will assist the police and will protect the innocent citizens in Northern Ireland.
  I warmly approve of the contents of the order and congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speech. I hope, however, that he will take seriously the criticism about this means of legislating.
  1.16 am
  Mr. William Ross: I listened with considerable interest when the Opposition spokesman the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North ( Mr. McNamara) put a case for leaving the law in Northern Ireland as it stands, on the basis that, apart from terrorism, we are a law-abiding society. To follow that case to its logical conclusion would mean dividing the United Kingdom into blocs—those that were law—abiding and those that were not—with different laws for different places. That is the practice in Northern Ireland, but it cannot be defended, because, so far as is possible, the law should be the same throughout the United Kingdom.
  As has already been pointed out, the order covers some 90 pages, so it might appear to any disinterested and impartial observer that this important matter is being dealt with in a rather cavalier fashion. International crime is increasing and there are particular problems with crimes such as serious fraud. The appearance of a certain person in court in Northern Ireland earlier this year arising out of

  163
  the De Lorean affair should convince anyone that there needs to be an updating of the law, especially in respect of serious fraud.
  There is a gap that needs to be filled, and insofar as the order strengthens the law it should be welcomed by every law-abiding citizen. There is a necessity periodically to reform and update the law in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. It cannot be left for ever as it stands. We have only to look at the list of repeals to realise that many go back more than 100 years. It is therefore appropriate that we should consider these matters rather more frequently.
  There are various differences in the law. One is in respect of the powers of entry, search and seizure and the additional protection given to the source of information. That is one of the parts of the order where there is a different attitude even to what we describe as ordinary crime in Northern Ireland. Terrorism has permeated that society to such an extent that there are certain dangers which are not evident to the same extent on this side of the Irish sea. Sources of information, for example, are particularly vulnerable if identified, and must be protected. I personally welcome the extra protection that the order provides.
  A problem arises in respect of the timescale for implementing such changes. The Minister said that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act became law in 1984, whereas the provisions before the House will not take effect until next year—six years after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That is six years too long. Every sensible, law-abiding citizen, and every right hon. and hon. Member, wants to see the guilty persecuted or prosecuted—personally, I do not mind which, though I think that they should be clobbered. But the guilty have been getting away with it for six years, which is unacceptable in any society.
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 could easily have included Northern Ireland, and it should have done so—especially if there are to be other differences between Northern Ireland and British Law. How much wiser and better informed right hon. and hon. Members would be if points of relevance to Northern Ireland had been argued in Committee and on the Floor of the House during the passage of that legislation. That Bill offered a golden opportunity to increase understanding among right hon. and hon. Members of conditions in the Province, but it was deliberately passed up by the present Administration for reasons of their own.
  If the order is to be effective and to have beneficial consequences, it is essential to ensure sufficient manpower. I understand that the police have one or two reservations about that aspect. One assumes that there will be a need for a custody sergeant in every police station, who will perform a very important function. I am curious to know whether the number of sergeants in the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be increased by 60 for that purpose, or whether the duties of custody sergeant will be lumped together with the responsibilities of existing station sergeants. We should like a categorical assurance that any increase in manpower will be funded by central Government. There may also be downstream conse
  164
  quences in respect of the constables on duty at stations where suspects are held. That aspect, too, should be clarified.
  There may be difficulties in relation to officers holding the rank of inspector and above. They are deeply involved in the preparation of cases, all the way down the line. They will need additional training and to be fully informed of the consequences of the order. Time and money will have to be spent on the re-education and retraining of senior officers, but no extra manpower or money has been made available for that purpose.
  Paragraph 7 on page 4 of the "Explanatory Document" points out
  "it is important that the resources and training of the police are sufficient".
  Will that apparent commitment be fulfilled?
  As to television evidence, this is one of those rare occasions when I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I cannot understand how an individual can be cross-examined at the far end of a television camera in the Irish Republic, Canada, Australia, or France. I should like an explanation of how that arrangement will work in practice. This is another apparent instance of a spillover of terrorist involvement. Will the individual appear on a television screen in court, to be identified by the evil, wicked people against whom he is giving evidence, or by their friends? If so, he will immediately be in mortal danger, and the fact that he is only an image on a television screen will not help him.
  I do not share the misgivings expressed about the collection of DNA material. Innocent people will have nothing to fear from providing that which will clear them, and the material will be sought only when the police have material with which it can be compared.
  I am sorry that we have such a short time in which to discuss the matter, for much more needs to be said—and can be said. Finally, can the Minister tell us how the public views on policing will be obtained? I have thought about that already—would it not have to be through the various police liaison committees that already exist?
  1.25 am
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am very much aware that other hon. Members wish to participate. Suffice it to say that I share the view that legislation such as this is rushed through in such a way that hon. Members must abandon the substantive elements of what they wished to say and proceed to the broader points.
  Some hon. Members have asked why the legislation should apply in the north of Ireland: was there not a case for a rather different approach? The Government's explanatory document gives the reasons, and I think that they are worth examining. The document states:
  "The protection and safeguarding of suspects' rights under all circumstances is particularly important in Northern Ireland, where allegations have been made in the past…Accordingly…it would be of considerable benefit to both the police and the public if arrangemens governing the questioning and treatment of persons in custody were more clearly defined and placed on a statutory footing."
  I welcome the reference to a statutory footing, which we never see again in the legislation. I also welcome the information that it is to apply to all suspects' rights—which is immediately contradicted, not only in the legislation but in the explanatory document. Before we even open the order, we see the inherent contradiction

  165
  based on a statement made in the Government's own explanatory note. That is typical of their position on the issue.
  One paragraph in the document is headed "Parity with England and Wales".
  It tells us why the Government want such parity:
  "The Government firmly believes that everyone in the United Kingdom should be equally protected under the law".
  Giving five instances, it tells us why, and shows us how, those in the North of Ireland will not be protected on equal terms under the law to people in England and Wales.
  The Government cannot be allowed to have it both ways. Either there are special circumstances in the north of Ireland requiring a special type of legislation in relation even to the criminal law, or there are no such circumstances and there should be full parity. That is the dilemma in which the legislation puts us—and the rather silly position in which the explanatory document, on close reading, puts the Government. It is no position on which to base a criminal law that will be with us for a long time.
  The most fundamental weakness is this: where the protection of the codes of conduct is most needed—in relation to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984—it simply does not apply. Yet we are told:
  "the protection and safeguarding of suspects' rights under all circumstances"
  is particularly important.
  On DNA testing, we are told that we are to have parity with England and Wales. I make no virtue of parity because I am not making a case for it, but when a Government state that all people in the United Kingdom must be treated equally and that parity is sought, it should apply and there should be no contradictions in succeeding sections.
  One could ask what makes ordinary crime in Northern Ireland so different from ordinary crime in England, Scotland and Wales that we must have four or five substantial differences in the same piece of legislation. What is the difference between a person who robs a shop in Northern Ireland and a person who robs a shop in Birmingham? I believe that there is no difference. Those anomalies and contradictions show that we are running into danger. We had hoped that the ordinary criminal law that applies to people who are not involved in terrorism would blur the edges of the harsh, repressive legislation in the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Provisions Act. Unfortunately, it has gone the other way.
  There is almost a hidden curriculum in the Police and Criminal Evidence Order. Rather than softening the edges of the emergency legislation, the emergency legislation is encroaching on the ordinary criminal law. In this piece of legislation, as in many others, bets are hedged because of the parallels between the criminal law and the emergency legislation. That is dangerous to confidence in the law. One could ask why are there differences in the application of DNA testing. Why are there differences in the law relating to the seizure of materials under the Prevention of Terrorism Act? If a person is held under that legislation here, he has the protection of the codes of conduct, but if he is 20 miles away across a piece of water he does not have that protection. Surely that is not parity, sense or justice. We have to examine the hidden curriculum as well as the detailed elements within the legislation.
  166
  I am aware that others are waiting to speak, so I shall dispense with many of the points that I would have made had we been dealing with normal legislation. We must be careful that the leakage between the two sections of law is monitored very closely. It is not bringing us back to normal; it is removing the normalisation of the ordinary criminal law. That inexorable movement towards emergency law becoming part of the criminal law must worry anyone who studies the legislation.
  Finally, I must mention a point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). How does one instigate and implement statutory consultation with something or someone called "people"? That is stated in the explanatory document and in the legislation. I wait with great interest to be told how one can have statutory consultation with people. They are not defined as those who are elected or those who carry out a certain function, but are simply people. Such a woolly, imprecise definition has caught the eye of people in the north of Ireland because they have seen for a long time that what the Government mean by "people" are those who happen to agree with them on any specific issue at any moment.
  1.34 am
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Like one or two other hon. Members here tonight, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. My feeling tonight is more than merely a rather uncomfortable one of deja vu. I agree very much with what was said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I remind him of the additional point that the Standing Committee had 59 sittings—the record number, I believe, held by any Standing Committee for any Bill passed by the House—quite apart from the discussions that took place on the Floor of the House. No hon. Member for Northern Ireland was a member of that Committee and Northern Ireland issues were not discussed in any detail. It is astonishing that in the middle of the night we should be having a debate as short as one and a half hours to deal with matters of such substance.
  Having watched the progress of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 over the past five years, I welcome the introduction of at least some of its provisions into Northern Ireland. Although judicial application of the code on the detention, treatment and questioning of prisoners has been inconsistent, by and large it has been of benefit to the innocent and can rarely be said to have helped the guilty to escape conviction. That is a beneficial advance.
  However, I agree with hon. Members from Northern Ireland that there is no sound basis for distinguishing between people who are being detained and questioned under the emergency provisions and those detained and questioned for ordinary crimes. They are all entitled to the same treatment. We do not set out to apply different standards to the way in which they are asked questions by the police.
  I want to deal with two specific issues, both of which were mentioned in some detail earlier in the debate. The first relates to mouth swabs. I ask the Minister a simple question. Why is the mouth an intimate orifice in Liverpool, but not in Belfast? Why is the same person not subjected to the forcible removal of a sample from his mouth in Liverpool, but is subjected to it in Belfast? It is completely illogical. If the Government's real wish, as it

  167
  appears to be, is to legislate to permit the taking of intimate samples by force, they should say so and allow the matter to be debated honestly.
  Clearly, the Government have decided to allow in Northern Ireland only the taking of an intimate sample by force. I would go further and ask the Minister whether the Government have considered the effect of article 3 of the European convention on human rights in this context. Is it not the case that the United Kingdom Government run a severe risk of forcible searches of an intimate orifice, such as the mouth, being regarded as degrading treatment by the European Court of Human Rights and, therefore, contrary to article 3? I hope that the Minister will tell the House that that point has been considered and what advice he has received.
  Why do the Government feel that they need a provision to allow the forcible taking of oral swabs, as proposed in the order, at all? Do they not think that article 62(10) is sufficient? If a person is asked to give an intimate sample, as defined by the order and under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and refuses, the court can draw an inference of guilt from that very refusal. That is something that we have been practising in the courts of England and Wales since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 received the Royal Assent and came into effect. Why is it not good enough simply to have the same provision in Northern Ireland?
  The forcible taking of oral swabs is a hostage to fortune. It will be difficult for the police to operate. There will be accusations of unnecessary violence in the taking of samples and police officers will be injured in taking those samples while, in evidential terms, the Government will probably gain next to nothing.
  My second detailed point relates to video links, a matter that has already been discussed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). There is a substantial difference between the permissible video-link evidence in England and Wales, and what is proposed in this order. In England and Wales the video link can be used only for the evidence of children under 14 in certain specified cases and—although I have not heard of a case in which it has been used as yet—in certain circumstances if a witness is outside the jurisdiction.
  What seems to be envisaged now for Northern Ireland is that any witness who feels afraid may give his or her evidence by video link. But what is the test of fear to be? It is not even phrased as "well-founded fear". It seems an entirely subjective test. Judges will be entitled to allow evidence to be given by video even if a witness has genuine but ill-founded fear.
  The immediacy of the court room is important. It is helpful to judges and to juries, where there is a jury, to see the witness's demeanour and reaction to questioning—the way in which the witness deals with the questions, and the pauses before an answer is given—but it simply will not be possible to have that immediacy if video links are used widely. Of course they are justified for children because of other emotional considerations, but it is important that we resist them where they are not necessary. We must remember that adult witnesses may be giving evidence of the minutiae of a case. It is difficult to deal with plans,
  168
  documents, computer data and so on when one is asking questions via a television camera of someone who may be remote.
  In addition, I suspect that the use of video links, as envisaged in the order, would encourage the self-interested so-called "accomplice" or "supergrass", who may feel that he can gain personal advantage by giving false evidence and who will feel secure in doing so if the residual provisions of the order are brought into effect and he can give that evidence using a changed identity from a television studio in some distant part of the world. These provisions will not necessarily mean that the evidence will be more reliable. Indeed, there may be a significant temptation for the witness to give even less reliable evidence, but to seem more credible.
  In the practicable circumstances of a court, it is not always as easy as some imagine to detect, even of a witness who is actually standing in the court, whether he is telling the truth or he is telling lies. It will be very much more difficult to detect the lies of someone who is merely a face on a television monitor, giving evidence in the comfort and security of a studio many miles away.
  Therefore, although I welcome the introduction of many of the protections—I agree with what was said earlier by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in an intervention—I invite the Government to look closely at the two issues that I have raised. They may be the issues that will give rise to the controversies and the litigation by which this order will be judged.
  1.44 am
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Several specific points have been made in this debate. In view of the time, I shall not repeat them, but it is important to emphasise the underlying assumptions on which they were based. They were based on the need to balance giving the police necessary powers and protecting civil liberties—a balance that was referred to by many hon. Members this evening.
  The Minister emphasised that the new powers must be used impartially and responsibly to protect civil liberties. In relation to Northern Ireland, that dimension is very important, particularly as concerns have been voiced about the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England and Wales, in that in some senses it favours the police. That would be a specific problem in Northern Ireland because it is very important to keep the balance between the police and the public to ensure that they work closely together. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) stressed that, as PACE affects Northern Ireland, it is non-emergency legislation and is general criminal law. It is therefore very important that the balance between police powers and civil liberties is seen to be kept.
  In that context, I wish to concentrate on a point that has not been emphasised so far. One of the important features of PACE is that it guarantees a suspect's right of access to legal advice. The Minister has already outlined the circumstances in which there would be a delay in access to a lawyer. He referred also to the nature of the limited range of serious arrestable offences when access would be allowed only on the authority of a superintendent. The guarantee of a suspect's right of access to legal advice is clearly a great improvement on the pre-PACE legislation,

  169
  and we welcome that. An important point in relation to PACE as it affects Northern Ireland is that the guarantee of legal advice is only of value if it is implemented.
  The guarantee of legal advice in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was implemented through the setting up of 24-hour duty solicitor schemes under which anyone suspected, arrested and taken to a police station could obtain advice from the police duty solicitor. The important point about PACE in England and Wales is that part of the 1984 Act required—and "required" is an important word—the Law Society to establish police duty solicitor schemes.
  Section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 affecting England and Wales sets up legal advice, and another section establishes legal aid for persons at police stations. The Northern Ireland PACE establishes access to legal advice in section 59. It would be useful if the Minister could explain why legal aid for persons at police stations is missing from PACE Northern Ireland. Without that provision, we face the problem that the principle of legal advice is in the legislation but no mechanism with which to achieve it. Perhaps the Minister can explain in relation to that crucial and fundamental aspect of PACE how we can have the principle on the face of the legislation, but have no mechanism to achieve it.
  Clearly there are difficulties in Northern Ireland and I do not want to under-estimate them. There are problems with the Law Society in Northern Ireland because it is not organised on a regional basis, as it is on the mainland. Smaller local associations would make it difficult to liaise. The demographic and geographic factors militate against a statutory scheme. However, there must be some kind of scheme or people may be entitled to legal advice but unable to get it.
  I understand that there are only two experimental schemes working in that respect at present—one in Belfast and the other in Craigavon; no doubt, hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong. There is no basis for a statutory scheme to operate on. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us what stage consultations on a statutory scheme have reached. It would be useful if he could clarify at the same time whether the statutory scheme would apply to people who go voluntarily to a police station as well as to those who have been arrested.
  I agreed with the comments made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about the need to clarify the definition of a designated centre. I understand that the RUC has not yet decided which police stations should be designated. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East suggested that every police station would be a designated station. That is not made clear in the explanation to the order. It would be useful to know that.
  Solicitors in Northern Ireland may resist a duty solicitor scheme on the grounds that they have spent years building up a client base in a difficult environment and are not prepared to share it with a duty solicitor. It is crucial for the Minister to clarify that or there may be no chance to plan and inform people of the changes necessary to make the fundamental principle of PACE work.
  Since PACE was introduced in England and Wales, it has increased threefold the demand for legal advice services. I hope that the Minister has taken that into account and is planning for the increased demand for legal advice services. If he has not, then clearly the structure of advice available will not work effectively in Northern Ireland. We need to know the scale of the preparations
  170
  that the Minister has made. There is also the matter of finance. As we know, many solicitors in England and Wales find legal advice financially unattractive. It would be useful to know what provision the Minister has made to make that problem less crucial in Northern Ireland.
  That is an important matter, because if one puts alongside inadequate legal advice the provisions about the right to silence, one finds that advice at the police station becomes even more important for a suspect. I am sure that the Minister is aware that solicitors on the mainland may well offer advice by telephone. That is a special problem in Northern Ireland, where a solicitor may need to go to a police station to advise a client specifically about the implications in court of the right to silence.
  Perhaps the Minister will outline the practical implications of omitting section 60 of PACE in England and Wales from the Northern Ireland legislation. Without legal aid for people at police stations, suspects may well find it impossible to get legal advice, without which PACE in Northern Ireland is of limited value. If suspects are denied that fundamental right, and the right to remain silent, we are in a serious situation. As I said earlier, the protection of civil liberties and the granting of necessary powers do not need to be mutually exclusive. If the fundamental principle of PACE Northern Ireland is not implemented by this legislation, at best it is legislation of limited value and at worst it is meaningless. That point must be addressed.
  We wholeheartedly support the need for proper, sensible policing practices and the police must be supported in that respect. As it stands, the legislation will potentially damage rather than enhance the principle and prospect of bringing the police and the public closer together.
  1.53 am
  Mr. Ian Stewart: In the time that is available I shall endeavour to respond to as many as possible of the points made in the debate. Some hon. Members have asked specific and technical questions of some detail and I shall respond in writing if I do not have time fully to reply to them now.
  Mr. William Ross: Not for the first time, the Minister is following a long catalogue of Ministers who have stood at the Dispatch Box during the years that I have been here and said, "I will write to the hon. Gentleman." When they do, they simply respond to the point that the recipient of the letter has made, even though the interest in the subject goes much wider. When the Minister sends a letter will he cover all the unanswered points made by all those who took part in the debate?
  Mr. Stewart: That is an interesting comment and I shall consider it when reading the Official Report of the debate.
  I was glad to hear the general welcome from the Opposition, from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and from other hon. Members for the order.
  I have been asked about the time that the order has taken. Although the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was enacted in 1984, it was not until 1986 that it was fully introduced in practice. We followed that with a careful examination of the way in which the PACE proposals would fit into the legal system of Northern Ireland which,

  171
  although closely comparable with that of England and Wales, is not precisely the same and, therefore, had to be considered in detail. Then a year ago we published the draft order, with the explanatory document. We felt that it was right to allow proper time for consultation, especially as a number of technical questions of the sort asked tonight were raised. Then, without further delay, we introduced the order. I have asked the RUC, through the police authority, to implement the provisions of the order with effect from the beginning of next year, which I am assured will be possible. In the interim, we shall be publishing the draft code. There will be time for consultation on that, so that the formal code can be issued before the matter is fully implemented next year.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) mentioned resources. The introduction of PACE was taken into account in the setting of the finances for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the current financial year, and the necessary training of the personnel involved, which for general purposes covers most of those in the RUC and those with specific responsibilities, will take place in the later months of the year. Those who are involved, such as custody officers and inspectors, will, under the terms of the order, have new responsibilities. Up to now, they have had responsibilities of a different sort under the existing arrangements. More formal and specific responsibilities are being laid upon them, but they are not necessarily extra. That is a change very much for the better. After being so fragmented, the provisions are now more organised and formal. Inspectors, sergeants and ordinary members of the RUC believe that it will be a more effective system and one which they will be glad and ready to operate.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said that the balance was important. I am glad that she picked up that point, because it is necessary to see the order not only as setting out the formal powers of the police to be used in the circumstances that have been described, but to ensure that the rights of a suspect and of the individual are fully recognised.
  We will, of course, want to monitor the progress of the provisions. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who made a number of specific points, and other hon. Members who have spoken, that we will certainly want to see how, in practice, the measures in the order are implemented.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Redcar that there should be proper access to a lawyer for a suspect who wants it, although they do not all wish to have such access, by any means. Many of them believe that they can do better on their own. However, for those who wish to have access to a lawyer, the number of solicitors readily available in Northern Ireland is much greater than was the case in England and Wales when PACE was introduced. I shall consider carefully the points that the hon. Member for Redcar made about that. It is not that Northern Ireland does not need a statutory scheme and that England and Wales do. In England and Wales there were special difficulties and, without legal aid provisions, there was a problem regarding ready access to a pool of solicitors. For that reason special provisions were made.
  172
  The hon. Member for Redcar also asked about the designation of police stations. I would expect one station in each division to be designated, perhaps more. The number of designated stations has not been settled at this stage, but obviously they must be available in all areas of the Province.
  A number of hon. Members drew attention to the differences between the provisions of PACE for England and Wales and those of the order. The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), among others, touched on that. The overwhelming body of the order is almost exactly parallel to the legislation for England and Wales, apart from such technical matters as are required to adjust for the differences between the two jurisdictions.
  There is room for a difference of opinion as to whether the televising of evidence from witnesses should be extended to those who may be in fear of intimidation. I accept that Opposition Members have doubts about that, and it will be for the courts and the judges to decide. We will try to ensure that, as far as possible, court room conditions are replicated.
  Mr. McNamara: The Minister said that it will be for the courts to decide about the televising of evidence, but the order says that the regulations will be made by the Secretary of State. Who will do it—the Secretary of State or the courts?
  Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the extension of the televising arrangements to those outside Northern Ireland and those outside the United Kingdom. Those provisions are still some way off and there are no current proposals for their implementation.
  I was referring to the extension of the televising of evidence—it was described as a dangerous extension—to those witnesses in fear. Unfortunately, intimidation in Northern Ireland is a prevalent factor that must be taken into account. We have engaged in widespread consultation and it is the clear view of the Government that it is right to make that extension in the case of Northern Ireland.
  Other differences that have been mentioned are simply developments on the processes embodied in PACE. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East welcomed the extended power under part III of the order. That is an improvement on the position in England and Wales. The fact that reasons will not have to be given if they prejudice not only the particular investigation but other investigations offers a protection to the forces of law as suspects will not be alerted in ways that may make the proceedings in that or other cases difficult to follow up. Such developments represent an advance.
  A different change relates to mouth swabs. The order describes them as non-intimate, whereas in the original PACE legislation they were described as intimate and therefore to be done only with the permission of the suspect. The main reason for the difference is that there has been significant improvement in DNA techniques since PACE. It is now possible to take swabs from the mouth, which can be of value for DNA purposes, without any great intrusion on the individual. They can be taken simply between the lip and the gum. It does not require force. The samples can be valuable, in comparison with other DNA evidence, as part of the case against suspects who may be guilty, or in establishing someone's innocence. That is an important part of the purpose behind the technique.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Minister saying indirectly that the same legislation will be introduced in England and Wales?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about that. When we considered the DNA provisions in the order for our purposes in the light of present scientific knowledge, we concluded that mouth swabs did not involve scraping or unwarranted intrusion into intimate orifices of the body and could be done simply and in a matter of seconds from between the lip and the gum and prove of value.
  I do not have responsibility for these provisions in England and Wales, and I do not know when they will next be reviewed, but the same provisions may have been made in the original legislation—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

  Clergy (Ordination)
  2.6 am
  Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
  That the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  This is one of those occasions when the House is called upon to manifest the characteristics of a monastic order, rising to attend to spiritual exercises in the small hours. I congratulate the many colleagues here who have risen to the occasion. I am quite certain that they will receive a reward, although from a loftier source than the Patronage Secretary and the Whips.
  The scope of the Measure is, in its narrow sense, quite limited and not very complicated, although the drafting of these Measures always looks a bit bewildering. Nor in any material sense is it very far-reaching. It will impinge directly on a comparatively small number of people, as I hope to show, but it has profound and much more far-reaching non-material implications, in that it deals with issues related to the nature and indissolubility of marriage ties. These are matters which are likely to be of considerable interest to millions of families and individuals, including many non-Anglicans.
  In 1986, the latest year for which there are statistics, of the 348,000 registered marriages in England and Wales, well over half were solemnised in religious ceremonies, and one third of them were in Church of England ceremonies. A majority of the public thus still regard marriage as having important religious implications. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.".]
  I shall explain the strict scope of the Measure before I consider wider and more controversial matters. Under existing canon law, there is an absolute bar against a man seeking ordination as a clergyman of the Church of England if he is married but has a previous spouse still living from an earlier marriage or if the partner to whom he is married has a previous partner living from an earlier marriage.
  I stress that the issue is not one of divorce alone. Divorce on its own is no bar in principle to a man seeking ordination as a clergyman in the Church of England, although in practice the circumstances of his divorce will be carefully scrutinised by selectors before he is recommended for ordination. It is only remarriage after divorce in the circumstances which I have described—of a previous spouse surviving—which activates the total bar to ordination.
  The reason derives from the fundamental teaching of the New Testament, not only about divorce but about remarriage following divorce. The barrier I have referred to is at present absolute. It is provided for in section 9 of the Clergy (Ordination and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1964, and neither a diocesan bishop nor either archbishop has any discretion to set it aside.
  What is proposed in the Measure before the House is not that the absolute barrier of the earlier section 9 be abrogated or rescinded, but that under certain defined circumstances its full rigour should be capable of being waived or suspended, and that, at the final and sole discretion of one of the two archbishops, some exceptions to the rule should be allowed. This is a freehand summary

  175
  of what is provided for in section 1 of the measure. To present it in this way is not, I assure the House, a resort to weasel words or to mere casuistry or sophistry. This is not a back-door way of quietly plundering the old prohibition, while leaving it overtly intact.
  If I may draw upon an analogy to make the point: it did not detract from, or impair the operation of, the law relating to capital punishment, in a bygone age when that penalty was still on the statute book, if the Home Secretary of the day recommended a reprieve in a particular instance, and Her Majesty exercised the royal prerogative of mercy. Indeed, if anything, the occasional reprieve served only to emphasise the mainstream rigour of the law.
  Nothing more far-reaching is being sought in the case of this Measure than a discretion for mercy, while leaving the hard core disqualification firmly on the statute book. The Archbishop of Canterbury has estimated that four or five cases per diocese may seek the dispensation—say, 240 altogether—and by no means all that number would secure it.
  There are some individual cases in respect of which it would be the merest and crudest legalism not to be able to waive the absolute barrier against ordination. The Bishop of Guildford in another place cited one such case in which the potential candidate for ordination married a divorcee 15 years ago. His wife's first marriage was never consummated. When she had wanted the marriage dissolved, the lawyers advised her that it might be more straightforward to obtain a divorce than to seek a decree of nullity, so she took their advice and obtained a divorce. The man concerned is now married to a divorcee and automatically disbarred by law from consideration for ordination. Had his wife been advised differently by her lawyers she might have obtained a decree of nullity and her present husband would have faced no impediment to ordination.
  Having considered this case, many right hon. and hon. Members attending this debate may feel that the case for allowing occasional exceptions to a solidly entrenched rule is almost self-evidently made, and that the Measure should be allowed to go through without hindrance. Alas, not all cases are as easy and straightforward as that.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What would happen if the person whom the lady was marrying was already an ordained minister?
  Mr. Alison: There would be no moral turpitude in the marriage between the ordained clergyman and the lady concerned, and there would be no basis for any ecclesiastical proceedings against him.
  The objections arising from more complicated cases are, as right hon. and hon. Members will find, forcefully and succinctly set out in paragraph 5 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report, the so-called red book, which right hon. and hon. Members will already have seen. The last of the listed objections in paragraph 5(iv) on page 3 relates to the absence from the Measure of criteria specifying the basis on which the discretion will be exercised. This has been satisfactorily dealt with, technically at least, by the provision, among the papers available in the Vote Office, of the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement about the criteria that the archbishops will use in exercising their occasional dispensation. In considering these criteria, an
  176
  individual who successfully secures the archbishops' dispensation is not thereby guaranteed automatic access to ordination. He merely ensures access to the normal selection procedure, and he may fall at that hurdle.
  The third of the four objections, contrasting the dispensation to divorced lay people on remarriage in church with that proposed for divorced ordinands, looks at first sight a little far-fetched, in that like is not being compared with like. As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out in another place, the difficulty about divorced lay people being remarried in church is that each wedding service is meant to be a testimony to, and a proclamation of, the Christian doctrine of the indissolubility of, and the life-long commitment involved in, marriage, so that a second wedding proclamation, involving a divorcee, constitutes a glaring contradiction.
  However, this Measure is concerned with ordination and not marriage, and the same contradiction is not implicit in the proposal to make exceptions for ordinands that are not strictly authorised for lay people seeking remarriage. However, at a deeper level, the third objection in the red book underpins and illuminates two objections, which address themselves to the necessity to give clear signals and to maintain standards, not excluding ideal standards.
  Vital landmarks in our social life nationally are today in danger of being swept away by the swirling secular currents of casually contracted marriages and easy divorce. The objectors argue that the Church of England should stand against these currents, at whatever cost. It is almost as severe a contradiction as remarriage in church by divorced lay people when the incumbent solemnising the marriage of a young couple bids them pledge themselves to a view of, and a commitment to, a life-long partnership that he himself has already abrogated. That is why I confess that, had I been a member of the General Synod in 1987 when this Measure was voted on, I would have voted against it, on the grounds that the times were not propitious for sending out this signal about marriage, however meritorious the signal might be in itself. As I shall explain, I do not persist in that opposition now.
  One further difficulty inherent in the Measure, which was considered at length by the Ecclesiastical Committee, is the manifest imbalance in the treatment at present applying to lay ordinands and that applying to ordained clergymen. For ordinands, there is the present absolute barrier against remarried divorcés being ordained which I have described. For a clergyman, divorce and remarriage do not in themselves and in principle constitute grounds for his being removed from his office or his living. He can be so removed by existing disciplinary procedures, but for that to occur there has to be some moral turpitude in his case in the divorce proceedings. Where divorce is secured on the modern ground of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, no moral turpitude need, by definition, occur.
  The lot of the existing clergy is undoubtedly easier than the lot of the prospective clergy. The conclusion to be drawn from this imbalance will depend upon one's predispositions. Some will argue that the imbalance in favour of the existing clergy helps to make the case for occasional dispensation for prospective clergy. Others will argue that the real need is for a measure to make more rigorous procedures available to disbar existing clergy who have marriage breakdowns.

  177
  The General Synod of the Church of England, after an extended and agonising debate on the issue, decided by a substantial majority that the course of occasional dispensation rather than enhanced rigour against existing clergy was the most acceptable way forward.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm to the House that at the time of the clergy ordination Measure of 1964 those who were then the Archbishops of Canterbury and York were in favour of the measure, and that there has been a dramatic change of mind on the part of the two right reverend prelates who presently hold the two offices?
  Mr. Alison: I shall remind my hon. Friend of the course of history since then. There was the report by the Bishop of Lichfield's committee, which was subsequent to the 1964 Measure, on the nature of marriage and the problems arising for the Church of England on whether remarriage should he allowed in church, and on the imbalance between ordinands and clergy, which I have described. I think that the report of the Lichfield committee was the key factor in changing the attitudes of the present leadership of the Church of England.
  I hope that in presenting and expounding the case for the Measure I have not shown myself insensitive or unsympathetic to the misgivings expressed by the Ecclesiastical Committee and elsewhere by the minority who objected to the Measure. As I said earlier, I was potentially among its number. I now have no hesitation in fully commending the Measure to the House. I hope that the House will have concluded that the arguments for and against it are finely balanced, especially where an absolute bar would involve sheer legalism. That is reflected in the Ecclesiastical Committee's close vote.
  At a deeper constitutional level, I suggest that the House has no proper or justifiable grounds whatever for preventing the Measure from going forward for Royal Assent. The concordat between Church and State, which governs our proceedings and which is based on the Church of England Assembly Powers Act 1919, fully delegates responsibility for deciding domestic Church issues, such as the basis for ordaining its clergy, to the Church of England and its domestic machinery.
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): When Parliament so delegated its powers to the Church—I take my right hon. Friend's view strongly on this issue—did it not provide that, on matters as delicate and important as those that come before us, a two-thirds majority was necessary? Is it not true that in this instance the Church did not give an opportunity for a two-thirds majority? Indeed, there was not a two-thirds majority in the House of Laity, which this place should be concerned about. Is it not true that the very people who decided whether there should be a two-thirds majority were those who were proposing this measure in the first place? Could it not be argued that this House has an important role in insisting that the protection of the minority, which it put upon the Church, should be followed and cared for on a matter so serious and important?
  Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. In the interests of brevity, perhaps all I should say is that the General Synod considered thoroughly and in great detail whether the Measure qualified for the two-thirds majority provision that applies to matters of
  178
  fundamental doctrine and concluded, through its proper machinery, that it was not called for. The chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, Lord Bridge—a distinguished Law Lord—on reading the constitution of the General Synod, concluded that it had properly decided that an absolute majority, not a two-thirds majority, was right.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was not the conclusion reached by the noble Lord Denning, who took the view that there should he a two-thirds majority?
  Mr. Alison: That is true. I have heard some comments that Lord Denning, in his speech in another place commending the opposite view, was not at his most pristine, forceful and exemplary best—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Did my right hon. Friend actually hear Lord Denning?
  Mr. Alison: I carefully read what he had said.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I had the privilege of attending that House of Lords debate.
  Mr. Alison: I very much wish that the mere audio experience of words were sufficient to make a deep impression upon the conscious mind. If that were so, dulcet tones would always win arguments. However., that is not always the reality in debate. Lord Denning 's speech was not of exemplary clarity and conviction.
  The concordat between Church and state fully delegates responsibility for deciding these matters to the General Synod. As the Ecclesiastical Committee makes plain in paragraph 6 of its report, no wider implications arise which bear upon
  "the constitutional rights of all Her Majesty's subjects."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton
  (Mr. Latham), in his speech in the Ecclesiastical Committee, summed up the position succinctly. He said:
  "There are many Measures where it is absolutely right and in accordance with the constitutional rights of all Her Majesty's subjects (as section 3(3) says) that we should seek to have changed or sent back. Stipends of clergymen, rights of dismissal, pensions: all those are basic secular questions where our duty is clear, if the Church oversteps the reasonable grounds of equity. But this Measure is concerned solely with a matter of theology and I do not think it is my job to decide it is inexpedient to proceed."
  Mr. Conal Gregory: My right hon. Friend has referred several times to the Ecclesiastical Committee of which I believe he was a member during the examination of this Measure. The voting was extremely close—10:9. Will he advise the House on why he did not participate in that final decision, which would then have balanced the voting?
  Mr. Alison: If my hon. Friend had followed the earlier part of my speech, he would have heard me say that, had I been a member of the General Synod in 1987 when it voted definitively on this matter, I would have voted against it. I also hold the view that the argument is very finely balanced and that the Church of England, in a matter of theology and doctrine, has an absolute right, through the powers that we have deliberately delegated to it, to reach through its proper procedures a conclusion by a majority. Provided that the interests of none of Her Majesty's subjects is in any way threatened, it is reasonable for the Church of England to expect that Royal Assent will follow.

  179
  My own position was fully expressed in the words uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton in the Ecclesiastical Committee. After literally years of deliberation, the Church of England has passed the Measure—which received a substantial majority in all its houses—to us, and it is our duty to pass it, without impediment, to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.
  2.30 am
  Mr. Frank Field: It was worth waiting until 10 minutes past 2 o'clock this morning to hear the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) introduce the motion, because he showed a depth of humour that I did not think he possessed. If the right hon. Gentleman commended the Measure without any hesitation on his part, I only hope that I would be defended by him, if he thought that I was guilty.
  When the right hon. Gentleman said that we are in a way debating our beliefs about marriage, a number of Conservative Members gave a very loud "Hear, hear!" Before we all become too self-righteous, I remind the House of one of its recent decisions. It reformed the divorce laws to make divorce possible after a period of marriage shorter than the term of the average hire purchase agreement. Before we ask the Church of England to set standards, we should consider our own conduct.
  The most powerful argument to be made in this debate was forcefully put in an intervention in the Ecclesiastical Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Is it not unfair that priests who enjoy a freehold tenure can be divorced and remarry without losing their posts, whereas lay people who divorce and remarry are barred from ordination? If the argument were just about fairness, that imbalance should weigh heavily with the House.
  I am reminded of a comment by Aneurin Bevan—if he did not make it, he would have done so had he thought of it—after Neville Chamberlain had introduced one of his many measures. Aneurin Bevan commented that listening to the Prime Minister was like a trip round Woolworth's—everything was in its place, and nothing was priced over sixpence. If one takes the view that in life everything has its place and nothing costs more than sixpence, my hon. Friend's intervention will carry weight. If one accepts that sometimes life is messy, and that in this instance, the freehold system should be defended because it is in itself important even though it is sometimes abused, one will not adopt the Woolworth view of life.
  I hope that we shall not hear the argument this evening that the House has no right to intervene. My right hon. Friend—I call him that because in these matters, he is—almost made that point in his concluding remarks. He explained the balance of the arguments, commended the measure to the House, and said that it has no right to interfere. The House has every right to interfere until such time as it decides that certain matters need not come here from the General Synod for approval.
  I hope that we shall not hear the disestablishment argument tonight. I voted against all the privatisation legislation that has come before the House and I shall continue to do so. I am against national institutions such
  180
  as the Church of England being handed over to the sect. We have a right to intervene, to judge and to weigh up—hence our debate tonight.
  Let me underline a point made earlier in an intervention. On all major matters involving policy in the Church a two-thirds majority is required, but those gaining a ruling for such a majority must make an appeal to the people promoting the Measure: those who wish it to go through will decide whether a two-thirds majority is necessary. If we were debating not the Church but a building society, would we be happy for those who were changing—or rigging—the rules to decide that a simple
  majority was all that was required, rather than a two-thirds majority? I think not. Had there been a two-thirds majority in every House of Synod, we would hear much of that point in tonight's debate.
  Let me take the argument a step further, and ask how the measure will work in practice. We have duties in respect of our constituents. We should consider how Church authorities have already behaved to the House, through its Ecclesiastical Committee, before the Measure had gone through. The voting was fine: the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) reminded us that it went through on a majority of one, the Second Church Estates Commissioner not having voted on that occasion.
  Whether or not we agreed with that decision, we in Committee wanted to know what were the rules governing who should be given such exemption. Then, too, we were given a taste of the humour that was dominant throughout the right hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks tonight: he compared the position with that of someone allowed not to be hanged. We suggested that there should not merely be an agreement between the archbishops, because archbishops change—and they could change the rules after they had come into force. We wished to see the rules in the form of regulation when the Measure was introduced, but we have not seen them in that form tonight.
  The archbishops issued a note full of high-sounding phrases, but offering little guidance on who would get through and who would not. How will the rules work? When the Measure first came before the Ecclesiastical Committee, we were told that probably a couple of people would come forward for ordination. Then we started to get the letters—and then the archbishop told us that there were already nearly 200 on the stocks who might come forward. At least one bishop was so confident that we would rubber-stamp the measure that he sent someone through for ordination who could not possibly be ordained under the current law.
  Let us make a comparison with the way in which the deserted wives of clergymen have been treated, and the assurances that they and their parishes have been given when acts of adultery have occurred. I am currently in correspondence with a clergy wife who was assured—as were the parish and the parochial church council—that the man would never again be given a living in the Church of England because of the way in which he had deserted his wife and four children and broken up another marriage. In one sense the bishops and archbishops have kept their word. He has not been offered another living; he has already had two. I suggest that once the move gets under way flexibility will be introduced. I see some of my hon. Friends here tonight. I have received many letters about the Measure, but not one from a deserted divorced clergy wife recommending the measure. I have had many from wives who have married divorced clergy.
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend would not, would he?
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend says that I would not, but given the size of my postbag, people could have written to say that they disagreed with me. Many people write to me saying that they disagree with my line. Why should this Measure be the exception?
  Before we discuss the rights of the wife of a person who wishes to be ordained, I hope that the House will have some respect for the rights and status of the woman who has been deserted by that person. Let me take the argument a stage further. This was not the whole Measure that went before Synod. The whole Measure was to change the Church's teaching on marriage. It stated that members of the laity who were divorced could be remarried in church. The Church, mindful of the fact that it should not give the laity rights that it denied to the clergy, decided that in those circumstances it would be proper for those who have been divorced and remarried and wish to be ordained to be able to do so.
  The major part of the Measure which failed to get through Synod and has not been presented to us was that people who had divorced and remarried could get married in church. But the tail end of the Measure, which we are discussing tonight, was presented to Synod again and is now before the House. Far from the Synod not wishing the clergy to be inferior to the laity, we are now being asked to approve a Measure whereby some clergy would be in a superior position to the laity.
  Another argument presented to me in letters is that good men with a wealth of experience about broken marriages to bring to the Church are putting themselves forward and the Church is short of manpower. If the Church is so worried about a shortage of manpower, why does it not accept that a large number of women wish to be priests and are not divorced and remarried? That would not require the overthrow of any doctrine. Why can the Church not bring that measure before us, if its reasoning is that such people have a vocation? If the Church is short of vocations, we should change one part of the rules which have always existed.
  The right hon. Member for Selby introduced the Measure with extraordinary skill and great charity. The intervention by the hon. Member for York demonstrated his torn feelings about the issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's loyalty to the Church in presenting the Measure to us will not blind the House to the faults of the case that he presented. Should anyone say that if we do not pass the Measure tonight, we shall have a great constitutional crisis on our hands and the Church will call for disestablishment, I ask hon. Members to pause before they laugh. Would anyone really say that if we do not pass the Measure tonight the archbishops and bishops will go to the country on a programme that, because we were not mindful to pass a Measure to allow some divorced males who have remarried or married divorced women entry to the priesthood, we should allow disestablishment? The case would be laughed out of court.
  We all know that no Government would find time for disestablishment. It would make trying to abolish the Greater London council appear a mere tea party because with disestablishment would come disendowment and those great constitutional issues would be taken on the Floor of the House. No Government would give up a year of parliamentary time to get that measure through, and
  182
  certainly not because we had decided early this morning that we were not happy, on balance, to pass a Measure that would allow some divorced people to become priests in the Church of England. I rest my case on a balance of arguments and I hope that the House will not approve the Measure.
  2.45 am
  Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): First, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner for the sensitive and balanced way in which he moved this difficult motion. I found his opening remarks illuminating and helpful. I regard the Measure as modest and sensible, and a proper way to take account of the wide range of individual circumstances involved in considering whether individuals are appropriate for ordination.
  The safeguards announced by the Archbishop of Canterbury are real and proper. There is no question but that this is an exceptional power which will be used in exceptional circumstances. As my right hon. Friend the Estates Commissioner has made clear, the safeguards are enshrined in the fact that the dispensation is in the hands only of one or the other of the two archbishops.
  It is also a compassionate Measure. It is in the experience of every hon. Member that in issues of divorce there are often cases in which one party is wholly blameless for the breakdown of a marriage. It is wrong, unreasonable and unduly harsh that such blameless persons should for the rest of their lives, if they subsequently remarry, be denied the opportunity of presenting themselves for ordination.
  I wish to cite one case in my own constituency. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will be interested to know that it is the case of a woman who is currently undergoing training as a deacon but who, under the present rules, will not be eligible for ordination at the conclusion of her training. She asked for her name not to be disclosed, for understandable reasons, but she has given me permission to quote from her letter to me and it is instructive.
  She wrote:
  "The reason for my not being ordained into Holy Orders, as I believe god has called me to be, is that I have re-married. In 1964, when I was nineteen I married, but the marriage lasted four months and was an horrific episode in my life. I was treated badly, beaten and left. A month later I discovered I was pregnant and nearly 7 months later gave birth to twins who did not survive the first day of their life. That marriage after many traumas was dissolved and I remarried my present husband in 1967. I am still married to him and have a lovely family. I have been a Christian since I was 8 and a church member apart for the few years in my late teens … In 1990 I will be at present only allowed to be licensed to be a Lay Minister and not ordained Deacon because of that teenage marriage that lasted only four months."
  It is in such cases that it is reasonable and proper for individuals to be able to offer themselves for ordination. I believe that it is right that in individual cases account should be taken of the circumstances which precipated the divorce and that the positive factors about individuals presenting themselves for ordination should also be taken into account, regardless of whether they have been divorced and subsequently remarried. For those reasons, I support the measure.
  2.49 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: When this matter came before the Ecclesiastical Committee of which I was a member, I started from the premise that I would oppose it for two reasons—first, because I had understood that remarriage after divorce was not countenanced in New Testament theology and should therefore clearly be proscribed for those who wished to be leaders of the Church, and secondly because of my experience as a member of a family in which this had been the theological issue which had most affected our view of family life. My parents were not allowed to marry in church because my father had been married before, and I had watched the only brother of mine who had been married go through a divorce. It troubled me greatly that this was a subject where theology had ultimately to win the argument against some of the arguments for compassion, but the principle had been held.
  So I listened and, when it came to our conference with the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, I questioned the archbishops with some vigour about how they could justify, theologically, the case that they were asking us to adopt. They and their colleagues led me to believe that in theology the case is at least arguably justifiable. I say that not as a theologian or somebody who can be certain of what the Christian teaching would be, but as somebody who was driven for guidance to read the text in the New Testament, in the Gospels and in the Epistle to Timothy in particular, which deal with those matters. Although there is clear teaching about the responsibilities of leaders in the Church and about marriage, it would appear from those who interpret these matters and who are far more adept and able to do so than I am, that there can be a proper interpretation of the scriptures which suggests that permission both to remarry after divorce and to do so even if one is ordained as a minister of the Church, is theologically acceptable.
  Mr. Gummer: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true—and, indeed, it is a position that some theologians uphold—would not the natural result be for the Church of England to seek to change its rules on marriage, not just for clergymen but for lay people? Is not the problem with this Measure that when the Church tried to do that, it had to have a two-thirds majority, and as it did not get a two-thirds majority it therefore withdrew the part dealing with the laity and left this tag-end? It then said that it did not need a two-thirds majority for that. When the Church—members of the Synod—appealed, they found that the group which was to decide whether the two-thirds majority was necessary or not was the very group presenting this Measure.
  Surely the real issue facing us all is that in the sad case quoted to us by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), we are looking for a proper change in the Church's view and, in my view, for a better system of nullity—but not for this Measure, which must be damaging because it asks people to be allowed to be ordained but says that when they teach the Church's doctrine on marriage they have to teach that their own marriage is simply living in sin.
  Mr. Hughes: I was intending to deal with that point later, but I will do so now. I believe that it would have been far preferable for the Church to bring before Parliament the question of the remarriage of divorced people in
  184
  Church before bringing this Measure. That is one of the unsatisfactory elements of the Measure. It will permit a more liberal regime to appear to apply to priests than to lay people in the Church. Divorced people who ask a priest if they can be married and are told that they cannot will find it somewhat odd, to say the least, if they discover that the priest who told them that they were not allowed to be married became a priest after having been divorced and having remarried. I accept that that is not satisfactory. Having weighed that argument with others that I will relate briefly in a moment, I still believe that the balance of view that we should reach in justice and in charity as politicians, and as people concerned with the standards of the Church, should persuade us to support the Measure.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being led down a cul-de-sac by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). This not a question of where clergymen remarry. Many people—myself included—have remarried after a divorce. I was blessed in a church in a service that left it abundantly clear to the entire congregation that my wife and I had failed before and were asking God's blessing to succeed in future. That is far more germane to the question of whether the clergy or the laity can remarry in church.
  Mr. Hughes: I will deal with that point in a moment as it is also an appropriate point.
  We must decide whether the proposal is right according to theology, morals or ethics. We must also consider whether Members of Parliament have a right to intervene in this matter.
  For as long as Parliament has the responsibility to approve matters that are put to us, we can, if we wish, disagree with the Church. I take that view even though I believe that the Church should be self-governing and should not have to come to Parliament. However, Church matters such as this come to Parliament under the present rules, constitution and practice. Clearly we have the right to say no to the proposal from the Church even though it is an internal Church matter.
  What is the balance? I believe that the persuasive arguments against the proposal are theological arguments. But the Church and the theologians who advised us did not believe that they were determinative. I do not believe that those of us who have considered the matter would regard the theology as determinative either.
  There is an argument that the Church should set clear standards and signals. However, I believe that that argument to oppose the Measure is impossible to sustain. If the present position continues, we say that someone who has been married and divorced and then remarries cannot become a priest, but someone who has lived with someone, or two people, three people or seven people can become a priest. Someone who has murdered can become a priest. Yet we reserve a bar to ordination uniquely for those people who have married, divorced and remarried. We do that irrespective of whether their previous marriage was a Christian marriage and irrespective of whether either or both parties were Christians when they were married or divorced.
  We consider the previous marriage to be an absolute barrier to ordination even though it may have been a mistake, as in the example given by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). Even if the marriage was clearly wrong and had failed, and even if

  185
  someone found a vocation calling him to the priesthood in a blessed second marriage, the bar to ordination would apply. It is anomalous to preserve this unique bar and not to apply to ordained clergy the principles that we apply to people hoping to be ordained. A priest can be divorced and then remarry without any automatic threat to his role as a priest.
  The most persuasive argument of all is that, if the theology is not persuasive and clear, and if justice is abundantly in favour of the Measure and strongly against preserving the anomaly of denying a group of people the fulfilment of their vocation, one other matter becomes abundantly clear. That matter relates to the mission of the Church and I hope that it is also the duty of the House. It is to realise that the Church must be able to forgive as well as to teach, that it has a duty, even to those in authority or who seek authority, to say that they are capable of error and capable of forgiveness and grace.
  That is the fundamental issue which determines for me and for many others that justice and theology must come down in favour of the overriding principle that the Church should be capable—if it is thought right at the highest level and on the best advice—of saying that it can put aside and forgive a mistaken marriage. It should he able to say that it regards that as no absolute bar to someone who wishes to become an ordained member of the Church.
  I hope that people will realise that this is a sensitive matter which does not easily allow the conclusion that it must be wrong to allow people who have been divorced and have remarried to become priests. It is not so simple as that, and I hope that we shall give to those people and to the Church the benefit of our necessary doubt.
  3.1 am
  Sir John Stokes: This is obviously a difficult matter for the House, but having listened to the debate, I have to say that the House has distinguished itself. On such non-partisan matters we express the wisdom of a great many lay people in England.
  I should like to add a few general points to those that have been made. England, unfortunately, has an immensely high divorce rate. About one third of marriages end in that way and that is the background against which we are discussing the Measure. There is also the question of the standards that the nation expects of its clergy. It is possible that hon. Members, who are more down to earth than some other people, expect a somewhat higher standard from our clergy than does the Synod. I have been a member of the Synod for four years, and I think that hon. Members represent the man and woman in the pew rather more accurately than does the Synod.
  What worries me about the Measure is that if it is passed it will send out from the House a wrong or at least a confusing signal to people in England who look to the Church and the clergy to set high standards at this difficult time in our social life. I am also troubled by another matter which has not so far been discussed. I refer to the Measures that have come to the House from the Synod in recent years. They are all extremist, liberal Measures, and in time they may utterly destroy the fabric of the Church of England.
  First, as many hon. Members may remember, we had the virtual destruction of the Book of Common Prayer on which the Church is based and its replacement by the alternative service book. That was done by the Church of
  186
  England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. We were assured then that the prayer book would not disappear, but it is disappearing very fast. Then we had the revolutionary proposal to ordain women as priests and because of that the Church is in danger of splitting in two.
  Now we have this Measure. Later, this Measure may be followed by one to introduce so-called non-sexist language in the alternative service book and other books of the Church which would upset the vast majority of Church people and only please a fanatical minority of feminists. In the turbid debate about those depressed women, I ask what the Cabinet feels about them—but there we are.
  In view of the disruptive Measures, which I believe will be put before us, we must study each one carefully. All of us have sympathy for clergy and others with marital troubles. The difficulty is that, once one starts to relax standards, there is no knowing where one will end up. I believe that in this country there is a mood against the permissiveness of the 1960s and 1970s anti, in my experience, young people especially are looking to the Church for a lead. What sort of a lead does this Measure provide? If the Synod does not feel able to give a better lead than this, hon. Members, with all modesty, should decide not to pass the Measure and to maintain Christian standards in their entirety.
  3.5 am
  Ms. Jo Richardson: I have listened with the utmost care to the debate and have been impressed by what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although I am supporting the Measure. I have been impressed because I am not a member of the General Synod or of the Ecclesiastical Committee—I do not suppose that I ever will be—and I am sometimes confused by the language that is used. I shall therefore make my contribution in the simplest possible lay language.
  I want to make two points. First, as has been said, the General Synod of the Church of England has deliberated and—as the right hon. Member for Selby, (Mr. Alison) said—agonised for a long time about this and many other matters. I understand the point that was made—that it is part of a package but it is before us, and we must make a decision.
  The General Synod is the parliament of the Church of England. Its members are experienced, dedicated and distinguished theologians, which I and many right hon. and hon. Members in the House are not. The Synod came to its conclusion and supported the Measure, albeit, I accept, not by a two-thirds majority. It had a two-thirds majority in the House of Bishops and in the House of Clergy, but a majority of only 59 per cent. in the House of Laity, which has been a cause of some concern. It is to me, however, a substantial majority by any standards.
  I do not believe that it should be the role of this Parliament—the Parliament of the people—however deeply some individuals may feel about the issue, to overturn the expressed view of the parliament of the Church of England. It is true that we are not disestablished, and I am not in any sense arguing for disestablishment, but our role is to consider the Measure. However, I believe that, once the Synod has come to a conclusion, both Houses of Parliament—the House of Lords and the House of Commons—should acquiesce in that decision and let it pass. We would be wrong to use our

  187
  superior powers—superior in the sense that we have the power to destroy this Measure—and to use our heavy hand to frustrate the Measure.
  My second point relates to the principle of the Measure, which I believe enacts a basic social justice. I have read the ecclesiastical report and I have read the Lords Hansard as well as some other documents that I have been able to find. I understand that the objection of many right hon. and hon. Members is based on the idea that marriage is something that cannot be dissolved, and that therefore remarriage is a sin. Those who have been divorced or are now married to a partner who has been divorced are considered to have committed a sin by remarrying.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said that that argument does not apply to priests. As I understand it, a priest is not barred from marrying or remarrying a divorced person and then sanctifying the marriage of other people. Tonight, however, we are deliberating on whether people who are not priests but who wish to be ordained should have that same privilege.
  The Measure specifically relates to giving a few mature people who have valuable and much-needed skills and wisdom to offer, but who have been divorced and whose partner is still alive, or who is now married to a divorcee, to be ordained. Such people can be ordained only after each case has been considered by the diocesan bishop and reported to the archbishop. The person who wants to be ordained does not have an easy passage. To allow that person to be ordained would not mean that the floodgates would be opened. It would mean that there would be a tiny chink in the dyke through which might flow some good people with wisdom. The Church would benefit if it allowed that chink to be opened.
  I do not believe that the Measure threatens the sanctity of marriage. Many people have a break in their marriage because of the death of their spouse. We do not say that they should not be allowed to remarry. We accept that that death is a sad occasion and often we are pleased when friends or relatives remarry some years later and find happiness with a second partner.
  Many others suffer a break in marriage because, after trying hard, they find that it is not a marriage. They have to seek a divorce for the sake of their life and that of their partner, and the happiness of their children.
  The House may know that I take a close interest in domestic violence and the problems associated with it. Over the years, I have been in contact with women who have been the subject of violence. Hon. Members may speak about the ease with which one can seek a divorce, but I beg them to believe that it is not easy. Women who sue for divorce after a violent marriage and who have fled the home do not do so lightly. Many return to the marital home after they have been beaten up because they want to keep the family together. If they seek a divorce, then make a clean break and remarry and their new partner wants to be ordained, should that person be prevented from doing so? That is what would happen.
  Mr. Frank Field: The House is with my hon. Friend, but what of the person who does the beating?
  Ms. Richardson: Good question. I always wonder, "What of the person who does the beating?"
  Mr. Field: I intervened because there were two sides to the marriage that was being described—the person who was being beaten and the person who was doing the beating. My hon. Friend followed the line of the person who finally leaves that intolerable situation, and asked whether the person she marries should be disqualified from being a priest. I am suggesting that we know from divorced clergy wives who are given assurances that their husbands will not be given livings again that they are given more than one living. How can we be sure that it is not the beater, rather than the person who has been beaten, who is presented for ordination?
  Ms. Richardson: I would have thought that my hon. Friend would trust the wisdom of the people who consider who is to be ordained. I do. As I said earlier, ordination for such people is not automatic.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady has said that the rigour with which the Church considers these applications is even greater than the rigour with which it considers people who remain priests but who have failed in their priesthood. The matter has to go to the bishop and then to the archbishop. Only when the application has been personally sanctioned will it be approved. Presumably a beater will not get through that system.
  Ms. Richardson: That is the obvious point. I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) should rest his case so heavily on a letter that he may have had from a person who feels disadvantaged in the way he has described, because I do not think that such a person would get through such a complicated procedure.
  Most ordinary people do not divorce lightly. It is a difficult and traumatic experience. We are not talking about the small fraction of the population, whom we read of in highly publicised stories, who marry, divorce and marry again, apparently on a whim. That is not what it is like for most people. Nor are we talking about all divorced people. It is worth quoting what the Archbishop of Canterbury said in one of his speeches to the joint conference of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Legislative Committe:
  "On the number of candidates coming up, I have made inquiries diocese by diocese about this position. There are about 16 deaconesses who cannot become deacons because they married a divorced partner. Apart from this I am reliably informed that the total numbers—mark that—the total numbers known to bishops and their Directors of Ordinands, of people offering themselves who are caught by the present rules, are 183 men and 57 women, a total of 240. This amounts to just over four men per diocese and one woman."
  I thought, when I first heard about the Measure, that umpteen people were waiting to be ordained. I now find that there are very few. It would be reprehensible if the House decided not to pass this very modest Measure.
  I have always thought that the Church is about forgiveness and love, not about taking it out on people. It seems that, in some cases, people have had it taken out of them because they have been divorced or because they are married to a divorcee. I hope that Parliament will not frustrate what that other parliament, the General Synod of the Church of England, wants to pass. I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will join me in the Lobby in support of it.
  3.19 am
  Mr. Michael Latham: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and to take part briefly in this debate. The fact that the Benches are so full at this time of night shows the importance that hon. Members attach to the issue and the strength of feeling about it. That is all the more reason why it should have been debated at a reasonable time.
  The subject has perplexed and attracted the attention of the House for well over a century. If hon. Members read the speeches made in 1857 on the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, they will see that similar arguments were offered then about the sanctity of marriage. Mr. Gladstone, for example, whose speech covered 32 columns in Hansard—the second speech that he had made in a week on the subject—said:
  "Sir, I shall enter into the theological argument under protest. It is impossible to conduct it in this House as it should be conducted …That is a matter for the assembly of divines or a synod of theologians; it is not a discussion which can be entered into by a popular assembly."—[Official Report 31 July 1857; Vol. 147, c. 836.]
  Being Mr. Gladstone, he then went on at considerable length to deal with the arguments for and against divorce. with what the Greek word "porneia" meant, and so on.
  Many of my hon. Friends are troubled by this Measure. One of the most recent books published on this subject was written in 1984 by two distinguished evangelical theologians. The bibliography—it is described as selective—on the subject of divorce alone runs to 19 pages. This is a matter on which our Lord said relatively little and on which biblical interpretations differ. For instance, in the Old Testament, there were circumstances in which divorce was mandatory. They are to be found in Deuteronomy and elsewhere. Distinguished theologians have arrived at many different perceptions of the issue.
  The Church of England holds the most rigorous position of all churches. After the Reformation, the Protestant churches tended to allow divorce and remarriage on the grounds of adultery, whereas the Catholic church forbade divorce, but permitted dispensations. Uniquely, the Church of England offered neither the Protestant concessions nor the Catholic dispensations. As a result, a large number of people who had the money promoted private Acts in the House for divorce. That was why the Act of 1857 was passed—to allow more general divorce. Exactly the same issues were anguished over at the time and all sorts of different perceptions were advanced. They are all to be found in Owen Chadwick's "The Victorian Church". The bishops in the House of Lords put forward all sorts of contradictory views on the rules and on the biblical teaching about divorce.
  There is no black and white in this matter. Theologians, bishops, divines and churches differ on it. In the eastern Orthodox Church, second marriages are permitted in church and there are specific services for them. These are complicated matters on which Christian people can and do honourably disagree. As several hon. Members have said, they also affect real people seeking the grace of ordination, who have written to and been to see their Members of Parliament about the problem. The House has absolute rights over the matter, but if we decide to turn down the Measure, those people will be lawfully denied the grace of ordination that they seek—the right to test their vocation
  190
  against ordination, which could be extended to them only by the Archbishop of Canterbury or of York, and in no other circumstances.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was good enough to quote me, I should make my position clear. Of course the House has the legal right to reject any Measure of the General Synod of the Church of England, and on occasion it has done so. When the Conservative party was in opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General, whom I welcome to the debate, was largely instrumental in correctly persuading the House to reject a Measure on a basically secular matter wherein the Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee had not noticed that the clergy were given inadequate rights of appeal. The House did its duty and rejected that Measure, and it was right to do so.
  This matter, however, is entirely theological and, although our rights continue, I ask my hon. Friends the following question: is it personally right for us? Do we have the ability or the skill to set our theological judgment above that of the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York?
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: Yes.
  Mr. Latham: Many others of my hon. Friends may think in the same way and, if so, they will vote in that way. I am simply saying that, if the bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, and the clergy—both of whose houses were substantially in favour of this Measure, and by well over two thirds—have debated and prayed to know the mind of Christ as they see it, then I will not set my theological judgment against theirs.
  3.25 am
  Mr. George Howarth: I came here tonight to fulfil an obligation to a constituent and had not planned to speak. However, after listening to the speeches, I felt that I had to make one or two points if I were to fulfil my obligation properly.
  On most issues, I share common ground with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and I hold him in great affection, but I found his arguments tonight uncharacteristically confusing. He said that, as the Measure is not the whole loaf, rather than vote for half of it, we should let it fall by the wayside. Later, he argued in principle against the Measure.
  We heard the authentic voice of 19th century England as it survives into the 20th century—that of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). His view typified the undercurrent of feeling among Tory Members which made me feel that it was necessary to intervene—that the Church of England is all about cream teas on the village green, and tut-tutting about goings on.
  The Church of England has moved into the real world in recent years, and has addressed central issues. We are talking about real lives and real people and about those whose vocation may be tested by other means. They should not be tested purely on the basis of marital history. There are other more important tests. In many cases, real people have suffered anguish over the years while they have waited for the Measure to go through the procedures of the Church, and come to the House. It has now gone through those procedures, and it would be intolerable if Parliament were not to accept what the Church has considered carefully and decided was the right thing to do. The House should support the Measure.
  3.28 am
  Mr. William Powell: As the son of a clergyman who administered to congregations for 58 years, I know that he would find the suggestion that he has not existed in the real world extremely difficult to comprehend. The Church has administered to people of England for centuries, and not just in the past year or two.
  It is with considerable regret that I must disagree with the conclusions reached by my hon. Friend and my constituent, the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). For reasons that have been substantially argued by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I must ask the House to join us in the No Lobby tonight.
  A point that has not been underlined as it should is that this is the worst piece of legislation that has been introduced in the six years that I have been a Member of Parliament. It is so loose and general that it is a legislative disgrace. Even the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee who voted with the majority were less than enthusiastic about the quality of the legislation. There was an almost universal view that it should be accompanied by a statutory code of conduct, or at the least a draft statutory code setting out how it would be administered should be made available to Parliament before it came to a decision. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, a wide discretion is laid down in the Measure, and initially one or two individuals will be let through. It is extremely likely that every one of the 244 individuals currently in the pipeline—more are joining it all the time—will in due course be ordained.
  The Church of England faces a crisis in the number of its ordained Ministers. A generation ago, there were about 20,000 beneficed clergymen. There are now about 10,000, and about 10 per cent. of ordained Mininsters, taking priests and deacons together, are women. That is how important the ordination of women has become in terms of the Church's ordained manpower. The Times predicted last week that within 15 or 20 years the number of ordained clergymen will decline to about 5,000. It has become of paramount importance to all the bishops of the Church of England to try to increase the number of candidates available for ordination. I suspect that the hon. Member for Birkenhead was spot on when he told us how the discretion was likely to operate in practice, on the basis of what has happened in the past. More than anything else, this is part of the numbers game that is played by increasingly desperate leaders of the Church of England as they trawl to try to find more and more people from a smaller and smaller pool to fill the vacancies that are appearing.
  We all know from our constituency experience that there are long vacancies between incumbencies in small parishes and in large. These vacancies cause considerable damage to the fabric of church life within the parishes.
  I must say that I consider the quality of this legislation to be a disgrace. The House would be entirely right in rejecting it because there is no code of conduct setting out how the Measure will be administered in practice. Without a code of conduct, we should not agree to the proposed legislation.
  3.33 am
  Mr. Alison: Even at this late hour, the sands of time continue to run out. I hope that I shall be allowed to reply to the debate, which must end in three or four minutes, by
  192
  making two quick points. First, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that the details of how the archbishops propose to exercise their discretion and the instructions that they are proposing to issue in the diocese have been made available in the Vote Office and can be scrutinised. My hon. Friend may not have succeeded in procuring a copy of the relevant document.
  Some right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government in an intervention, expressed continuing anxiety about whether the General Synod properly reached its majority conclusions without having recourse to the two-thirds majority voting procedure. I shall explain briefly the technicalities underlying the decision that a two-thirds decision was not applicable. Among other things, article 8 of the constitution of the General Synod applies
  "to a Measure or Canon providing for permanent changes in the services of Baptism or Holy Communion or in the Ordinal"—
  that is, measures relating to ordination.
  "A special procedure applies"
  where there are permanent changes, and in those circumstances an article 8 measure, so-called, must have a two-thirds majority in each house of the General Synod at final approval.
  In June 1986, immediately before the so-called revision stage in the full General Synod, more than 25 members petitioned that the Measure be designated as article 8 business—that is, statutorily requiring a two-thirds majority vote.
  As required by the constitution—article 8(2)—the matter was considered by the two archbishops, the so-called prolocutors together with the chairman and vice-chairman of the House of Laity. They ruled that the Measure was not article 8 business and that it did not require a two-thirds majority on the ground that, in their opinion, the Measure
  "is not providing for a permanent change in the Ordinal."
  That decision was constitutionally properly reached and was accepted in the Synod. Lord Bridge, the chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, endorsed that decision. It was therefore right that the Church of England General Synod reached its conclusion without a two-thirds majority. I remind hon. Members that the voting in the House of Laity, the nearest group corresponding to us, was 125 in favour and 77 against.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).
  The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 51.

  Division No. 304]

  [3.36 am

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beith, A. J.

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Harris, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Couchman, James

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Cousins, Jim

  Meale, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  Michael, Alun

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  193

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nellist, Dave

  Waller, Gary

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Richardson, Jo

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Michael Latham and Mr. Andrew Rowe.

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stern, Michael

  NOES

  Amos, Alan

  Lightbown, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Lord, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Maclean, David

  Benyon, W.

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Butterfill. John

  Mans, Keith

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Carrington, Matthew

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Chapman, Sydney

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Chope, Christopher

  Speed, Keith

  Fallon, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Favell, Tony

  Stevens, Lewis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Finsberg. Sir Geoffrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Gow, Ian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Gregory, Conal

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Watts, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Whitney, Ray

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Widdecombe, Ann

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

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jessel, Toby

  Mr. Alistair Burt and Mr. William Powell.

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  PETITION

    NHS Reform
    3.47 am
    Mr. Allen McKay: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the people of Mapplewell, Darton and north Gawber, who are themselves acting for those who are patients at the health centre in Mapplewell. The petition is signed by some 1,700 people, who ask the House to consider their views. They are, to say the least, extremely concerned and distressed about the Government's proposals for the National Health Service, particularly as they affect general practitioner services. On their behalf, I ask the House to accept the petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Homeless Young People (London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]
  3.48 am
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Fifteen years ago, in my formative years as a young Socialist, one of the books that had a major effect on me was George Orwell's "Down and Out in Paris and London". In it Orwell describes the "spike", the place of last refuge for the homeless in the 1930s.
  Today, in 1989–50 years after Orwell, after 10 years of Maggie's Britain and in the sixth or seventh consecutive year of successful economic growth, according to the Chancellor—the "spike" has been replaced by the "cardboard city" at Waterloo. There and elsewhere in the capital, surveys suggest that more than 3,000 people—a figure that has doubled in the past 18 months—are sleeping rough. Abject poverty among Rolls-Royces and five-star hotels makes a mockery of the words of the Secretary of State for Social Security on 11 May this year:
  "It is clear that people at all income levels now have substantially more money to spend in real terms than they did in the 1970s … not only are those with lower incomes not getting poorer, they are substantially better off than they have ever been before".
  It is true that one section of society has benefited massively recently. Boardroom directors have received an average pay rise of 27 per cent.—faster than at any time this century. Among a dozen examples of the "I'm all right, Sir Jack" society is Sir David Scholey of the firm S. G. Warburg, who has just had a rise of take-home pay of 328 per cent.
  In contrast, child benefit has been frozen and benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds axed completely, while the benefit rate for 18 to 24-year-olds is even less than the YTS rate, and at £27·50 is £7·50 less than the benefit received by those aged 25 and over. That impoverishes young people trying to live independently who, out of a pittance in benefit, have to pay water rates and 20 per cent. of general rates.
  Those changes and others arrived in April 1988 and hammered millions of working-class people. They are the main contributing factors to the rise in young homeless people. Many families in Coventry lost £20 or more in housing benefit.
  Under the old supplementary benefit system, young people were paid benefit in advance and therefore were able to pay for board-and-lodging accommodation immediately. In April 1988, that was changed to benefit paid fortnightly in arrears. It is impossible for many young people to get together the hundreds of pounds of advance rent and bond or surety required by many landlords. Their homelessness is directly Government-inspired.
  Ten months ago, in September 1988, all 16 and 17-year-olds not on a YTS scheme lost all entitlement to income support. In the first three months of withdrawal of benefits—to conscript youngsters to the slave labour YTS scheme—only 1,269 discretionary severe hardship payments were accepted throughout the country, 215 of them in the London area. Thousands received nothing. A typical case was a 17-year-old Coventry lad, Terry Flowers, whom I mentioned in the House on December 5 last year, who, two months before his 18th birthday at Christmas 1988, was refused all benefit, although he had no chance of a

  195
  YTS place in competition with 16-year-olds who had two full years to give. He had no money for eight weeks and was advised by the DSS to try the Salvation Army.
  In desperation, many youngsters come to London, hoping for work. After a few weeks they have little option other than begging, prostitution or both. They get little help from the harassed DSS officials. In 1979 there was an average of 50 cases per DSS worker; now, the figure is more than 80. In some London offices, it is no wonder that the annual staff turnover is more than 100 per cent.
  Last Tuesday, the National Children's Home released a major piece of research by the NCH-run "young runaways" project. The director of social work at the NCH is Tom White, the former director of Coventry's social services. That report showed, in measured words, that
  "there is remarkably little accommodation and support made available to vulnerable young homeless people by Housing Authorities in Great Britain today … The safety net for young vulnerable people, embodied in the homelessness legislation is, apparently, no longer intact."
  Eighty-five per cent. of housing authorities responded to that survey, which was conducted in the summer of 1987.
  Young people at risk of sexual or financial exploitation, like hundreds now being prosecuted throughout London for vagrancy, are specified in homelessness legislation guidelines as eligible for housing. Yet one in five housing authorities said that a girl under 18 open to sexual and financial exploitation was not vulnerable, and half the authorities would not deem as vulnerable a young homeless care leaver, a young homeless person with no parents and no support, or a young homeless person under a probation order. Many of them explained that the shortage of council housing for homeless families meant that, no matter what the risk, young, single homeless people did not get a look in.
  The NCH report concludes that 10 years ago, most young single people in housing need had a range of options, but today there is almost a complete absence of permanent and decent low-cost accommodation. Recent laws, such as the Housing Act 1988 and the Local Government Housing Bill, coupled with the draconian effects of the poll tax, will exacerbate that position. The report castigates the Government's social security cuts, especially as they affect young people. In that it backs up last year's Barnardo's report and more recent reports such as "Farewell to Welfare" by the West Midlands Welfare Rights Agency.
  In September 1987, the Children's Society estimated the number of young people who go missing each year. It wrote in a report:
  "Young people on the streets with nowhere to sleep, especially in the West End of London or other inner city areas, are clearly vulnerable and at risk. Many have left home because of family tensions aggravated by overcrowded housing, poverty, unemployment, or physical or sexual abuse. They are usually lonely, frightened, cold and penniless and often exposed to sexual exploitation, petty crimes and drug misuse. In 1986, the Children's Society contacted all the chief police officers in the United Kingdom to try to estimate the size of the problem of missing and runaway children and young people. The nearest estimate, based on responses from half the police forces, was that 75,000–85,000 young people go missing every year … Many will survive by sleeping rough in alleyways, doorways or abandoned cars".
  As if that was not enough, we learn from leaks in The Times today of further financial harassment of the young
  196
  homeless by a Government plan to restrict the payment of housing benefit to people living in their home area. The Department of Environment plan will discourage people from flocking to the big cities and is already causing difficulties and differences within the Cabinet, we hear. The Treasury is keen on the move, as it would reduce the rising bed-and-breakfast costs faced by councils putting up homeless families. Not surprisingly, it has the backing of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister, who see it as a way of reducing the growing number of the homeless in London itself.
  Added to that financial harassment, there is the existing physical harassment against homeless young people through sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is one of the most archaic and arcane pieces of legislation still on the statute book. It speaks of the "idle and disorderly", of "rogues and vagabonds" and of "incorrigible rogues". According to Lionel Rose's book, section 4 was aimed at
  "the suspect characters the law could not pin specific crimes on but who were apparently up to no good".
  He gives as examples:
  "'Every suspected person or reputed thief frequenting dock areas or public highways 'with intent to commit a felony'; and those who 'wandered abroad' (that is, slept out) without visible means of subsistence and unable to give a good account of themselves."
  Rose goes on to explain:
  "The Act continued the principle from earlier statutes of presuming the guilt of Section 4 defendants from their conduct, and the onus was on them to explain themselves; this runs counter to the general presumption of innocence in British criminal prosecution."
  The Act has since been variously described as
  "simply a measure of repression"
  and "purely coercive." That is certainly its role today. thousands of youngsters attracted to the big cities like London in a desperate search for work, or forced to leave home because of the breakdown of relationships with parents, are now found homeless. Estimates were given today in the Lords of 150,000 homeless teenagers in this so-called modern, affluent country, with one third of that number—a staggering 50,000—in London itself, without decent, clean, permanent and cheap accommodation—without, in fact, a home.
  One example of that was a girl of 17 interviewed on the BBC television programme "On the Record" on 19 February 1989. Her name was Ris Williams. She spoke of leaving home a year and a half ago when she was coming up for 16, how she had been in care for about a year and how she had tried to go back to her mother's, stayed for two or three weeks, but left again having been abused by her father. She had been on the street ever since, begging because her benefit was stopped in December; and, because it was illegal, she had been nicked for it loads of times and got a £10 fine. She had to beg the money to pay off the fine and then got nicked begging the money to pay off the fine. She said:
  "it's just catch 22—a vicious circle."
  The available statistics on prosecutions under sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act seem very low. The latest figures relate to 1987, despite my parliamentary questions in the past three months seeking more recent statistics. The figures show that, in 1987, 466 people in England and Wales were prosecuted for begging, of which 416—that is, 89 per cent.—were in London alone. The figure for those prosecuted for sleeping out in England and Wales was 14.
  I believe that the closest magistrates court to the House

  197
  of Commons is at Horseferry road, a few hundred yards away. In 1987, 55 people were prosecuted for there begging and 53 were found guilty. That was in the year before the social security changes. The figure for Horseferry road magistrates court was about one conviction a week. When I spoke as recently as five or six hours ago to barristers and solicitors who have worked recently at Horseferry road, they talked about an explosion of that offence from one a week to it not being unusual for four or five youngsters to be seen in a single morning, and to be fined £10 or a day in custody—which, in many cases, they are deemed to have served overnight in the police cells.
  Their hunger has led to begging, but their crime is not begging; it is poverty. The escalating problem of young people wanting work and ending up sleeping rough and of the mentally ill or alcoholic being hounded by 19th-century coercive and repressive legislation is a disgrace.
  The cost of a solicitor from the Crown prosecution service is almost £15 per hour. Use of a private solicitor costs between £85 and £150 for half a day. Does the Minister think it a good use of taxpayers' money for the Metropolitan police to arrest, detain and process such youngsters and for the Crown prosecution service to prosecute them? How much a year is it costing? Would it not be better to use that money to provide decent accommodation and decent benefits?
  At the beginning of the 1980s, the Labour Member of Parliament Jock Stallard tried to introduce a Bill to abolish the begging and sleeping-out provisions of the Vagrancy Act. With the increasing scandal of its escalating use, the time is right, perhaps in the next Session, for a further attempt to be made. I believe that to that should be added the abolition of the restrictions preventing young people from registering on local authority housing lists and, indeed, for priority to be given to 16 to 18-year-olds.
  There should also be provision for the control of the bed-and-breakfast hotels that are used by DSS claimants in order to prevent the profiteering of multiple occupation; for the immediate payment of board and lodging allowances, instead of payment in arrears as at present; for decent benefits for young people, without the disparity between the under-25s and the over-25s; for those benefits to be paid at two thirds of average earnings to allow people to live, not barely exist; and for a crash building programme, which I believe should include the municipalisation of corporately owned property.
  The scandal of homelessness should be one of the easiest problems to solve. It requires planning and, in my view, public ownership and the planning of the economy, not the Government's use of market forces. Market forces create the Nicholas Hoogstratens of this world, for whom rising property values, especially in London, of 16 per cent. per year in the past eight years, have meant that the capital value of property, when sold and investested, is far more valuable than rents, especially with the abysmally low social benefits on which countless people cannot afford to pay those rents.
  Socialist planning could bring the 3 million unemployed, together with the building and construction industry, into public partnership, through public ownership. It could reverse the past 10 years of decline, which have left us with more than 1 million homes in Britain unfit for human habitation and a further 500,000 without basic amenities such as toilets or hot water. It could reverse the 70 per cent. rise in housing waiting lists,
  198
  which now stand at over 1·25 million and it could reverse the three quarters fall in council house building.
  It could also reverse the perverse slide of thousands of young people within a couple of miles of this Chamber, for whom the Catch 22 of no job means no home, and no permanent address means no job, who are drifting into crime, prostitution and drug abuse, who are being arrested, charged and sentenced under Dickensian poor laws, and who are building up a string of convictions which makes the chance of a prospective employer looking favourably upon them virtually impossible.
  Those are the casualties of this Tory Government's slashing of benefits and of beneficial public spending. They are the victims of capitalism at its most obscene.
  4.3 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and of the Minister to intervene?
  Mr. Corbyn: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for allowing me a few minutes of his debate, for succeeding in getting this debate and for putting on the record our concern about homelessness in London and about the way in which the Vagrancy Act 1824 is being used.
  It is highly appropriate that we should be considering the Vagrancy Act 1824, because it was introduced in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars to criminalise homeless people—who were often thrown off land by illegal enclosures—who had moved to urban areas seeking work and a place to live. The Act gave the law enforcement authorities of the time enormous powers. That force and power is being used today against poor young people who, through no fault of their own, have nowhere to live. Anyone who travels around London or who lives in London—as I do—will believe that the situation is distressing and appalling.
  Every day at Finsbury Park tube station, near where I live, there are many young people who busk and beg. They ask for the price of a cup of tea or for help to find bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I see many young people in those circumstances at my weekly constituency surgeries. They are very distressed that they cannot find anywhere to live in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East said that there are 50,000 homeless young people in London. I imagine that that figure is correct, if a little on the conservative side.
  A combination of factors have led to this appalling situation. For example, over the past 10 years, there has been a net loss of 31,000 council-owned properties in London. Secondly, the rent in the private sector for a one-bedroomed flat in London is on average £65 a week, although in many inner parts of London the rents are much higher. In my constituency, it is barely possible to find a shared bedsit for less than £50 a week. Those figures are correct and the prices are rising very quickly.
  Very few London borough housing authorities can house single young people. They must give priority to the elderly, who are deemed to be extremely vulnerable—as indeed they are. They must also give priority to single

  199
  parents who are also deemed to be vulnerable. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East referred to the problem with vulnerability which is a serious defect in the housing and homeless persons legislation. My hon. Friend referred to the research carried out by the National Children's Home, which has its head office in my constituency. We would all agree that the NCH is a reputable organisation which has done much work for the homeless.
  The NCH research shows that over a fifth of the responding housing authorities said that a girl under 18 open to sexual and financial exploitation was not vulnerable. Half the responding housing authorities said that they would not deem as vulnerable a young person with no parents and no support. One in eight authorities said that they would. Over two fifths of responding authorities said that they would not consider as vulnerable a young person with serious family or relationship problems, while one fifth said that they would. There is a large area of discretion. From my experience as a councillor and now as a Member of Parliament in London for the past 15 years, the definitions in the homeless persons legislation have increasingly been drawn more narrowly, largely because of the inability of local authorities to build or buy on the open market. I deplore that.
  Ten years ago, it was possible to get young people into hard-to-let accommodation. That is now impossible, and they are sleeping on the streets and are begging. In some parts of the country they are sad victims of the poll tax and of unemployment. They are also victims of broken homes and the lack of affordable housing in this capital city. Their tragedy is that they are criminalised through the use of the Vagrancy Act 1824; they are arrested, held in custody and subseqently fined. They are not criminals, they are victims.
  The Government should repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, as they repealed the sus laws after a strong campaign. They must recognise that the lives of young people are often blighted by their initial experience of moving to London—that magnetic urban area where they think that they can find work and somewhere to live. Even if they can get a job, they cannot find anywhere to live. If they cannot find anywhere to live, they often cannot find a job because they cannot quote an address. All the agencies dealing with the young, single and vulnerable report that they are at breaking point. The staff and the doors are at breaking point. The whole system is collapsing. We need action to resolve this crisis.
  4.9 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has raised an important issue, and in reply I intend to concentrate primarily on those issues for which the Home Office has the lead responsibility—the provisions of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It would be helpful if I first set out what the Act seeks to achieve.
  Section 3 of the Act makes it an offence to be an unlicensed pedlar, a common prostitute behaving in a riotous or indecent manner or a beggar. The penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  200
  Section 4 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to be fortune-telling with intent to deceive, sleeping rough, indecently exposing himself, gathering alms by exposing wounds or deformities, collecting for charity under false pretences, found on private property for an unlawful purpose, or violently resisting arrest for an offence under section 3. For these offences, the penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  The whole Act has been subject to scrutiny in the recent past. In 1976, a Home Office working party examined the whole issue of vagrancy and street offences. It recommended the abolition of two offences—street trading without a licence and being a common prostitute behaving in a riotous or indecent manner—but it recommended the retention of a begging offence based on persistence, because beggars can be a nuisance—and, of course, some people may feel intimidated by them—and because they are not necessarily as destitute as they may claim, so that there may be an element of falsehood in their demands.
  Similarly, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended in its third report in 1981 that the begging offence in the section of the Vagrancy Act to which I referred should be retained, at least for the time being. The Committee felt that the existence of the offence may well have helped to keep the problem of persistent begging within manageable proportions, but it expressed the hope that the wider availability of suitable accommodation would enable both the begging offence and the offence of sleeping rough under section 4 of the Act to be repealed within the foreseeable future.
  Enforcing the Act is not an easy task for the police. The law itself is quite plain. It is an offence to sleep rough or to beg. It is also an offence to obstruct the highway, to be publicly drunk or to use illegal drugs, and the presence of any large group of people, some of whom are the worse for drink or drugs, may pose a threat to the peace. So the police cannot simply ignore these people and walk away.
  Undoubtedly, the police apply the law sensibly. I am a little perplexed by the difference between the figures given by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East and figures that I have in front of me. I shall look further at the matter, because the discrepancy is considerable and I have difficulty in reconciling the figures. The figures that I have are confined to the Metropolitan police area. I am told that, in 1988, the Metropolitan police arrested only 15 people for begging and none at all for sleeping rough. They may have dealt with many more who went unrecorded, but generally their policy is to arrest only when there is some element of threatening or intimidating behaviour. I accept that the figures that I have given are not compatible with those given by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. One of us must be wrong.
  Mr. Nellist: My figures came form the Home Office annual statistics and were for 1987. My notes have now gone to the Official Report, but from memory there were 416 arrests under section 3 in the Metropolitan police area. It seems incredible, especially in view of the social security cuts, for the figure to fall as low as the figure that the Minister has given for the London area in 1988.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has said that the figures that he gave were for 1987. I accept his point that it is difficult to reconcile my figures with those given by the

  201
  hon. Gentleman. It is plain that I must look at the matter again, because we cannot both be right. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with my conclusions.
  Whenever they can, the Metropolitan police put young people in touch with social services departments and voluntary agencies that may be able to help them, and they keep closely in touch with those agencies. They are also taking part in some projects that are being run by voluntary agencies to help homeless youngsters.
  When we consider the broader question of young people and housing, we need to recognise that the youngsters who sleep rough in central London do so for a variety of reasons. No doubt many of them have missed their opportunities throughout life. Perhaps they have come from a broken family, have left school without the basic skills to equip themselves for work or perhaps they lack the self-discipline required to find and hold down a job. They may be unaware of the opportunities that exist for skills training and for financial support through the social security system. But if we are also honest with ourselves, we will recognise that there are others who are perfectly capable of finding work but who prefer for a variety of reasons to live rough.
  The Government believe that, in general, the best place for young people to live is at home with their relatives—and 85 per cent. do so. At the same time, we accept that there are some 16 and 17-year-olds who, for a good reason, need to live independently and require extra help to do so. The range of benefits available means that those young people who genuinely cannot live at home have the wherewithal to find alternative accommodation, either as a private tenant or in board and lodging.
  All 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed the offer of a place on the youth training scheme. Trainees are entitled both to the basic YTS allowance of £29·50 in the first year and £35 per week in the second, and housing benefit on top if they are living away.
  From this month, those young people's entitlement to housing benefit is being increased so as to offset some of the everyday expenses, particularly travelling costs, associated with taking up a YTS place. Sixteen and 17-year-olds who are in work will also receive that extra help through housing benefit.
  Also from this month, payments made by local authorities to help young people leaving care will be ignored when calculating income support and housing benefit. Young people who have no living parent or guardian, or who are in local housing authority care, or who are in danger of physical or sexual abuse at home receive income support, and associated housing benefit, during the period between leaving school and finding either a job or a YTS place. The Government have also decided that those eligible for that temporary income support entitlement will also include those youngsters whose relationship with their parents has irretrievably broken down.
  202
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has the power to direct that, in cases of unavoidably "severe hardship", income support will be made available to any young person who would not otherwise be eligible. All such claims are considered on their individual merits — between September 1988 and the end of March 1989, 65 per cent. of all such applications were accepted. Homeless young people who need to resort to night shelters will be automatically considered for a "severe hardship" direction.
  Unsubstantiated estimates are that 2,000 young people sleep rough in London every night. Some of those youngsters could be accommodated in the hostel or resettlement unit places that the Government have provided in recent years. There are 4,000 emergency beds in London alone, but it is unfortunately the case that some of those who sleep rough are simply not prepared to use them as a step towards permanent accommodation.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has given a high priority to remedying the problem of homelessness in England and Wales. More than £38 million in additional resources has recently been made available to those London boroughs with the most severe difficulties over homelessness.
  That is expected to lead to the creation of well over 400 new hostel places and the reinstatement of more than:2,000 local authority and housing association dwellings. Last year, the Housing Corporation committed some £120 million to homelessness schemes administered by housing associations in and around London. It is an unfortunate fact that some of those local authorities in London which are most critical of central Government are also the least competent to manage their own housing stock. At the last count—April 1988—there were about 23,000 empty council houses in London, 9,000 of them empty for more than a year.
  Right-to-buy receipts are not being fully exploited to bring back empty property into use. Too much time is being wasted by town councils before re-letting vacant flats and houses. In its recent study of homelessness, the Audit Commission estimated that, if the average re-let period for a council house could be reduced by six weeks in London, and three weeks elsewhere, an average of 17,700 empty dwellings would be released.
  I am afraid, too, that London's rent arrears are unacceptably high. Nine inner-London boroughs—all-Labour controlled—plus Liverpool city council account together for nearly 40 per cent. Of the total municipal rent arrears —
  The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Four o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fermanagh (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last visited either Newtownbutler or Rosslea Royal Ulster Constabulary stations in south-east Fermanagh; and what was the cost of the security operation thus entailed.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have not visited Newtownbutler, but I visited Rosslea RUC station in December 1985. In the last 12 months I have visited three RUC stations in the same area and the nearby army headquarters at Lisnaskea. Information on the costs is not held in the form requested.

  Criminal Injury Compensation Order
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how often the discretion given by article 8(4) of the Northern Ireland Criminal Injury Compensation Order has been exercised in favour of a person denied compensation as a result of article 6(3) of the order.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Three times.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many incentive posts for teachers are currently available; what is the financial remuneration for each grade; what were the comparable figures three years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The value and estimated number of incentive allowances in ordinary schools in October 1987 (the first year) and September 1988 are set out in the table:

  October 1987

  September 1988

  Value (£)

  Number

  1Value (£)

  Number

  A

  501

  25,000

  858

  43,000

  B

  1,002

  69,000

  1,284

  59,600

  C

  2,001

  —

  2,568

  9,300

  D

  3,000

  28,500

  3,426

  27,000

  E

  4,200

  6,500

  4,710

  9,000

  Total

  129,000

  174,600

  1 From 1 April 1989.

  There will be an further 27,500 As, 2,500 Bs, 1,500 Cs and 500 Ds from this September as a result of the recommendations of the interim advisory committee and plans already in the pipeline.

  Language Schools
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received representations from local authorities seeking the statutory control of language schools.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will consider giving moderate learning difficulty and severe learning difficulty schools discretion over putting(a) French or (b) any other foreign language in their curriculum;

  (2) if he will detail those elements of the national curriculum that are applicable to the moderate learning difficulty and severe learning difficulty special schools;

  (3) if moderate learning difficulty and severe learning difficulty schools can work to their own curriculum so as to dispense with the national curriculum;

  (4) if moderate learning difficulty and severe learning difficulty schools can modify the whole of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Butcher
  All maintained schools, including all maintained special schools, must meet the national curriculum requirements in full, including the requirement to teach a modern foreign language to all registered pupils in the third key stage (age 12 to14). We do not intend to except any category of school from this requirement. Children of all abilities, including children with moderate or severe learning difficulties, can benefit from the breadth and balance of the national curriculum. Within each national curriculum subject area, attainment targets and programmes of study are being developed to meet the needs of children of different abilities and maturities. For pupils with statements of special educational needs (SEN) under the 1981 Act, provision may be made, on an individual basis, to modify or disapply as necessary any or all of the elements of the national curriculum. The national curriculum does not come into force for pupils with statements of SEN until 1 August 1990.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's review of student union membership;

  (2) when he expects the results of his Department's review of student unions will be announced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  We hope shortly to publish the factual analysis of the Department's survey of student unions.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning his Department's review of student unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer to my replies to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 12 April 1989 at column 526, to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Fishburn), both on 6 June 1989 at column 15. We have since received a further

  3
  19 letters concerned mainly with the National Union of Students, of which 15 were critical of present arrangements for membership and funding.

  Single Market
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans his Department is making to mark the arrival of the open market of 1 January 1993 with educational exchanges or other events.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department is co-operating within the European Community in the development and implementation of appropriate programmes. In addition we have successful and expanding bilateral educational exchange and other programmes with our European partners.

  Community Charge
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of(a) young people of 19 years of age or more attending schools, (b) young people of 19 years of age or more attending sixth form colleges and (c) young people of 19 years of age or more attending colleges specified in the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 where they are studying for GCE A-levels or other courses which are taught in schools or sixth form colleges; and if he will make a statement of the effect of liability for poll tax and entitlement to the student 80 per cent. non-means-tested relief on the educational choices of young people.

  Mr. Jackson
  In January 1988 the number of pupils aged 19 and over attending maintained and non-maintained schools (excluding sixth form colleges) in England was 2,078; attending sixth form colleges was 692. The number of full-time students aged 19 enrolled on GCE or GCSE courses lasting 18 weeks or more on 1 November 1987 (the latest date for which figures are available) was approximately 4,000.

  School pupils aged over 18 will be liable for the full community charge, but the great majority of them will be eligible for an 80 per cent. rebate on the basis of their low incomes and resources. Full-time students will be liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. For most 19-year-olds in full-time education there will therefore be no difference in the amount paid in community charge, whether the education is undertaken in schools, sixth form colleges or colleges of further and higher education.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to introduce a top-up student loan scheme for current undergraduate student nurses in 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  Future arrangements for the support of undergraduates studying nursing are under consideration in the context of Project 2000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  George Belitsky
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about their continued failure to grant an exit visa to George Belitsky of Moscow.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have underlined our concern about George Belitsky to the Soviet authorities on numerous occasions over the past year—most recently during the Paris human rights conference in June. The Russians continue to refuse to grant a visa on security grounds which we find wholly unconvincing. We shall continue to press the case.

  Mark Berenfeld
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about their continued failure to grant exit visas to Mark Berenfeld and his family who first applied for a visa in 1977.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We made representations to the Soviet authorities about the Berenfeld family shortly before Mr. Gorbachev's visit in April, and were told that the family would be given permission to leave. We shall raise the case again with the Soviet authorities if visas are not issued shortly.

  Ester and Simon Tsirelson
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about their continued failure to grant exit visas to Ester and Simon Tsirelson of Leningrad who first applied for an exit visa in 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have pressed the Soviet authorities about the Tsirelson case on numerous occasions during the past year—most recently at the Paris CSCE human rights conference in June. They now claim that the case is under re-consideration. We shall continue to make representations until the family is allowed to leave.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the current waiting times both actual and estimated, and the numbers awaiting interview abroad for the following queues:(a) persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases, (b) all spouses and all children under 18, (c) fiancées applying for the first time and (d) re-applicants for the following posts: (i) New Delhi, (ii) Bombay, (iii) Dhaka, (iv) Islamabad, (v) Karachi, (vi) Nairobi and (vii) Dar Es-Salaam.

  Mr. Eggar
  As at 31 May 1989 waiting times (in months) to first interview at posts in the Indian sub-continent were as follows:
  5

  Waiting times in months

  Post

  Queue

  Actual

  Estimated

  New Delhi

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  4

  3

  5

  6

  4

  8

  9

  Bombay

  1

  2

  2

  2

  6

  6

  3

  9

  9

  4

  10

  10

  Dhaka

  1

  3

  3

  2

  6

  6

  3

  6

  6

  4

  22

  22

  Islamabad

  1

  3

  3

  2

  10

  10

  3

  16

  16

  4

  22

  22

  Karachi

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  2

  4

  6

  6

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  Q1

  Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.

  Q2

  All spouses, and all children under 18 years.

  Q3

  Fiancé(e)s and others applying for the first time for settlement.

  Q4

  Re-applicants.

  Posts in Nairobi and Dar Es-Salaam do not operate a queue system along the lines of Indian subcontinent posts. Current waiting times to first interview for all types of settlement applications are:

  Weeks

  Dar Es-Salaam

  5

  Nairobi

  4

  Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to make a new statement about the alleged death of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The leader of the Soviet delegation at the recent human rights conference in Paris acknowledged that Raoul Wallenberg had been a "noble person" and had been murdered "by dark forces". We do not, of course, consider this a satisfactory explanation and will continue to press for the full story. But it may at least be a step nearer to the truth.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We receive a number of representations which reflect concern in this country that the fate of Raoul Wallenberg remains unknown. In an era of glasnost the Soviet Union does itself a disservice by failing to resolve widespread concern about this heroic figure.

  Single Market
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department is making to mark the arrival of the open market of 1 January 1993 with exchanges, exhibitions, or other events.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The next United Kingdom presidency of the EC falls in the second half of 1992, coinciding with the end of the period leading up to completion of the single market. We are considering how best to mark the occasion.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the extent of the enforced exodus of ethnic Turks from Bulgaria.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We understand that over 130,000 members of Bulgaria's Turkish minority have fled to Turkey since mid-May. It seems that the first wave, perhaps numbering several thousand, were deported but that the vast majority of later arrivals left Bulgaria voluntarily, albeit as a result of long-term harassment.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Bulgarian authorities concerning human rights abuses perpetrated against ethnic Turks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs protested to the Bulgarian ambassador on 1 June about his Government's policy towards the Turkish minority. We have also taken the matter up in Sofia, and our delegation to the Paris conference on the "human dimension" of the CSCE raised it on numerous occasions.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning human rights abuses perpetrated against ethnic Turks by the Bulgarian authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We receive frequent representations about human rights violations affecting Bulgaria's Turkish minority. We have long had a policy of taking all appropriate opportunities of expressing our concern to the Bulgarian authorities, both bilaterally and in multilateral fora.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for the different parts of the Indian subcontinent the latest information he has on the length of time from application for entry clearance to first interview for those now being interviewed, and the expected time for those applying now for(a) fiancés, (b) husbands, (c) wives and (d) dependent children.

  Mr. Eggar
  As at 31 May 1989 waiting times (in months) for first interview at posts in the Indian subcontinent were as follows:
  7

  Wives and children with right of abode (Q1)

  Other, husbands, wives and dependant children (Q2)

  Fiancé(e)s (Q3)

  (a)

  (e)

  (a)

  (e)

  (a)

  (e)

  Bombay

  2

  2

  6

  6

  9

  9

  Delhi

  0

  0

  4

  4

  5

  6

  Dhaka

  3

  3

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Islamabad

  3

  3

  10

  10

  16

  16

  Karachi

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  (a) Actual time those interviewed in May 1989 waited.

  (e) Estimated time to interview for applications lodged in May.

  There are no queues in Calcutta and Madras.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Bangladesh.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made a number of representations about human rights to the Bangladesh authorities over the past five years but the precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in the Bahamas;

  (2) how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Botswana;

  (3) how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Guam.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Bulgaria.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made a number of representations about human rights in Bulgaria to their authorities over the last five years, but the precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  PLO (Gift)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will instruct Her Majesty's ambassador in Riyadh to protest to the Saudi Arabian authorities about their gift of six million US dollars to the Palestine Liberation Organisation on 4 July to finance violence on the West Bank; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The decisions of the Casablanca summit show that Saudi Arabia supports the PLO's efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement in the middle east.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, during the Minister of State's recent meeting with Bassam Abu Sharif, the Minister raised the statement in call No. 42 issued by the Palestine Liberation Organisation on 3 July, that 16 July 8
  should be designated as petrol bomb day, with the stepping up of petrol bomb attacks against West Bank settlers or the Israeli defence forces; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The PLO is well aware of our view, which I repeated to Bassam Abu Sharif, that the intifada should be pursued with the utmost restraint.

  Italy (Consular Assistance)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), has transferred to the Department of Social Security the recent letter to him from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton regarding consular assistance in Italy for N. A., a constituent of the hon. Member, who was dismissed from his employment by Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd. while still in hospital; and whether he will now discuss the case with the Italian ambassador, following his Excellency's letter to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton dated 8 June, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Eggar
  The letter referred to covered social security payments in Italy, a matter which is properly for the Department of Social Security. That Department is currently in correspondence with the Italian authorities. It would therefore be inappropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to discuss the case with the Italian ambassador.

  Forward Programmes (EC)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government receives copies of the European Communities Commission's annual forward programme, three month forward programme and draft documents of forthcoming legislation; and if he will ensure that these are provided as soon as possible to the relevant parliamentary Committees.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Copies of the Commission's annual work programme for 1989 were placed in the Library of the House earlier this year. We understand that the Commission would be prepared for its three-month forward programmes, which are supplied to the European Parliament for planning purposes, to be passed to national Parliaments. All Commission proposals for draft legislation submitted to the Council of Ministers are deposited in the House, normally within 48 hours of receipt in London.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the development within Third world countries of chemical industries with a capacity to make chemical weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are in no way opposed to the development of chemical industries for peaceful purposes. We are, however, concerned that chemical industries, wherever they are located, should not contribute to the production of chemical weapons. Pending the achievement of a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons which would include verification that chemical weapon agents were not being produced in industry, we and a number of other chemical producing countries have imposed controls on the export of those chemicals which are key precursors for chemical weapons. We have urged other producing countries to follow suit.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Lomé IV
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the overall state of Lomé IV negotiations.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Lomé IV negotiations are making satisfactory progress and should be concluded by the end of the year. The next ACP-EC ministerial negotiating meeting is in Luxembourg on 10–12 October. I am participating in another round of discussions with my Community colleagues on 17 July.

  ACP Countries
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the top five imports in both the European Economic Community in general and Great Britain from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The top five European Community imports from ACP states in 1987 were oil (4·26 billion ecu), coffee (1·61 billion ecu), cocoa (1·35 billion ecu), copper (0·55 billion ecu) and wood (0·55 billion ecu). (Source: European Commission "Principle EC imports from ACP states 1983–87"; 1987 exchange rate £1 = 1·41 ecu).

  Comparable figures for individual member states are not published by the Commission and the information requested for United Kingdom imports is not readily available from United Kingdom statistics.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on studies comparing the shock and gradualist approach of disbursing aid to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have no information about such studies.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current quota on the European market under the terms of the sugar protocol to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
  10
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Under the sugar protocol to the Lomé convention, the European Community undertakes for an indefinite period to purchase and import each year at guaranteed prices 1·3 million tonnes (white sugar equivalent) of cane sugar from the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. This total is divided into national quotas among the ACP signatories.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current rate of exports from the African, Caribbean and Pacific to(a) the European Economic Community and (b) Great Britain.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1987 total ACP exports to the European Community were 16·37 billion ecu(Source: European Commission "Principle EC imports from ACP states 1983–87"); and to the United Kingdom 2·37 billion ecu (Source: Eurostat Monthly External Trade Statistics) (1987 exchange rate: £1 = 1·41 ecu).

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the declaration made on 5 June in Brussels to ban all traffic of toxic waste to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries has been upheld.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  At the ACP-EC ministerial negotiating meeting on 3–5 June, the European Community indicated that it was willing in principle to agree to an ACP request that the Community should ban the export of toxic waste to the ACP. Negotiations are continuing on the means of implementing such a ban.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the request from Mr. Seydina Oumar Sy, the Senegalese trade minister, on behalf of his African, Caribbean and Pacific colleagues, for the European Community to put extra money into the Lomé arrangement for structural adjustment has been met.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  European Community member states have not yet discussed the level of resources to be provided under the next Lomé convention.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which rules have been eased in regard to African, Caribbean and Pacific industrial products entering the European Community duty free, as promised by Mr. Manuel Martin, the European Community development Commissioner.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In the current renegotiation of the Lomé convention the Commission has proposed a number of improvements to the rules of origin. We support these concessions. The Council is considering its position on the Commission proposals. This will then be put to the ACP in the next round of the negotiations. The objective is agreement by the end of December.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current rate of additional Lomé aid provided by the European Investment bank.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Under the third Lomé convention the European Investment bank agreed to make loans from its
  11
  own resources of up to 1,100 million ecu (about £750 million). Commitments up to 30 June 1989 totalled some 490 million ecu (about £330 million).

  Sysmin
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of the Sysmin facility.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The third Lomé convention includes an allocation of 415 million ecu (about £280 million) for the Sysmin facility. Commitments up to 30 June 1989 totalled some 65 million ecu (about £44 million).

ENVIRONMENT

  Radon
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)Official Report, 28 June, column 955, if he will publish the statistical evidence for radon emissions in Cornwall making it 80 times more dangerous to live there than in Copeland.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The average radiation dose per person from radon in Cornwall is 6·3 millisieverts per year. This is about 80 times the annual average dose of below 0·08 millisieverts for Copeland from the discharges at Sellafield. For further information I refer the hon. Member to the 1988 "Review of Radiation Exposure of the UK Population" published by the National Radiological Protection Board. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dioxins
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)Official Report, 28 June, column 955, he will identify by title and date of publication the report on dioxins to which he referred.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The title of the report is "Dioxins in the Environment", Pollution Paper No. 27 (ISBN 0 11 752229 5) published by HMSO on 22 June. Copies are in the Library.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien)Official Report, 23 February, column 704, concerning declaration of interest by chairs and members of urban development corporations, he will state any exception to the normal requirements of chairs set out therein; and if he will make it his policy to publish, on request of any hon. or right hon. Member, for any urban development corporation, the occasions when members of corporations have written to the relevant chair, together with the circumstances and action taken on each occasion.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have made no exceptions to the normal requirements concerning declarations of interest. Chairmen and members are given full advice on this matter and their conditions are set out in their terms of 12
  appointment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not wish to publish correspondence between members and their chairmen on such matters.

  Pollution, River Dart
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many outlets empty raw sewage into the Dart between Totnes and Dartmouth; how many of these outlets treat sewage in any way; and if he will make a statement on the quality of water currently in the Dart.

  Mr. Howard
  There are three major discharges of sewage into the Dart estuary: the Dartmouth combined outfall which discharges macerated sewage, the Coronation park outfall at Dartmouth which discharges crude sewage and the Totnes sewage treatment works which discharges treated sewage. Smaller sewage treatment works at Dittisham, Galmpton and Stoke Gabriel discharge treated sewage. There are another 80 or so very small and intermittent private discharges from houses or farms which discharge crude sewage directly into the estuary.

  The most recent river quality survey assessments showed that both the estuary and the river were of the highest quality (class A and class 1A respectively), except for a small stretch between Totnes weir and Riverford bridge which was class 1B. In recent weeks an algae bloom has developed in the estuary which has temporarily reduced the quality. Such blooms are a natural phenomenon in the early summer months.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that no person pays more than one community charge in respect of second homes which are used by only one person.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to monitoring the impact of the arrangements for standard community charges on second homes on the effectiveness of the community charge in relating payment to services provided.

  Mr. Gummer
  The impact of the standard community charge on owners of second homes will vary with the personal circumstances of owners, and with both the levels of community charge determined and the multipliers chosen by local authorities. We shall keep these matters under review in the usual way.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the liability to poll tax of(a) young people at school, (b) young people in sixth form colleges specified in the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the community charge.

  My Department discussed the definition of full-time students with representatives of local authorities and educational establishments before preparing these regulations. Young people who remain in full-time secondary

  13
  education beyond their 18th birthday are exempt from the community charge for as long as their parents are entitled to claim child benefit on their behalf.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the effects of the ring-fencing of housing revenue accounts on the level of community charge, using the illustrative 1988–89 figures, for each charging authority.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: As I have previously told the hon. Member, our practice is to publish only figures based on current responsibilities and expenditure patterns. There will be a number of changes in local government responsibilities from April 1990. It would not be appropriate to single out one particular change nor to attempt to predict the effect at the local level of one or more changes while details remain to be settled.

  Shopping Centres, Manchester
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision on the eight large out-of-town retail shopping centres around Manchester.

  Mr. Howard
  Consideration of these proposals is well advanced; I hope to make announcements about them very soon.

  Pollution Control
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money is to be made available to the National Rivers Authority for the establishment of a computer system for pollution control.

  Mr. Ridley
  The National Rivers Authority is at present considering its long-term requirements for information technology, including computer systems for pollution control. These, and their expenditure implications, will be considered in the context of discussions on the NRA's corporate plan. In the meantime, the schemes of transfer under schedule 2 of the Water Act 1989 will provide the NRA with the resources and equipment it needs to carry out its statutory responsibilities for pollution control and other matters.

  Water
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the disclosure of information by water public limited companies in the event of the privatisation of the existing water authorities; and what changes are proposed to the policies governing the information water authorities currently have to make available to the public.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: The Water Act 1989 and the proposed conditions of appointment of water and sewerage undertakers under the 1989 Act, contain a wide range of requirements for making information available to the public, either directly or through the Secretary of State, the National Rivers Authority, or the Director General. For example, water undertakers will be required for the first time to publish information about the quality of water supplied for domestic purposes, both regularly and in response to individual requests for information. The National Rivers
  14
  Authority will be required to maintain a public register including matters such as details of analyses of samples of effluent discharged by sewerage undertakers into controlled waters.

  The Director General's register, which will also be a public document, will contain all key matters concerning appointments, and include information such as undertakings under section 20(5)(b) relating to compliance programmes. Under section 34, the Secretary of State may arrange for the publication of information connected with the carrying out of water and sewerage functions as may appear to be in the public interest to publish. And the Director General's annual report which must be laid before Parliament, will contain a general survey of developments within the scope of his functions. These information requirements, in addition to those applicable to registered limited companies, will replace those applicable to the water authorities as public sector bodies. They greatly extend and improve the availability of published information.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy that full information should be accessible to the public in respect of statutory water companies to at least the same extent as any ordinary public limited company.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: Under the Water Act 1989 statutory water companies would on the transfer date be appointed as water undertakers for their present areas of supply and the information requirements of that Act, which exceed those for an ordinary public limited company, will apply.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the synopsis of the actual business property revaluations, as carried out by the Inland Revenue in preparation for the introduction of the uniform business rate; and whether he will send a copy to the hon. Member for Tatton.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: Under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 the valuation officer is required to deposit draft rating lists by 31 December 1989. It is unlikely that the lists will be ready much before that date. I placed in the Library on 15 February the summary of a sample survey by the Inland Revenue of the effects of the uniform business rate and the revaluation, I shall send the hon. Member a copy.

  Land Reclamation, Leigh
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost in each year of the work, to each contributing body, of the Higher Folds, Leigh, land reclamation scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total cost of the Higher Folds, Leigh land reclamation scheme was £2·4 million. The Department of the Environment paid derelict land grant on this scheme as follows:

  £

  1976–77

  31,184

  1977–78

  395,767

  1978–79

  721,534

  15

  £

  1979–80

  226,803

  1980–81

  202,152

  1981–82

  181,898

  1982–83

  134,743

  1983–84

  62,713

  1984–85

  47,750

  1985–86

  1,739

  The balance was met by the Greater Manchester council. Information on the cost to it in each year of the work is not readily available.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Merseyside development corporation; what representations he has received about the construction of a power station within the Merseyside development corporation's planning area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have regular discussions with the chairman of the Merseyside development corporation and recently I met the MDC board to discuss its corporate plan for the next three years. A proposal for the construction of a power station was considered by the Merseyside development corporation earlier this year, alongside other development options for the preferred site. I was informed of the issues under discussion by the MDC and other interested parties. It was for the MDC to decide the development strategy for the site, and it resolved to pursue a mixed-use strategy. Private developers are now drawing up proposals for consideration by the MDC.

TRANSPORT

  Network SouthEast (Stock and Equipment)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investment proposals by British Rail he has approved for new passenger stock and equipment on the Network SouthEast lines to Tonbridge, Ashford and Dover.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent investment proposals from British Rail about these lines. Network SouthEast's services will benefit from the resignalling works between Chislehurst and Dover, part of the major programme of investment which the Government have approved in principle, to allow Channel tunnel rail services to begin operating in 1993. Network SouthEast is planning to replace rolling stock on outer suburban services in Kent with new networker trains in the mid-1990s. I look forward to receiving British Rail's investment proposals for the new stock when they have been finalised.

  Railways (Vacancies)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chairman of British Rail of the total of unfilled vacancies for each region of the rail network.

  Mr. Portillo
  These details are management matters for the British Railways board.

  Underground Ticket Gates
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects London Regional Transport to publish the independent review of the safety of the Underground ticket gates.

  Mr. Portillo
  LRT has published the report today. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House together with copies of LRT's response. The report is a comprehensive, independent assessment by consulting engineers, Mott MacDonald, of the safety of the new automatic ticket gates being introduced on the London Underground.

  The report concludes that the gate system is basically suited to the safe operation of the Underground. The consultants confirm that in general the gates provide better evacuation routes than the traditional barrier line by providing more exit aisles. The gates were not found to impede access for the emergency services or to present a fire or electrical hazard. Compared with totally open stations the consultants consider that the gates contribute to safety by providing a method of exercising crowd control.

  Sixty detailed recommendations are made. The recommendations cover modifications to the design, installation and layout of the gate equipment and improvements to the maintenance, operations and staff training arrangements. Where extra gates are considered necessary at particular stations to cope with the growing number of passengers, appropriate recommendations have been made. The railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade have been consulted about the findings.

  London Underground has agreed to implement all the recommendations with the exception of one temporary measure for which an alternative arrangement is proposed to achieve the same objective.

  The majority of recommendations will be implemented within 12 months. LRT reports that 18 of the recommendations have already been completed or work put in hand. The estimated cost of complying with all the recommendations is estimated by LRT to be between £5 million to £10 million.

  Motor Fishing Vessel Inspire
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to examine why his Department's report on the foundering of motor fishing vessel Inspire on 5 September 1988 does not mention that a mayday call to the coastguard was made at about 3 pm on 5 September and not acted upon; whether he will institute a further inquiry to establish the true facts, circumstances and cause of the loss, taking account of all the information made available at last week's inquest; whether he will consider if any disciplinary action is appropriate; if he will examine the effect of the delay on the fate of the fishermen and whether any recompense to their families is appropriate as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's report does mention the call which was sent. Paragraph 6.8 of the report says:"When he"
  (Mr. Skinner, the sole survivor)
  "knew the boat was sinking he sent a distress signal over the VHF but had no time to give a position as the boat turned over upside down. This call evoked no response."
  17
  The Department's inquiries included examination of why this was so, and found that no call recognisable as a distress call from the Inspire was received by Her Majesty's Coastguard. No delay was found in search and rescue once the alarm was raised, and I note that at the inquest the coroner said
  "The Coastguard acted with promptness and efficiency. No question of disciplinary action or of recompense because of delay therefore arises."

  The inspector carried out a most thorough investiga-tion into the casualty, and I am satisfied with his conclusions as to its cause. There is no intention of ordering any further inquiry.

  River Terminal (Liverpool)
  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects a decision to be made by the European Commission on the proposal by the port of Liverpool to construct a river terminal for Irish sea traffic; when the application was lodged; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Portillo
  The port's application for a grant from the European regional development fund was lodged with the Commission on 1 December 1988. I have no information as to when the Commission will reach a decision.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals there are to(a) provide additional motorway service areas and (b) extend existing motorway service areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government's strategic programme for the provision of new motorway service areas (MSAs) is as follows:

  M4 Reading area

  M11 Birchanger J8

  M18 Hatfield J4–5

  M20 Hollingbourne J8; Westenhanger J11

  M25 Thurrock J30–31; Clacket Lane J5–6; Iver J15–16

  M27 Meon J9–10

  M40 Ardley; Barn Hill; Stokenchurch area

  M42 Tamworth J10; Solihull area

  M54 Telford J4

  M56 Hapsford J14

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road

  Completion of the new MSAs depends on success in obtaining planning clearance and acquiring the land.

  In addition, we are considering the possibilities of MSAs to serve the proposed Blackburn southern bypass and the proposed Birmingham western orbital.

  All these MSAs are to be developed by competitive tender, enabling the private sector to play a full and active part and in conformity with Government policy which I reaffirmed in this House on 17 March at columns 372–73.

  The increase in the road building programme announced in the "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper, coupled with the new national road traffic forecasts which are shortly to be published in full, will require additional provision of MSAs, including:

  new MSAs for new motorways;

  modifications to some of the proposals in the existing programme, to accommodate motorway widening and increased traffic;

  modification of existing MSAs, to accommodate motorway widening and increased traffic; and

  expansion of facilities at MSAs on unwidened motorways to cope with increased traffic.

  18
  Assessment on these lines is under way but will take some time to complete.

  In addition, we continue to assess plans by operators of existing MSAs for extensions to their facilities or sites.

  Passenger Ferries (Sewage)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of passenger ferries operating from the United Kingdom; how many have sewage treatment plants; and what constraints exist over the discharge of raw and treated sewerage in the Channel and other confined water.

  Mr. Portillo
  Annex IV of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships 1973–78, which deals with sewage, would prohibit the discharge of all untreated sewage into the sea within four miles from land and place stringent conditions on discharges beyond that distance. It has yet to come into force. Although there is no present obligation on shipowners, it is believed that about half the United Kingdom-registered class II ferries are fitted with sewage treatment plants and most of the others with sewage holding tanks.

  Dockland Light Railway
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for the ozone layer of the use of halon gas in equipment to protect from fire hazard the new tunnel being built to Bank underground station for the Dockland light railway.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: Halon fire fighting equipment has been provided at a small number of strategic locations on the Docklands light railway where, if a fire occurred, there would be significant direct risk to life.

  Questions concerning the ozone layer are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the impact on the ozone layer of intermittent use of halons in this particular example would be negligible.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with British Rail regarding the environmental considerations of the route and design of the new railway that it is proposing to construct in Kent and south-east London; what assessment he has made of whether the present plans are the best design proposals in engineering and environmental terms and the most suitable for both British Rail and the people of London; what steps were taken to ensure that a full and proper period of consultation took place between British Rail and local communities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: Before agreeing to the introduction by BR of a private Bill the Department will need to be satisfied that all the relevant environmental concerns have been considered by BR. Ultimately, however, it will be for Parliament to decide whether BR's proposals are acceptable.

  Driving Tests (Manchester)
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving test examiners were employed at each driving test centre in Greater Manchester in 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The average number of examiners in post, in 1985 and 1988, for each driving test centre in Greater Manchester are listed in the table. Earlier figures are not available.

  Centre

  1985 Examiners

  1988 Examiners

  Hyde

  4

  4

  Sale

  4

  5

  Withington

  2

  4

  Reddish

  6

  6

  Bolton

  7

  9

  Bury

  6

  6

  Rochdale

  5

  6

  Didsbury

  5

  3

  Failsworth

  6

  8

  Whalley Range

  6

  6

  Cheetham

  7

  7

  Wilmslow

  3

  3

  Wigan

  6

  7

  Total

  67

  74

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often driving test examiners have been seconded to other areas from each test centre in Greater Manchester(a) during 1988 and (b) in the current year to date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The table shows the amount of time examiners from test centres in Greater Manchester spent on temporary postings outside the area.

  Centre

  1988

  1989

  Man/Weeks

  (first 6 months) Man/Weeks

  Hyde

  0

  0

  Sale

  0

  0

  Withington

  4

  4

  Reddish

  8

  8

  Bolton

  32

  12

  Bury

  12

  16

  Rochdale

  8

  20

  Didsbury

  0

  0

  Failsworth

  20

  20

  Whalley Range

  8

  0

  Cheetham

  12

  8

  Wilmslow

  4

  4

  Wigan

  8

  8

  Total

  116

  100

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what circumstances his Department's driving examiners are seconded to other areas from north-west examination centres.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Driving examiners are temporarily posted from centres with lower than average waiting times to those with longer waiting times in order to maintain, as far as possible, an even balance.

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current waiting time in weeks for a motor vehicle driving test at each of the driving test centres in Greater Manchester.
  20
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Current waiting times for an L test at each of the test centres in Greater Manchester are:

  Centre

  14 July 1989 Wailing Times

  Hyde

  13

  Sale

  5

  Withington

  8

  Reddish

  8

  Bolton

  10

  Bury

  8

  Rochdale

  8

  Didsbury

  13

  Failsworth

  8

  Whalley Range

  14

  Cheetham

  11

  Wilmslow

  10

  Wigan

  9

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the number of motor vehicle driving test cancellations in the current year at each of the test centres in Greater Manchester, due to staff absence.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Unexpected staff sickness led to the following short-notice L test cancellations:

  Centre

  1989

  (up to 30 June) Cancellations

  Hyde

  31

  Sale

  2

  Withington

  13

  Reddish

  66

  Bolton

  16

  Bury

  13

  Rochdale

  33

  Didsbury

  17

  Failsworth

  25

  Whalley Range

  12

  Cheetham

  49

  Wilmslow

  11

  Wigan

  23

  Minibus Permit
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why his Department's south-eastern traffic area office has refused to issue a permit under section 19 of the Transport Act 1985 to Miss Annette Gerry of Victoria House, 71 Victoria road, Polegate, East Sussex, in respect of Ford Transit minibus registration number LYL 244K owned by Victoria house rest home.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Decisions on the granting of minibus permits are a matter for the Traffic Commissioner who is the independent licensing authority in these matters. The south-eastern traffic area office has sought legal advice on this case and will be writing shortly to the hon. Member.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Offices
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, for County Durham, he will list those Crown post offices(a) closed and (b) downgraded to sub-office status in the last five years; and if he will list those proposed for either outcome in the future.
  21
  Mr. Forth
  These are operational questions for the Post Office board. However, I understand that it proposes to convert Seaham, Houghton-le-Spring and Crook crown offices into sub-offices in October this year. No crown offices have been either closed or converted in County Durham during the last five years.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received a request from the chairman and chief executive of the Post Office to relieve him from the duty to collect mail in the London borough of Brent.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received no such request.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the operation of the Post Office's monopoly on the collection of mail from sub-post offices in the London borough of Brent.

  Mr. Forth
  The Post Office's monopoly is a privilege that applies in the whole of the United Kingdom. Its day-to-day operations are a matter of the Post Office itself.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman and chief executive of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Chancellor of the Duchy meets the chairman of the Post Office regularly, and last did so on June 27. A range of matters of current interest was discussed.

  Brewing Industry
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the six major brewers; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Maude
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met representatives of the six national brewers on 6 July. These were private discussions. He announced decisions on 10 July.

  Beer (MMC Report)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now able to announce his response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend announced our response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer in the House on 10 July.

  School Children (Injuries)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many minor injuries to children at school were reported over the period 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 and 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988 broken down by local education authority and whether nursery, primary or secondary school.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested. However the most recent estimate from my Department's leisure accident surveillance of children treated in hospitals in England and Wales as a result of accidents in schools or nurseries (or during school sports) totalled 115,000 between May and October 1987, of which 95 per cent. of cases were minor injuries not requiring in-patient treatment.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Graham Gaskin
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister what remedies Her Majesty's Government will provide to Mr. Graham Gaskin whose case was upheld in the European Court of Human Rights.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will be paying the sums awarded by the court.

  Armilla Patrol
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if she proposes that a medal be issued commemorating the Royal Navy's outstanding service in helping to keep open the sea lanes into and out of the Persian Gulf and through the straights of Hormuz; and if she will bear in mind the desirability of retaining in the annals of the Royal Navy the name of the Armilla patrol.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to he answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) on 25 May. The Armilla patrol continues to serve in the Gulf with dedication and professionalism. The service that the Royal Navy has performed and continues to perform will not be forgotten; the term Armilla patrol will always be synonymous with a difficult and, at times, hazardous task carried out with exemplary efficiency, in the best traditions of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

  European Court of Justice (Decisions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the numbers of decisions of the European Court of Justice which have not been implemented by member states; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. However, it is for the Commission to decide whether a member state has failed to comply with a judgment and if necessary the Commission will take further action. The United Kingdom record on implementation is very good.

  Junior Ministers
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will ensure that junior Ministers do not use titles for which there is no statutory or constitutional justification and which are liable to be confused with the Secretary of State or other ministerial head of the Government Department concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  My authorisation is required for courtesy titles conferred on Ministers below Cabinet rank.

  Gifts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has received any gifts made from Nile crocodile skin products during her visits overseas.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 10 July at column 356.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister how long it takes for her to reply to letters from hon. Members; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive an enormous number of letters each week from Members of Parliament and others. It is not possible for me to deal with all these letters personally and I must accordingly refer most of them to

  Length of Service

  Grade

  Salary Per Annum £

  Principal Private Secretary

  7 months

  G3

  40,900

  Private Secretary

  5 years

  4 months

  G3

  40,900

  Private Secretary

  1 year

  7 months

  G5

  31,602

  Private Secretary

  1 year

  1 month

  G5

  28,170

  Private Secretary

  1 month

  G7

  18,141

  Diary Secretary

  4 months

  Special Adviser (p/t)

  10,927

  Assistant Private Secretary

  16 years

  2 months

  Assistant One

  17,861

  Assistant Private Secretary

  Joined

  17 July 1989

  SEO

  17,861

  Secretary for Appointments

  7 years

  4 months

  G5

  32,826

  Salaries exclude London Weighting and allowance and are those payable as at 1 July 1989.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to premises providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the homeless.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: I have at present no plans to do so.

  Hospitals (Official Visits)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her present policy regarding the making of official visits to hospitals where victims of major disasters are receiving medical treatment.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 January at column 764.

HEALTH

  Oral Tobacco Products
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to include all products which contain nicotine, including Stubits and Stoppers, in his proposed ban on oral tobacco products.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. The Government's proposal is to ban the supply of oral snuff dipping products consisting wholly or mainly of tobacco in fine cut, ground or particulate form. We have not yet decided whether to proceed with a ban. Preparations marketed for smoking replacement purposes that consist of tobacco extracts containing nicotine in a non-tobacco base would not be covered. There are regulations under existing Acts governing the supply of nicotine-containing products generally.
  24
  the Minister and the Department with the responsibility for the policy in question. All correspondence is dealt with as quickly as possible.

  Private Office
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list all the current members of her private office showing how long each has been on her staff and their civil service grading and salary.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Medical and Dental Staff
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage increase in medical and dental staff whole-time equivalents in(a) the Mersey region and (b) England, between September 1978 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Hospital and community health service medical and dental staff1 in Mersey Regional Health Authority and England, percentage change, 30 September 1978–87

  Wholetime equivalent (per cent, increase)

  Mersey RHA

  14·1

  England

  14·9

  1 Figures include Permanent Paid, Honorary and Locum staff. 1987 Locum figures include Agency Locums which were collected separately for the first time.

  Water Contamination (North Cornwall)
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the independent health panel investigating possible long-term health effects of the water contamination incident in July 1988 at Lowermoor treatment works, north Cornwall will publish its report before Parliament rises for the summer recess.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the report of the independent Lowermoor incident health advisory group to the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly district health authority is to be published on 20 July in Truro. Ministers will be giving careful consideration to the report and any recommendations that might be made by the group.

  Medical Services (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the revenue generated from private patients at hospitals in the Durham area in 1989; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last 10 years at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is given in the table:

  Income from private patients: Durham health authority

  £ (at 1988–89 prices)

  1982–83

  6,158

  1983–84

  31,773

  1984–85

  34,230

  1985–86

  41,405

  1986–87

  49,912

  11987–88

  53,776

  1 Latest year available.

  Notes:

  1. The figures used arc derived from the annual accounts of the health authority and have been expressed at 1988–89 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator.

  2. The Durham health authority was established on 1 April 1982. Prior to that date the authority's predecessor health district formed part of an area health authority and district-based figures were not collected centrally.

  Home Helps (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the estimated total number of hours received by clients of the home-help service of Durham county council for the years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally. Information about the number of hours received by elderly clients from home helps is collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and published in "Personal Social Service Statistics—Actuals" for each financial year. The latest publication available is for 1987–88. Copies are available in the Library.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role his Department envisages for cottage hospitals over the next five years; whether he estimates that their number will diminish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The pattern of hospital services locally is for health authority decision, taking into account the needs of all the communities they serve and available resources. In future district health authorities are likely to wish to place contracts with those cottage hospitals which are able to provide a good quality and cost-effective service.

  Drugs (Definition)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any document has replaced or updated the 1967 report on the "Definition of Drugs (Borderline Substances)" by the standing joint committee on the classification of proprietary preparations in particular paragraph 4 and appendix A on a guidance to general 26
  practitioners on prescribing preparations normally regarded as foods but regarded as drugs when used in the treatment of the diseases therein listed; and what is the status of the 1967 report.

  Mr. Mellor
  The standing joint committee on the classification of proprietary preparation was replaced by the advisory committee on borderline substances in 1971. The report on the definition of drugs (borderline substances), which was produced by the standing joint committee, has been superseded by the recommendations of the advisory committee on borderline substances. These recommendations are revised periodically and are published in the "Drug Tariff", the "British National Formulary" and the "Monthly Index of Medical Specialties" (MIMS).

  The role of the advisory committee on borderline substances is to provide the Secretary of State and general practitioners with expert independent medical advice on the classification of borderline substances, and on whether they should be prescribed by general practitioners at NHS expense. In reaching its judgment on any particular product the committee's sole criterion is whether it has a therapeutic use in the treatment of disease in the community. This criterion was published on 25 February 1988 at column 302–03 in my predecessor's reply to a question from my hon. Friend the member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).

  GP List Sizes
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average size of a general practitioner's list in Luton in May 1979; and what it is now.

  Mr. Mellor
  Figures are available only for 1 October each year by family practitioner committee (FPC) areas. Luton is served by Bedfordshire FPC. At 1 October 1979 the average list size of unrestricted principals in Bedfordshire FPC was 2,585. At 12 October 1987 (the latest available figure) the number had decreased to 2,052.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish a list of the financial and other links between the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the pharmaceutical industry.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on members' links with the pharmaceutical industry was published with the 1987 annual report of the Medicines Commission and Medicines Act committees. A copy is in the Library. The 1988 report, which will contain additional information, will be published shortly.

  Medicines Control Division
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by the medicines control division of the Department in each year since 1979; and at what grades and locations.

  Mr. Mellor
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. The table gives numbers of staff in post as at 31 March of each year since 1986. This includes staff of the British Pharmacopoeia Commission.
  27

  Staff in post 1986

  Staff in post 1987

  Staff in post 1988

  Staff in post 1989

  Grade 3/U.S

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 3/SPMO

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 4/CPHO

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 5/AS

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Grade 6/S/PRIN

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 7/PRIN

  7

  9

  9

  9

  SEO

  3

  5

  5

  5

  HEO

  16

  21

  19

  19

  EO

  26

  34

  30

  32

  AO

  53

  55

  54·5

  58·5

  AA

  29

  32

  32

  32

  S/PES

  1

  1

  —

  —

  PES

  20

  20

  17

  13

  Typist

  —

  2

  2

  2

  Data Processor

  —

  1

  —

  —

  S/Paper Keeper

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Paper Keeper

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Messenger

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Principal M.O.

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Senior M.O.

  14

  13

  15

  12·5

  M.O.

  1

  1

  —

  —

  P.S.O.

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Staff in post at 31 March

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Administrative Staff

  120

  120

  117

  134

  128

  142

  145

  Professional Staff

  94

  95

  98

  95

  93·5

  107·5

  117·5

  Totals

  214

  215

  215

  229

  221·5

  249·5

  262·5

  As to location the Medicines Control Agency, formerly the Medicines division, has been located at Market towers since 1980; previously they were at Finsbury square. The bulk of the staff are located at Market towers. The remainder are located at the BPC laboratory at Canons park and medicines inspectors at the following locations: Chester, Hitchin, York, East Grinstead, Chelmsford and Lymington.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the total sales of medicines under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme to general practitioners and National Health Service hospitals in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  Total United Kingdom sales for major companies operating under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) have been as follows:

  £ million

  1979

  775

  1980

  884

  1981

  1,083

  1982

  1,269

  1983

  1,386

  1984

  1,483

  1985

  1,510

  1986

  1,569

  1987

  1,611

  28

  Staff in post 1986

  Staff in post 1987

  Staff in post 1988

  Staff in post 1989

  S.S.O.

  —

  3

  4

  4

  H.S.O.

  6

  6

  5

  4

  A.S.O.

  3

  2·5

  4

  3

  SO.

  2

  2

  2

  2

  DCPO

  3

  3

  3

  3

  SPHO

  6

  6

  8

  8

  PPHO

  22

  22

  25

  30

  PHO1

  31

  31

  24

  23

  PHO2

  7

  1

  —

  —

  HPTO

  —

  5·5

  3

  7·5

  Laboratory Attendant

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  Total

  260·5

  286·5

  272

  286

  Total Administration Staff

  159

  184

  172·5

  180·5

  Total Professional Staff

  101·5

  102·5

  99·5

  105·5

  From 1979 to 1985 the following table shows the total number of staff in post and the numbers of administrative and professional staff.

  The figures are sales of PPRS medicines made by companies required to submit full financial information under the scheme, and are the total of sales made in each company's financial year which ended in the year stated. They will include some sales not made to the NHS, where these are incidental to NHS sales; separate information on sales to hospitals and the family practitioner service is not available, nor is information for later periods.

  Sales made under the PPRS were affected by the introduction of the selected list scheme in April 1985, and by the exclusion of generics from the PPRS in October 1986.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the minimum allowable profit on capital employed under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme in each year since 1979 and the average level of profit under the scheme in each year.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme each company has a profit target which it can expect to retain if achieved. There is no "minimum allowable profit" under the scheme. For the years in question, the lower end of the range of target returns was:

  Per cent.

  To 31 March 1984

  17

  From 1 April 1984

  15

  From 1 October 1986

  16

  From 1 October 1987

  17

  Average levels of profit achieved are not published.

  Drugs Licences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of new drugs licensed under the Medicines Act in each year since 1979 and the numbers of drugs whose licence was withdrawn in each year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures for the years prior to 1982 are not available in a comparable form. The figures for the period 1982–88 are as follows:

  Product licences granted

  Product licences for medicinal products containing a new active substance1

  Licences withdrawn2

  1982

  934

  49

  1,003

  1983

  783

  26

  1,531

  1984

  641

  9

  1,513

  1985

  649

  19

  721

  1986

  738

  36

  920

  1987

  641

  41

  1,204

  1988

  557

  47

  1,268

  1 Differences from year to year in the number of licences for products containing a new active substance must be treated with caution since (a) the year in which particular licences were granted may be dependent on a variety of factors and (b) the number of licences granted may depend on the number of dosage forms needed for the particular products.

  2 The licences withdrawn column covers both product licences and product licences of right. The numbers include licences withdrawn because of revocation by the licensing authority and because of decisions by applicants to withdraw, not to renew or, in the case of product licence of right holders, not to pursue applications for full product licences.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he proposes to review the 1968 Medicines Order in order to facilitate the importation of anthrax vaccine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to do so. We already hold a current produce licence for anthrax vaccine under the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968. Stocks of the vaccine are readily available for use and this country is the only one to our knowledge with a routine programme of vaccination of humans at particular risk of anthrax.

  Chiropodists
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the registration of chiropodists; how many practising chiropodists are(a) unregistered and (b) registered; and what checks are made on unregistered chiropodists working in private homes for the aged and other institutions outside the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  Over the last 12 months my right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of letters on this matter from members of the public and hon. Members writing on behalf of their constituents.

  I understand that the Council for the Professions Allied to Medicine, which maintains the state register, does not hold details of chiropodists practising in the profession. Information on unregistered practitioners is not held centrally. It is for the registration authorities for homes to
  30
  decide how they carry out their registration inspection duties for this aspect of a home, as with many other aspects of a home.

  District Health Executive
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to appoint senior nurses as executive directors on the proposed district health executive body.

  Mr. Mellor
  There will be nothing to prevent the appointment of a senior nurse as an executive member. However, this will be a matter for the chairman and non-executive members of the authority, acting with the general manager.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the full public cost of his meeting with managers of hospital units which have expressed an interest in self-governing status held in Leeds on Tuesday 11 July.

  Mr. Mellor
  About £8,000, excluding individuals' travelling and other costs.

  Dr. A. J. Davis
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Ealing, North to the Minister of State on the subject of Dr. A. J. Davis, dated 21 April, 17 May and 29 June; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay.

  Mr. Freeman
  A reply to my hon. Friend's letter of 21 April has now been despatched. I apologise for the delay. We have had a lot of correspondence on the subject of the GP's contract. The Department can find no trace of receipt of the letters dated 17 May and 29 June.

  Cervical Smears
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what categories of women do not require cervical smears; and what method is proposed to ensure that they are not tested unnecessarily.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our guidance to health authorities states that"all women aged 20 to 64 should be invited for screening … unless their GP has indicated that they should be excluded". (Circular HC(88)1 paragraph 3.)
  A GP may decide to exclude from the screening programme those women who have had a total hysterectomy (which implies that the cervix has been removed along with the rest of the uterus) and those who have had their cervix amputated as part of a prolapse repair. Besides women who are dying of cervical cancer there are also those in terminal stages of other illnesses such as cancers elsewhere in their body or neurological disorders.

  Smoking (Pregnancy)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many babies were born(a) still born and (b) premature as a result of smoking by the mother during pregnancy in 1987 and 1988;
  31
  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the total number of (a) still births, and (b) premature births by weeks of gestation, where the mother smoked during pregnancy in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information. Not all premature and still births in mothers who smoke can readily be attributed to maternal smoking.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has on the medical effects of smoking on the health of an unborn child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health has found that smoking during pregnancy is a cause of low birthweight and increased perinatal mortality. The committee reported that the mean reduction in birthweight between maternal smokers and non-smokers ranges between 150 g and 250 g, and that perinatal mortality for maternal smokers is increased by about 28 per cent. Both the reduction in birthweight and the increase in perinatal mortality increase with the average number of cigarettes smoked. The committee also found that there is an association between exposure to other people's tobacco smoke and low birthweight although its interpretaton is unclear.

  The Government continue their efforts to persuade all smokers, including pregnant woman, to give up the habit. The Health Education Authority's pregnancy book, which is given to every woman who is pregnant for the first time,

  Table 1

  AIDS cases diagnosed

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  Cumulative to 31 March 1988

  April 1988–31 March 1989

  Cumulative to 31 March 1989

  England

  Northern

  10

  39

  10

  49

  Yorkshire

  15

  36

  17

  53

  Trent

  11

  28

  13

  41

  East Anglia

  5

  19

  7

  26

  North West Thames

  241

  691

  185

  876

  North East Thames

  111

  296

  116

  412

  South East Thames

  56

  139

  93

  232

  South West Thames

  33

  61

  13

  74

  Wessex

  18

  39

  10

  49

  Oxford

  14

  30

  17

  47

  South Western

  11

  29

  14

  43

  West Midlands

  9

  29

  12

  41

  Mersey

  10

  24

  8

  32

  North Western

  23

  58

  26

  84

  Wales

  8

  24

  12

  36

  Table 2

  AIDS cases reported and accepted

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  Cumulative to 31 March 1988 31

  1 April 1988–March 1989

  Cumulative to 31 March 1989

  England

  Northern

  15

  36

  13

  49

  Yorkshire

  15

  24

  29

  53

  Trent

  14

  26

  15

  41

  East Anglia

  14

  19

  7

  26

  North West Thames

  283

  621

  255

  876

  North East Thames

  131

  267

  145

  412

  South East Thames

  59

  125

  107

  232

  South West Thames

  37

  53

  21

  74

  Wessex

  16

  32

  17

  49

  Oxford

  19

  25

  22

  47

  South Western

  15

  25

  18

  43

  West Midlands

  10

  24

  17

  41

  32
  advises women not to smoke during pregnancy. The teenage anti-smoking campaign, to be launched later this year, will discourage teenagers, especially girls, from taking up smoking. This campaign, aimed at the pre-childbearing years, should contribute to reducing smoking during pregnancy.

  AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS until 31 March 1988; and how many of these had been diagnosed in the 12 months prior to that date; in each regional health authority in England and Wales;

  (2) what was the cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS until 31 March; and how many of these had been diagnosed within the previous 12 months; in each regional health authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: The cumulative totals of people diagnosed with AIDS until 31 March 1988 and 31 March 1989 are shown in the first table for each regional health authority in England and Wales. The table also sets out the numbers for the 12 months before the specified dates. Inevitably, some cases may not be reported to and accepted by CDSC within the same time period as that in which they are diagnosed, and the second table shows numbers diagnosed, reported to and accepted by CDSC within the specified times.
  33

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  Cumulative to 31 March 1988

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  Cumulative to 31 March 1989

  Mersey

  8

  17

  15

  32

  North Western

  21

  52

  32

  84

  Wales

  9

  20

  16

  36

  National Health Service Staff (Meetings)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list date and venue of the consultation meetings he is having in the regions with senior National Health Service staff.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify for each region(a) the date, (b) the time and (c) the venue of his meeting with managers about the National Health Service White Paper.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: We have frequent meetings with senior staff on all aspects of the National Health Service. Assuming that the hon. Member is referring to the current series of meetings on self-governing hospitals, with invited staff at all levels, the information requested is:

  27 June:

  The Grand Hotel, Birmingham

  29 June:

  East Midlands Conference Centre, Nottingham

  4 July:

  The Old Assembly Rooms, Newcastle

  6 July:

  New Century Hall and Banqueting Suite, Manchester

  11 July:

  The Queen's hotel, Leeds

  13 July:

  The Hotel Russell, London WC1

  18 July:

  Ramada Inn West London, London SW6

  20 July:

  The Holiday Inn, Bristol

  Medical Ethics
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to who is responsible for laying down and enforcing the ethics of the medical profession.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: The General Medical Council is responsible, under part 5 of the Medical Act 1983, for advising members of the medical profession on standards of professional conduct and medical ethics. It is also responsible for disciplining doctors whose disregard of such guidance is held to constitute gross professional misconduct.

WALES

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly and handicapped.
  34
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government attach high priority to the provision of all types of special needs housing. It is for local authorities and housing associations in conjunction with Housing for Wales to assess housing needs in their areas.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he carried out before arriving at a decision on the 10-year strategic hospital plan of the South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  None. The strategic plan is the responsibility of South Glamorgan health authority which carried out extensive consultation on it. This culminated in the public being allowed a one-month period to submit comments on the plan to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Sewage Outfalls
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on the Welsh water authority's proposed one mile raw sewage outfall off the Welsh coast near Swansea.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for Welsh Water. I understand that design and engineering studies are still to be completed.

  Financial Services Industry
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the development of the financial services industry in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The financial services industry in Wales is developing very strongly. Employment in the sector has increased to more than 70,000 and is accelerating fast. Many inquiries are being dealt with at the present time.

  Welsh Committee for Economic and Industrial Affairs
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Welsh Committee for Economic and Industrial Affairs; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I met representatives of the Welsh Committee for Economic and Industrial Affairs on Monday 19 June to discuss its report on "Finance for Business in Wales".

  Special Education, Clwyd
  Mr. Martyn Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Wales what representations he has had from Clywd county council on the provision of special education.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I has received any recent representations directly from
  35
  Clwyd county council on provision of special education, but the Welsh Office Education Department has had various discussions with council officials about various aspects of the Education Reform Act, including its implications for special education.

  Computeraid Ltd.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the initiatives that Computeraid Limited, based at the Swansea university college innovation centre, have taken in the field of computer training courses.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Department has received information about Computeraid Ltd. in connection with a project that it has proposed for inclusion in the European social fund element of the proposed integrated development operation for industial south Wales. I understand that they offer a useful training service in computer systems to small businesses.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what subjects he intends to discuss when he next meets chairpersons of Welsh health authorities.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I next plan to meet health authority chairmen in the autumn. An agenda is yet to be agreed.

  Primary Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  At constant prices, 1987–88 expenditure per pupil in nursery and primary schools was £1,004, compared with £785 in 1978–79 for pupils in primary schools only, which is an increase of 27·9 per cent.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many male(a) employees and (b) self-employed and female (i) full and (ii) part-time were in employment in Wales in June 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In June 1979 there were 618,000 male employees in employment, 98,000 self-employed males, 250,000 full-time and 165,000 part-time females in employment and 26,000 self-employed females. The latest available data are for March 1989, the details being 483,000; 110,000; 213,000; 187,000 and 40,000 respectively. During this period there were substantial increases in the numbers of those in training and higher education.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 8 June 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and 36
  Wales were 5,078, 15,477 and 92,804 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

  River Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received asking him to ensure that the National River Authority will be fully empowered to prosecute all polluters of Welsh rivers.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Among the many representations I received about provisions of the Water Act the number of those relating specifically to the National River Authority's powers of prosecution was not recorded separately.

  Wales Trades Union Congress
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he plans to have with the Wales Trades Union Congress about industrial development and job opportunities.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am always ready to meet the Wales TUC to discuss such issues.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had to date in favour of the Government's White Paper on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations the Welsh Office has received on the Government's Health Service review.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply of 19 June to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers),Official Report, Vol. 155, columns 9–10.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the comprehensive study of cancer services for north Wales patients initiated by the Welsh Office and commenced in September 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I cannot announce the publication date of the study being undertaken by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells at the request of the Welsh Office as it is only now nearing completion. When the report is to hand it will be studied closely by the Department in consulation with the relevant health authorities and other interested parties.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Alun Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to encourage the establishment and development of small businesses in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department continues to encourage small businesses in Wales through implementing national policies such as deregulation and by schemes such as the gateway network and enterprise Wales which facilitate access to high-quality advice, information and
  37
  other forms of assistance. We have also continued to support enterprise agencies which, in Wales, have received assistance of over £9·7 million from my Department, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Hill Land Compensatory Payments
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest situation regarding the European Community's review of hill land compensatory payments.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Discussions on the Commission's proposals are at an early stage. We shall seek to ensure that any changes to the existing arrangements do not discriminate against the interests of the United Kingdom.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an allocation of £13,500 for the next three years to extend and to improve the public library service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 9 February 1989 by my right hon. Friend,Official Report, Vol. 146, columns 761–63.

  Listeria
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reported outbreaks of listeria in Wales; and what further action he intends to take.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Sampling by local authority environmental health officers of patés in two south Wales districts between 11 May and 26 June 1989 showed that some samples of pate were contaminated with high counts of listeria monocytogenes. Listeria is widely distributed in the environment and some exposure to this organism is unavoidable. Only rarely does this give rise to illness and indeed at any one time as many as one in 20 people may carry this bacteria in their guts without any ill-effects.

  In accordance with routine procedures advice was given, during the course of the sampling, to the supermarkets concerned by the environmental health officers about the storage and handling of paté, and arrangements were made for sampling of the implicated pate at the point of entry into the United Kingdom by the port health authorities at Dover and along the distribution networks within the United Kingdom, and the EC and Belgian authorities were alerted.

  On 3 July, my Department received the results of this exercise from the public health laboratory service (PHLS). My officials had discussions with officers of the PHLS and the relevant environmental health officers and with officials of the Department of Health. Arrangements were put in hand for a nationwide survey of all types of pate on sale in the United Kingdom, and the EC and Belgian authorities were alerted.
  38
  In the light of further evidence received by the Department of Health from one of the importers the public was alerted on 12 July that certain vulnerable groups should for the time being avoid eating pate.

  In addition, my chief medical officer has written to all doctors in Wales advising that pate should be included in the list of foodstuffs previously notified to them on 21 February 1989 as being a potential hazard to specified vulnerable groups.

  Varicose Vein Operations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the numbers waiting for varicose vein operations in each Welsh health district and the average waiting time for such operations in each district.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on the numbers currently waiting for varicose vein operations is not available centrally.

  Available information on waiting times for patients admitted from the waiting list for such operations in 1988 is shown in the table:

  Median waiting time (days)1

  Clwyd

  119

  East Dyfed

  52

  Pembrokeshire

  173

  Gwent

  119

  Gwynedd

  80

  Mid Glamorgan

  47

  Powys

  41

  South Glamorgan

  119

  West Glamorgan

  166

  1 Estimates are based on clinical information provided by hospitals, which in some cases is incomplete.

  In-Service Teacher Training
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Bridgend of 11 July, he will list the amounts requested by each local education authority under each heading in the table.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Local education authorities were notified in Welsh Office circular 33/88 of the indicative expenditure in respect of which they could expect to receive grant support under the scheme in 1989–90. The circular asked the LEAs to provide details of their proposed expenditure on in-service teacher training in 1989–90 before the final allocations, as shown in my reply of 11 July, were announced in the formal Welsh Office allocation letter of 27 January 1989. Details of each LEA's proposed expenditure under each category are shown in the table. Authorities are free to spend more on in-service teacher training than the amounts specified as eligible for specific grant under the scheme.
  39

  LEA's proposed expenditure 1989–90

  NP areas

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid. Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  a. Schoolteachers

  1. Management

  147,060

  80,000

  90,210

  106,290

  119,890

  126,100

  103,570

  71,000

  2. Nat. Curr. Ass. and Man.

  234,260

  200,000

  180,580

  95,530

  289,990

  264,660

  318,080

  145,000

  3. Nat. Curr. Content

  444,300

  300,000

  248,780

  166,910

  380,630

  217,160

  537,670

  200,000

  4. RE

  23,800

  10,000

  9,670

  5,150

  12,890

  10,500

  11,600

  8,000

  5. Under Fives

  10,150

  12,000

  12,750

  6,210

  23,200

  10,500

  12,020

  10,000

  6. Sp Needs Hearing

  33,000

  7,000

  11,000

  —

  34,000

  —

  12,000

  13,000

  7. Sp Needs Sight

  5,000

  7,000

  7,800

  2,000

  20,000

  20,500

  3,000

  15,000

  8. Sp Needs Sid

  6,000

  —

  50,000

  5,000

  13,000

  20,500

  15,000

  20,000

  9. Sp Needs DES Teach

  11,450

  15,000

  12,570

  6,700

  16,750

  20,500

  23,480

  15,000

  10. New Technology

  141,450

  35,000

  45,570

  129,552

  60,560

  110,400

  157,190

  100,000

  11. Welsh

  87,000

  30,000

  26,400

  68,300

  59,900

  38,900

  41,750

  95,000

  b. FE Teachers

  12. AFE

  52,430

  13,000

  73,500

  19,110

  162,680

  —

  117,800

  61,740

  13. Management

  42,790

  20,000

  24,400

  20,970

  25,430

  63,200

  37,930

  27,000

  14. Updating Etc.

  50,070

  21,000

  32,200

  11,830

  33,560

  74,140

  50,670

  40,000

  15. Sp Ed Needs

  5,580

  4,000

  980

  2,200

  6,230

  5,300

  4,390

  10,000

  c. Other

  16. Drugs

  38,950

  15,000

  15,320

  25,543

  20,550

  28,430

  28,440

  15,000

  17. Youth and Community

  24,594

  10,000

  10,640

  38,500

  14,280

  30,500

  19,240

  10,300

  18. Ed Psychs

  7,000

  —

  —

  —

  16,000

  —

  —

  65,000

  Total

  1,364,884

  779,000

  852,370

  709,795

  1,309,540

  1,041,290

  1,493,830

  921,040

  Local priorities

  1,072,600

  1,121,000

  1,178,000

  685,332

  1,480,000

  80,971

  692,500

  841,290

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) further to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)Official Report, 22 February, column 679, if he will reformulate the figures, in order to show the amounts of support received in 1978–79 and 1988–89 by the following categories (a) support for all children (family allowance/child benefit/child tax allowances), (b) support restricted to lone-parents (one-parent benefit, additional personal allowance, supplementary benefit/income support, housing benefit, and family income supplement/family credit paid to lone parents), (c) child additions paid with national insurance benefits, (d) child additions paid with supplementary benefit/income support for two-parent families and (e) family income supplement/family credit paid to two-parent families;

  (2) further to the holding answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham dated 3 May, when he proposes to answer the question for priority written answer which appeared as No. 10 on the Order Paper for that day.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available information is set out in the table. It is inappropriate to use this information to make direct comparisons between levels and changes in expenditure for lone parents and couples with children because the original estimates excluded income support and housing benefit for couples with children and therefore did not include increased expenditure resulting from higher unemployment. Total estimates of expenditure on unemployed couples with children are not readily available. Child additions did not form part of the original estimate given on 22 February and have therefore been excluded.
  40

  £ million

  Categories

  1978–79 cash

  1978–79 real

  1988–89 cash/real

  Support for all children

  Child Benefit

  1,776

  3,872

  4,522

  Child Tax Allowance

  515

  1,123

  —

  Family Income Supplement/Family Credit paid to two-parent families

  14

  31

  242

  Support for Lone Parents

  One Parent Benefit

  22

  48

  174

  Additional Personal Tax

  Allowance

  60

  131

  165

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support

  465

  1,019

  1,850

  Housing Benefit

  25

  55

  740

  Family Income Supplement/Family Credit

  10

  22

  180

  Expenditures

  The expenditure estimates of family support shown in the table are consistent with those given in Table 15.8 of the 1989 Expenditure Plans. These do not include expenditure on housing benefit and income support for couples with children. Estimates of this expenditure for 1988–89 will become available when the 1988 annual statistical enquiry is published.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total spending on social security benefits in 1979 at today's prices; and what is the present total spending.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On current plans social security spending will be £51·1 billion in 1989–90, an increase in real terms of 34 per cent. over the figure in 1978–79, which at today's prices was £38 billion.
  41
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers of people who have been transferred from unemployment to sickness benefit over the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An estimate of the number of claims for sickness and invalidity benefit which followed a claim for unemployment benefit in the last three years for which figures are available is shown in the table.

  Claims for sickness benefit 1 invalidity benefit following claims for unemployment benefit

  Year ending

  Number

  2 April 1988

  236,000

  4 April 1987

  220,000

  5 April 1986

  203,000

  Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples who will receive an increase in housing benefit when applicable amounts are increased in October 1989 of the same or less than the reduction in benefit which they experienced in April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Employment Training (Allowances)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of claimants who are receiving(a) invalidity benefit, (b) severe disability allowance, (c) mobility allowance and (d) attendance allowance who are on employment training schemes; and what are the equivalent numbers in each standard region.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Disability
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish the final report from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys surveys of disability.

  Mr. Scott
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) has today published the sixth report on the findings of the surveys of disability carried out in Great Britain between 1985 and 1988. The report covers all the remaining aspects of circumstances of disabled children not included in reports 3 and 5, which were published earlier this year. It provides information on a wide range of topics, including the use of services, equipment and adaptations, mobility, transport and education. For those in private households the effect of disability on the family is examined, and for those in communal establishments the social activities and some financial aspects are described.

  The large quantity of detailed and complex information contained in the report has been provided by the families of disabled children or by members of staff for those in communal establishments. It therefore reflects the perceptions and knowledge of those people on the activities and experiences of disabled children, including the type of services they receive and the disability equipment they use.
  42
  This report is the sixth and final in a series published by the OPCS since September 1988. Its publication marks the point at which both the Government and organisations of and for disabled people can begin to look at the survey findings in the round. We hope that the report will generate comment not only on its own results but on the survey findings as a whole.

  Hostels
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to establish a permanent central fund for hostel residents previously dependent on board and lodgings payments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. From October 1989, existing claimants will have any shortfall between their new and old levels of benefit made good by special transitional payments of income support for as long as they continue to live in the same hostel. To help hostel finances. a shortfall between the level of hostel charge met by housing benefit and that formerly met by income support will continue to be met until April 1991. From that date, the money made available by the October benefit change will be redirected to existing hostel funding sources. It is not a function of the social security system to fund hostels but claimants will be able to obtain help with accommodation costs through housing benefit.

  Community Charge
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the effect on the confidential relationship between officers of his Department and claimants of the provision of information to community charge registration officers as set out in his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of 26 June,Official Report, column 306.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The confidentiality of the relationship between benefit claimants and officers of the Department is treated with the utmost seriousness. It may be breached only in carefully circumscribed circumstances such as those to which the hon. Member refers which are specifically provided for in legislation.

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent estimate of the cost to the national insurance fund, in 1989–90, of minimum contributions to personal pension schemes; and by how much this exceeds the amount taken into account in the Government Actuary's estimate of net contributions to the fund in his report on the draft uprating order (Cm. 537).

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The most recent estimate of the revenue forgone by the national insurance fund in 1989–90 in respect of minimum contribution to personal pension schemes is £2,050 million. This exceeds the amount taken into account in the Government Actuary's estimate of net contribution to the fund by about £1,650 million.

EMPLOYMENT

  Co-operative Development Agency
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will be announcing his plans for the future of the Co-operative Development Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) on 13 July,Official Report, columns 581–2.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which small firms will benefit from the establishment of the training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Training and enterprise councils will be contractually responsible to the Government within their areas for three programmes currently run by the Training Agency area offices—the enterprise allowance scheme, business growth training and small firms counselling—and they will work with local enterprise agencies and others to ensure a coherent network of support for small firms.

  Training
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what community input he requires of the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training is a training programme. Activities of a broader community benefit are also carried out when these are compatible with providing training.

  TEC System
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for which TEC he has agreed to supply development funding.

  Mr. Cope
  On 12 July, I announced development funding for 19 training and enterprise councils. They are listed in the table.

  List of TEC areas that have been approved for development funding as at 12 July

  South East:

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight

  Milton Keynes

  South West:

  Devon and Cornwall

  Dorset

  West Midlands:

  Birmingham

  North West Midlands

  Walsall

  Yorkshire and Humberside:

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Sheffield

  North West:

  Cumbria

  East Lancashire

  44

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  South East Cheshire

  Northern:

  Teesside

  Tyneside

  Disablement Resettlement Service
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the staff of the disablement resettlement service are currently registered as disabled.

  Mr. Lee
  The percentage of staff of the disablement resettlement service who are registered as disabled is currently 7·2 per cent.

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the growth of part-time employment in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on part-time employment for sub-national areas is available only in respect of female employees in employment and participants on work-related Government training programmes (who are counted as in part-time employment). Estimates are not available for male employees in employment, nor for the self-employed. The information available on the growth in part-time employment between March 1988 and March 1989—the latest date for which figures are available—is as follows:

  Changes between March 1988 and March 1989

  Female part-time employees in employment

  All work-related Government training programmes

  Changes thousand

  Per cent.

  Changes thousand

  Per cent.

  England

  99

  2·7

  77

  28·4

  Scotland

  5

  1·4

  17

  42·0

  Wales

  4

  2·2

  10

  49·5

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish his Department's survey of skill shortages and the impact of 1992.

  Mr. Cope
  The Department has commissioned the Institute of Manpower Studies to carry out a study of the approach to a European-wide labour market being adopted by a group of major multinational employers. The date of publications will be decided when the work is completed.

  Lorry Drivers (Pay)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average weekly gross pay for a British lorry driver holding heavy goods vehicle 1 classification.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average gross weekly earnings of male drivers of heavy goods vehicles (over 3 tonnes) in Great Britain was estimated to be £216·9 in April 1988, the
  45
  latest date for which information is available. This figure relates to full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose earnings were not affected by absence.

  Injuries (Pupils)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatalities were reported caused by injuries to pupils at school for the years 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 and 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988; and what were the causes of those fatalities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the year beginning 1 April 1986, four fatal injuries to pupils at schools were reported to the enforcing authorities. In the following year, five fatal injuries were reported. Details of the causes of those fatalities are given in the table.

  Fatal injuries to pupils at schools1

  Reported to the enforcing authorities2

  1986–87

  —blow to the head during a game of rugby.

  —wall collapsed during high winds.

  —fall from two storeys through an open window.

  —slipping on a concrete slab.

  1987–88

  —septicaemia after fracture caused by a fall.

  —choking on a pen top.

  —collapse following an exercise on a trampoline.

  —accident involving a reversing delivery van (two fatalities).

  1 Nursery, primary and secondary education level schools.

  2 Reported to LISE's factory and agricultural inspectorates, the relevant enforcing authorities for the education sector, under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors there are to inspect schools for the purposes of health and safety; how many inspections of schools were carried out in the years 1 March 1986 to 31 March 1987 and 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988; how many prosecutions followed these inspections; and how many enforcement notices followed the prosecutions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspectors based in the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) area offices have a range of inspection responsibilities and no inspectors are employed solely on the inspection of schools.

  A total of 679 inspections of schools were carried out between 1 April 1986 and 31 March 1987 and 940 between I April 1987 and 31 March 1988.

  The table shows the number of prosecutions taken by HSE against the education sector, which includes all educational establishments and the number of enforcement notices issued in 1986–87 and 1987–88:

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  Number of notices issued

  1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  4

  24

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  6

  28

  It is not possible to identify, without incurring disproportionate cost, how many prosecutions were taken following inspections or how many notices were issued following prosecutions.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a breakdown of major injury figures to children at school for the different local 46
  authority areas for the years 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 and 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988 together with the pupil-injury ratio for each authority.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the national total for major injuries to pupils at school in the year 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the year beginning 1 April 1987, 7,684 major injuries to pupils in nursery, primary and secondary education schools were reported to the enforcing authorities under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Earnings
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the maximum and minimum hourly basic rates of pay, recorded by the Leeds office of the Manpower Services Commission, from advertised posts in the private and voluntary sector, for the following posts(a) charge care staff, (b) senior care staff, (c) care staff, (d) cooks, (e) general assistants, (f) washing up staff, (g) housekeepers, (h) laundry assistants and (i) therapists.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The maximum and minimum hourly rates of pay for posts in the private sector advertised at Leeds jobcentre at the latest available date (13 July) are as follows:

  Post

  Minimum rate £

  Maximum rate £

  Care staff

  2·20

  2·80

  Cooks

  2·00

  2·80

  General assistant

  1·93

  2·70

  Washing-up staff

  1·93

  2·70

  Laundry staff

  1·93

  2·70

  There were no vacancies advertised for other occupations requested or for the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Madden:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what regulations apply to residential homes in the private-voluntary sector concerning hourly basic rates paid to staff.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages council statutory minimum wage regulations under the 1986 Wages Act cover licensed residential establishments, but nursing and residential homes for the elderly and infirm are excluded.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of ET placements in the west midlands region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We estimate that more than 17,000 people on employment training in the west midlands region are on placements with employers or projects on any one day

  Secondary Picketing
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of public opinion regarding the Government's reform of the law on secondary picketing; and if he will make a statement.
  47
  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government's reform of industrial relations and trade union law since 1979, including measures to limit the scope for particularly unacceptable forms of industrial action, has been popular with employers, union members and the public alike. The law must, of course, be kept under review to ensure that the legal framework reflects the needs of our economy and society now and for the immediate future.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Stamp Duty (Scotland)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been received by the stamp office in Scotland each year for the past five years in respect of domestic conveyancing.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information available does not distinguish receipts from conveyances of residential property in Scotland. The yields from stamp duty collected by the stamp office in Scotland in respect of all conveyances-on-sale of property are as follows:

  £ million

  1984–85

  18·9

  1985–86

  20·3

  1986–87

  24·4

  1987–88

  30·1

  1988–89

  44·9

  In addition, amounts of less than £1 million have been received each year in respect of voluntary conveyances.

  Financial year

  £100 or more

  Under £100

  Number

  Value

  Number

  Value

  £

  £

  1986–87

  380,000

  182,621,000

  1,718,000

  33,821,000

  1987–88

  443,000

  260,601,000

  1,730,000

  34,533,000

  1988–89

  457,000

  273,171,000

  1,742,000

  36,122,000

  Inland Revenue (Costs)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Inland Revenue per annum per annual account of administering(a) schedule E, (b) higher rate taxation and (c) schedule D.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: The average unit cost per case for employees (taxed under schedule E) was £12·61 in 1988–89, and for the self-employed (taxed under schedule D) was £46·30. These average costs include the costs of dealing with higher rate tax and capital gains of employees and the self-employed respectively, and also of collecting national insurance contributions. Separate unit costs for taxpayers liable to higher rate tax, who may be taxed under schedule E or schedule D, are not available. Further details of Revenue unit costs are given in the Inland Revenue's recently published "1988 Management Plan".

  Private Currencies
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any representations on the effect of privatised competing currencies on inflation.

  Earned Income
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many individuals in the United Kingdom had an earned income of £50,000 or more per annum at the last analysis;

  (2) how many individuals in the United Kingdom have an annual earned income of (a) over £500,000 per year, (b) £300,000 per year, (c) £200,000 per year and (d) £100,000 given the most up-to-date Inland Revenue figures.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest data cover 1986–87, when it is estimated that about 78,000 individuals had earned income of over £50,000 and about 15,000 had earned income of over £100,000. It is difficult to make reliable estimates at higher levels of earned income, but there were probably not more than about 3,000 individuals with earned income exceeding £200,000.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many purchases of premium bonds, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, were made in(a) amounts of over £100 and (b) amounts of £100 or less.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 July 1989, c. 518.:] I regret that a digit was erroneously added to the value of the number of premium bonds sold in 1986–87 costing less than £100; the value of the 1,718,000 bonds sold should have been £33,821,000 rather than £331,821,000.

  The amended table is as follows:

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Personal Debt
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber on 17 February, about which a reminder was sent on 20 June, on the problem of personal debt.

  Mr. Lilley
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 10 July.

  Privatisation
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is he will list, in respect of previous privatisations, the timetable for the advertisement and publication of full prospectuses.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The publication dates for the full prospectuses in respect of privatisations and secondary share sales since British Telecom are set out in the table:

  49

  Offer price announced ("impact day")

  Prospectus published

  Application lists opened and closed

  British Telecom

  16 November 1984

  20 November 1984

  28 November 1984

  British Aerospace

  1 May 1985

  4 May 1985

  10 May 1985

  Britoil

  30 July 1985

  1 August 1985

  8 August 1985

  Cable and Wireless

  3 December 1985

  5 December 1985

  11 December 1985

  British Gas

  21 November 1986

  25 November 1986

  3 December 1986

  British Airways

  27 January 1987

  30 January 1987

  6 February 1987

  BAA

  8 July 1987

  10 July 1987

  16 July 1987

  Rolls-Royce

  27 April 1987

  30 April 1987

  7 May 1987

  BP

  15 October 1987

  20 October 1987

  28 October 1987

  British Steel

  23 November 1988

  25 November 1988

  2 December 1988

  Inflation
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to seek to remove his obligation under the Industry Act to provide an inflation forecast.

  Mr. Lilley
  No.

  Debt Repayment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on ways in which the International Monetary Fund and World Bank responds to emergency situations such as earthquakes destroying oil pipelines with consequent effect on debt repayment.

  Mr. Lilley
  Both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are able to respond to unexpected exogenous shocks to mitigate the effects on a member's economy. For example, the International Monetary Fund counteracted the adverse effect on Ecuador's balance of payments, mainly resulting from damage caused to an oil pipeline by an earthquake, by disbursing SDR 42·7 million in the form of a contingency financing facility. The World Bank approved an $80 million emergency petroleum reconstruction project loan at the same time.

  Banks (Information Disclosure)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation concerning the handling of references and the disclosure of information to credit reference agencies by banks about customers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The activities of credit reference agencies are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act and the Data Protection Act. The report of the review committee on banking services law published in February 1989 considered, among many other matters, disclosure of information by banks to credit reference agencies. I will be making a statement on the Government's response to this report in due course.

  Government Staff
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the numbers of staff in post for all individual Government Departments for each year from 1979 onwards.

  Mr. Brooke
  The numbers of staff in post for the years 1979 to 1988 are to be found in copies of the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" which have been placed in the House of Commons Library. The numbers for 1 April 1989 by Department have not been published 50
  yet, but are to be found in "QSR Analysis", a copy of which has been sent to the House of Commons Library (statistical unit).

  Currencies
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to allow European Community currencies to be treated as legal tender in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. However since the abolition of exchange controls British residents are free to accept payment in any currency they wish.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Act 1984
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have been instigated under(a) section 1 of the Food Act 1984 and (b) section 2 of the Food Act 1984 for each year since 1984; how many of these prosecutions were successful; and what was the maximum penalty levied.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information on prosecutions under separate sections of the Food Act 1984 is not collected centrally. However, information is available on prosecutions, convictions and the number fined the maximum penalty for offences committed under the Food Act 1984 as follows:

  Offenders prosecuted and convicted under the Food Act 19841

  England and Wales

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Prosecutions

  844

  901

  1,050

  1,078

  Convictions

  748

  793

  909

  930

  Number fined (maximum £2,000)

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1 Sections 1, 2, 6, 29, 48 and 103.

  Eggs
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review(a) the compensation paid to the egg industry and (b) other grants, in the light of recent concern about the quality of eggs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. The recent, much publicised, problems with egg quality appear to have arisen mainly because of poor stock control at certain retail outlets.

  National Fruit Collection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 466, he has now completed his consideration of arrangements to be made in the event that Brogdale is closed; and what guardianship he proposes for the national fruit collection.

  Mr. Ryder
  We have not yet completed our consideration of the arrangements to be made for the national fruit collection in the event that Brogdale is closed, and I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 28 June.

  Head Meat
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields of 11 July, if he will specify what tissues and organs are included in the category of head meat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Under the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984 "head meat" means muscle meat (ie cheek) and associated fatty tissue.

  Anthrax
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the abattoirs in England which have been receiving meat from the Clwyd and Devon farms which have an outbreak of anthrax; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the number and type of animals infected by anthrax in Devon in the current year; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the source of anthrax contamination in Devon;

  (4) what action he is taking on the farm in Devon which currently has an outbreak of anthrax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There is no current outbreak of anthrax in Devon. A single case occurred in January involving the death of one cow. Despite thorough epidemiological investigation the source of infection was not identified. Restrictions were lifted on 10 January.

  No abattoirs in England have received animals from the farm in Clwyd while movement restrictions under the Anthrax Order 1938 have been in force.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the 1938 Anthrax Order with a view to including the disposal of potentially infected slurry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. The Anthrax Order 1938 already includes provision for the disinfection or disposal of dung likely to spread disease.

  Pesticide Safety Division
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last visited the data evaluation unit of the pesticide safety division at Harpenden.

  Mr. Ryder
  My noble Friend, The Baroness Trumpington, who is the Parliamentary Secretary with responsibility for pesticides, last visited the data evaluation unit in April 1988.

ENERGY

  Refining Capacity
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest available estimate of the United Kingdom's refining capacity for the gasoline/fuel oil gap.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The United Kingdom's refining industry is meeting increased demand for unleaded petrol without any excess production of fuel oil.

  Safe Integral Reactor
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what involvement his Department has in the development of the safe integral reactor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Approval has been given to the UKAEA to use some of its pre-contract research funds to support its role as a member of the safe integral reactor (SIR) consortium which is at present bidding for funds from the United States Department of Energy. The UKAEA has joined the consortium as a commercial venture.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has a list of sites suitable for future nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The choice of sites for nuclear power stations is in the first instance, a matter for the electricity supply industry. I am therefore asking the chairman of the CEGB to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Any proposal for such a station would, of course, be subject to obtaining the necessary consents and permissions.

  Electro-magnetic Fields
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which body will be responsible, after the privatisation of the electricity industry, for the current research in which the Central Electricity Generating Board is engaged on the possible health hazards associated with exposure to power frequency electro-magnetic fields from power lines and other sources.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  After privatisation, the part of the CEGB responsible for the transmission system will form the National Grid Company and will continue the programme of work already started to investigate the possible effects to human health of electro-magnetic fields emanating from power cables. In addition, independent research on the subject is also undertaken at a number of universities and hospitals.

  Government are kept informed of these developments via officials in the Departments of Energy and Health, the Health and Safety Executive, and the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Halliburton Services
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has commissioned any work in the last five years from any of the subsidiaries of Halliburton Services, including Gearhart Geodata
  53
  Services Ltd., Gearharts Wireline Service Ltd., Brown and Root Ltd., Otis Engineering Corporation and Otis Pressure Control Ltd.; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  A review of Departmental records indicates that the Department has had two contracts in the last five years with the Halliburton Group subsidiary Brown and Root Vickers Technology Ltd.; in addition, the Department has had contracts with Wharton Williams Ltd., which became a subsidiary of the Halliburton Group in April 1989.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he is taking to ensure that by 1992 there is a substantial energy saving in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The programmes of the Energy Efficiency Office have already achieved savings of more than £0·5 billion per year. The EEO is now targeting its efforts on key areas of energy use and offering advice backed by technical support. In particular, we are emphasising the work of the regional energy efficiency officers in making direct contact with major energy users and offering the new best practice programme which will develop and disseminate well-researched information on energy use sector by sector. In addition the Secretary of State is leading a campaign to improve the efficiency of energy use in the public sector. I believe that this targeted approach will result in the work of the EEO being even more effective.

  Our proposals for the electricity supply industry will also give further impetus to the promotion of energy efficiency, particularly through the responsibilities of the director general and his staff in the Office of Electricity Regulation.

  In addition, amendments to the building regulations were laid before the House on 11 July. These will require improvements in insulation standards which should achieve a saving of 20 per cent. in heating requirements compared with existing regulations.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Staffing (North of England)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service who was the last grade 1 or grade 2 civil servant who worked in the north of England.

  Mr. Luce
  Many senior civil servants have had experience of working in all parts of the country, including the north. A range of posts in varying places increases the breadth of their knowledge and expertise and I value this.

  Civil Service Unions
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent discussions he has had with Civil Service unions.

  Mr. Luce
  I met members of the Council of Civil Service Unions on 27 June to discuss the future of the Civil Service Commission.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps the Civil Service is taking to prepare for the single market after 1992.

  Mr. Luce
  Government Departments have, for some time, been preparing for the single European market. My own Department has created a range of training and development opportunities to support their strategies.

  Training and Management Development
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what resources have been committed for 1989–90 to training and management development within the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  The planning of expenditure on training and development is a matter for Departments. On the basis of past trends, I would expect the total investment in training for the non-industrial Civil Service in the current year to be about £330 million. In addition, £1 million of challenge funding is being made available centrally to Departments to encourage them to undertake more management training and development at senior levels.

THE ARTS

  Funding
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what have been the increases in funding from public and private sources for the arts since January 1986.

  Mr. Luce
  Central Government expenditure on the arts has increased since 1985–86 by £152 million to £439 million in 1989–90. There are no comprehensive figures for private funding of arts activities but there are many good examples of private sector support for arts activities.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the expenditure on the arts in the south of England for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1988–89, around £6 million of taxpayers' money was spent on the arts in the southern arts area, via the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Association. This does not include expenditure on the arts from local authorities and from the private sector.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what fraction of Government expenditure is represented by spending for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department's expenditure of £439 million in 1989–90 represents one third of 1 per cent. of total central Government spending.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to make a statement on future funding of the arts in 1990–91 and beyond.

  Mr. Luce
  In November 1987 I announced a new departure in arts funding with a three-year settlement for the years 1988–89 to 1990–91. In November 1988 I announced the rolling forward of this central Government programme to 1991–92. As is now customary, I would hope to be able to make a similar statement in respect of 1992–93 this autumn.
  55
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has assessed the scale of finance likely to be available for the arts in the north-west in the year 1990–91 and beyond.

  Mr. Luce
  The finance available to the arts in particular regions is determined by the Arts Council. Arts Council grants to regional arts associations have more than doubled since 1984–85. The level of grant to North West Arts in 1990–91 and beyond has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about future levels of arts funding in 1990–91 and beyond.

  Mr. Luce
  I met representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in April this year to discuss questions of arts policy and funding.

  Business in the Arts
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress is being made in the Business in the Arts scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  This venture by the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts is making good progress. The pilot scheme in the west midlands has been very useful, and has demonstrated the enthusiasm of the business community to share their skills with the arts. Negotiations arc now under way to open a number of regional offices.

  Group Visits
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from the Arts Council on the current level of school and other organised group visits to the theatre.

  Table showing major sponsorships of and donations to the arts in the last twelve months

  Organisation

  Donor

  Amount

  Date of announcement

  Purpose

  Tate Gallery

  Anonymous

  US $6·5 million

  20 June 1988

  To set up American fund for Tate Gallery

  National Gallery

  Mr. Walter Annenberg, KBE

  £2·85 million

  22 June 1988

  Restoration of impressionist and post-impressionist rooms

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Mr. T. T. Tsui

  £1·25 million

  20 June 1988

  To creat a new gallery of Chinese art and design

  BAFTA

  Shell (sponsorship)

  £3 million

  12-Jul-88

  Various projects

  British Library

  The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation of New York

  US $1·5 million (over 5 years)

  20 October 1988

  5 year programme of preservation of microfilming

  Arts Council

  Anonymous

  £1 million

  December 1988

  Foundation of new endowment fund for innovation and experiment

  Midland Bank Arts Card
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the implications for arts funding of the Midland bank arts card scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  This is another excellent example of the way in which the arts world and the private sector can work together for the benefit of each other and the public at large. The Arts Council estimates that within two years of its launch, the arts card could raise between £400,000 and £500,000 for arts organisations.
  56
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the Arts Council about the number of(a) school and (b) other community group visits to performing arts venues.

  Mr. Luce
  On my behalf, the Arts Council is monitoring the number of visits that schools are making to theatres and other arts organisations.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for Arts what discussions he has had with the Association of County Councils on the number of visits by(a) school parties and (b) other community groups to performing arts events.

  Mr. Luce
  None, but, with the help of the Arts Council, I am monitoring the situation carefully.

  Arts Festivals
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many arts festivals have been held in each of the last four years ended on 30 June.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally, but the publication "Arts Festivals in Britain and Ireland" estimates that in 1985 there were 265 festivals in Great Britain with a professional input. This rose to 274 in 1986, rising again to 412 in 1987 and there was a further increase to 490 in 1988. This year it is estimated that there will be around 600 arts festivals.

  Private Donations
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what major donations from private sources have been made in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Luce
  I am extremely grateful to all benefactors of the arts. The list is as follows:

  Regional Theatres
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of financial support for studio theatres in regional repertory theatres.

  Mr. Luce
  Regional repertory theatres fund their studio theatres out of their overall revenue grant. Because there is no separate earmarking, information about the funding of studio theatres is not held centrally.

  Performing Arts
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to promote the performing arts in(a) schools and (b) elsewhere.
  57
  Mr. Luce
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, I have commissioned a booklet which includes examples of how the performing arts can stimulate pupils' imagination and widen the boundaries of classroom learning. It will be circulated free to all maintained schools. This is one of a number of initiatives that I have taken to ensure that the performing arts reach the widest possible audience.

  Training
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to increase provision of training for practitioners in the arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Training Agency has recently undertaken a survey of training in the arts and is organising a conference for practitioners to consider its report. Following these initiatives, my officials will be discussing with the Arts Council what further steps may need to be taken to improve training provision.

  British Library
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what are the costs of(a) cataloguing and (b) storing a book at the British Library.

  Mr. Luce
  The British Library estimates the cost of cataloguing to be approximately £37 for a book acquired by legal deposit, and approximately £18 for a purchased book. The cost of storing a book in central London is approximately £1 per year.

  Expenditure (London Boroughs)
  Miss. Hoey
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the future pattern of arts expenditure by London boroughs in 1990–91 and beyond.

  Mr. Luce
  The pattern of arts expenditure by London boroughs is not determined centrally.

  National Museums (Branches)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many of the national museums and galleries have established branches outside London.

  Mr. Luce
  Of the 10 London-based national museums and galleries five have established outstations outside the capital—the British museum (natural history), and Imperial war museum, the National portrait gallery, the Science museum and the Tate gallery. The Victoria and Albert museum is considering relocating part of its Indian collection to Bradford. Since 1986, the national museums and galleries on Merseyside have been supported from the arts programme.

  I greatly welcome these developments which help to make our national collections more accessible to a wider public.

  European Single Market
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the Arts Council on the impact of 1992 on the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  On 3 July I addressed representatives of some 26 arts bodies at a seminar entitled "Culture in 58
  Europe—Planning for 1992", arranged by the Office of Arts and Libraries, at which Arts Council representatives were present. The Arts Council is also holding a conference on this general theme on 14–16 March next year in Glasgow and my office is represented on the advisory committee for this event.

  Cultural Exchanges
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans his Department is making to mark the arrival of t he open market of 1 January 1993 with cultural exchanges, exhibitions, performances or similar events.

  Mr. Luce
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Finance Companies (Malpractice)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many finance companies, licensed under the Financial Services Act, have had their licence withdrawn each year since 1988 for malpractice in Scotland.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  The authorisation provisions of the Financial Services Act did not come into operation until 29 April 1988. A finance company will only require authorisation only if, in addition to offering credit, it is also carrying on investment business as defined in that Act. It is not possible without incurring disproportionate cost to identify from the records available how many of the persons who have had their authorisation revoked under the Act might be described as "finance companies", which is not a category recognised under the Financial Services Act. Nor is it possible without incurring disproportionate cost to identify from the records available those instances (whether involving finance companies or not) where authorisation was revoked because of misconduct which took place in Scotland.

  The predecessor to the Financial Services Act was the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. A finance company required a licence under that Act only if, in addition to offering credit, it was also carrying on the business of dealing in securities. It is not possible from the records available to say how many licensed dealers who have had their principal's licences revoked under the Act might be described as "finance companies", which was not a category recognised under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act. Nor is it possible without disproportionate cost to identify from the records available those instances (whether involving finance companies or not) where a principal's licence was revoked because of misconduct which took place in Scotland.

  Appointments
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of his Department on filling posts in institutions funded by his Department by open competition.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Practice varies according to the particular circumstances of the institution and the appointment, and any relevant agreement that may have been entered into. A significant number of posts is filled by open competition.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue advice to local authorities to monitor potential health hazards in eggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Monitoring potential health hazards in the egg itself is not the most effective way of dealing with the problem. The answer is to introduce a comprehensive package of measures ranging from the testing of feedingstuffs at the manufacturing stage, through the testing of flocks, to the provision of advice on the handling and cooking of eggs and poultrymeat in catering establishments and in the home. This is what we have done.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from parents of those serving in Her Majesty's forces abroad who have been informed that they will have to pay the poll tax while serving abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received only a few such representations. The question of whether service personnel serving abroad are liable to pay the personal community charge will depend on whether they are regarded as having their main residence in Scotland. This is a matter for community charges registration officers to decide in the light of the facts and circumstances relating to individual cases.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of Her Majesty's forces, living and working abroad, have been registered for payment of the community charge in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The registration of people for the personal community charge is a matter for community charges registration officers and the information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from members of Her Majesty's forces serving abroad complaining about the community charge levied on them.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received very few such representations.

  Bus Services
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the names of all employee-owned bus companies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grampian Regional Transport Ltd. was the subject of a management-employee buy out from Grampian regional council in January this year. Information on whether any other privately owned bus companies in Scotland are owned wholly or partly by employees is not readily available.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the names of those organisations providing public bus transport who have made representations to him about the privatisation
  60
  of bus services proposed in the Transport (Scotland) Bill; and if he will indicate those which (a) favoured and (b) disagreed with the Bill's proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the period following the publication of the Transport (Scotland) Bill representations about the Government's proposals to privatise the Scottish Bus Group have been received from the following bodies involved in operating public bus transport services:

  Luton and District Transport Ltd.

  Stagecoach Holdings Ltd.

  In addition, representations have been received from the managing directors of the northern, Strathtay and western Clydeside subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group and from the Clydeside employee buy-out committee. A representation was also received from Borders regional council. None of the representations received made specific reference to the provisions of the Bill.

  Legal Profession
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those individuals and organisations which responded to the recent Green Paper, "The Legal Profession in Scotland".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Ninety-two individuals and organisations responded to my right hon. and learned Friend's recent Consultation Paper "The Legal Profession in Scotland". These are listed as follows:

  1. Aberdeen Bar Association

  2. Allianz Legal Protection Insurance Co. Ltd.

  3. Mr. H. Angus

  4. Association of British Insurers

  5. Association of First Division Civil Servants (Procurator Fiscal Branch)

  6. Auditor of Court of Session

  7. Mr. D. A. Ballingall

  8. Bank of Scotland

  9. Bird Semple Fyfe Ireland

  10. Miss H. Buchan

  11. Building Societies Association

  12. Campaign for Community Legal Services

  13. The Hon. Lord Caplan

  14. CBI Scotland

  15. Citizens Advice Scotland

  16. Clydesdale Bank plc

  17. Consumers Association

  18. Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  19. Council of Scottish Courts Service Unions

  20. Mr. L. R. Cox

  21. The Hon. Lord Dervaird

  22. Dunfermline Building Society

  23. EBS Trustees

  24. Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre

  25. Mrs. M. Ewing MP

  26. Faculty of Advocates

  27. Ferguson & Will

  28. Mr. A. Fletcher QC

  29. Glasgow Bar Association

  30. Glasgow College

  31. Halifax Building Society

  32. Mr. J. B. D. Henderson

  33. Institute of Bankers in Scotland

  34. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  35. Mr. H. Irvine

  36. Joint Standing Committee on Legal Education in Scotland

  37. Keeper of the Registers of Scotland

  38. Law Society of Scotland

  39. Lay Observer for Scotland

  40. Legal Defence Union

  41. Legal Protection Group Ltd.

  42. Miss D. M. Little

  61

  43. Lord President of the Court of Session

  44. Mr. J. D. M. Macara

  45. Mr. J. G. Macdonald

  46. Mr. K. M. Maciver

  47. Mr. C. H. MacLean

  48. The Hon. Lord McCluskey

  49. Mr. P. McCormack

  50. Mr. W. H. McCort

  51. McGrigor Donald

  52. Mr. I. M. Martin

  53. Murgitroyd & Company

  54. Mr. T. A. M. Myles

  55. National Association of Estate Agents, Scottish Working Party

  56. Procurators Fiscal Society

  57. Regional Sheriff Clerks

  58. Dr. R. Rennie

  59. Mr. A. Robb

  60. Mr. G. M. Robertson

  61. Ross Rogers & Co.

  62. Royal Bank of Scotland plc

  63. Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow

  64. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  65. Scottish Consumer Council

  66. Scottish Law Agents Society

  67. Scottish Lawyers' European Group

  68. Scottish Legal Aid Board

  69. Scottish Legal Action Group

  70. Scottish Society for the Menially Handicapped

  71. Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal

  72. Scottish Vocational Education Council

  73. Scottish Young Lawyers Association

  74. Sheriffs' Association

  75. Sheriffs Principal

  76. Society of Conservative Accountants

  77. Society of Procurators and Solicitors of Angus

  78. Society of Scottish Conservative Lawyers

  79. Society of Sheriff Court Auditors

  80. Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland

  81. Society of Writers to HM Signet

  82. Mr. G. Stephen

  83. Strathkelvin Association of Solicitors

  84. Mr. R. Tur

  85. University of Aberdeen, Faculty of Law

  86. University of Edinburgh. Faculty of Law

  87. University of Glasgow, Faculty of Law and Financial Studies

  88. Mr. M. Upton

  89. Professor D. M. Walker CBE QC

  90. The Hon. Lord Weir

  91. Mr. L. Wheatley

  92. Miss J. White

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals against refusals of planning permission for private waste disposal sites he has upheld in the last six years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Five.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many green belt sites have been used for waste disposal sites in the last six years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Six planning permissions have been given.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list all Scottish district councils' waste disposal sites;

  (2) if he will list all the private waste disposal sites in Scotland;

  (3) if he will list the privately owned incinerators for waste disposal in Scotland;
  62
  (4) if he will list the publicly owned incinerators for waste disposal in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The district and islands councils as waste disposal authorities maintain public registers which provide up-to-date information on waste disposal activities in Scotland and enable the authorities to answer specific inquiries about particular activities.

  There are about 263 district and islands council waste disposal sites and 516 private waste disposal sites in Scotland of which 65 council sites and 190 private sites have closed or are not active. Included in the total number of sites are eight publicly owned incinerators and 11 private incinerators.

  A summary of the number of waste disposal sites, which include those with incinerators, by waste disposal authority is given in the following table.

  Waste Disposal Authority

  Number of Public Sites

  Number of Private Sites

  (Number of incinerators included shown in brackets)

  Berwickshire DC

  1

  2

  Ettrick and Lauderdalc DC

  2

  3

  Roxburgh DC

  3

  0

  Tweeddale DC

  2

  0

  Clackmannan DC

  12

  8

  Falkirk DC

  4

  227

  Stirling DC

  1

  7

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  3

  24

  Nithsdale DC

  3

  4

  Stewartry DC

  1

  12

  Wigtown DC

  3

  8

  Dunfermline DC

  7

  19

  Kirkaldy DC

  4

  18

  North East Fife DC

  5

  110

  Aberdeen DC

  19

  17

  Banff and Buchan DC

  21

  13

  Gordon DC

  3

  13

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  5

  11

  Moray DC

  11

  15

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  3

  0

  Caithness DC

  2

  6

  Inverness DC

  2

  12

  Lochaber DC

  5

  5

  Nairn DC

  0

  0

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  4

  4

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  3

  0

  Sutherland DC

  10

  0

  East Lothian DC

  4

  13

  Edinburgh DC

  7

  24

  Midlothian DC

  3

  16

  West Midlothian DC

  6

  26

  Argyll and Bute DC

  0

  2

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  0

  0

  Clydebank DC

  0

  3

  Clydesdale DC

  6

  4

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  4

  9

  Cumnock and Doon DC

  2

  4

  Cunninghame DC

  13

  118

  Dumbarton DC

  3

  7

  East Kilbride DC

  3

  6

  Eastwood DC

  0

  6

  Glasgow DC

  213

  36

  Hamilton DC

  4

  9

  Inverclyde DC

  6

  6

  Kilmarnock and Louden DC

  3

  4

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  6

  1

  Monklands DC

  3

  10

  Motherwell DC

  1

  15

  Renfrew DC

  16

  29

  Strathkelvin DC

  3

  16

  Angus DC

  2

  116

  Dundee DC

  14

  8

  Perth and Kinross DC

  9

  21

  Orkney IC

  119

  12

  Shetland IC

  14

  27

  63

  Waste Disposal Authority

  Number of Public Sites

  Number of Private Sites

  (Number of incinerators included shown in brackets)

  Western Isles IC

  10

  0

  263

  516

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on how many applications there are relating to land which is at present in green belt areas for waste disposal sites.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no information about the number of applications currently before planning authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend currently has five applications before him.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on how many planning applications for waste disposal sites have been turned down by Scottish local authorities in the last six years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I do not have information on the number of applications that have been turned down by Scottish local authorities over the last six years. There have been 23 appeals against refusal of planning permission made to my right hon. and learned Friend since 1 July 1983 involving waste disposal sites.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the voluntary sector community programme agents who decided not to enter the employment training scheme; and how many redundancies he estimates were created as a result.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on which former community programme agents did not transfer to employment training could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is not possible to provide an estimate of redundancies directly relating to community programme agents' decisions not to participate in employment training.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the voluntary sector training agents and training managers for employment training schemes in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  Training Agent

  Centre for Training and Employment

  Training Managers

  Apex Trust

  British Institute of Traffic Education Research

  Centre for Training and Employment

  Cobalt UK Ltd

  Community and Business Training

  Community Opportunities West Lothian Ltd

  Community Service Volunteers

  Craigmillar Festival Society

  Dundee Cyrenians Wishart Centre Ltd

  Dundee Survival Group

  East End Management Agency

  Employment Opportunities Trust

  Epilepsy Association of Scotland

  Gang Forth

  Invalid Children Aid Nationwide

  Mill Training Ltd

  New Lanark Association Ltd

  64

  OSCC Training

  Poldrait Community Development

  Remploy Ltd

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  Scottish Centres

  Scottish Council for Spastics

  Scottish Maritime Museum

  Scottish Society for Mentally Handicapped

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Springboard Lanark Trust

  St. Michaels Buckhaven Agency Ltd

  The Wise Group

  Training Crafts Ltd

  Voluntary Association for Mental Welfare

  Voluntary Service Aberdeen

  Wester Hailes Management Agency

  Workstart Ltd

  YMCA

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those private sector companies providing employment training which were formed as a result of management buy-out when local authorities declined to participate in employment training schemes.

  Mr. Lang
  Nine organisations currently contracted for employment training are known to have been formed as a result of management buy-outs, but to identify these companies in this way would breach the confidentiality which exists between the Training Agency and all its providers.

  A77
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce a decision on the route of the A77 from Dumbreck to the Malletsheugh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his decision on the route of the A77 from Dumbreck to the Malletsheugh; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has the report of the public inquiry on the route of the A77 and is giving it careful consideration. He expects to announce his decision in the not too distant future.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps will be taken to ensure adequate levels of cervical cytology screening in areas of severe socio-economic deprivation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Our policy is to make available a comprehensive cervical cancer screening service to all women in Scotland aged between 20 and 60. To this end most health boards have introduced fully computerised call and recall systems for cervical screening. The remainder will be doing so shortly. We also propose to introduce target payments to encourage general practitioners to achieve a high uptake rate of women for screening.

  WRVS
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reply to the questions from the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden tabled for answer on 30 June relating to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.
  65
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I answered the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden on Friday 14 July at columns 664–65.

  Scottish Tourist Board
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to appoint a woman to the board of the Scottish tourist board.

  Mr. Lang
  The published guidelines covering women in public appointments will continue to be followed in making future nominations to the board.

  Dornoch Firth (Bridge)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current expected start date for construction of the road bridge crossing of the Dornoch firth; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The essential site preparation work on temporary jetty which started some time ago is near completion. The construction of structural elements of the bridge is estimated to start in mid-September subject to satisfactory performance of the trial pile.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the results of the soil investigations currently being undertaken to determine the design needs of the foundations of the road bridge over the Dornoch firth.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  To determine the design and construction method of the foundations of the road bridge over Dornoch firth, one final trial pile is required which is anticipated to start on 21 July and finish on 28 July. This completes the investigations.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what machinery exists in his Department to assist Ministers in ensuring that arrangements made for ministerial visits are separated for administrative and accounting purposes from arrangements made by Ministers acting in other capacities; what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that these conventions have been followed since June 1987; and what steps he is intending to take to ensure they are followed in the future.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 14 July 1989] My ministerial colleagues and I are well aware of the need to distinguish between those activities, including visits, which we undertake as Ministers and those which we undertake in other capacities. We take great care to ensure that the relevant conventions are observed, seeking the advice of the permanent secretary where necessary.

  Dental Education
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has instituted an inquiry into the leak of information to the media before publication of the report of his working party on dental provision in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: It is not the usual practice to give information on such matters.

DEFENCE

  Military Equipment (Theft)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many prosecutions and convictions there have been for theft of military equipment owned by the Ministry of Defence in the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that information is not maintained in the form requested.

  Women Aircrew
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the employment of women as aircrew in the Royal Air Force; whether he intends to review that policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The matter has been under consideration for some time. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Army Recruitment
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many inquiries were received during an Army recruitment drive in Bradford earlier in the current year; how many people have been recruited; and in how many other places in west Yorkshire such recruitment drives have been held or are planned;

  (2) what Army equipment was recently displayed in Bradford; on how many days the display was held; how many soldiers and of what rank attended; and what was the total cost of the display in Bradford.

  Mr. Neubert
  The event in Bradford was held on 12 and 13 June as part of the "Keep the Army in the Public Eye" scheme, the function of which is self-explanatory. It is not the purpose of this scheme to give careers counselling of the kind available at Army recruiting offices and no records are kept of inquirers. During the current financial year, three such events have taken place in west Yorkshire; no further events are planned.

  The event in Bradford was run by the 4/7 Dragoon Guards and comprised one Chieftain main battle tank, one Scorpion light tank, one Fox armoured car, one Land Rover with trailer, 15 crewmen, ranging in rank from lieutenant to trooper, and a regimental band of 21 soldiers.

  The additional costs of such events are quite small and relate primarily to accommodation and local travel. It is estimated that these amounted to less than £1,000 for the two days in question.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a rifle range in which the public are charged 20p a shot by Army personnel is a normal feature of Army recruitment drives; and what complaints he has received about such rifle ranges and the display of tanks and other equipment in Bradford and other parts of west Yorkshire.

  Mr. Neubert
  Air rifle ranges are a common feature of Army displays. The equipment is of non-military origin and a standard charge of 20p for five shots is made. I am not aware of any complaints having been received about rifle ranges or the display of tanks and other equipment in west Yorkshire.

  Birkbeck College
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates discussions took place between his Department and a journalist for The Sunday Times on the question of Birkbeck college work on matters relating to defence.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On 30 June, 1 July, 4 July, 6 July and 7 July 1989.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts his Department has had with The Mail on Sunday on the question of the handling of matters relating to defence by Birkbeck college.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Mail on Sunday was in contact with officials at the Ministry of Defence on a number of occasions between 30 June and 7 July 1989.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between officials in his Department and a journalist on The Sunday Times during the last month on aspects of security relating to work on defence matters being carried out by Birkbeck college.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Discussions between officials and The Sunday Times took place on a number of occasions from 30 June onwards concerning work on defence matters being carried out by Birkbeck college.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information was given by his Department to a journalist from The Sunday Times about an investigation by Her Majesty's Government into the handling and use of classified material by Birkbeck college.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions were given to Professor Herriot of the occupational psychology department of Birkbeck college by his Department on the handling and return to his Department of papers relating to defence matters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There have been no specific instructions. Following the completion of work on an earlier phase of a research agreement placed with the occupational psychology department at Birkbeck college, it was agreed at a progress meeting in March 1989 that documents no longer required should be returned to the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the story proposed to be published in The Sunday Times relating to Birkbeck college's handling of matters relating to defence was read over the phone to a person employed by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Officials in the limited time available on 30 June and 1 July did their best to be helpful to The Sunday Times. However, nothing that was said confirmed the assertions made in the subsequent press reports.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has withdrawn papers from Birkbeck college relating to defence matters on grounds of national security.
  68
  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 6 July to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), column 265.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the arrangements for the handling and use of classified matter on defence matters by persons who work at Birkbeck college.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As no classified work is currently placed at Birkbeck college the question of the handling and use made of classified matter there does not arise.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will order an investigation into his Department's handling of press statements relating to the handling of matters relating to defence by Birkbeck college.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  HMS Valiant
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision for screening of submariners serving on Her Majesty's nuclear submarine Valiant was undertaken by his Department, following structural faults being discovered in that vessel during 1964, 1965 and 1966; if a full register of these submariners is still maintained; if follow-up medical examinations have followed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The majority of the period in question represents the later stages of construction and the commissioning of HMS Valiant. There were few problems of any nature during this period. As part of her trials, extensive radiation surveys were carried out. The ship's company was subject to personal dosimetry, and the statutory radiation protection limits were enforced. All classified radiation workers will have had annual medical examinations for as long as they continued such work; further examinations would have been applicable only if overexposures had taken place.

  Radiation exposure records are held, as required by law, on all nuclear submariners for this period who were subject to dosimetric assessment. Although the ship's company in question could be identified from naval records, radiation records are held on a personal basis.

  Joint Service Stocktaking Committee
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel are members of the joint service stocktaking committee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At present, one.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any funding is specifically allocated to the joint service stocktaking committee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Computer Science Staff
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of vacancies for specialist computer science staff in(a) the land systems controllerate, (b) the air systems controllerate and (c) the sea systems controllerate.
  69
  Mr. Sainsbury
  (a) None; (b) none; (c) none.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current target requirement for specialist computer science staff in(a) the land systems controllerate, (b) the air systems controllerate and (c) the sea systems controllerate.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  (a) None; (b) none; (c) one.

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the civilian staff target for the procurement executive in 1980 and in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures are 48,008 and 33,135 respectively.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of civilian staff employed in the procurement executive in 1980 and in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures are 46,966 and 32,084 respectively.

  Nuclear Submarines (Berthing)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis the 550-metre safety zone was deemed to be appropriate in relation to the berthing of nuclear-powered submarines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 550-metre zone is the distance at which automatic countermeasures should take place in the event of a submarine nuclear reactor accident. It derives from predictions of the probability and consequences of accidents which are based on our best and most up-to-date technical advice, and are carried out in accordance with the recommendations laid down by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. The 550-metre zone would be sufficient for the vast majority of potential reactor accidents, most of which would not in fact result in any radiological hazard to the public. We also plan, in conjunction with local authorities, against the even more remote possibility of an accident which would require countermeasures outside this area; in this event countermeasures would be advised on the basis of monitoring information.

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the refit programme for HMS Fearless will be completed on schedule.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is currently expected that HMS Fearless will be completed to a revised schedule allowing for the emergent work identified since the refit began.

  Military Operations, South-West Scotland
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent, exact delineation and description of the land which is the subject of a 25-year licence for military operations in south-west Scotland; what are the exact terms and nature of the licence, the landowners with whom it has been agreed, and the nature and extent of the exercises proposed to be held there; and if he will make a statement.
  70
  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Combat Aircraft
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the changes to the balance between strike-attack, offensive support and air defence Royal Air Force combat aircraft resulting from a 15 per cent. reduction in the numbers of Royal Air Force aircraft that are not dual-capable.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The question of how aircraft reductions resulting from an agreement on conventional armed forces in Europe are taken will be decided in the context of the Alliance's overall requirements. It is too early to say what impact this may have on the Royal Air Force.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the cost of verifying an agreement to reduce conventional forces reached as a result of the conventional forces in Europe talks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Verification will be a key element of any agreement to reduce conventional forces in Europe. The costs will depend on the measures finally agreed. Based on our experience of implementing the INF treaty and the Stockholm document, our provisional assessment is that the considerably more complex and extensive requirements of a conventional armed forces agreement will entail substantial costs.

  Maritime Forces
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with his NATO counterparts concerning the possibility of arms control and disarmament negotiations on maritime forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has regular meetings with his NATO counterparts at which a wide range of arms control and disarmament-related matters are discussed.

  Stockholm Agreement
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual cost in 1987 and in 1988 of sending British military personnel on challenge inspections to Warsaw pact exercises under the auspices of the Stockholm agreement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of sending British military personnel on challenge inspections under the terms of the Stockholm document was some £12,000 in 1987 and some £39,300 in 1988.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual cost in 1987 and in 1988 of sending British military observers to Warsaw pact exercises under the auspices of the Stockholm agreement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of sending British military observers to Warsaw pact exercises under the terms of the Stockholm document was some £2,400 in 1987 and some £2,100 in 1988.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of those regulations that define the different grades of service accommodation.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the guidance to be taken into account in the grading of service accommodation.

  WE177 Free Fall Bomb
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his reply of 29 June,Official Report, column 531, to the hon. Member for Woolwich, (Mr. Cartwright), what is the number of procurement options for the possible replacement of the WE177 free fall bomb that are currently being studied.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Discussions are taking place with both the United States and French Governments. I cannot go into further detail at this stage.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure has been incurred to date on the study of procurement options for the possible replacement of the WE177 free fall nuclear bomb.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are continuing to study a number of options for the replacement of the United Kingdom's free fall nuclear bomb. I am not prepared to comment in detail on those studies.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what design work has been carried out for the United States Government at RAF Upper Heyford;

  (2) what is the nature and purpose of all design work carried out at RAF Upper Heyford in the last two years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 July 1989 at columns 589–90. The additional information he seeks is not available in the form requested. However, the following design work has been carried out recently or is still being completed by the PSA on behalf of the United States air force at RAF Upper Heyford. The purpose of the design work is to improve the operational facilities or the amenities at RAF Upper Heyford.

  Chemical Warfare protection, Squadron Operations facility

  Munition Storage facility

  Alterations to Vehicle maintenance shop

  Combat readiness centre

  Alterations to splinter protection barrier

  Munitions inspection facility

  Improvements to base security

  Ammunition control centre

  Equipment storage warehouse

  Alterations to barrack blocks

  Married quarters

  Commissary

  Replacement of water mains

  Addition to flight simulator

  Addition to engine shop

  Addition to avionics shop

  Fuel storage facility

  Base civil engineering maintenance shop

  Modifications to boiler plant

  Centre for General Research
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to fund a new centre for general research into defence policy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. My Department invited proposals from universities, polytechnics and institutes for a centre for defence studies, to which we would contribute some resource support. A substantial number of such proposals is now being evaluated.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alien Patients
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many patients were removed from the United Kingdom as alien patients as defined by section 86 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since 1983, two patients have been removed under this provision, both in 1987.

  Vehicles (Smoke Emission)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enable police to issue vehicle rectification notices to any vehicle producing visible smoke.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for chief officers of police to decide what offences should be dealt with under vehicle defect rectification schemes, which do not require statutory provision.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is given to the police with regard to prosecuting the owners of smoking diesel vehicles.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. This is a matter for chief officers of police and the Crown prosecution service.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who arrived in the United Kingdom in the past year have been referred to(a) the refugee arrivals project and (b) voluntary agencies.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kurdish asylum seekers have arrived in the United Kingdom since 1 January from(a) Turkey, (b) Iran and (c) Iraq.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in the form requested. Records are kept according to nationality and not ethnic grouping.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the Kurdish asylum seekers who have arrived in the United Kingdom since 1 January have(a) voluntarily returned to Turkey, (b) voluntarily gone to another country, (c) been held in custody in the United Kingdom, (d) been released on temporary admission, (e) been granted asylum and (f) been granted exceptional leave to remain.
  73
  Mr. Renton
  Information is not available in the form requested. Records are kept according to nationality and not ethnic grouping. However it is possible to say that, of those Turkish nationals who sought asylum on arrival, 132 have voluntarily sought to return to Turkey. By 10 July, 21 Turkish nationals who had applied for asylum after 1 May had been granted refugee status and a further 62 had been granted exceptional leave to remain.

  Provisional statistics on decisions made in Turkish asylum cases in the first two quarters of 1989 will shortly be placed in the Library.

  Immigration Service (Interpreters)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many interpreters were employed or available to the immigration service speaking(a) Turkish, and (b) Kurdish in (i) 1987, (ii) 1988 and (iii) 1989 to date; and what training and instruction is given to them.

  Mr. Renton
  There are no Turkish or Kurdish speaking interpreters in permanent employment with the immigration service. The casual interpreters whom the immigration service has on record are as follows:

  (a) Turkish (i) 1987–54 (ii) 1988–79 (iii) 1989–84

  (b) Kurdish (i) 1987–2 (ii) 1988–4 (iii) 1989–7

  Casual interpreters are in the main native Turkish/ Kurdish speakers and are instructed to give a direct translation of questions put and answers given. In addition, a total of 54 immigration officers currently hold an allowance for the Turkish language having succeeded at the Home Civil Service departmental examination in Turkish.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Mohammad B. Mahmoudzadeh and Mrs. Nassrin Zare Mahmoudzadeh, whose reference is M259130, applied for British citizenship; and when a decision is to be taken on their application.

  Mr. Renton
  Mr. Mahmoudzadeh and his wife applied for naturalisation on 21 October 1987. The usual inquiries are in train, but I regret that I am unable to forecast when a decision on the application might be reached.

  Royal Mail (Protection)
  Mr. Boateng
  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 the current arrangements in the London borough of Brent for the protection of the royal mail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Operational policing matters within the metropolis are the responsibility of the commissioner. I understand from the commissioner that his force works closely with the Post Office in seeking both to prevent and to solve crimes involving the carriage of the royal mail.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it takes for a reply to a letter from hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The average time taken in my Department during the second quarter of 1989 to turn round letters to 74
  Ministers and to the secretary to the Immigration and Nationality board, the great majority of which were from hon. Members, was 44 days.

  Hong Kong Delegation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had meetings with the recent delegation from Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  No, but I saw the governor on 8 June.

  Sonny Makinwa (Funeral)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will allow Clement and Clara Makinwa, ref. No. IMM/148/TN, temporary admission to the United Kingdom from Nigeria to attend the funeral of their father Sonny Makinwa.

  Mr. Renton
  The grant of temporary admission arises only if a passenger has arrived to seek leave to enter the United Kingdom, and there is no record of either Clement or Clara Makinwa having come to the United Kingdom. However, since we understand that a Clement Makinwa was refused a visa in Lagos on 15 June, I am arranging for details of the hon. Member's interests to be passed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Deportation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what arrangements he has made to ensure that the exercise of the power of deportation by each immigration inspector is consistent and fair;

  (2) what arrangements and guidelines he has made or given for immigration inspectors for the taking of deportation decisions including arrangements for the deferral of decisions where hon. Members have made representations or where there is an outstanding application for leave to remain;

  (3) what arrangements he has made concerning the delegation of his functions in deportation decision-making to immigration officers at not less than inspector level; and whether the arrangements extend to representations by hon. Members on applications for variation of leave;

  (4) what arrangements he has made to ensure the access of immigration officers and inspectors to Home Office files on prospective deportees, particularly out of normal working hours.

  Mr. Renton
  Every case involving a person liable to deportation has to be considered on its individual facts. Common instructions on the handling of cases where action may be taken under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 are issued to members of the deportation section and members of the immigration service involved in enforcement work. As required by the immigration rules all the relevant factors, including outstanding applications and representations by Members of Parliament, have to be taken into account, whether by reference to Home Office files or some other effective means, including interview.

  Representations by Members of Parliament, including requests for deferral of removal in deportation cases, will continue to be considered in accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases.
  75
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been recipients of notices of intention to deport(a) for working in breach of their conditions, differentiating between persons working in breach of (i) an employment prohibition and (ii) an employment restriction, and (b) for overstaying; and in each case for each of last six months for which records are available, what grade of official took such decisions and at which Home Office centres or ports they were based.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information, on a quarterly basis, relating to the numbers of notices of intention to deport issued under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 for the period from 1 October 1988 to 31 March 1989 is as follows:

  October to December 1988

  January to March 1989

  Issued by:

  Deportation section

  Immigration service

  Deportation section

  Immigration service

  Overstaying

  228

  282

  165

  443

  Working in breach

  —

  205

  —

  259

  Decisions to issue a notice of intention to deport under section 3(5)(a) are taken at HEO level in the deportation section and at inspector level in the immigration service. Information about the ports at which the inspectors were serving in each case and about the breakdown into those working in breach of an employment prohibition and an employment restriction is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department since the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1988, how many deportation decisions have been(a) taken and (b) authorised by (i) the deportation caseworking section of his Department, (ii) immigration officers and (iii) immigration inspectors; and in what proportion of cases depention has been authorised.

  Mr. Renton
  The statistics currently available are for the period from 1 July 1988 to 31 March 1988. In that period 2,009 notices of intention to deport under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 were issued; 1,048 persons were detained, mostly for a short period pending resolution of their cases. A total of 568 were authorised by members of the deportation section and, since 1 August 1988, 1,441 by immigration inspectors. Immigration officers are not authorised to take these decisions.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the delegation of his powers of decision making in deportation taking effect on 1 August 1988 was not published until 20 December 1988.

  Mr. Renton
  There is no requirement to publicise changes in administrative procedures and it was not at the time considered necessary in this case.

  Immigration
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the maximum annual rate of immigration of persons of alien culture which is acceptable to the broad mass of the British people.

  Mr. Hurd
  We do not make such a calculation, but follow a policy of firm and fair immigration control based squarely on legislation and rules approved by Parliament. Such control is essential to tolerant and sound community relations.

  Drugs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the initiatives he has taken to improve liaison and co-operation between United Kingdom police forces and Her Majesty's Customs anti-drugs units.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The relationship between the police and customs services is very good. In 1988, regional crime squad drug wings mounted over 40 joint operations with customs. The drugs intelligence steering group keeps under review the drugs enforcement strategy and the effectiveness of liaison between police and customs. The national drugs intelligence unit is manned by police and customs officers and provides an essential link between the two enforcement services.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of British citizens with criminal records for the possession of cannabis.

  Mr. John Patten
  Records are not kept in this form. The number of persons found guilty, cautioned or dealt with by compounding for the unlawful possession of cannabis in each of the years 1977 to 1987 is published in table 2.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin issue 25/88 "Statistics of the Misuse of Drugs, United Kingdom, 1987", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Prison Farms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what crops are at present being grown at each prison farm in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Crops are grown at 28 prison farms in England and Wales, and make a major contribution to the dietary needs of the prison system. The main crops grown are:

  (1) Potatoes

  (2) Brassicas

  (3) Onions, leeks, shallots

  (4) Swedes, turnips

  (5) Carrots

  (6) Beetroot

  (7) Lettuce

  (8) Others (tomatoes, cucumber, peppers)

  The allocation between farms for the current year is:

  Prison to which farm attached

  Crop type

  Camp Hill

  8

  Channings Wood

  7, 8

  East Sutton Park

  3, 7, 8

  Everthorpe

  1, 2, 3, 5

  Featherstone

  1, 2

  Ford

  2, 3, 7, 8

  Grendon

  1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

  Guys Marsh

  2, 3, 7

  Hatfield

  1, 2, 6

  Haverigg

  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8

  Hewell Grange

  1, 2, 6, 7, 8

  Hollesley Bay

  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

  Huntercombe

  3, 6

  Kirkham

  1, 2, 3, 4, 8

  Leyhill

  2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

  Lindholme

  1, 2, 4, 5, 8

  Lowdham

  1, 2, 4

  Northallerton

  2, 4, 6, 8

  North Sea Camp

  1, 2, 3, 7, 8

  Onley

  1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8

  Oxford

  1, 2, 5

  77

  Prison to which farm attached

  Crop type

  Portland

  4

  Standford Hill

  3, 4, 6, 7, 8

  Swinfen Hall

  1, 5

  Usk

  1, 2

  Verne

  1

  Werrington

  2, 3, 7

  Wymott

  2, 3

  In addition, a number of other prison establishments have small areas of -cropping, often in polythene tunnels or greenhouses, to make use of available land or inmate labour resources. Crops tend to be of market garden or salad varieties, for local use.

  Non-dietary crops are currently being grown at six of the farms referred to—Featherstone, Gartree, Hatfield, Lindholme, Lowdham and North Sea Camp—as part of normal crop rotation. The produce (generally cereals) is used in animal feed.
  78
  Forage crops are grown at 18 farms to support the prison department's dairy herds.

  London Prisons (Education)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the amount given by his Department towards the cost of running education services at each London prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The educational services in London prisons are provided by ILEA. The salaries of staff employed for this purpose are reimbursed to ILEA by the prison service. Estimated costs in the current financial year are as follows:

  £

  Brixton

  128,000

  Holloway

  316,000

  Pentonville

  215,000

  Wandsworth

  262,000

  Wormwood Scrubs

  198,000

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

Lloyd's: Regulatory Arrangements
Earl Alexander of Tunis Earl Alexander of Tunis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will investigate the supervision of the Lloyd's underwriting market.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, regulatory arrangements at Lloyd's were considered by a committee of inquiry in 1986. Full implementation of that committee's recommendations is almost complete and another investigation is not appropriate.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Being a Name at Lloyd's, I must declare an interest. I have in my hand a report on the Oakeley Vaughan underwriting agency which was commissioned by Lloyd's. It exposes falsification of accounts, secret profits, mismanagement and gross breaches of the Companies Act as well as the Lloyd's Act. Is the Minister aware that this report was withheld from the suffering Names? Will the Government look again at Section 14 of the Act, which gives immunity to Lloyd's, making it almost impossible for the suffering and defrauded Names to obtain redress?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure to which report my noble friend refers. However I can assure him, as I am sure he knows already, that Section 14 of the Lloyd's Act 1982 granted Lloyd's immunity from suits for damages by members. It is similar to sections in the Financial Services Act which granted immunity to the SIB and the self-regulating organisations. The purpose of these sections is to ensure that those regulatory bodies are not inhibited from taking appropriate action by fear of civil suits. I hear what my noble friend says but do not think that I could easily contemplate the changes that he proposes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I very much hope that the report in The Times this morning to the effect that the noble Lord is about to throw in the sponge is wholly incorrect, since I very much enjoy our agreeable exchanges across the Floor of this House. In the context of those agreeable exchanges, can he tell the House how many Lloyd's underwriting syndicates at present are unable to close their accounts because of unknown liabilities?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful for the testimonial given to me by the noble Lord. We read a great deal in the papers but it seems
564
to me that it is many decades past since Members of your Lordships' House indulged in the habit of reshuffling. That has now passed to another place and we must wait to see what emerges from there. So far as I can answer the specific question put to me, two of the Outhwaite syndicates' accounts for 1982 are still lying open at the moment. I shall inquire as to the precise number and write to the noble Lord, putting a copy in the Library.

London Underground: Escalator Maintenance
2.38 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will appoint to the Board of London Underground Ltd. an engineer with experience of the repair and maintenance of escalators.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): No, my Lords. It is the responsibility of London Regional Transport to appoint the board members of London Underground Ltd.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, and I am grateful for that not very helpful reply. Is he sufficiently on speaking terms with London Undergound to impress on it the immense hardship caused to members of the travelling public, in particular the disabled and those with baggage or children, by the fact that many of the escalators remain unrepaired for many weeks? Will he, as a Minister in the Department of Transport, do something about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly I shall make it my business to be on speaking terms with the appropriate people at London Underground in order to pass on my noble friend's remarks and those which, no doubt, I shall hear from others this afternoon. London Undergound has the responsibility for the efficient functioning of the system. It appreciates that the present situation is unsatisfactory and aims to improve the escalator availability as soon as possible. Inevitably it will take some months.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one engineer alone will not solve the trouble, which is due to a general shortage of escalator maintenance staff, caused by excessive cost cutting to meet the Government's financial targets?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is quite untrue. Investment in the Underground at the moment is at record levels, approaching £300 million this year. Of that sum, about £10 million is for the replacement and modernisation of escalators. In addition, the Underground has a continuing repair and maintenance programme.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the Minister give us any recent indication of how many escalators are out of service in the central zone of London on any given day.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can indicate that in the most recent four-week period for which I have details, namely, 30th April to 27th May, there was 70 per cent. availability of escalators. That is a slight improvement on the preceding four weeks. LRT's annual business plan commits it to improving the availability of escalators to 85 per cent. by the end of next year. There are 275 escalators on the system.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Question has been asked several times in this House in the past year or so? Is he aware that it is right that we should look to Ministers who appoint the top management of London Transport to ensure that the standard is maintained at a reasonable level? Since so much has been done to improve it, is it not a great pity that this essential aspect of the escalators should not be properly attended to? Would he make a point of asking top management to give a greater priority to it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, the London Underground management is well aware of the problems. There are 275 escalators on the Underground system. The Underground is accelerating the rate of replacement from six to between eight and 11 machines a year. The Fennell recommendations caused 74 of the escalators to be out of service for between three and four weeks for the removal of wood. Another 85 escalators will need to have their polymer treads replaced. Each escalator will need to be taken out of service for up to a week for mechanical cleaning. That work is part of the implementation of the recommendations made by the Fennell Report.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, will the Minister draw the attention of London Undergound to the continual breakdown of escalators on the Victoria line? Will he please urge it to do something about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, I shall relay the message from your Lordships' House to the appropriate people in London Underground. I repeat, they are conscious of the problems but there is a large amount of work that needs to be done.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate from the questions asked throughout the House that there is great anxiety about the matter? As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned, the issue has been raised on a number of occasions. Is the problem due to a shortage of trained engineers? If so, is it not possible for London Regional Transport to speed up the programme that he said would not be completed until the end of next year? That is far too long a period. Could LRT not engage unemployed engineers, working under the supervision of trained engineers in order to speed up this work?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain of the availability of unemployed engineers in the London area. Maintenance of escalators is progressively being put out to competitive tender. The Underground is encouraging competition in the supply and installation of new machines to reduce costs and time scales.
Lord Morris: My Lords, when reporting back as a result of this Question and the answers given, will my noble friend bear the following it mind? One of the most irritating aspects of the problem is that, despite the fact that so many escalators are seen to be out of order, one very rarely sees anybody working on them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that that is a point which needs to be addressed. All 275 of the escalators of London Transport are having automatic sprinkling systems installed underneath them. That programme is due for completion by 31st December 1990. It could be that that work is going on underneath the escalators which would not be apparent to those above.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister consider that it would be a good idea to appoint some representation of passengers to the board?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that passengers have their own means of representation. I should point out that three of the directors of London Underground Board are qualified engineers, not necessarily specifically in escalators but certainly in transport-related engineering.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I am not talking about engineers or people with engineering qualifications. I am talking about passengers ordinaires.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I appreciate that; but it is the engineers who are more likely than the passengers to solve the problem of the escalators.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make it clear—as his earlier answers did not—that as a Minister in the Ministry of Transport he is not satisfied with only 70 per cent. availability of this essential part of the London transport system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is why London Regional Transport, in responding to the targets set by the department, has committed itself to improving the level of availability to 85 per cent. by the end of next year.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the situation is not a result of the Fennell Report? It is a result of incompetence of management on the London Underground.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, to some extent I dispute that. I have outlined the various things that have had to be done as a result of the Fennell Report. All 275 escalators have had to have sprinkler systems

567
fitted to them. The rate of replacement is being increased. Seventy-four escalators have had to be taken out of service for removal of wood. A further 85 have had to be taken out for the replacement of polymer treads. Those are all the result of the Fennell Report recommendations.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that the Fennell Report was a result of a serious fire which was a result of incompetent management.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is as may be, but these recommendations have resulted in a substantial programme of work to the escalator system.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government set the board a target for when 98 per cent. availability should be reached?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that that target will be reached once the various essential maintenance works have been carried out.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord take notice of the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris? Ordinary people notice these things. I receive letters on the subject. Notices state that the escalators will be out of order—so somebody has found that out. It then takes a few months before anyone comes to make sure that it is out of order, but at least it is then stopped immediately. If we can have similar immediate action on the repair of escalators, we shall be making progress. Will the Minister be good enough to consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly pass that point on.

Heavy Goods Vehicles: Speed Limiters
2.50 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce regulations making it compulsory for heavy goods vehicles to be fitted with speed limiters.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have no proposals to do so at present, but we keep the situation under review.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will review the matter very quickly indeed and impose speed limiters on heavy lorries using the motorways. Is he aware that the speed of heavy lorries has increased alarmingly over the past few years? Is he also aware that not only do they constitute a danger by the accidents they have, but that they are also pushing up speed generally as other traffic strives to pass the convoys of lorries hogging our motorways? Will he take this matter seriously and impose the speed limiters which have been a great success on coaches?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In fact, my Lords, the number of heavy goods vehicles exceeding speed limits on our motorways was 39 per cent. in the 1983 survey and that had dropped to 22 per cent. in 1987. That is an improvement. It is not good enough, we agree, so that is why we announced earlier this year in the White Paper The Road User and the Law our plans to amend the law to allow the use of cameras to detect speeding offences. The involvement of heavy goods vehicles in accidents has halved over the past 15 years, which is an improvement far better than that of any other form of road transport.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall an excellent leaflet which was issued jontly by the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, addressed to heavy goods vehicle drivers as part of their road safety campaign, in which two slogans were stressed, "Keep to the Limit" and "No Need to Speed"? Despite the circulation of that document to drivers we still had the figures which the Minister has now outlined of more than 20 per cent. of drivers exceeding the speed limit. Have the Government in mind any consultation with those two bodies to which I referred, and also with the Transport and General Workers' Union, on the possibility of regulations on limiters?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, we keep the proposals under review. I appreciate the work done by the Freight Transport Association and the other body which the noble Lord mentioned. It is a fact that some operators already fit speed limiters to their lorries. It is also a fact that, on average, a lorry uses 20 per cent. less fuel at 60 mph than it does at 70 mph, so it is in the operators' own interests to keep within the limit.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that tachometer equipment has been fitted to all heavy goods vehicles? To what extent are vehicle examiners examining these records because, surely, they would show a consistent breach of speed limits?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I know that tachometers have been fitted to all these heavy vehicles. But I do not know to what extent such information can be gleaned from the equipment. I shall have to make inquiries and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his statement, that the number of convictions for speeding by heavy lorries has gone down, will be greeted by many of us with some astonishment? Is it not a fact that the reason for this drop in convictions is that the police are very concerned about the danger of lorries being parked on the hard shoulder, with consequent danger to other traffic, and that lorries are therefore allowed to get away with speeding when perhaps they ought not to be?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figures I gave were not concerned with the convictions which were made. They came from the national speed survey, which checked on the numbers. As to the

569
second part of the noble Lord's question, enforcement is a matter for the police. But I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Manufactures: Balance of Payments
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the balance of payments figures relating to our manufacturing industries over the last 10 years.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in 1979 there was a surplus in trade in manufactures of £2·7 billion on a balance of payments basis. This surplus continued until 1982. In 1988 there was a deficit of £14·7 billion. I have arranged for the figures to be available in the Library.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the detailed Answer that the Minister has given. But am I correct in saying that the figures for the first quarter of this year, which the Minister has not quoted, show an increase in the first quarter for last year of £1·5 billion, which is an enormous increase? Can the Minister give us the figures for the second quarter of this year, bearing in mind that the figures I gave for the first quarter are the worst for the first quarter of any year in our industrial history?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, for the three months to May, for which I have the figures, there was a visible trade deficit of £5·5 billion compared with £5·9 billion in the previous three months. What we have to appreciate is that the balance of payments deficit is not in itself of great importance provided that it can be financed. The present current account deficit is being readily financed by the inflow of private sector capital, which shows great confidence in this country as a base for investment. We have seen recent evidence of that in the motor car industry. Recent deficits come after a long period during which the United Kingdom has run large current account surpluses.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the noble Lord read the analysis made by Professors Godley and Coutts in the current edition of the Political Quarterly to the effect that the manufacturing trade deficit was wholly predictable, that it will continue and that it will probably worsen? What is the Government's response to that analysis?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, speaking for myself, I gave up reading Professor Godley many years ago.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord include in the figures he is proposing to place in the Library details of the classes of goods in which we are in balance? Does it interest the noble Lord to know that when I visited the basement of Peter
570
Jones to buy a wedding present for one of the younger generation, I found that every household refrigerator was made in Germany or Italy? When I asked why, I was told that British manufacturers involve Peter Jones in uneconomic after-sales service.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that we lost the market in refrigerators a good many years ago, but it is fair to say that only a quarter of the growth in imported manufactured goods in 1988 was in consumer goods. A large part of imports are for industry—raw materials, semi-finished manufactures, intermediate and capital goods.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord give us his view of what he thinks the trend will be over the next 10 years? If, in his opinion, this unfortunate trend is likely to be reversed, will he give us the reasons why he comes to that conclusion?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if I gave the noble Lord a forecast over the next 10 years, I trust that no one in your Lordships' House would believe me. These are matters which are not within the wisdom of Ministers to say. However, at the present time quite a part of our deficit is in the import of motor cars. We have seen from the results in the past few months that far more cars will now be manufactured in the United Kingdom, and that is one part of the balance of payments deficit which will disappear over the years.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord has told us that a considerable part of the imports are semi-finished and finished goods. Which of those goods could be manufactured in this country? If they are not, why are we failing to supply our own semi-finished and finished goods to industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I said that a large part of the imports were raw materials, semi-finished manufacturers, intermediate and capital goods for industry. What we have seen is manufacturing output going up year by year. It stood at a record level in 1988, some 7 per cent. higher than in 1987. We have also seen our exports continuing to go up month after month. It might be of interest to your Lordships that in emerging markets such as Japan, where through my department we have been running an Opportunity Japan campaign, for the first five months of this year exports to Japan are 36 per cent. up against an equivalent period last year. That is very good news indeed.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the position is as good as the noble Lord says why do we have the balance of payments problem? It is quite contradictory.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there is no question that part of the balance of payments problem is due to the increased demand which has appeared in the United Kingdom during the past two years and which has exceeded our capacity to manufacture. Any country which has had a resurgence—Japan was a parallel case in the 1950s—will go through a period of balance of

571
payments deficit until the manufacturing capacity returns and the balance is regained.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his orginal Answer smacks of complacency? Some of us believe that a deficit of £14 billion does matter. Is it not a fact that the deficit, although financed from abroad, depends upon borrowing and that therefore interest rates here must be high which undermines investment in our manufacturing industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if the noble Lord believes that I am being complacent I ask him to question his own judgment. I am not. It is not financed by borrowing. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that we had massive inward investment in this country; that is one way to pay for deficit payments.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, this is the first time that someone has spoken from these Benches on this Question. Can the Minister tell the House the proportion of export earnings in manufactured goods—whatever the level—from goods designed in this country as opposed to those which are assembling other people's designs and mere metal chopping operations?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means, nor is it possible to discern it. He may as well have asked what proportion of goods around the world are manufactured from designs originated in this country. As regards the motor car industry—if that is what the noble Lord means—we have a position where we shall have 80 per cent. sourced within the United Kingdom. This is a matter upon which we are prone to put ourselves down. I have far more confidence in British industry. During the past two years I have continually travelled around the country and have detected a tremendous spirit of optimism among those in manufacturing industry. Also there is the realisation that the markets are theirs if they know how to go and get them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, reverting to the question of complacency, does the Minister intend noble Lords to believe that there is no short-term financing of the deficit? Surely, a large amount of the inward capital flow is short-term financing at an interest rate of 14 per cent. Is it not the case that if we run a deficit we must eventually run surpluses to repay our debts? There is no way around the fact that in due course we must run a balance of payments surplus: there is no sign that we shall do so in the foreseeable future.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is a reputed economist. I shall not argue economics with him. However, reluctant as I am, I must point out that I did not say what he suggested. I said that recent deficits came after a long period during which the United Kingdom ran large current account surpluses. The noble Lord must not confuse today with 1976. The IMF is no longer in the habit of calling on our shores.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that virtually the whole of the deficit is due to our trading deficit with the EC and that our trade with the rest of the world is in surplus? Is that not the real reason for the present and apparently continuing deficit?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that we run a considerable deficit with the EC. I am not sure about there being a surplus with the rest of the world but there is no doubt that we have a considerable deficit with the EC. That shows precisely how important we are to the Community.

Continental Shelf Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 3 of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Act 1989.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Long.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Opticians Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a consolidation Bill for the whole of the United Kingdom. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me in thanking the two law commissions and draftsmen for continuing their important consolidation work.
The Opticians Bill consolidates the legislation relating to the opticians' profession. The principal Act in this area of law is the Opticians Act 1958. This has been amended subsequently by, among other measures, the Health and Social Security Act 1984. The law comissions have, in accordance with usual practice, issued a report on this consolidation in which they make a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments in order that a satisfactory consolidation may be achieved. There is no matter that I need draw to the attention of the House on this occasion but we can rest assured that, if given a Second Reading, this useful Bill will be subject to the scrutiny of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I believe that titles of various organisations have not yet been brought up to date. I hope that there will be an opportunity to

573
bring them to the notice of those concerned. For example, the British College of Opthalmic Opticians should now be described as the British College of Optometrists. The Bill still contains one or two small errors of that nature; I hope that they will be corrected before it leaves Parliament.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord in his expression of gratitude to the law commissions and to those who were involved in the valuable work on the production of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for joining me in that respect. As regards the names of various bodies, I assume that the Bill has consolidated the existing law. However, I am happy to have the matters referred to by my noble friend looked into as the Bill goes to the Consolidation Committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Social Security Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Social Security Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 10 [Extension to personal pensions of occupational pension provisions relating to the abatement of unemployment benefit and the meaning of "earnings"]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide that if a person is deemed not to be actively seeking work he shall be given written notice of not less than three weeks, by a duly authorised person, before his benefit is withdrawn.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my amendment concerns the withdrawal of benefit. It provides for those suffering this genuinely severe penalty to be given three weeks' notice that it is to take place. The penalty can cause a good deal of disclocation in the lives of those concerned. It is a great deal easier to handle if, as with loss of a job or other benefit, some time is given to adjust one's affairs.
I appreciate that the withdrawal of benefit does not necessarily lead to complete destitution. The Minister has rightly drawn attention to the existence of hardship payments which will be made, he said, if appropriate. However, the record on the making of hardship payments is, if I may so put it, patchy. Severe hardship has sometimes been perceptible and sometimes, in what one might have thought to be equally well-displayed circumstances, not perceptible to those concerned to adjudicate on it. Obtaining these payments is also something which takes time, causes anxiety and is liable to increase
574
that regularly recurring tendency to slight paranoia which may result from repeated dealings with the social security system.
I believe that there is a vital need here for time and there is also a legal point of some substance. As my noble friend Lady Seear pointed out, this is a case where it looks as if the penalty may be coming before the judgment. It seems to be the wrong way round. My noble friend compared it to the treatment of a parking offence. There may be something in that, because it seems to me that there is a risk that those who fall foul of the social security system may be turned into a sort of "Flying Dutchman" of the system, in effect perpetually moving on and disappearing into the rapidly growing and rather perturbing underclass which the system is at present tending to produce. I should have thought that it might be in the Government's interest to try to avoid that and, if they did that, it might in the end perhaps save them a certain amount of money. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the noble Earl put down, with others, a very similar amendment at Committee stage. Evidently I failed then to explain why the Government believe that this amendment is unnecessary. I share the noble Earl's concern that claimants should not suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves without benefit. We have ensured that this will not happen, and I hope I can reassure the House. The safeguard is in the way in which the employment service and the independent adjudicating officers will operate the new condition. The process we have agreed on has been outlined a number of times, both by myself and in another place.
When someone first becomes unemployed and goes along to the unemployment benefit office, he will be interviewed by the new client adviser. This is an executive officer who will be specially trained for the task. The adviser will, among other things, discuss what kind of job the individual is looking for. If a claim for benefit is made, the adviser will issue general advice, in leaflet form, about how to seek work actively. He will in addition discuss with the claimant the ways in which it would be sensible for him to look for the particular job he wants and what he might need to do to show that he is seeking work actively.
If, subsequently, employment service staff wonder whether the claimant is doing sufficient to satisfy the new condition, a further interview will be held. Except where the claimant expressly states that he has made no effort at all to seek employment and has no intention of looking for work, benefit will not be withheld at this stage. At this further interview, additional advice on what steps to take will be given if necessary. The interviewing officer will confirm this advice in writing and remind the claimant of the suggestions made. The letter will also contain a reminder that the claimant has to seek work actively in order to qualify for benefit. Payment due (normally for the previous two weeks) will be authorised as normal.

575
In summary, therefore, a claimant will be made well aware at the outset of his claim of what he needs to do. He will, if necessary, also be reminded subsequently.
At this stage, as I say, benefit will continue. If, even after all this advice and the reminder about the conditions for benefit, a claimant does not take such steps as are reasonable in his case to seek work, the independent adjudication officer must be asked for a decision. But this will not happen until at least a further two weeks have elapsed since the second detailed interview and reminder to the claimant. By now there will be a clear doubt about the claimant's entitlement. It would obviously not be right to continue benefit; it would stop.
I believe that it would be helpful to remind the noble Earl that, where a loss of benefit causes hardship, there are already arrangements for claiming income support. In such circumstances, full payment is made to the claimant's family, although the claimant himself normally suffers a 40 per cent. deduction from his personal allowance. Consequently, no one should be left without any form of provision, which is surely the worry of the noble Earl. Indeed, in those circumstances I should also have been concerned.
I hope that the noble Earl can now see that this amendment, despite the good intentions which are typical of the noble Earl's concern, is quite unnecessary. We have taken care to devise arrangements which will give claimants ample knowledge of what is expected of them and will ensure that normal benefit does not stop without good opportunity for them to meet the new test. I hope that the noble Earl is reassured.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed and careful reply. I sometimes wonder whether, in the Government's eyes, amendments put before the House divide into two categories: the unnecessary and the wrecking. I am well aware that this is not a wrecking amendment so I am not surprised to find it placed in the other category.
I am aware of the safeguards so carefully outlined by the Minister. He has succeeded in persuading me that they exist but has not entirely succeeded in persuading me that they are sufficient. It seems to me that we have here a rather uncomfortable mixture of a counselling and judicial system. Withdrawal of benefit does happen from time to time in cases where, on appeal, it is found to be unjustified. I accept that normally a great deal of care is taken by the staff concerned. However, I should not be inclined to endow them with papal infallibility. I still believe, granted that these safeguards exist and granted the point stressed by the Minister, that the family will not be left in total destitution. Nevertheless, the whole measure might work in a more efficient and humane manner if there were a little time allowed for adjustment.
This is not a point which I feel I must press to a Division, however. I beg leave to withdraw my
576
amendment in the hope that the Minister will continue to think about the problem.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Unemployment benefit: requirement to seek employment actively]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) In regulation 12(1)(c) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, for "twenty-four hours" substitute "fourteen days".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the provision of child care under the availability for work rules. The present situation, as outlined by the Minister on Second Reading, involves a situation in which a parent offered work is supposed to have child care available within 24 hours; the theory of that being that the child care should be available before the job is offered.
My concern on this point is that I am simply not convinced that that is practical. I do not think that you can arrange child care for a job before knowing where the job is, what hours it entails and how much the job will pay. For example, let us suppose that I live in Hendon, I arrange child care in Colindale and I am offered work in Kensington. If I have to take my child to Colindale and then go to Kensington, I shall very likely end up being late for work. It is even possible that the nursery concerned may not open until an hour which is too late for me to arrive at work.
Of course, not all work takes place at exactly the same time. For example, let us suppose that I was working on the London Underground. It is possible that that might involve hours quite incompatible with the prearranged hours of a nursery.
Also, I believe that it is worth remembering that, when one is trying to arrange child care, one is not looking for a left luggage office. One is looking for the best arrangements possible. Of course, in practice, the best arrangements possible inevitably mean the best arrangements that one can afford. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible to go into the market to look for child care without knowing how much money one will have to pay for it.
When the Minister has dealt with this before, he has given me two different answers. I am rather perplexed as to how to reconcile them with each other. First, he said that this was a commonsense easement of the availability for work rules. I am grateful to him for that comment. On the other hand, he also said—and here I find him slightly more difficult to follow—that this proposal broke the link with benefit on the basis of unemployment. That, I confess, I simply did not understand. I supposed, no doubt in my innocence, that you were unemployed until you were employed and took up work, when offered it, at the first possible moment. I did not see any reason to suppose that I was proposing to break the link between benefit and unemployment by assuming that you remained unemployed until you actually started doing a job. If the Minister will accept the principle that child care cannot be arranged until you know what you have to arrange

577
it for, I should not have thought that two weeks was an excessively long time in which to arrange it. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. Surely it is not asking too much that adequate time should be allowed to provide child care. As my noble friend made clear in his graphic phrase, it is not looking for a left luggage office in which to dump your child but finding the most suitable place in which to leave the child and be happy with the arrangement. I should add that if you make arrangements which are unsatisfactory you will shortly be losing the job. It is therefore not a good idea to encourage women who are going to work to make child care arrangements which they do not regard as entirely satisfactory. It will not benefit the woman, the child or the employer.
Is it so difficult a concession for the Government to allow a longer period of time for women to be satisfied that they have the sort of child care arrangements that can be trusted? Only a relatively small number of people will be affected. It cannot be used as a precedent, because there is nothing like providing child care in any other circumstances. The cost would be very little but it would make a great deal of difference to the efficient working of the system and in getting women back into employment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly I shall have to have another go. Regulation 12(1)(c) of the Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit Regulations serves to help people claiming unemployment benefit to declare that they are available for work. It might help the noble Earl to reconcile my two, apparently to him, contradictory statements at a previous stage if I say that unemployment benefit is not the benefit for people who have substantial commitments in caring for someone or in providing any other kind of service. It is for people who, while unemployed, are filling in their time usefully but whose prime aim is to get back to work as quickly as possible.
The amendment seeks to change a current easement in the availability for work rules. This easement gives unemployed people who are providing a service while looking for a job a short period of grace in order to arrange their affairs and still be regarded as available for work. Someone providing a service—perhaps undertaking some voluntary work or looking after a child—can be deemed to satisfy the availability for work condition if it would not be reasonable for him to make himself available to take up a job or attend an interview without 24 hours' notice.
This provision, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will recognise, makes sense. It provides a degree of useful flexibility for the claimants involved. However, we must not forget that availability for work for the remainder of unemployed claimants means having to be able to take up work or attend an interview at once. To do as the amendment suggests and extend the period of grace for some people from 24 hours to a complete fortnight is surely not fair on other claimants; nor is it compatible with
578
the fundamental requirement for unemployment benefit that it should be paid only to someone who holds himself ready to take up any job offer when it arises.
While a modest easement of this requirement in the circumstances I have described is sensible, exemption for 14 days would overturn the basis for unemployment benefit. People would be able to receive it on the basis of being available for work some two weeks ahead. This is not a concept with which noble Lords would expect me to agree. It would not be right to continue to pay unemployment benefit to someone whose caring responsibilities or other commitments in providing a service mean that he misses out on a job opportunity. For someone with caring responsibilities, income support provides a source of financial support. In appropriate cases it can continue right until alternative arrangements can be made and work is taken up.
If a claimant does not have to be available for work in the same way as other claimants, and if that different condition continues for a considerable period, we are effectively creating a new benefit. The person who receives benefit for two weeks without needing to be available or to look for work is effectively being granted benefit to support another activity—in this particular case, child care.
I am satisfied that it is important to retain the current 24 hours' provision. This is consistent with the aims and principles of unemployment benefit and a reasonable way of dealing with the particular group of claimants. A 14 days' period of grace would go against the whole purpose of unemployment benefit, which is to get people back to work as quickly as possible.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I confess to being somewhat puzzled by that reply. I take the point that those who are receiving unemployment benefit must be available for work, but the Minister appears to be defining "available for work" in such a way that no single parent can possibly be available for work. The Minister knows perfectly well that, the Secretary of State is much concerned about the cost of single parents to the social security system. If single parents cannot be regarded as available for work, I cannot see how the Secretary of State can bring that cost down.
The Minster said that, if this amendment is carried, people would be receiving benefit as available for work while engaged in another activity. However, every single parent should be engaged in another activity, and if not I should like to know why not. We cannot have a situation in which the law is defined in such a way that single parents cannot be available for work. The Secretary of State, both metaphorically and literally, would pay for that very heavily indeed. Since it is a great concern of the Government that single parents should be able to go back into employment if they wish, to pile Pelion on Ossa, I believe that the Minister is contradicting government policy. I commend the amendment.
3.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Jay, L.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Mayhew, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Reilly, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Caithness, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allerton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alport, L.

Carnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Chelmer, L.

Arran, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Atholl, D.

Cockfield, L.

Auckand, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cox, B.

Beloff, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

De Freyne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Denham, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dundee, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Braye, B.

Effingham, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ellenborough, L.

580

Erroll of Hale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Newall, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Gridley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Porritt, L.

Pym, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Quinton, L.

Hayter, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rodney, L.

Hives, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Holderness, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hood, V.

Savile, L.

Hooper, B.

Sharples, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Slim, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Strange, B.

Knutsford, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Strathspey, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Teviot, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trafford, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Middleton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Milverton, L.

Westbury, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Windlesham, L.

Morris, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wynford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Munster, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Applicable accounts
.—(1) In paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "applicable amounts and polygamous marriages" there shall be inserted the words "except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part 11 of the Schedule 1A applies or would apply if he were aged 16 and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) shall be treated as if he were aged 25."
(2) In paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "17(a) and (b)" there shall be inserted the words "except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom paragraph in Part 11 of Schedule 1A to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies, or would apply if he were aged 16, claiming income support and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) of those regulations, shall be treated as he were aged 25.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is grouped with Amendment No. 4. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the last line of Amendment No. 3 contains a misprint. The end of the sentence reads,
"as he were aged 15".
It should read,
"as if he were aged 25".
That is a quite material difference of 10 years. I hasten to say that the error is not my fault. Apart from the misprint, the amendment is the same as

581
that which I moved in Committee. Its aim is to ensure that young people under the age of 18 who are unable to live at home for one reason or another—they may be estranged from their parents—shall have income support until they secure a YTS place or a job; and also that all 16 and 17 year-olds shall be in receipt of income support up to the amount received by those who are 25 years of age.
I do not wish to elaborate on the second limb because we have talked about it at great length, except to say this in encapsulated form. If you are 16 or 17 it costs at least as much to eat as when you are 25. The experience of some of us in families is that our 16 and 17 year-olds eat a good deal more than grown-ups. That is an important point which I shall leave aside.
I much appreciated some of what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said in his reply of 29th June (Official Report, col. 90) that he, and I hope the Government, have some sympathy with the amendment. But he fears that,
"a perverse incentive for some young people to leave home needlessly",
would be provided by the amendment if it was carried into the Bill. I wonder whether that is not a groundless fear. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, is it to be seriously considered that young people will leave home for the privilege of living on benefit of £30 a week? There cannot be many, if any, who would fit into that category. I suggest that that is an exaggerated fear held by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, also said that those who leave YTS places without finding a job are considered for severe hardship provision. I am very glad that that is the case. Even if they are considered for severe hardship provision and it is granted, it is only for a limited period. I think that that is right: so that is not the complete answer. I am going through what the Minister said to us in Committee and I am giving him credit for having thought about these matters carefully.
He said of the 10,000 or so decisions up to 23rd June—I imagine that is on the severe hardship provision—65 per cent. of those who applied were successful. I am glad for those who formed that percentage of applicants, but I must ask about the remaining unsuccessful 35 per cent. who are without a home and without a YTS placement or a job. Are they to get nothing? Are they to get no benefit—not even severe hardship provision? That I find unacceptable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked in Committee, will the Minister please see that guidelines are issued so that young people in this parlous state can be more sympathetically treated? It is far better for them, and also better ultimately for the taxpayer, that they should be treated with generosity rather than stinginess at such a vulnerable period of their lives.
I look at these matters partly because I am interested in the penal system. I know that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State at the Home Office are as anxious as noble Lords to reduce the
582
number of those held in custody. One of the many things we can do to stop this over-use of custody is to treat with sympathy and concern young people who are homeless when they leave school, and are without YTS place or job, and not leave them on the streets with no money, sleeping rough, facing the alternatives of going into male or female prostitution or stealing and getting into the criminal system in that way.
That is why so many of us on all sides of the House are anxious about this group. It has nothing to do with politics. This is a vulnerable stage in people's lives when they need sympathetic treatment. I ask the noble Lord to consider the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that the guidelines should be sufficiently flexible so that people in this parlous state can be treated with due sympathy.
I was alarmed to read an article in yesterday's Observer under the heading:
"Jobless facing 'try harder' rule".
I looked in vain for the flexible approach for which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and noble Lords on all sides of the House had asked. I beg the Minister to offer some hope that the Government will realise the importance of an understanding and sympathetic approach to this age group. In Committee the amendment was withdrawn. In my case it was withdrawn certainly in the hope that the Secretary of State would consider the special problems of these young people and bring forward at a later date a proposal to meet the concerns expressed from all sides of the Chamber.
In the interval between Committee and Third Reading I have had no communication from the noble Lord, and so I have had no alternative but to bring the amendment forward again, hope that the noble Lord will have something constructive to say. I do not really wish to press the amendment to a Division, but unless he can meet our anxieties I may have to seek to divide the House. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are grouped together. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, moved Amendment No. 3. I shall, if I may, speak to Amendment No. 4. Although the amendments are different they are inter-related. Both concern two groups of young people aged 16 to 18 years.
The first group are those who have been in the care of a local authority social services department. This usually means that as children they were removed from their parents by court order. The second group are those who leave home for an understandable reason—for instance, a girl whose stepfather seeks to interfere with her, or a boy whose mother's common law husband wants the boy out of the house. These young people are what we call the estranged children. It is essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, that these groups are helped to find accommodation and training or a place on a YTS scheme. It is essential that there is the wherewithal and the time to get them settled.
Amendment No. 3 deals with the amount of money that young people can draw. Amendment

583
No. 4 deals much more with the length of time for which they can draw the money. At the moment young people leaving school in the summer can draw family credit or child benefit until Christmas. Without helping resources, these young people have no address and no decent clothes. Not unnaturally, an employer will not take them on. Yet without a job they cannot obtain accommodation. It is a chicken and egg situation. The two amendments seek to make it possible for young people to settle and to do an effective job of work. That is in their interests and in the interests of the country.
I support the Government's policy of encouraging young people to stay at home or with relatives and to work and train and outwardly to be self-supporting. I do not propose to seek the opinion of the House on my amendment. I have to confess that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I agree with both amendments, but, strategically, I believe that we should now pursue another path to support not only the young people cited in the amendments but all young homeless people.
I have changed my mind on this matter due to radio reports yesterday and the reports in the press concerning the Government's policies towards young homeless people. I have a copy of yesterday's Observer. The press reports led me to suppose that the Government would oppose the two amendments. I wish to consider the country's policy not only towards those referred to in the amendments, but towards all homeless young. They include the two groups in respect of whom the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has moved his amendment and about whom my amendment has been tabled.
Accordingly, having read the reports in the press and listened to the radio, I was grateful to my noble friend the Minister with whom I had discussions this morning. He has agreed that I should make arrangements for interested representatives from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to meet at the Department of Social Security. I hope that at such a meeting representatives from the Department of Employment can be present. My noble friend Lord Caithness has already met some of the organisations concerned with housing. In this way, Ministers and civil servants would learn of the problems of the drifting young homeless whom we are discussing.
I know that social security policy is monitored by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State through the local social security offices. But I believe that there needs to be more dialogue and interchange of views among Ministers, civil servants and those working at the grass roots of a problem. We employed that dialogue during the passage of the Children Bill. I believe that as a result there was a better understanding on both sides concerning areas of disagreement. We were especially grateful to the Ministry of Health for its co-operation.
I recognise that the problem which the two amendments seek to solve will not be dealt with immediately. But, at least, using my strategy the door will not be closed. Obviously, my noble friend the Minister cannot give positive assurances as to
584
the outcome of such meetings. But I suggest that such meetings would enable people to express the problems and also to learn of the Government's difficulties.
As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, we have all received representations from the citizens advice bureaux; from 75 voluntary organisations under the umbrella of the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations; from the National Children's Bureau; the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless; the Scottish Association of Children's Panels; and the Simon Community (Northern Ireland) in Belfast. The views of those organisations should surely be heard and not disregarded.
The problem of the drifting, young homeless is a serious one. Such young people are vulnerable to drugs, drink and prostitution—although, gallantly, many do not succumb to those temptations. I hope that your Lordships will understand why I do not support the amendments at present. They deal only with a sector of the problem of homelessness. The strategy of meeting all those organisations, to hear what are the wider problems for all homeless young people, would be beneficial to the young people themselves and to the country, and would give civil servants, Ministers and those working with young people the opportunity to meet.
It is for that reason—although I originally put my name to these amendments—and in the light of the events which took place over the weekend that I have changed my mind.
Baroness David: My Lords, no one would doubt the sincerity of the feelings of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for these young people. However, I should like to point out that this matter has been going on for a long time, and we first raised it during the passage of the Children Bill last autumn. I refer to the problem of children leaving care with nowhere to go, together with the problem of certain other groups which are referred to in the noble Baroness's amendment.
After reading these newspaper articles in the Observer and The Sunday Times yesterday, headed—just in case some noble Lords have not seen them—in the Observer, "Jobless facing 'try harder' rule" and in The Sunday Times, "Homeless face tougher rules on benefit claims", I find it difficult to take the fact that the Government have apparently drawn up regulations which will make it even harder for the homeless. Therefore, when the Minister comes to reply, we shall want to know whether those regulations have been drawn up and what they say. That will really show what the Government mean.
The concept of the meeting is most important and would be very good. However, why have the Government not offered that opportunity before, if they are anxious about the problem? As I said, the problem has been going on for months and months. Moreover, when we were discussing the Children Bill the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that this was a "social security matter". Well, here we have a Social Security Bill. Therefore a great deal depends upon what the Minister says when he replies.

585
The Minister was good enough to write to me about the meeting. His letter states that his wind-up speech will contain the promises which I demanded:
"namely, continued monitoring of the situation, and a meeting on demand when the situation is clearer".
I do not think that that is really quite satifactory. I gathered from the noble Baroness this morning that a meeting was imminent, and not to be held only when the situation was clearer. The monitoring, as we have been told, has been going on for some time. Therefore that is nothing new.
My position is really the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Unless we have a very strong move on the Government's side to deal with the problem I shall be inclined not to withdraw the amendment, as the noble Baroness has indicted she will do.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I was much impressed by what she said but at present I retain an open mind. The situation is a serious one. The estimates we are now given show that there are about 50,000 homeless teenagers in London. The number is estimated to have risen by as much as 35 per cent. since last April. Moreover, for the whole country a probable estimate seems to be in the region of 150,000 homeless teenagers.
One may ask, as did my noble friend Lady Seear as regards the 100,000 people who are supposed to be eligible for the mobility allowance: where are they? Those noble Lords who travel about in the centre of London will probably know the answer to that question. A great many of those young people are begging. After I last raised in this House the problem of teenage begging, I was touched by a teenage beggar before I had reached the inside of Westminster tube station. It is a rapidly growing problem, as is teenage prostitution. It has been estimated by Centrepoint, which is probably as closely in touch with the problem as any organisation, that of those known to that centre 20 per cent. of both sexes have been approached to sell sex.
What are those people supposed to do? Before the age of 18 they are supposed to have income support of £20·80 or, for a 12 to 16 week period —the child benefit extension period —the sum of £27·40. If they are over 18 and under 24, they are entitled to £27·40. Your Lordships may consider the possibility that it is extremely difficult to live on those amounts in London. Therefore, if people are asked to do so, they will inevitably turn to begging, prostitution or crime. Regrettably, the view that it is not a sin for the destitute to steal from the rich to support themselves is not confined to St. Thomas Aquinas.
Why are we in this position? In the other place, the Prime Minister said on 7th June last year:
"those young people already have a home to live in, belonging to their parents … There is a number of young people who choose voluntarily to leave home; I do not think that we can be expected, no matter how many there are, to provide units for them".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/88; cols 704–5.]
That is why we have had the change in the benefit system which has caused the situation about which
586
we are now complaining. It was thought that the benefit system, as Ministers put it, provided a perverse incentive to leave home.
This notion of a perverse incentive involves a very strange notion of human motives. I do not know how many people are prepared to break up a happy family life and endure the considerable hardships of being a teenager on the run, in order to live the life of Riley on £30 a week. I cannot help thinking of the words of John Stuart Mill. He said:
"We will not do such persons the injury of supposing that their conception of human nature is drawn from their own consciousness".
Moreover, the notion is based on an out-of-date picture of teenage fashion. As a university teacher, I have occasion to listen to young people quite frequently. It strikes me very strongly that the '60s fashion of breaking away from parents has been dead for a pretty long time. It is now very much in fashion not only to feel affection for parents but also when you do, to admit it.
I shall not follow the noble Baroness any further into discussing how far it is a good thing that teenagers should live at home. I say only that if the Prime Minister succeeds in making them all live at home she will be the first person to succeed in that since Moses began the exodus.
The amendments are not concerned with joining issue with the Prime Minister on that point. They are concerned with much more limited objectives. They are concerned with those who cannot find a YTS place and cannot live at home; those who have been in care and therefore have no home to go to: and those who leave home because of abuse or cruelty. It is striking what proportion of the teenage homeless those categories cover. Some 40 per cent. of teenage homeless were formerly in care, and some 38 per cent. have been abused or compulsorily thrown out by their parents. They are people who have no home to go to. It is irrelevant whether we do, or do not, think that teenagers should live at home. They cannot, unless they have a home.
The theory is that those people should all find a YTS place. In some cases, that is easier said than done. In Glasgow in February 1989, there were 1,484 fewer jobs and YTS places together than there were young people registered for work. I do not know what those 1,484 people are supposed to do.
In a case of child abuse it is not necessarily a good thing to push the child into going back home. Those who saw last week the admirable Thames Television play "Somewhere to Run" will appreciate the problem that arises where a teenager who has been abused leaves home. If the father knows where she is, he may follow her and continue what he is doing. There have been cases of teenagers having to leave YTS places because that was happening to them.
I take the point made in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that allegations of child abuse are not always true. That is important. But if a child should wrongly make an allegation of child abuse against his or her parent, that is still evidence of something pretty badly wrong in the family. It is asking parents for something approaching sainthood to ask them to take back the

587
child in that situation as if nothing had happened and before any of the underlying problems have been sorted out.
I shall quote briefly two cases. One girl was thrown out by her mother. She spent two months living with one blanket in a squat. She finally met a generous YTS manager who cut a corner and offered her a YTS allowance in lieu of a place which he did not have. She is now in full-time employment and living in her own flat. The other, a boy, left home because of assaults by alcoholic parents. He registered with YTS, found no place, spent three nights on the streets with no food or money, applied for emergency accommodation, was asked to pay in advance, and of course could not. He was not eligible for a crisis loan because he had no income support to pay for it, and he disappeared. If any of your Lordships should find your wallet or your handbag snatched on a dark night it might be wise to stop and wonder whether he just possibly might be the person who did it.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness about this week's newspaper reports. They might change one's mind but it is a question of in which way. I should like the Minister to deny, if possible, some of the points made in the report in yesterday's Sunday Times which I have showed to him in advance; in particular, the checking of teenage homeless. The article states:
"If young people are in dispute with their parents or guardians, or there is financial harassment, a local authority may ask for evidence of a court order or eviction order. When sexual or violent abuse is alleged, a medical certificate will be requested".
Have those people not heard of Cleveland?
Urging me not to press the amendment, the noble Baroness said to me over the weekend that the first question to consider is the interests of the children. On that, we are at one. The question upon which I remain in suspense and upon which I shall listen to the Minister with a great deal of care is whether those chidlren can be significantly helped without a change of government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, no one with any experience of social security administration would dispute for a moment that the two amendments deal with a real, and, in present circumstances, growing problem—the problem of homeless young people. Indeed, those of us who use Sloane Square underground station will be familiar with the sight most mornings of a young man who—I do not know whether he has been there all night—is making his home in a corner at the bottom of the stairs in conditions of great squalor and who appears not to be receiving—I hope that I am not being unfair—any help from the local authority's social welfare department. That is a real problem.
Another real problem is what your Lordships, at this stage of the Bill, should do about it. We are offered two alternative courses. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has proposed an amendment upon which he says, if he does not receive satifaction, he will seek to divide your Lordships' House. The fate of that amendment I would not want to forecast; nor, if carried, would I want to forecast the likelihood of its acceptance
588
in another place. I rather doubt that it would be acceptable. My noble friend Lady Faithfull, who is not, shall I say, notorious for her timidity in pressing her point of view argues for a different approach—a meeting of all those concerned to try to find a way forward in dealing with the matter. There are two alternative courses before your Lordships.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull. If one wants progress, it is much more likely to be made as a result of full discussions with relevant Ministers. In that way there is always the possibility that in the new Session—if Ministers cannot give a satisfactory reply—one could come back to it. That is much more likely to produce results than the pressing of an amendment whose fate must be, at the very best, doubtful.
The only other comment I wish to make is one that seems relevant at this stage of the Bill. It has been said several times before, and rightly, that we deal with individual items in your Lordships' House without, in most cases, any clear knowledge of the financial consequences of the priorities concerned or of what other claims might be made. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said that there would be some savings to the Exchequer if young people were kept out of criminal activities. That is plainly the fact and no one would be silly enough to dispute it. But the noble Lord did not advance, even tentatively, a figure for the total cost of his amendment.
Your Lordships may think that this is perhaps characteristic of someone like myself who has been involved in administration of this kind over the years. But it seems to me difficult to deal with an amendment, however attractive it may seem on the face of it, if one does not know even approximately what it will cost; and therefore what other good proposals may have to be restricted in order to find the funds to pay for it. Therefore, unless my noble friend the Minister can put a price tag on it, I am left in some doubt as to whether it would make much sense to press the amendment.
Having said that, I wish to urge on my noble friend that he should not dismiss what lies behind the amendment. There is a very real problem here. Whether we meet it by making the payments to the 16 and 17 year-olds, as the amendment proposes, or through discussions, as the noble Baroness proposes, is a matter on which opinions can legitimately differ. But that it should be dealt with is something, I believe, on which your Lordships should be all but unanimous.
I hope very much that when my noble friend comes to reply—from the manner in which he is shuffling his papers it looks as though that state of affairs is imminent—he will indicate first that the Government and the department understand the gravity of the matter; and secondly, that they have some ideas as to the best way of dealing with it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I wish briefly to add a word or two because at infrequent times I try to help the people with whom we are dealing today. I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull in asking people of like mind—in other words all Members of your Lordships' House—to

589
give of their interest and experience in dealing with these people in real trouble in our society.
As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, or at least I think inferred, we do not know at the moment the numbers of people with whom we are dealing who come into this category. Perhaps I might suggest to your Lordships that it might be worth waiting for a report that will soon be available. I am not a "waiter". I do not like waiting: the problem has been with us long enough. As I am sure noble Lords will know, the Salvation Army has been carrying out an in-depth study of these people for the last two years. It has been helped by one of the major universities in the country. Those of us in this field are now awaiting the report which I understand is likely to be with us at the end of this month or the beginning of August. I suggest that it would be enormously helpful to all of us not to make up our minds on a subject and on figures about which we know very little at this time.
I hesitate to postpone a decision of your Lordships any longer. On the other hand, I urge the House to wait until the report is with us. From the way in which the noble Baroness described the meetings so far the report will be available for those meetings. I would certainly wish to wait myself.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wish to say how saddened I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—for whom I have great respect—has taken this very strange line at Third Reading. I have been a Member of this House for a long time; I find it unusual for someone to speak against their own amendment. Perhaps the point is unimportant. But to argue that the noble Baroness has had meetings with Ministers leads me to ask: where have the Ministers been until this stage of the Bill? We all know that it is the easiest thing in the world to call somebody in and have a chat. I would not wish to be totally cynical and say that they might offer her a seat on the Front Bench; I do not know. I can only say that out there are the young people whom the noble Baroness mentioned. I have worked with them; the noble Baroness has worked with them.
If we help one undeserving person yet we help a hundred deserving people, then surely the money is well spent. Why do we always come back to money when we are talking about something like this? Last week we debated the estimates on armaments. I do not remember anybody talking about money; maybe they did. But now when we talk about people in need, we also talk about money. Perhaps I may make this appeal to the Government—not the most popular Government at the moment, for various reasons. Do they want to look like the most hard-hearted Government as well?
We all know that this is the Third Reading. If the amendment is passed, all right, these discussions can still continue. They do not in any way militate against the Bill. But the amendment shows that we in the Lords—let us face it—are the ones who can look at things impartially. Perhaps I may plead with the Members on the Cross-Benches to come and vote with us on this. It is important. It is caring. For heaven's sake, it will not affect that number of
590
people. I read two articles in the Sunday newspapers. I am very concerned about what is happening in social security. I am particularly concerned that when we rise next week for the summer recess and there is nobody to challenge them, the Government will bring in some strange regulations. That is another issue which I am following up and watching very carefully. Let us show that we are a caring House and that we really want to help these young people, the number of whom will never be very large.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that was a good Second Reading speech or a good eve-of-the-polls speech. However, I think we should look at the matter in the practical way in which my noble friend has looked at it. I felt that the noble 13aroness, Lady David, was a little grudging in the way in which she reacted to the efforts made by my noble friend to keep the matter alive.
As regards the subject being brought up on Third Reading, which the noble Baroness mentioned, I believe that it is an ideal thing to do. We have gone through all the stages of the Bill. All have done their best to have various points included in order to give effect to what they regard as the important provisions and decisions that have been made.
We are now on Third Reading. Either we can form a judgment that this is an amendment which will revolutionise all the other arguments and that we can completely alter one stage of the Bill by a vote now; or we can come to the conclusion which it looks as though my noble friend Lady Faithfull has reached. It is that having reached Third Reading and almost finished with the Bill so far as Parliament can deal with it we can keep alive the vital issues we think important so that when regulations and other decisions arising from the Bill are made we make a practical contribution to the good we want to do.
So my noble friend is using the Third Reading stage in a way which I think is admirable, constructive and likely to produce the worthwhile results which we would all desire. She referred several times to her strategy—and a jolly good strategy it is. She made it clear that she has had conversations with the department concerned. I gathered from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady David, that she had received a letter along the same lines. Am I wrong on that?
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I received a letter but I said that it did not give me quite the satisfaction that I had hoped it would.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I agree with that. But the point I am making is that the conversations which my noble friend has had and the letter which the noble Baroness received show that the department is still looking for improvements, if it can get them, in the general administration of the provisions of the Bill when it is enacted. The comment I make is that the noble Baroness criticises the point being made at Third Reading, but I think this is an ideal time at which to make it.

591
I could not understand the remark about what money has to do with it. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is not to do with money, I do not know what it is to do with. It has force only because it is to do with money. Earlier, it was said that in overcoming the problem so graphically described by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, even when those cases had been subject to a hardship investigation, 65 per cent. had good results or to a large extent the measures met the point which had caused the problem. Then the question was put: what about the other 35 per cent.? If this matter is approached impartially, it should strike noble Lords that if people are assessed by a properly set up committee or tribunal, the 35 per cent. who do not succeed in their appeal may well not succeed because they do not have a good case. Why should it automatically be accepted that 100 per cent. of the people who apply for these things have a watertight case and that they should succeed in their appeal? We all know the world we live in. My noble friend, the noble Baroness on the other side and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have made it perfectly clear that they have an understanding of what goes on. I think we all do.
I have never lived anywhere but in the Midlands region and have spent a fair amount of time in London in the course of my parliamentary work. Of course we know what goes on, and of course we would like to see this problem got rid of, or at any rate minimised, if we can. But behind it all we know that we are seeing the break up of homes in a way that did not occur when we were youngsters. There are all kinds of reasons for that, but I suggest that one of the reasons is that when one is 16 or 17, having just finished the discipline of school and all the things that go with it, there is a psychological wish to be separate and go away. That is a normal wish for a young person, particularly an active and virile one.
I do not believe that by legislation or by benefit, be it money or anything else, we should do anything that would encourage the desire to leave home in those who would not leave home if these amendments and other such provisions were not carried. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with all that he has told us of people who have to resort to prostitution or snatching old ladies' handbags, that I could also put on record incidents that I know of from having sat as a magistrate. I sat as a magistrate for a sufficient number of years to form some kind of a view on this matter. Whatever money one gives to that certain percentage of the 35 per cent. already referred to who are supposedly not being looked after, one will not prevent a certain number of them snatching old ladies' handbags. One will not prevent a certain number of them from going into prostitution, awful and horrible though that is. It is no good pretending in our speeches that all we have to do is pass an amendment such as this and those things will go away.
I wish to congratulate my noble friend on the efforts that she has made, which I gather will culminate in a meeting where more evidence will be brought to bear on the department to show where the provision can be of use. I gather from what
592
my noble friend has said that she will choose the members of the group who will meet the department, and that she will accompany them. Those of us who know my noble friend and the way she has battled in this House on the subject will appreciate that if she leads a deputation of experts to meet the department, she will see to it that all the worthwhile points are properly, fully and deeply made. In the belief that that will be the outcome of the visit, I think we should take the advice of my noble friend and allow the meeting to go ahead before committing ourselves in the form of an amendment which does not have all the available evidence to support it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, still talks as if many of these youngsters were people who had left home through natural exuberance and who wished to find their way to London rather like young Dick Whittingtons. However, we have figures which show that well over 70 per cent. of these young people have either been brought up in institutions and therefore do not have a home to go to or have been chucked out from their homes for reasons which are not of the jolly kind that he is suggesting here.
I do not think that the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the amendment should be presented to us as alternatives. I do not understand why we could not pass this amendment and still have the meeting, unless some kind of bargain has been struck that it should not occur. If such a bargain has been struck, it does not seem to me a very appropriate way of doing business. We could still pass this amendment and then have the meeting. I find it extremely odd that in a matter as serious as this—we are all agreed it is serious from every point of view: social, economic and others—there was not a meeting like this a long time ago.
This Bill has gone all through the House of Commons and we are now at Third Reading in this House. Is it not sensible for representatives of the department, experts in the field and the Government to meet on a matter of this kind? I find it very strange that they did not think of it until so late in the day.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the spirit of the amendments. I am sure we all share in that. We are all very anxious to hear what the Minister says, but before he replies I wish to give him notice of something that is worrying me in the hope that he can include it in his reply. He may remember the day before we rose for the Christmas Recess. That was a memorable and very distressing day because it was the day of the Lockerbie bombing. On that day we had to put our minds to the question of the homeless young people. I reminded the Minister that another Minister had received representatives of 32 organisations dealing with homeless youngsters. I have never heard the outcome of those discussions which took place last year. That makes me very cynical about the faith of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—I hope I may make that pun—in the usefulness of meetings with Ministers.

593
Ever since that meeting I have received repeated information from the organisations involved of growing strains on them and of increasing problems. I cannot see that since that pre-Christmas meeting there has been a jot of improvement anywhere. I agree very strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that if these amendments are carried this afternoon they will not prevent another meeting being held. However, what I am worried about is that if we do not carry the amendments, there will be another useless meeting.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave your Lordships the opportunity of returning to the substance of this amendment. I therefore in my response intend to address the points that noble Lords have all made but also to address the two amendments which are tabled on the Marshalled List. I wish to start by stating the position under the law as it stands at the moment, which is that while most 16 and 17 year-olds are not entitled to income support, we ensured that the two most vulnerable groups are. The first group comprises those who are, for instance, lone parents or young people who because of disability cannot work or take advantage of the guarantee of the offer of a YTS place.
The second group of vulnerable 16 and 17 year-olds who are eligible for income support includes those who are capable of work or training but who have no parent or cannot live at home. They may, for instance, be at risk of physical or sexual abuse, or there may indeed be other reasons. This group is entitled to income support for a short period known as the child benefit extension period.
No Minister at any time has ever claimed that the mammoth changes which were made in the 1986 Act were perfect in every respect when they came to be implemented in April 1988. The result of this is that when we introduced income support in April 1988 we undertook to monitor the effect of the new scheme.
The meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has just mentioned was part of that new monitoring. She knows as well as I do what has flowed from these events as regards 16 and 17 year-olds. One result of our careful monitoring has been the improvements which came into effect only last week. They give extra help to 16 and 17 year-olds on income support who have to live independently. This group now receives the personal allowance normally appropriate to 18 to 24 year-olds; that is, £27·40, compared with £20·80. That is an increase of over 30 per cent. This money has only just started to flow.
We were persuaded throughout the monitoring of the 1986 changes that there was clear evidence that this increase was justified. However, this new clause goes even further and gives those 16 and 17 year-olds, and 18 to 24 year-olds in the same situation, the over-25s rate of allowance. What noble Lords should therefore ask themselves is: should such young people get the 18 to 24 year-olds rate of benefit, or should they get the rate for those aged 25 and over?
594
I believe there are a number of reasons why we should stay where we are in this regard, at least for the moment. First, there is an important difference between the under 25s and the over 25s which we should not overlook, and that is their earning capacity. Young people under 25 generally earn a great deal less than those over 25, and the personal allowances reflect that. I believe that is an important point and not one to be ignored.
The group which the amendment would affect now get the personal allowance of £27·40. Because they receive income support, they also get maximum housing benefit—100 per cent. of their rent and 80 per cent. of their rates or, as the case may be, community charge.
Underlying the debate this afternoon have been articles which appeared in the press over the weekend. I can say without equivocation that we have no plans whatsoever to withdraw housing benefit from the young homeless or any other group. Nothing arising from the present Bill or the regulations alters the position on housing benefit. If it does, and the House again does not trust my words, your Lordships will have the opportunity before very long to debate the regulations which accompany this Bill. That will be the time to find out whether or not you trust what I am saying. Of course I agree that staff should handle young homeless people sensitively. That is very important in social security offices; and DHSS staff have special training in this regard. However, I say again that we have no plans for tightening the conditions in respect of housing benefit.
I accept that, having paid their residual housing costs, young people are left with an amount that is not generous. However, I believe it is adequate. It is, as I have said, over 30 per cent. more than it was a fortnight ago. I do not want to reach the situation where we restore the perverse incentive that existed before April 1988 for young people to leave home because by doing so they could increase their benefit, net of housing costs, by over 60 per cent.—not, I would tell the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a primary reason, but an added incentive.
We accept that for a few young people living at home is not an option: that is a point which has been made perfectly clear to me this afternoon. The improvements for 16 and 17 year-olds, which I have already described, recognise this sad fact. We also recognised that some young people living independently could be worse off taking a YTS place or a job than being on income support because of the effects of housing costs and expenses associated with their training or work. After meeting such costs and expenses, young people with YTS income might have been left with less than the income support rate for their other needs. We therefore decided to extend the over-18 personal allowance to all 16 and 17 year-old housing benefit claimants, not just those in the special circumstances prescribed for income support. Now all young people living independently have over 30 per cent. extra left after meeting housing costs from which to meet any work or training expenses. If we were to consider making any further concession to housing benefit claimants we would want to do so on the same basis.

595
As I pointed out, this action, which was not in the 1988 Act, was the result of careful monitoring of the situation of 16 and 17 year-olds after leaving home. I want to make it quite clear in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull that this monitoring will continue, and we have agreed to hold discussions with those interested parties to ensure that the Government are kept fully up to date on any problems facing the young homeless. Whether it is a matter for me or for my possible successor, either of us will want to know what is going on on the ground. That is a point which your Lordships regularly address to me. We want to know what is going on, and we also want to know why it is going on; and it is those two things that I hope such a meeting will expose. I shall return to the meeting, or possible meeting, in a moment.
While we thought it right to direct this extra help towards 16 and 17 year-olds, we believe that to introduce an increase of the order proposed for all under 25 year-olds would be irresponsible. It would clearly be unfair to those of the same age who are in employment; and it would be a perverse incentive for those brave youngsters the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, seeks to help—those leaving kindly, caring homes—by encouraging them first to get into income support and then to remain on it.
Regarding the argument, as it were, between the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, money has to be taken into account in connection with any social security measure. I agree on that immediately. But in fairness to both sides of this particular argument I should point out that in this particular instance this cannot be a primary reason for throwing out the amendment. It may help the noble Baroness to know that the YTS arrangements and allowances already cost more than income support. Therefore what we are interested in is how should these youngsters be looked after so far as the state is concerned? The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to that as this parlous state.
There is no reason why young people who cannot live with their parents should be dependent on state benefits. If they are capable of working and training I can see no advantage in enabling them to rely indefinitely on income support. This present provision gives young people at least 12 weeks or so to sort themselves out and to get a YTS place if they want one: it will be more for summer school leavers. They will also have the whole of the vacation preceding this period and many will have started considering their future options long before leaving school, through careers teachers and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with his characteristic interest and concern in these matters, wanted to know what happened in severe hardship cases for the 35 per cent. of people who do not receive income support in those circumstances. Reasons why young people do not get benefit under the severe hardship provision would be, for example, because they have sufficient resources to prevent severe hardship. Also they may have help available from others—it may be another member of the family—or there may be other sources. They may have rejected other means of preventing hardship, such as taking
596
youth training scheme courses. There are a myriad of reasons: I said at an earlier stage that the 65 per cent. success rate in severe hardship on income support was a justification for saying that the system was working and I believe that to be so.
Regarding the duration of severe hardship awards, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, they are of course given for a period which is considered to be long enough to enable a young person to find another YTS place; that is what they are there for. Those outside the child benefit extension period who are subject to a severe hardship direction and are of necessity living away from the parental home will get the higher rate of income support for the duration of their award, as I have already explained.
I hope I have made it clear from this short speech that the Government fully share the anxiety for the homeless. The thrust of our housing policies is aimed at helping in those areas with the greatest needs. We are taking forward the review of payments legislation with appropriate speed, and we have been helped in this by recent independent reports. I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull, and I too am awaiting with great eagerness the report of Dr Barnardo's. As my noble friend has confirmed, the voluntary organisations have been consulted in that.
We are not going to hang about. A Statement will be made as soon as conclusions are reached. I agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that that is no reason not to hold a meeting. We wish to hold it as promptly as those noble Lords concerned desire.
If your Lordships wish me to hold the meeting either before or after it is entirely clear what is going on in the Department of the Environment with regard to homelessness matters, that is entirely in your hands. I am prepared to have a meeting with whomsoever, whenever at whatever point your Lordships desire. If it is necessary, and it is agreed in advance that it is necessary, to have officials from other departments, officials from other departments will be there.
To return to the present, I believe that we must now wait to see how these improvements work out. As I have made quite clear, we shall continue to monitor the impact of our changes and I have undertaken to continue the Government's monitoring of those changes especially as they concern 16 and 17 year olds. That monitoring can undoubtedly be improved by a meeting such as has been suggested by my noble friend, and I am grateful to her for the suggestion. However, for the reasons that I have already given, at this moment I am not convinced that the approach described in these two amendments is right for 16 and 17 year-old youths.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may remind him that he has not answered one of my questions; namely, about the draft regulations which according to the article in yesterday's Observer have been drawn up by the department and will make it more difficult for young people to obtain their benefit support.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am absolutely confident that there is absolutely nothing in the

597
draft regulations, which have started to be worked upon—it would be unnatural if one had not started to work upon the regulations—that has not been discussed during the course of the Bill. Perhaps I can go back to an answer that I gave earlier in relation to the articles in the Sunday Times and the Observer. I can say without equivocation that we have no plans whatsoever to withdraw housing benefit from the young homeless or any other group.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was not only referring to housing benefit. I was referring to the other support.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House—and perhaps this ought to be for the last time—the other matter which concerns young people and income support relates to actively seeking work and indeed availability for work. Again the position has been made quite clear during the course of the Bill both in this House and in another place. Nothing in the regulations will detract one iota from what has been promised either by this Front Bench or the Front Bench in another place.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, whether or not these amendments are well drafted or acceptable to the Government, they have at least served the purpose of stimulating a debate in this House of over one hour. There have been speeches from all round the House. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has listened in particular to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who asked him not to dismiss the feeling and the thought underlying these amendments and said that they had the support of everyone in this House.
So this is not at all a party matter. It was a serious appeal from a most serious and respected Member of the House who has also been a Minister for Social Services in his day, albeit under a different name. I think that that was a very important plea. While I am still on the matter of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, I suggest that there is a matter of urgency here. Of course talks are extremely welcome. I was very glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said—and I shall elaborate on that a little. In the meantime there is an urgent question: what will be done ad interim? If there is nothing to be done, I fear that a big problem is being built up by the Government's inertia. I shall say no more on that subject at the moment save that, even if talks take place, there is still something that needs to be done.
As to the talks, I was extremely glad to hear what was said by both the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. The noble Baroness said that the talks would cover all parts of the United Kingdom, which is welcome, and relate to all the homeless young, not just this age group, which again is welcome. The talks are to deal with the very large problem of drifting young homeless, who may be as many as 150,000 as we heard from the noble Earl. That is a very big problem which concerns us all.
598
I believe that talks with just the Department of Social Security are not enough. The Department of Employment has to be involved and so does the department concerned with housing. I am very glad indeed to see the noble Lord nod his head. I hope that he will nod his head when I include in that list the Home Office. I do not see a nod. However, I should like to see the Home Office involved and not only the Home Office but also the Department of Health. Those two departments are necessary as well. That shows the width of this problem. Unless all those departments are concerned, quite frankly it will not be enough.
I am puzzled to know what to do. The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that this situation had been going on for a very long time and we are used to having the matter shuffled from one department to another. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when speaking on the Children Bill said that this was a matter for the Department of Social Security and that the House must wait for this Bill. We have not been satisfied and it is now at the stage of Third Reading. It is indeed a matter of being shuffled from one department to another. It is another reason why these talks should take place and, now that I have my shopping list, perhaps the noble and learned Lord's department should be added as well. I should very much like to include the noble and learned Lord's department. However, I should not like to do anything that would jeopardise these talks.
I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I cannot believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that these are alternative courses. They would be a very feeble government who were deterred by a vote in this House from setting up talks which they have publicly announced will take place. So, if there were to be an expression of opinion in this House, I cannot believe that the Government would be so feeble as to cancel those promised talks in a fit of pique. Frankly, I am not influenced by that argument.
I am influenced by the fact that when the noble Baroness and I went to see the Secretary of State and the Minister of State in February or March this year, we had a receptive meeting and results flowed from it. That weighs in the balance with me. I therefore do not propose to press this amendment in the light of the undertakings which have been so clearly given to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and repeated by the Minister in this House. I therefore propose to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Whether or not I shall be allowed to do so is not up to me. I am in the hands of the House. For my part, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No‡
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Milner of Leeds, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Hunt, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Craigton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Allerton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Bessborough, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blatch, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Borthwick, L.

Elles, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Faithfull, B.

Caithness, E.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gainford, L.

Carnock, L.

Gridley, L.

Chelmer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Harrowby, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Henley, L.

600

Hesketh, L.

Newall, L.

Hives, L.

Orkney, E.

Holderness, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Pender, L.

Hood, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hooper, B.

Prior, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Pym, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Quinton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Reay, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Killearn, L.

Rodney, L.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Knutsford, V.

Savile, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Seebohm, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Shannon, E.

Long, V.

Sharples, B.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Somers, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strange, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Margadale, L.

Strathspey, L.

Marley, L.

Swinton, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Teviot, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mersey, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Middleton, L.

Trafford, L.

Milverton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Morris, L.

Westbury, L.

Mottistone, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wise, L.

Munster, E.

Wolfson, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wynford,. L.

Nelson, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Recovery of sums equivalent to benefit from compensation payments in respect of accidents, injuries and diseases]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
4.56 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I hope that I am in order if I make a few remarks on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I should like to express our appreciation of the Minister's hard work and sympathetic understanding of what many of us have been trying to say. Many noble Lords have contributed a great deal of thought and, I trust, hope on this difficult subject. It has been a complicated jumble of a Bill, with 33 disparate clauses and nine schedules. We have done our best to make some improvements in spite of a very tight timetable. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in another place the Committee stage had 27 sittings compared with our two. However, I believe that we put our time to good advantage.
I have been trying to draw up a balance sheet of the effects of the Bill. With my amateur book-keeping, on the credit side put Clause 7, which gives benefits for women widowed before 11th April 1988. Clause 8 can be credited for the abolition of the earnings rule. Clause 9 can have half a mark

601
because the age limit for mobility allowance will be increased to 80 years, but it does not go any further. We welcome the new Clause 5 to which your Lordships agreed concerning the increased allowances for children. We are very glad to see that under Clause 9(1) the amendment to help deaf blind and other invalids to receive mobility allowance is incorporated into the Bill. We all hope that these amendments will remain because they were agreed by Members of different parties and I believe that they improve the Bill.
On the debit side are Clause 3, the abolition of the Treasury supplement, and Clauses 11 to 13 which make life much harder for the unemployed and their right to benefit. We are opposed to Clause 23 about the recovery of sums equivalent to benefit in compensation cases. On the debit side also goes Clause 24, with complications of equal pensions for men and women in the matter of occupational and personal pensions. I debit the Government too with their failure to help people in bed and breakfast accommodation, and the under 25 year-olds and with regard to promising other young people only a meeting. I hope that it will not end up as a meeting about a meeting. The situation regarding pregnant girls brings no hope to young women. The Government rejected an appeal for the Parliamentary Commissioner to be written into the Bill. On the whole I cannot give the Bill many marks.
There have been criticisms from some noble Lords opposite because they felt that we had been trying a piecemeal approach to improve social security by picking on different needy groups in turn instead of concentrating on the totality of the problem. That is not our fault. The Fowler reforms of 1987 were heralded as a total reform, but that has not happened.
On 29th June (at col. 902 of Hansard) the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who knows so much about these matters, referred to the danger of dealing with them item by item. Another noble Lord (I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Joseph) referred to the archipelago of social security. I do not know whether he meant that in a derogatory sense, but I see nothing wrong with archipelagos. Indeed the noble Lord sent me daydreaming about the archipelagos of the Aegean Sea, which I have always found very beautiful. But if he meant that we were reducing social security to a series of separate islands, that is a matter for thought, but it is not a party political matter. It is quite right that we have to have changes, that we need some kind of definition, but above all we want a more comprehensive approach to the whole problem of the needs of people who for whatever reason are in difficulties.
What the Government have not done in the Bill is to further a coherent policy for social affairs, a policy which would lead people out of poverty and alleviate the problems of the disabled and the homeless. Everything that can be done should be done, and more comprehensively. It is probable that the debate we have had many times about bringing together benefits and taxation needs a fuller study, so that we have some pulling together of fiscal and social benefit policies. That might even turn out to be cheaper in the long run.
602
I believe that we have heard too much about the OPCS. I am sure that the Minister is tired of hearing about it. The impression has been left sometimes that the Government are more concerned with the statistics that might have come out of the studies than with social policies. In our debate the other day about extending mobility allowance to the deaf blind and other seriously handicapped people the Minister said that the Government must wait for reports. There were long arguments about numbers, including those produced by my noble friend Lord Carter. Does that mean that, if the OPCS comes up with the news that there are many deaf blind people, there will be less chance of them being helped than if there were only a few of them? This fixation with finding out about how many there are before a decision is made to do anything about them seems to me to be rather unfair on the people concerned.
This is the same kind of mentality which finds comfort sometimes in producing statistics for a reduction of the percentage of unemployed people. But an unemployed man is 100 per cent. unemployed, no matter what happens to the whole population. We are anxious that this kind of continuing alibi of waiting for reports one way or another should be halted because reports do not make policies. They can only give information on which policy can be based. It seems to many of us that there is plenty of evidence about the needs of the people we have been talking about during the passage of the Bill.
The Government have been in power for 10 years. I am sorry if they still have to find out a great deal more about the problems. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others have in their wisdom talked about how much things will cost. We appreciate the Minister's concern with costs, as he has his battles to fight. But when we are reprimanded for not pricing our amendments, I want to ask the Government how they price their savings by passing the Bill. How much will the Government save, and how much will the public lose? I have read the Financial Memorandum and the Government's expenditure plans, which were published before the Bill came out. Those of us who were challenged about the cost of the amendments are entitled to ask the Government about the cost of their savings as well as the cost to the public.
I have one last question. I was surprised to hear the Minister say:
"your Lordships will find that this legislation must receive Royal Assent by 30th July of this year. Otherwise, we shall be in breach of our EC obligations."—[Official Report, 12/7/1989 col. 282.]
I am puzzled by that because I do not know which EC obligation involves Her Majesty giving her Royal Assent by 30th July. Some of us thought that there would be benefit in considering parts of the Bill during the gap after the Recess and before the next Session of Parliament, but that was ruled out on the grounds that the Queen has to obey our EC obligations. I hope that at some time that point can be made clear, because it seems to us that there are parts of the Bill that we need to discuss further on which we should like to hear more from the department. If there is a guillotine, if I may put it that way, on 30th July we want to know why.

603
With those few words I thank the Minister. On the whole this has been a good occasion for the House in all parts. All the speeches have been thoughtful and careful. We appreciate the spirit in which the Bill has been conducted.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for a great deal in the conduct of the Bill. First, I should like to thank him for his unfailing good humour during debates which sometimes have been pretty hotly contested. I should like to thank him for a great deal of helpfulness. I should like to thank him for his letters which have saved me from putting forward a great deal of criticism which I might otherwise have uttered. I know that in the light of what I have uttered the Minister may be surprised to hear that, but it is true.
I should also like to thank the Minister for the care, the courtesy and the hard work put into the meeting that we conducted on Clause 23. I am quite sure that, if there had been an agreement there to reach, we should have reached it. I am sorry that we were unable to do so.
I should like to thank the noble Baronesses on the Opposition Front Bench. I have benefited a great deal from being able to rely on their experience of the subject, on which I am something of a novice.
I have also noticed that it is a regular feature of this House that, in any debate, we rapidly evolve for that debate what I might call a professional Front Bench—somebody who speaks for the profession which is under discussion. The part was played on the Education Reform Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and in farming matters by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley, on this Bill it has been played by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. She represents a Conservative tradition of social reform which goes right back to the Earl of Shaftesbury. Like my ancestors, I have some difficulties at times in understanding that tradition, but it is a vital part of our political life and one without which the Conservative Party would be very much less electable than it is. It also means that even on occasions like today, when I am very tempted to do so, I cannot look up from my place, see the noble Baroness sitting opposite and say that Conservatives do not care. Her party is lucky to have her.
As regards the Bill, I am delighted that we have carried two significant amendments and I commend them to another place. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the mobility allowance has convinced the broad centre of the House, as any rough look through the Division list will show. I know that this Government wish to be thought of as a caring government. I believe that they will find that a great deal harder if they reverse the noble Lord's amendment.
Naturally, I am also delighted that the amendment on child benefit was carried. I remind the House that for the second time in two years an amendment has been carried on the subject. In 1988, an amendment was carried on the initiative of my noble friend Lord Banks. I hope that when Ministers consider the amendment they will not ascribe its success to any defects in their tactics, nor even to
604
any strengths in ours, but to the tact that it is a matter on which there is a natural majority in this House.
I sometimes think that this House has a place in Parliament a little like that of Scotland in the union. I know that we are still formally called the "upper House". However, I believe that in practice we accept the fact that in the partnership between us and another place we are normally the junior partners. Nevertheless, like Scotland in the union, we sometimes feel that the word "partner" as well as the word "junior" requires attention.
We are frequently told that we do useful and important work as a revising Chamber. We should like to accept that that is true. We should find it easier to do so if, every now and then, something that we did appeared to those who manage business in another place to be an improvement.
As regards the points in the Bill which are good, I agree roughly with the list offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, especially the abolition of the earnings rule. Of course, there are points in the Bill about which I still have considerable misgivings. The clauses concerning unemployment appear to be intended to validate the mistaken notions for the causes of unemployment; for example, the one about unrealistic wage expectations. I believe that in due course the Government will discover that they were mistaken and I pray them in the bowels of the Lord when the time comes to do so.
Of course, I regret the fact that nothing came of the attempts to improve Clause 23. I believe that there the Government may be the worst losers. I believe that when it comes into operation it will cause so much confusion that they may well wish that we had succeeded in defeating them. I am sorry that we could not oblige the Government.
I shall say no more about the subject of today's debate. I shall express some disappointment about the treatment of board and lodging in bed and breakfast hostels. That is a matter about which we all agree that a great deal more thinking needs to be done.
I shall make a final point about costs. We on these Benches accept the fact that it must be a matter of money. We accept that it costs a great deal and that we should be concerned about keeping that sum down. However, we believe that, when we look at the kind of levels at which benefits usually stand, the amount of pain caused by the withdrawal or cutting of benefit is usually greater than any benefit that could be gained by the Exchequer in saving it money.
We are concerned to see whether by floating people off benefit—as the Minister puts it—we can find room occasionally to save money by the use of the carrot as well as the stick. When the hypothetical next year's Social Security Bill comes before the House, I shall be looking to see whether the Minister and I can find common ground in that respect.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I can give myself the rare pleasure of beginning by agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in respect of two points. It is a rare experience which may not be repeated too

605
frequently. I agree with his graceful and justifiable remarks about the Minister. I strongly agree that he has conducted this important and sometimes contentious Bill with great skill, patience and the capacity to carry conviction.
I was also glad that the noble Earl referred as he did to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. As he said, she is a perfect example of the carer. Sometimes the care that she gives is a trial to the Minister of the day. That she represents an important strain in the party to which she and I belong is undoubtedly a fact, quite apart from the enormous good personal service that she gives to the less fortunate of our fellow countrymen in a whole variety of directions.
I am glad that the noble Earl gave me the opportunity to make those comments. Those of us who have seen only a little of what my noble friend does outside this House realise what valuable work she carries out with so much patience, trouble and energy.
This is a very important Bill. It is probably more important to a larger section of our fellow countrymen than any of the other measures which we have taken this Session. It has a direct personal impact on a large number of people, favourable or unfavourable as that may be. It is absolutely right that your Lordships' House should have given it the close and careful attention which I was glad to see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred to the possibility of there being a more comprehensive way to administer social security, as is often suggested in learned works and in the press. She mentioned the idea which has often been touched on during the past 25 or 30 years; that of uniting the social security system with that of taxation. However, when anyone has got down to looking at what would be involved both in administration and legislation they have tended to recoil with horror from that idea. Although there is a good theoretical and philosophical case for such a system, the practical difficulties are very real. I fully understand the attitude of the Government in not going down that path.
Inevitably, the Bill is a series of individual measures, helping individual sets of people, on the lines of previous Social Security Bills during the past 25 or 30 years. It has been subjected to the inevitable process. Obviously, my noble friend and his right honourable friend have obtained sufficient accommodation from the Treasury to enable certain expenditures to be increased. Equally obvious is the fact that there is a limit to that. Therefore they had the difficult task of deciding which needs of which sections of society are the most urgent and should receive the financial help which, within limits, it is possible to give.
I know from experience that that is a hideously difficult task. One is up against people who believe that one particular section of the benefits of our social security system has a more compelling case than all the others, and they believe that with sincerity and force. On the other hand, it is necessary for the Minister in charge to try to weigh one section against the other—infinitely difficult in human terms—in the light of the limited expenditure which
606
he can undertake and within limits by which he will always be bound by all governments at all times.
Indeed—and perhaps I may venture a controversial observation—it is a tribute to the success of the financial policies of this Government that these increases in expenditure, of which this Bill contains the last few instalments, have been possible. Of course, it is only on the efficient working of our economy that the financial support necessary for our immensely expensive and elaborate social security system is achieved.
The noble Baroness spoke of the pricing of amendments. I was not sure whether she meant that in a slightly derogatory sense. Of course, were she sitting opposite that Box that is precisely what she would have to do because she would know, as all Ministers know, that there is a limit to the amount of funds available and that if you are particularly generous in one direction, that will inhibit you from similar generosity in another. Therefore, the inevitable and proper reaction of any Minister in the social security department is to ask of any proposition: how much?
One can only judge the decisions and the Bill by seeing whether one thinks that the priorities achieved are roughly right. My own impression is that they are. There are certain directions in which I should be more sympathetic than my noble friend and therefore, as a necessary corollary, less sympathetic in others. However, the balance achieved seems broadly right and carries our social security system forward to deal with some of the new problems of the new age.
Like the noble Baroness, I am puzzled by the reference to EC obligations. I do not know what they are and I do not know whether they need to be taken very seriously. The operation of our social security system is subject to the sovereignty of our own Parliament. No government, whatever our EC obligations, can make changes in our social security system, in deference to these orders unless both Houses of Parliament agree. In this respect, ultimate sovereignty lies with this House and another place. At the moment EC obligations seem to affect us only in respect of the timetable. I hope that we shall be quite clear that decisions on social security are for this Parliament and not, with the greatest respect, the European Commission. Having said that, I am rather glad that my noble friend Lord Cockfield is not in his place because I am sure that there would have been an explosion on my right.
I should like to refer specifically to three items in the Bill. Clause 3 deals with the abolition of the Treasury supplement. When I was responsible for those matters years ago there was a substantial Treasury contribution. However, it was diminishing. It was always understood that it would diminish. After all, when you start a social security system as we did in the 1940s, you have to bring in considerable financial support because no reserves have been accumulated. However, over the years, as the contributions have mounted, the need for our Treasury contribution diminishes. That is, in a way, something of a landmark in the history of social security. I do not find it in my heart to criticise it.

607
On the other hand, as I said on Second Reading, I am probably alone in this House in being sorry to see the abolition of the earnings rule. I hope that I used to defend it with some vigour and conviction; it has operated rather usefully. It has encouraged men at the age of 65 and women at the age of 60, who are fit and well and who have a job, to continue working. That must be not only to their own good; it also helps to build up further increments to their pension. The effect of the earnings rule was that if you had earned beyond a certain amount, you then had your pension cut. There was the stimulus to go on working for the extra five years bearing in mind, as your Lordships know, that when the man reached 70 or the woman 65, he or she then received the pension with increments regardless of what he or she might be earning. I am glad to say that in this country—and one can perhaps look around your Lordships' House—a number of people in those age brackets have good and satisfactory earnings. Good luck to them!
The only other clause to which I refer is Clause 11 dealing with unemployment benefit. I know that this is controversial. Unhappily, a limited number of people—not a great many—have been happy to subsist on unemployment benefit and have made no great exertions to find work. That is bad for them. It is almost worse for them than for the community. Few things can be more demoralising than not working or not trying to find work. Equally, it is quite wrong that other people who have contributed should pay for people who could get work but do not seek it.
Although the exact drafting is difficult, it is important that it should be clear that unemployment benefit is only to be paid to those who are genuinely unemployed in the sense that they want work and are trying to find it. My judgment is that the clause as it stands will achieve that object. I consider it extremely well drafted. I say that as someone who, as my noble friend knows, has been rather criticial of the drafting of some measures considered by your Lordships' House.
We come to the last stage of a Bill which, I believe, will bring help and comfort to a certain number of our fellow countrymen. It represents, I believe, an improvement to a social security system of which all in your Lordships' House and in this country are very proud. I wish it well.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my own words of thanks to the Minister for the courtesy and good humour which he has shown in the conduct of the Bill. We are all aware of the considerable personal concern which he shows for the various problems which we have brought to his attention.
I wish to intervene briefly. Some important information has come to light since we debated the amendment on the mobility allowance last week. It should, I believe, be placed on the record and be taken into account in the other place when it considers that amendment later this week.
Your Lordships will remember that we produced a figure for the number involved in the improvement to the mobility allowance; it was fewer than 8,000
608
people. The Government said that they thought the figure could be up to 100,000 people. The organisations concerned point out that the Government appear to have discovered 96,000 mentally handicapped people in need of control and guidance. They would like to know where those people are. As providers, they have not known of their existence. There is no way that the questionnaires used in the OPCS survey could single out severely mentally handicapped people in need of control and guidance. Intellectual capacity is far too broad a category to define and establish that minority group.
I was so concerned that I approached the OPCS and also the data archives at Essex University where the data tapes are kept. The Minister will remember that he said that the OPCS survey would not produce that information and that it was on the data tapes. There seems to be a real mystery here. It is correct that the OPCS survey is not able to produce the information. And it also seems extremely difficult to obtain the information from the data tapes. Therefore, the other place will have to be assured as to where those figures come from. The whole burden of the Government's argument seems to be not so much on the principle of the amendment but on the number of people involved.
Indeed, the link programme for the disabled, in which I should declare an interest because I have a connection with it, covered that item only a fortnight ago and put some questions to the Minister's private office. The questions were: do the Government accept the estimate of 4,400 mentally handicapped people who will be eligible for the allowance? If they do not, how many do the Government say will be eligible? The answer from the press office was that the numbers depend entirely on how the criteria are drawn up, and that it is not clear whether they can be defined to produce a number of beneficiaries. We discussed this at the Report stage and the Minister's press office did not answer the question of how many the Government believed would qualify and did not produce the figure of 100,000 people; which seems extraordinary as it was only a week earlier that we had debated the amendment.
This is not intended to be carping at this stage of the Bill, but it is important that the other place has an opportunity to deal with this point when considering the amendments. All the organisations who have provided the information are entirely confident in the figures given. We urge the Government to accept the amendment in the other place. We have all had a number of letters from organisations who have expressed gratitude for the change in the Bill and we hope that the Government will not disappoint them.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this Bill has been very well handled in this House on these Benches by my noble friend Lady Jeger and other Front Bench spokesmen, and also by others referred to this afternoon—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has tremendous experience in this subject, and also the Minister. Therefore, I have

609
not thought it right to take up the time of the House with interventions. But perhaps I will be allowed to offer a few thoughts this afternoon, as presumably, the only person present who was personal assistant to Sir William Beveridge—later Lord Beveridge —when he was drawing up his report to which reference is frequently made.
When Sir William Beveridge produced his report it united the nation. I do not wish to patronise the Minister, who is so popular, but this all took place before he was born. Older Members—possible the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and a few senior Members of this House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot—will remember the tremendous impact of that report when it was published. I remember going into a newsagents the next morning and trying to buy a newspaper. I was told by the lady in charge of the shop that they were sold out. "It's that Sir William Beveridge" she said, "He's going to abolish want." That is how the report was received at the time.
I am bound to say that it was touch and go up to the last minute. Speaking as one of his small team, we did not know until the very last moment whether the Government, with their Conservative majority, would accept the report. We had no doubts about the Labour and Liberal members nor, may I say, about the support of the younger Conservatives—presumably the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was serving elsewhere—such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who would perhaps now be called "junior wets". They were very cordial in their reaction to the report but, as I said, it was uncertain to the very last minute whether the report would be accepted.
I can still hear the voice of Mr. Ronald Tree, the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Brendan Bracken, the Minister of Information. Mr. Tree telephoned to say, "Here is Mr. Ronald Tree with a very nice story to tell you." We were told that at that last moment the report was to be accepted by the Government. Indeed, it was flashed around the world and became an important element in war propaganda. Naturally we were all very happy and Beveridge seemed to be accepted.
However, he was not accepted by everybody. Many years earlier, Sir Winston Churchill had encouraged Beveridge and used him in some capacity when Sir Winston Churchill was a Liberal Minister. Beveridge thought that Churchill would be delighted to see him. After all, Beveridge had been received by the King with tremendous enthusiasm, so why not Churchill? Therefore, he wrote to Sir Winston Churchill asking whether he would receive him. Churchill replied with the kind of letter that Gladstone could have written, saying what a joy it would be to see such an old friend, that nothing would give him greater pleasure, but that it would have to wait until the war was over.
Therefore, the only person who would not talk to Beveridge was Churchill. We knew, of course, that there were strong elements in the Conservative Party who did not like the report. Later, when the Labour Party was in power and the national insurance Bill
610
came to the House of Commons, Mr. Butler, as he then was, on behalf of the Conservatives, welcomed it in generous terms. We can say, therefore, that from 1946 it was all-party policy and that the Beveridge ideas were generally accepted.
I should pick up something that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the state contribution. In Beveridge's eyes, that was an essential element. It is true that the most essential element of all was compulsory insurance. In happier days, Sir Winston Churchill would call it the "magic of averages". At any rate, the essential plan was the abolition of want through compulsory insurance. Second only to that was the principle of redistribution of wealth through the use of a state contribution. That was important to Beveridge.
The Liberals will no doubt tell me that Beveridge entered the House of Commons as a Liberal and sat on the Benches in this House as a distinguished Liberal Peer. However, that again was touch and go. I remember when Mr. Arthur Jenkins, who was a kindly, optimistic man, the father of the Leader of the Liberal Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, organised a small dinner at the Oxford and Cambridge Club for the two great men, Beveridge and Clem Attlee, who was then deputy Prime Minister, with acolytes Mr. Arthur Jenkins and myself in attendance. The dinner was intended to seal the decision of Beveridge to join the Labour Party.
Unfortunately, the two great men feel asleep, first one then the other. I cannot remember which of them feel asleep first, but there was a moment when both were asleep. Consequently, no progress was made on Beveridge's political education. I assure the noble Lords that this is a true story.
Afterwards, as we walked along Pall Mall, the two great men in front followed by Arthur Jenkins and myself, Arthur Jenkins said to me, "I think that went rather well, don't you?" I thought that nothing could have gone worse, but Arthur Jenkins was such a sweet man that I pretended to agree with him. Very soon afterwards, Beveridge joined the Liberal Party and was a very distinguished convert. I suppose that is what one can call only just, or marginally so.
Whether Beveridge was Liberal or Labour, he was always a radical. He believed in the redistribution of wealth. In that sense he had something in common with Mrs. Thatcher—they both believe in the redistribution of wealth. However, Beveridge believed in redistribution of wealth in favour of the poor, whereas Mrs. Thatcher, as we have seen in the past 10 years, believes in redistribution in favour of the rich. No one doubts that that has happened and I do not intend to insult the intelligence of noble Lords opposite by saying that it has happened by accident; on the contrary, it is Government policy of redistribution of wealth in favour of the rich, which is the exact opposite of Beveridge's ideas.
I do not want to upset the Minister if I say that he does not look at all like a Thatcherite. I do not see anybody less like a Thatcherite than the Minister. I hope that does him no harm in exalted quarters. At any rate, the policy of his Government that he loyally interprets is this redistribution of wealth in favour of the rich.

611
I remember many years ago—it seems 100 years ago, but whenever it was—I used to propound these ideas myself. I remember reading a leading article in The Times which said,
"Unfortunately wealth is like heat, it is only when it is unequally distributed that it can perform what the physicists call work"
I remember thinking, "Good show. That's the stuff to give them". However, I am afraid to say that that is an entirely ludicrous and unethical doctrine that has been in operation for some years.
Therefore, we have this conflict between the Beveridge ideas and Thatcherite ideas. I do not say the conflict is between Beveridge ideas and Conservative ideas, because in the beginning people like Lord Butler were saying on behalf of the Conservative Party how proud they were to participate in such a great venture. That was in 1946. Therefore, I am not condemning the Conservative Party as such because there has been this strong demand in the country, including Conservatives, for a consensus in such matters.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives who stood most eloquently for that now find themselves on the Back Benches opposite. In other words, they have been relegated and they have been unable to sustain their positions. We welcome them here, but I am afraid it is to the detriment of the nation because they are not in control. However, things look better now. We know that we must not pay too much attention to the Gallup polls. We like them when they favour us; we do not like them when they do the opposite. It is a better outlook altogether. I am hoping that in not too far distant times we shall see the triumph of the original Beveridge idea, which was supported from the beginning by the Labour Party, the Liberals and all that was best in the Conservative Party.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wish to follow the noble Earl in his charming and amusing anecdotage. But it has nothing to do with the Bill in front of us to which I now wish to return.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, how is it that it has nothing to do with the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke about the abolition of the state contribution with approval. Why am I not allowed to refer to that with disapproval? The noble Lord is simply not following my remarks, because he is so keen on the eloquent thoughts that he is about to offer us.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am sure that none of us would have wished to miss the past 10 minutes. However, I wish to confine my remarks to the Bill. Before doing so, I thank the Minister for the personal qualities that he brings to the Front Bench and the Dispatch Box. I believe that his equability remained unruffled despite some occasional provocation. As regards board and lodging, I very much hope that the noble Lord and his department will not forget the distress in the House concerning the eating-out allowance. That is something ad interim not to forget while the department is busily trying to dismantle the board and lodging system altogether.
612
Dealing with income support and housing benefit for the young; namely, those of 16 and 17 years of age, I was in doubt whether to press the amendment to a Division. I am happy to say, in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that his support for the thought behind the amendment was certainly influential in my deciding not to press it. I would much rather that this matter were dealt with through all-party pressure on the Government than through partisan pressure. I am grateful to him for conveying to the House through the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the proposal of the Secretary of State to have meetings.
I had a little shopping list and I have added various ministries that I consider should be consulted or party to the meetings. I wish to add two items to my list. I believe the noble Baroness said that those who will be brought into the consultations will include all the voluntary societies most closely concerned with this problem. I am concerned that the statutory bodies should not be left out. I am very glad to see the noble Baroness nodding her head. Of course, she is the most experienced Member of this House concerning the social services. I feel that these organisations must be included and also the probation service.
The next item in my shopping list is a small matter but I should not like it to be forgotten. There is a great deal of distress caused by benefits being paid two weeks in arrear. A man coming out of prison has a small allowance but he cannot claim any benefit until two weeks have elapsed. If he is a child he gets nothing when he is released. Is that really wise or right? I ask whether that is not an invitation for him to commit crime again. Something should be done. If the benefit cannot be paid in advance, then I hope that the Government will cease to pay benefit two weeks in arrear. That is a matter that requires thought at this series of meetings which the noble Lord has announced and which I welcome.
The next matter is the question of flexibility for which I have appealed perhaps ad nauseam. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also appealed for it. There is a case for saying that the new legislation since April 1988 is too hard and has too many rough edges. Social security officials are not allowed sufficient discretion. I believe that social fund officers are being offered training so that they can fit their decisions to the people in need. I am told that training will take perhaps half a day or, at most, a day. I wonder whether that is enough. It is a very important and complicated matter which will require more than half-a-day's training. That is a subject that needs looking into.
Apart from those factors, I am concerned about the two amendments which the House has passed and their fate. With regard to child benefit I recall, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, did, the archipelago described by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. Child benefit is the one island in the archipelago that is on firm ground in the public mind. They want to stand on that firm ground which is called child benefit. That terra firma has been restored by us in the Bill. I feel that it will be submerged in another place. The public will get their feet wet and they will not like it. I do not believe that is right or that it is electorally

613
popular, though that is none of my business. But I believe that the general feeling around the House is that this is a matter of great importance and that the public confidence in, and knowledge and understanding of, this important matter should be respected.
I am afraid it is too late to influence the Government at this stage. We shall have to face rejection by another place. We shall all have to acclimatise ouselves to that unfortunate fact. However, I offer a suggesion which I hope the Government can take up between now and the next election—and the sooner the better; that is, whether they would reconsider the policy of indexing this benefit in return for bringing it into tax.
I know that such a provision would not please the purists on child benefit. I do not regard myself as a purist on this matter. I believe that an immense amount of confidence would accrue in the nation if the Government would only agree to keep child benefit, and to see that it does not fall behind like the death grant and become a derisory figure. I do not believe that would be a respectable posture for the Government to take concerning child benefit. Instead I believe there is a good deal to be said for bringing the benefit into tax. I offer that suggestion for the future, if not immediately.
As regards the mobility allowance, like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I seek from the Government something more definite than their figure of 100,000 which none of us finds to be credible, especially when we have been told by the experts that the number is between 4,000 and 5,000. That is too big a discrepancy to be credible. There is a credibility gap here. We need to be reassured by the Government that their figure of 100,000 is not right, and that the figure is much nearer the one those who supported the amendment consider to be right.
Finally, I wish to speak about the ombudsman. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has been very patient with me for over a year now. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sitting in his place It was something like 15 months ago, during the passage of the previous Social Security Bill, that the noble Lord was in his place and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, raised this matter as to whether or not social fund officers were or were not subject to the parliamentary commissioner. In an intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said he was quite sure that the social fund officers were subject to the parliamentary commissioner.
Like the Minister himself and the noble Lord, we had all assumed that social fund officers were subject to the parliamentary commissioner. It is natural that they should be so. However, after six months of consideration by the noble Lord and the department, I received a Written Answer to the effect that neither they nor the social fund inspectors were subject to the parliamentary commissioner.
I have challenged that statement in the House at various stages. On the last occasion, I asked the Minister two questions which were perhaps rather fast and which he was not able to answer at the time. Does he agree that it is a question of statute which
614
officers are, and which officers are not, to be subject to the parliamentary commissioner? Should it not be a matter for an independent judge to determine, rather than the department concerned or the Civil Service? It cannot be right either for the department or the Civil Service to be judge in its own cause.
My second question arises to a certain extent out of the first. The noble Lord's reason for excluding social fund officers from the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commisioner was that they were to be treated like—
Lord Skelmersdale: Adjudication officers.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Adjudicators have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner. As the social fund officers were akin to them, they too have been excluded. I ask again my question to which I am sure the noble Lord will now have an answer. Who made that decision about the adjudicators and in what circumstances? Was it made by judicial authority or by the Civil Service Department? This matter is not just of local importance. It is not confined to the Department of Social Security and to this category of officer. It is a matter of general public importance. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say in reply.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench on the hard work they have put in. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Jeger on the hard work she always puts in on this subject. She made a very moving speech at Second Reading. It was rather sad that the press, who mentioned everybody else, did not mention her splendid speech, so I should like to put that on the record now.
We congratulate the Minister. He has carried through this unpopular measure with his usual skill. I was a little concerned that he referred to his successor. I hope that he is not being reshuffled or placed somewhere else as he carries great skill to all his work. I can say nothing good about the Bill except in one connection. I have to be generous in this regard. For about 20 years I have attacked all governments—including governments of my own party when I was a back-bencher—about the earnings rule. It has taken this Government to remove the earnings rule.
When I was still working at the age of 60, I retained the widow's pension because the earnings rule did not apply to it. I can assure the House that, while I collected the widow's pension while earning, under our fiscal system all of it went back to the state. So why we worry about people getting too much out of any government is laughable. All governments have a way of getting the money back if they think one is getting too much. Now that there is a shortage of younger people, the over-50s and over-60s are the best things since sliced bread. They are to be begged to come back to work. It is absolutely right that their earnings should at least be their own property.
If I read the Bill correctly—under this Government I am always a little nervous if I read

615
something that is an improvement—a widow who is over 40 but under 55 will receive benefit. Previously, she would have to be over 45. That must be good. We in the women's organisations have fought for this change for many years. I congratulate the Government on those two points.
The rest of the Bill saddens me. I have just received a touching letter from a lady which says, "Thank God"—it happens to be from a member of my own religion, but that is by the way—"some people are fighting still for the poor". We should continue to fight for the poor and the deprived in our society.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while I do not believe in repeating the arguments that have been made at previous stages, nor indeed in advancing those that may still have to be deployed, I can confidently say that we have had an excellent series of debates over the past couple of months on practically every area of the social security system. The short debate which we have just had on the Motion, That the Bill do now Pass, is no exception.
In spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, calls the disparate nature of the Bill, discussion has certainly ranged much wider than its contents. I have no quarrel with that. It is right and proper that such important issues should be debated. Nevertheless, this has been a difficult Bill, and our debates have been characterised by noble Lords wishing to push the government in directions where we do not wish to go; not ever, but not now. At a previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, summed this up by calling it the "doctrine of unripe time". And that for two reasons.
The first is the series of OPCS reports, whose publication was not completed when amendments were made. The data tapes—whenever this happens and I understand that it is imminent indeed—will take rather longer to analyse. The second is that, however worthy the causes espoused by your Lordships, they could, if taken to extremes—which in the form proposed by the House they usually could be—cost a total of about £800 million. That is a tidy sum, amounting to almost 2 per cent. of the social security budget, which is totally unplanned. It may be that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will spring to mind when I make this point. While I am thinking of my noble friend, I should say that I for one recognise her campaigning attitude which is so much appreciated in many quarters.
Unplanned government expenditure leads, as we all know, to inflation. Yes, we must look at costs but that, as I said to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter earlier this afternoon, need not always be an overriding consideration. Your Lordships must conclude for yourselves what effect an inflation rate of 8.3 per cent. should have on our decisions at any point in time.
So, inevitably, I have been characterised as Shylock; not in so many words, but the unspoken thought is there. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose knowledge of Sir William Beveridge and his plans of 47 years ago I respect, that neither of them in their wildest dreams would have believed that the welfare state would evolve to
616
the point it has, with benefits split almost 50:50 between non-contributory and contributory ones.
How pleased the noble Earl's boss would have been that one of his few failures—the 1948 Act compromise—had been abolished 40 years later; how pleased he would have been that his contributory social insurance scheme would cost only 86p a week to enter at the lower earnings limit. The figure in 1948 terms was almost 25p a week, which only goes to show what inflation has done over the past 40 years. It was not cheap, but ordinary decent men and women working at levels that are scarcely above income support will, from October, see their contributions fall by a totally planned massive £2,750 million in a full year, at the same time as we have abolished the Treasury supplement. That is no mean achievement, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. That is why I am proud of the Bill.
I am also proud to have introduced a measure to this House which abolishes the earnings rule for pensioners. I must say that I would not describe my noble friend as having crocodile tears but I understand the point he made. I am also proud to have helped the House by agreeing on behalf of the Government to two matters which have concerned your Lordships; namely, removing the six months' qualifying period of attendance allowance for the terminally ill and doubling the statutory disregard in housing benefit for war pensioners.
I am grateful to my noble friends the Duke of Norfolk and Lady Gardner of Parkes for drawing those two matters to the attention of your Lordships. They will not have long to wait for their desires to be realised. However, I cannot project the same as regards the two amendments which were carried against the Government.
I have been asked why I made what some noble Lords regard as a strange remark in answer to an intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which I think took place on Report. He asked why we had to get the Bill on the statute book by 30th July of this year. The Bill is made up of a whole series of measures—a point which has not been lost on me. One of them is embodied in the current Clause 24, which reads:
"Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of implementing the directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 24th July 1986".
Unfortunately, by signing up to that directive, we obligated ourselves to act within three years of signature. Had your Lordships decided that this was the only part of the Bill which actually mattered and had a whole series of amendments been tabled to leave out all the other clauses and schedules in the Bill, that would have been a matter entirely for your Lordships. But I, for one, was not going to suggest such a course of action.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked me about the position of former prisoners and those people who are in financial difficulties because benefit is paid two weeks in arrears. Of course, former prisoners, and people in similar situations, can obtain crisis loans from the social fund to tide them over until normal income support is paid.

617
Incidentally, a point I did not make earlier to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that lone parents do not have to be available for work in order to receive income support, not less, actively seek it.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is quite right. We have indeed had a running—I would not call it a battle—discussion on the subject of the ombudsman. I am not sure that I can satisfy him even today at this late stage of the Bill's proceedings. However, I am perfectly content—if he is—to continue the discussion as long as is necessary.
I have two points to make on the matter. First, the ombudsman does not have to be a judge. Therefore, it is not necessarily a judicial decision which is made in ombudsman cases. Secondly, Section 5(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 expressly precludes the Parliamentary Commissioner from examining cases where the aggrieved applicant has the right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal constituted by, or under, any other enactment.
Further, it excludes the Parliamentary Commissioner from conducting investigations where an aggrieved person has, or had, a remedy by way of proceedings in a court. As I understand it, that is why adjudication officers are excluded from the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner. As regards the issue of who made the decision, I think we should have to delve back into the Hansard of 1967 when the Act was put on the statute book. I say that because the matter is enshrined in the 1967 Act.
I think that I have answered enough points for the present. I should finally like to thank all noble Lords on all sides of the House who have spoken sometimes in support and at others in contradiction of the Government, and sometimes from the same mouth. Alas, they are too numerous to mention.
The firmness and good humour of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is something I have always appreciated. I hope that I shall be able to continue to do so for some time in the future. The good temper with which our debates have been conducted is due in large part to her. I admire the way in which her new amanuensis, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has turned her hand to the intricacies of social security law. That remark is also appropriate to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, although he will appreciate that as the Bill has passed through its various stages I have had a growing sympathy with Henry II. I only hope that it has not shown too much.
Last, but by no means least, I should like to express my grateful thanks to my personal Puck, spinning, good humouredly, as my noble friend Lord Henley has, in a girdle from sides to middle of the Chamber in less than 20 seconds. For myself, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has made the point: if you prick me, do I not bleed?
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Transport (Scotland) Bill
6.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
As no amendments have been tabled at this stage of the Bill's proceedings, I should like to remind noble Lords of the main purposes of the legislation. The first is to make provision for the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to draw up a disposal programme for this purpose. In doing so, his main objective will be to promote sustained and fair competition in the bus industry.
Deregulation has introduced a competitive market and has made bus operators more efficient and responsive to their customers. Bus services have been increased and new types of service, such as minibuses, have been introduced. Rural services have been broadly maintained. There is therefore no reason to delay completion of the process of ending public ownership and control in the industry. We wish to replace a large, dominant public sector bus operator with nine independent operating companies, together with Scottish Citylink and the SBG Engineering company.
A second objective of privatisation is to encourage wider share ownership in the bus industry. Noble Lords will by now be familiar with the measures we intend to take to promote employee participation. We shall be giving financial assistance with the development of a management-employee bid in each company. I am encouraged by the interest which is already being shown by management and employees in the subsidiary companies in developing bids. We shall also give a preference, when considering bids, to those where the shareholding arrangements provide for a significant element to, be held by employees. We hope that these measures will not only increase share ownership but will also help to further the competition objective by enabling independent locally based companies which are responsive to local needs to be established.
Whatever the shareholding arrangements, however, no overriding preference can be given irrespective of the price offered. The Government will require to account properly for the disposal of the bus companies which are public assets and a bid will only have a good chance of success if a realistic price is offered.
The Bill provides for a statutory disposal programme to be drawn up. This will be published. The programme will set out the units to be offered for sale, the timetable and the arrangements for inviting and considering bids, including the basis on which a preference will be given to bids involving significant employee participation. Other matters will include the safeguards to be applied to property disposals—a subject which has exercised many noble Lords during the passage of the Bill—and on preventing a single buyer from purchasing too many bus companies, both of which are matters the Government take most seriously. The disposal

619
programme will also deal with pensions and employee travel concessions arrangements.
It is not yet certain when the disposal programme will be published or when sales will begin. The disposal programme will however be published as soon as possible after the legislation comes into force. On this basis it is likely that offers of companies for sale will begin around the end of the year, and we would expect the disposal programme to take about a year to complete.
The other main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the transfer of the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne to the Secretary of State. The decision that Caledonian MacBrayne should become a company owned in the first instance by the Secretary of State reflects the fact that it is a company providing life line ferry services on the west coast of Scotland which, taken overall, are not profitable and require a subsidy of about £6 million a year
A new board for the company will be appointed consisting of around six to nine members. They will have a wide spread of commercial and shipping experience and will include some people with first hand knowledge of the islands served. The Government will wish island residents to be among those appointed to the board. No options for the longer term will be ruled out from consideration by the new board but there is an overriding proviso that any future arrangements must ensure that at least the present quality of service to the islands is maintained.
The board will, in the first instance, be asked to look at the possibility of transferring the Gourrock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay services to the private sector. It will also be asked to consider whether the ferry company's headquarters might be moved closer to its main area of operation.
In Committee we made four small but necessary amendments to ensure that the Bill can achieve its objectives. Once the bus companies have been disposed of and Caledonian MacBrayne has been transferred to the Secretary of State's ownership the Scottish Transport Group will be wound up.
The Bill is an important measure for the people of Scotland. It will lead to more competition in the bus industry and an opportunity for those who work in it to seek to participate in its ownership. It will enable a new board to be appointed for Caledonian MacBrayne with the power to re-examine the basis of the company's operations to see how they can be improved to the benefit of the islands.
In conclusion, I should like to put on record my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Their contributions during the Bill's passage have been carefully studied by myself and my colleagues. I warmly thank them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for piloting the Bill through the House, he knows that the measure is not popular on this side of the House. We have grave doubts about whether it is the proper way to go about
620
improving services in Scotland. But the Minister has been most patient in his explanations and in his attempts to satisfy us on some of the points we raised.
As the Minsiter said, the Bill has a number of purposes involving the privatisation and disposal of the assets of the Scottish Transport Group. He suggested that competition would be the saviour of the Scottish bus industry. We do not know enough about that yet. We had deregulation some time ago: it is undoubtedly working well in some areas. In other areas it is not working as well. I am sure that the Minister's attention has been drawn to the comments made recently by the CBI in Scotland. It feels that although there may be a number of buses on the roads, there is insufficient timetabling and knowledge of where the buses are going. Those are points that we made during the Bill's passage.
Mr. Davis, chairman of the CBI in Scotland, made the point that the buses merely stated, "We are going your way". That is not terribly helpful unless everyone on the bus is going in the same direction. That is the type of thing that is happening. I do not know which bus is going where in Glasgow. I do not know the route. I may know that it is going from Milngavie to Easterhouse, but I do not know whether it is going down Broomielaw, Sauchiehall Street or where. If I get on at an intermediate stop, it is difficult to find out where the bus is going. I hope that the new companies will pay attention to that.
The mini-buses have so far been a success. As the Minister is probably aware, there has been great scepticism throughout the bus industry for the past 10 to 15 years about the viability of mini buses. I was convinced that mini buses had great disadvantages. We do not know whether a proper mini bus has yet been evolved. It must be one that will last the pace. That is the big question. An ordinary bus or coach would be good for 15 years, but we have not had 15 years to test whether mini buses can last the pace. If they do not, the capital side of the equation will be considerably damaged.
I support wider share ownership to an extent. I am worried when employees put all their nest egg in the same company. That is always a great danger. It means that they will probably try harder, but when the winds of change inevitably blow they may lose everything. That is always a worry.
I am glad that the Minister took to heart the points made by myself by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, about realistic prices and, in particular, safeguards for property. As the Minister is aware, we have a fairly agile and investigative press in Scotland, and that point is something we shall be watching with great care.
The Minister said that he hoped that one buyer would not have too many companies under its control at the end of the day. I am worried about the interpretation of "too many". He knows the type of groups about which I am speaking. It is something we obviously need to be careful about. From the information I have received from employees, it would seem that the pension arrangements are reasonably acceptable. I hope that that is the case.

621
We all know in Scotland how vital CalMac is despite the fact that it is regarded as a benevolent Aunt Sally by everyone on the west coast of Scotland. It is such a vital lifeline that it must improve rather than reduce the services it gives to the islands.
I have much less experience than anyone living in the islands, but as someone who uses the service frequently I do not believe that it is too bad. It may be that I have a lowlander's romantic view on boarding a CalMac boat to the Western Isles. I am glad that the Minister and the Secretary of State have taken it upon themselves to ensure that the service and the quality will be maintained and, if possible, enhanced as time goes on.
Whether the headquarters are in Gourock or Oban is something that I am sure the Minister and the Secretary of State will examine carefully. I have no preference so long as the service is maintained.
Although we have not spent as much time on the Bill as we should have liked due to the psychological pressure that there is on us at the end of the Session to ensure that we get things through, we have done a reasonably good job in obtaining assurances from the Minister. We sharpened up the points made in another place and throughout Scotland to which the Minister and the Secretary of State will have to pay heed as the privatisation and the disposal go ahead. In the meantime, I again thank the Minister and all those who have helped put through the Bill.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may make a short intervention. As I see that the people dealing with the Irish business tonight are now in their places, I can be brief. Whether they will be is a different matter. It is normal in your Lordships' House for transport matters to be dealt with by about four people, two of whom are here tonight. It is nice to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, to transport discussions. I am grateful to the House for having made me an honorary Scot for the purpose of the Bill. I have not found it necessary to call for simultaneous translation at any stage, for which I am most grateful.
I wish to add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for the way in which the Minister has dealt with the questions brought forward during the course of the Bill. I do not pretend that this is a Bill which we regard with glee. I believe that it contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. But only time will tell. I suspect that the price will have to be paid by the people of Scotland. However, we shall see what happens in due time when it will be no help for anyone to say, "We told you so".
A couple of points have emerged which are of benefit, one of them to my honourable friend in another place, Mrs. Michie. As I said at an earlier stage, my honourable friend is pleased that jobs will go to Oban, although that is not universally supported throughout the length and breadth of this House nor throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
Secondly, the employee shareholding has been dealt with in a way which I believe to be much better
622
than in the English version of the Bill. I hope that the Government have learnt something from the traumas which we had when the Bill was going through the House and from subsequent experiences.
In relation to asset stripping, dealt with at some considerable length in the course of the Bill, I am most grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has offered reassurance. I hope that what he has said will transpire. As we have said several times asset stripping has been a serious problem in England. It would be a great mistake if asset stripping were allowed to take place and if facilities for passengers were reduced simply in order to put money into the kitty for the large companies which may eventually build up monopolies in this field.
Having said that, I am most grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill and for the courteous manner in which he has dealt with all our questions. Reluctantly, we shall allow him to push the Bill on its way.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and Lord Tordoff. I am very glad to welcome the latter as an honorary Scot for the purposes of passing the Bill through. First, perhaps I may deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—particularly local bus services and the timetabling thereof. The department involved, the Scottish Development Department, is concerned about this. We are looking at possible ways of improving the situation. It may be that CSLA will be able to bring together the transport authoritites and bus operators to discuss how the improvement can be achieved. We have invited them to consider the suggestion to see whether we can make some improvement.
I am glad that the noble Lord welcomed the minibus services which are becoming very popular, particularly since they can penetrate housing areas with frequent services. Although minibuses have a shorter life than conventional buses, operators appear to find them operationally satisfactory. We believe that this is a very satisfactory situation.
As regards pensioners, I am glad that the noble Lord also seemed to get the impression that employees were satisfied. I understand that meetings of the members of the STG pension schemes have approved changes in the rules of the pension schemes to protect the interests of members. That is also very satisfactory.
As concerns the location of the headquarters, I made it very clear that the role of the new board would be to decide where the headquarters would be. I shall not enter into discussion on whether Gourock or Oban should be the place. However, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was tempting me to do so.
Perhaps our most important achievement during the passage of the Bill through the house has been to underline the importance that we all attach to employee participation. I understand the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that for those who put all their savings into the company for which they work it could be

623
detrimental. However it is important that employees should be given a chance at least to put some of their savings into the business in which they work. We hope that it will be possible in many cases in Scotland.
I am sure that if the noble Lord studies what I said in answer to his questions at earlier stages in regard to those companies which may well win the various contracts, he will know that the Government share the feeling that we do not want too much of this industry in Scotland to be under the control of a few people. I have nothing else to say other than to reiterate my thanks to noble Lords who have taken part.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
6.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene at this stage but I wish to make one or two comments to your Lordships about the way in which this Bill has proceeded. It is an extremely complex Bill of considerable importance, with 55 clauses. The Government and the Opposition tabled 75 amendments at Committee.
We were told in Committee that the stage would last for about two hours. In point of fact it lasted for seven hours. Naturally we did not receive the Hansard for that debate, which ended at 10.20 p.m., until Friday morning, which was the deadline for amendments to be tabled. On Monday—this evening—we have the Report stage, for which there are 69 amendments. Finally we shall have Third Reading at dinner time on Thursday. It seems to me that with so complex a Bill and one which involves the definition of certain ideas or notions which are extremely difficult—ideas such as indirect discrimination, in all its manifestations—we require a little more time in which to consider the amendments after we have received those tabled by the Government. I say this as a preliminary only because I believe that we have not really had the opportunity to give the Bill the proper consideration which it deserves.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has just said. I think what is being done is quite extraordinary, since there is already a system of fair employment in being. It is not as though it were a new concept and had to be rushed through and brought into force before the Summer Recess for any reason that I can see in the Bill itself.
So far as I am concerned, I have been unable, because of the pressure, to follow up several of the points which I made at Committee stage since I
624
could not obtain the amendments in time to put them down. I think it is quite disgraceful of the Government to rush a Bill of this nature which could well have gone through to the spillover period. They should have given us a chance to tackle this stage of the Bill early in October. That would have given us lots of time in which to get its measure.
I believe that the Government themselves cannot, when they allowed so little time for the Committee stage, have realised that there were so many points on which many Members on both sides of the House would have views which they would like to have inserted into the Bill to make it tidy and straight.
As I said earlier, if the Bill is not tidy and straight, it is, because of its nature, very unlikely to work as effectively as we all wish. I believe that the Government have probably made a very big mistake in trying to rush it through the House. I am extremely distressed that I have to say this to my noble friend the Minister; I know he is doing his best. It seems such a shame to make a mess of a Bill of this nature.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I rise in support of what the noble Lords have just said. The Minister may demur but I have an obligation to people in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may say that, when he opened the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord himself said that this was a most complex Bill. I find no fault with the noble Lord, but personally I am in an awful dilemma—and I know that other Members of your Lordships' House share that dilemma—in that we wish to give our full support to the Bill. We think it enshrines an important principle. We have supported the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the principles that he has announced on the Bill. We felt that by participating in it we could improve it and at least let the people in Northern Ireland see that we were paying attention to this crucial piece of legislation that is before this House. We have not had that opportunity and that is what I am protesting about.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to support the strong and dignified protest voiced by the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Mottistone, and by my noble friend Lord Blease. We fully appreciate that the timetable of this House is extremely tight and crowded at this time of the year. We accept that. However, this Bill is immensely important for the people of Northern Ireland and for the future of that Province. That Province presents this country with its most acute economic, social and constitutional problems.
This highly complex Bill has been on the way since last December. Surely it should not have been beyond the wit of the business managers to arrange for adequate time to be given to your Lordships to consider the amendments tabled by the Government between Committee and Report and, no doubt, between Report and Third Reading.
Some of the amendments are, of course, technical, but many are of great significance. I agree with my noble friends that we have not been given adequate time to reflect on the amendments and to consult

625
upon them. Indeed I think it is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and I were here on Friday so that we could have an exchange of views about the amendments, and so that we could consider what amendments we should table. I think it is also fair to say that we came along late last night in order to be here early today to attend to the amendments. In the difficulties we are now expressing lies the case for devolution of Government to Northern Ireland. I shall say no more except that, obviously, I support the protests which have been voiced by my colleagues.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it falls to me to reply to the opening comments of all noble Lords who have spoken. I understood that the arrangements for the Bill we are discussing, and which have aroused fairly strong emotions in your Lordships' House, had been arranged through the usual channels. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will accept that when I was in his position I rose exactly 11 years ago to make a powerful intervention. I was told that the arrangements had been made through the usual channels. I had a fairly lively conversation with my own Chief Whip.
However, if there has been inconvenience I apologise for my part. Nevertheless, I think that the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, and all noble Lords who have studied this Bill, which as the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease, will be aware, started in another place last November, was discussed in considerable detail and took a fair time to go through another place, will realise that I mean no discourtesy to your Lordships' House when I say that many of the amendments I moved at an earlier stage, and which I shall be moving today, are reasonably technical. I think your Lordships will see there are quite a few amendments standing in the joint names of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, and myself. Many of the amendments which were moved by myself are in response to points which have been raised and to commitments which have been given both here and in another place.
However, the timing has been tight. It has also caused the Government considerable effort. We do not complain about that as that is entirely a matter for your Lordships' House. However, I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is a matter for the usual channels. I apologise to noble Lords who have spoken, but I cannot give a chapter and verse explanation of the negotiations that took place through the usual channels before the arrangements regarding the Bill that is before us this evening were agreed.
I know that there are a number of provisions still to be discussed. As regards my noble friend Lord Mottistone, we mean no discourtesy. But I believe that, thanks to the great amount of work that has been done in another place as well as in your Lordships' House, we have the Bill as near right as we can get it. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, may just give a hint of dissent, but this Bill goes back to and is still building upon an Act which was
626
brought in by the Government supported by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Indeed, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who was in my position at the time. I shall refrain from referring to all that was done at the time. Nevertheless, we believe this is the time to act, and that there is urgency. Perhaps I can explain at a later stage, not necessarily in your Lordships' House, the good reasons why we believe it is important that this Bill should proceed to the statute book as swiftly as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report received.
Clause 2 [Constitution of the Tribunal]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("Department") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would transfer from the local Department of Economic Development to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the power granted in Clause 2 of the Bill, which is a power to draw up regulations governing the constitutional tribunal. In the event of this amendment being acceptable to the House, the other regulation-making powers granted elsewhere in the Bill should also be transferred to the Secretary of State.
I believe that the case for this amendment rests on three main grounds. First, for reasons that we advocated in Committee and which have been partly accepted by the Government, the tribunal should be and be seen to be separate from and independent of the Department of Economic Development. Given the role of the DED in other spheres, it could well have a role which could be in conflict with the role of the commission and the tribunal, and could be in conflict with its duties within the field of equal opportunity. That being a possibility—some would say it is more than a possibility—it would be unreasonable to place the Department of Economic Development in the position where it had this role conflict. On the other hand, it would be equally unreasonable to expect the role of the commission and the tribunal to be compromised because of the relationship of the commission to the department. That is the first reason.
Secondly, the Department of Economic Development should not position itself between the Secretary of State and the commission. We believe that the commission should be directly answerable to the Secretary of State with direct access to him at any time the chairman of the commission wishes. Indeed, I should mention that the Fair Employment Agency and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are already very critical of the excessive delegation of power to the Department of Economic Development in this area of policy.
Then there is a third reason. There is a considerable body of opinion which is highly critical of the basic attitude of the Department of Economic Development towards the fair employment legislation. I would add, from my short experience with this Bill, that the department's performance does not inspire any confidence in its capacity or its

627
competency, let alone its commitment to the policy of fair employment.
We have seen that it is a department which on this issue speaks with many voices, and often with conflicting voices. We have seen that it giveth with some amendments and it taketh away with other amendments; and so one has very little confidence in the ability of the Department of Economic Development to give the steering, guidance and support that the commission will need. For those three reasons in particular—there may be others—we strongly urge the House to give its support to this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is fully seized, in introducing the amendment as he has, with the fact that transferring the oversight of the commission to the Secretary of State might be seen by some people in Northern Ireland as transferring control, as it were, from people in Northern Ireland to people in England. Certainly that view has been expressed to me. It would mean that the commission was even more independent and not under any more governmental control than it already is. This might mean that it was more difficult to deal with.
Your Lordships will know from what has been said in the earlier stages of this Bill that the agency has been under great stress from employers in Northern Ireland and they fear that conditions might be worse for the commission. They would prefer to have control, if it is to be governmental control, sited in Northern Ireland, rather than in Westminster. I am just saying that I am not at all happy with this amendment, but I cannot go any further at this stage.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, this amendment is really the logical extension of one moved in Committee, whereby the president of the commission was appointed by the Lord Chancellor rather than by the Department of Economic Development. The reason put forward by those of us who supported that amendment was our belief that the commission required the highest esteem possible. It needed to be independent of government.
There were also the precedents of similar bodies in this country that one could recall, such as the Race Relations Board, the Equal Opportunities Commission and even the BBC, among others. All these quangos, so called, in my experience, are responsible to a minister to whom they have direct access. They are not the creatures of a department or sub-departments
I cannot quite understand why the Government, who so wisely accepted our amendment in Committee and have taken on board the proposal to have the president and vice-president appointed by the Lord Chancellor, did not see that this particular clause has no logic in it. The obvious person to whom the commission should be responsible is the Secretary of State and it follows from the amendment which they themselves accepted. I very much hope they will follow the precedent set in Committee and will accept this sensible amendment, which is based on a long tradition.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment with reason and good sense. But there are one or two elements, which have just been touched on by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, which are not central to the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Prys-Davies.
Under the system of direct rule, which is what we have at the moment in connection with Northern Ireland, all Northern Ireland departments, by virtue of the Northern Ireland Act of 1974, exercise their functions under the direction and control of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 1 would thus make no practical difference in present circumstances, because of the manner in which direct rule operates.
Moreover, the amendment also contains the potential for some future confusion in the event of devolution because, by virtue of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973, the subject of fair employment is a transferred matter and, in the event of devolution, it would therefore become the responsibility of a devolved administration. This amendment would cut across that particular aspect and thus it would be constitutionally inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be given primary responsibility for the transferred matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also hinted that there was a lack of trust in the part of perhaps some of your Lordships and also of some people in Northern Ireland in the commitment, as well as the integrity, of members of the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland. That is, of course, the department which is responsible for this Bill. I am also aware that a considerable number of unjustifiable and, above all, unsubstantiated suggestions have been made in another place that the Department of Economic Development had been less enthusiastic about this legislation than they might perhaps have been.
I should like to put on record that these suggestions are wholly without foundation, because the entire Northern Ireland Civil Service sets a fine example of an active policy of equal opportunity in its own field, and has shown the way to others by its very excellent system of monitoring. Above all, the Department of Economic Development, in particular, has spared no effort to ensure that a comprehensive and effective piece of legislation was prepared for consideration not only in your Lordships' House but also in another place.
I cannot accept suggestions that there has been any sort of problem over the integrity of a large number of competent and energetic officials in any Northern Ireland department, who have worked extremely hard to assist my right honourable friend in another place, let alone myself in piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House. I want to pay my tribute to all members of the department of Economic Development and their colleagues in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, as well as in the Northern Ireland Office, for the commitment, the determination and the industry with which they have pursued the legislation which is now before us.

629
I believe that the tone of my remarks is shared by those of your Lordships who believe that the Bill before us now is particularly important: it is timely and it is very necessary for Northern Ireland. Given the thrust of my second argument, in addition to what I have said about the constitutional position in the first place, I have to tell your Lordships that I fear we cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I rise to comment on one of the matters that the Minister has explained; namely, that the legislation is under the direct rule arrangements. The Standing Advisory Commission was set up under a Bill from the Westminster Parliament. While the Minister has explained some of the constitutional problems arising out of that, he went on to infer that in the House there was some severe criticism of the department and other departments of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
Certainly I am aware that there is criticism generally in Northern Ireland about all Ministers and departments, but those are political stances taken by particular people. I have not heard from this side of the House criticism of the way in which the Minister echoed it—if that is the proper word to use—in his statement from his Benches. If there were anything with that inference displayed, mentioned or portrayed in the remarks, I have not come across it by any means in the manner in which matters concerning the Bill have been debated in this House.
Notwithstanding the constitutional matters mentioned by the Minister, I believe that there is room for the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, that it should not be the Minister for the department but the Secretary of State. I think that that would be in keeping with the legislation that is enacted in Northern Ireland in terms of the present constitutional arrangements in the statutes.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Blease, would just forgive me, there is a rule that on Report one does not speak after the government spokesman has replied. I thought that it was important for us to hear what the noble Lord had to say. His knowledge of Northern Ireland is pre-eminent in this House and it was right that he should intervene. However, if the House will forgive me for intervening, I thought that I ought to make that point as we are at the beginning of the Report stage. There is an exception in our Standing Orders to that rule; namely, when a Minister rises and says that he believes that it is for the asistance of the House to intevene early. Otherwise, there is the rule not to speak after the government spokesman. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for making that point.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I stand corrected. However, on other occasions I have heard the Minister respond by leave of the House and I expected that he would do so on this occasion.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, very briefly, with the leave of the House, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will have heard his noble friend mention that
630
there had been disquiet about the Department of Economic Development. That is why I gave the reply that I did. However, I am not able to add anything more to my comments about the constitutional position. There is that snag over the constitutional position and that is one of the main reasins why we cannot accept this amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it in order for me to say at Report stage "Before the noble Lord sits down"?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it depends on how skilfully the noble Baroness does it. She generally intervenes very skilfully.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that he really did not reply to what I think was a very important point made by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. I know that the noble lord will realise that he speaks as one with very considerable experience of commissions. It is a very great help to someone who is responsible for a commission to have direct access to the Secretary of State. It has nothing to do with criticism of officials. It is simply that, when running a commission, it is a great help to have the right to go direct to the Secretary of State. My noble friend found that to be the case when he was running the Race Relations Commission. It is not a political point; it is an administrative point, so to speak. Perhaps the noble Lord would comment?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I suspect it will be for the last time—perhaps I may briefly reply. My noble friend on my right, who is the Leader of your Lordships' House, is at the moment making kind noises but I would not wish to push his tolerance, let alone that of your Lordships, much further. I mentioned the second part of my comments. I am sure that the noble Baroness heard the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, make one or two points on comments that he had heard about the effectiveness of the Department of Economic Development. Otherwise, I should not have taken up your Lordships' time n making that point. I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the noble Baroness's noble friend. However, I have to say that, important though the points raised by the noble Baroness are, I am afraid that it is the constitutional argument that precludes acceptances of this amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Blease for having supported the amendments as they did. It occurred to me that if this amendment were acceptable to the House it would go a long way toward enhancing the status of the legislation and that of the commission, since there would be a commission which is directly answerable to the Secretary of State.
I am gratified that the Minister has not attempted to resist the amendment on the grounds advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. He rejected the amendment basically because it would pose problems in the event of an assembly being

631
established in Northern Ireland. That is something that may happen at some time in the indefinite future. From these Benches we would welcome very much an assembly being established at an early date.
But that is for the future. Our immediate task is to ensure that this legislation is working effectively in Northern Ireland. If this function is to be transferred to the Secretary of State, it will be for the government of the day to consider in a transfer order whether or not that function should be transferred to the Northern Ireland assembly. That is a matter which has to be considered if and when an assembly is established. It is not an issue that presents itself to the House today. Therefore we say from these Benches that the Minister's reply is misconceived.
We come back to our amendment. We think it important that the commission should be seen to be answerable to the Secretary of State. This is a sensitive area of policy and, at the end of the day, we believe that some of the issues that call for political judgment should be ultimately the responsibility of the Secretary of State and not the Civil Service head of a local department in Northern Ireland.
We have many hours of work ahead of us this evening. I do not think that I can add to the arguments that have been advanced in support of the amendment. We believe that this is a valid amendment and we invite the House to support it.
6.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L

Bonham-Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Temorfa, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mountevans, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilbracken, L.

632

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Braye, B.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Norfolk, D.

Caldecote, V.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Carnock, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cowley, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Craigton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stockton, E.

Faithfull, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
Clause 3 [The President]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("be") to ("by") in line 20 and insert—

("(a) a President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the President"),

(b) a Vice-President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the Vice-President"), and

(c) a panel of chairmen of the Fair Employment Tribunal, who shall each be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall exercise the functions respectively conferred on them").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be relevant to speak to a number of others. I move the amendment in reply to a promise that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, during the Second Reading in your Lordships' House. At that stage he expressed the view—which had already been canvassed in another place—that because the tribunal is independent of the Government, it was inappropriate for its president to be appointed by a government department. Since there are a number of amendments touching on this point, perhaps I could take this opportunity to set out their general background.
The reasons why the Bill as drafted vests this appointment in the department was largely

633
pragmatic, in that industrial tribunal appointments are made in this way. The existing president of Industrial Tribunals is appointed by the department, and since this post forms the basis for the new combined office of president of both tribunals, there was a practical argument for continuing the arrangement. There was also the fact that, in the event of a devolution of powers to a domestic administration in Northern Ireland, fair employment would pass to local control. It seemed appropriate, therefore, that arrangements for such an important issue as appointments to the tribunal should be subject to some degree of continuity.
Having made the decision that the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal should be appointed by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, it was logical to carry this through to the subordinate appointments. The vice-president of the tribunal and the panel of chairmen will also be drawn from a background of legal experience, and their appointment by my noble and learned friend will confirm their independence, and enhance the status and authority of these posts. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we very much welcome Amendment No. 2 and the subsequent amendments. They give effect to the promise made by the Minister in Committee that this power to appoint the president should be transferred to the Lord Chancellor. We are satisfied that this amendment, and the others in the same vein will strengthen and improve the Bill.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I saw a sign of assent from the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 15:
Page 2, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("a") and insert ("A person is not qualified for appointment under subsection (1) above unless he is").
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("may") and insert ("and Vice-President may each").
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("Department and shall") and insert ("Lord Chancellor and shall each").
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("Department, the President") and insert ("Lord Chancellor, the President or Vice-President").
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("Department") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
("(4A) A person appointed under subsection (1)(c) above to a panel of chairmen shall hold and vacate office as provided by or under regulations under section 2(1) of this Act.").
Page 2, line 30, after ("President") insert ("or Vice-President").
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("Department") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Page 2, line 34, after ("President") insert ("and Vice-President").
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("in accordance with the regulations") and insert ("under subsection (1)(c) above").
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)(a) above").
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("In") and insert ("For").
Page 2, leave out line 41 and insert ("there is substituted—
"(a) the President and Vice-President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal;" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments and as series of others confirm what I set out when I spoke to Amendment No. 2. Briefly they deal with the president, the vice-president and the chairman to be appointed to the tribunal. They follow Amendment No. 2 and fulfil a number of different purposes.
Your Lordships would not wish me to go on for too long. If there are any individual queries that noble Lords might wish to raise, I should be happy to answer then. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Remuneration and allowances]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 43, after ("President") insert ("and Vice-President").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Complaints involving matters within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunal]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 22, after ("President") insert ("or Vice-President").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Undertaking following investigation under section 11]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 19, at end insert—
("(6) This section applies—

(a) to a minister of the Crown or a government department or a person acting for purposes of such a Minister or department; or

(b) a member of Her Majesty's armed forces acting as such; or

(c) any other person acting on behalf of the Crown being a statutory body or a person holding statutory office; or

(d) the police authority for Northern Ireland or the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary,

as it applies to any persons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the public bodies named in it are subject to the provisions of the Bill in the same way as private employers. It is fair to say that the need for the amendment was made out by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, at Second Reading when he argued persuasively that the solution to the problem is as much the responsibility of the public as of the private sector.
As the law stands, the commission can investigate any of the bodies referred to in the amendment. At the conclusion of the investigation, if the evidence so warrants, the commission can decide that further action is required on the part of the organisation or body to promote equality of opportunity. However, if that body or organisation fails to give an undertaking or to comply with an undertaking which

635
it has given, the commission has no power to bring that body before the tribunal. In other words the commission has no enforcement mechanism available to it.
The amendment will not establish a precedent. Under the race and sex discrimination legislation in Britain, public and private sector employers are treated in this respect on the basis of equality. It is rather significant that the Department of Economic Development, which is the body responsible for drafting the legislation, has allowed an extension for itself by failing to amend Section 50 of the 1976 Act. We thought that the department should apply to itself the medicine that it rightly prescribes for others. That is the case for the amendment.
It will make it possible for the commission to enforce any undertaking which it has obtained or to require an undertaking from the public bodies which play a dominating role in the economic and social life of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not repeat the arguments which have been so clearly put by the noble Lord and which I am sure will convince noble Lords of the need for the amendment. However, there is nothing more important in making this kind of legislation effective than for the Government to set an example. If the Government set an example, they can bring pressure to bear on others—either industries in which they have an influence or unions with whom they have daily dealings—to bring them into line. If the Government fail to set an example, one can hardly expect other people to do likewise.
Without the amendment, one is hardly setting an example. If the amendment is included, there is an instrument for making the Government set an example. Therefore, for both these reasons the amendment is wise.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, while while I welcome the underlying theme of the amendment, I am a little doubtful about the specific areas which have been picked for inclusion. I was talking about the public sector—of the industrial public sector in particular. It does not seem to me that a nationalised industry or a public undertaking would necessarily be covered by this. I should like to see them so covered.
I also feel that it is perhaps not appropriate in this Bill to include subsections (6)(b) and (d). Whereas I like the idea behind it because it matches what I was saying earlier, I should like to see it phrased differently.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend and am interested in the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter. They will be aware that the amendment repeats several other amendments which were moved in another place. We did not find it possible to accept them then, and I am afraid that I do not see that we can change our position this evening.
I stress for the benefit of my noble friend and for the two noble Lords that the Bill already provides satisfactory enforcement procedures against Crown
636
bodies, which I think your Lordships will agree is appropriate to their status. Where an undertaking has been requested of a Crown body and not given, or it has been given and not complied with, it will be for the commission to report on its investigation to the Minister concerned, and furthermore to recommend action.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will accept that, as for setting an example, if we follow what happens after the commission has reported to the Minister and recommended appropriate action, the Minister is then required to lay the report before both Houses of Parliament. That is a very suitable example, if the noble Lord was looking for one.
In the event of devolution, where the report related to a Northern Ireland department, it would be laid before the devolved assembly. But in the event of continued direct rule, which is our present system, reports relating to Northern Ireland departments are referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who is obliged to lay them before Parliament. Furthermore, these arrangements were provided by the 1976 Act. We believe that they are entirely satisfactory. I am sure that there is no good reason to change them. For that reason, we do not believe that the amendment should be accepted.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I should like to emphasise that we did not think of this amendment in terms of four paragraphs—(a), (b), (c) and (d)—without following a precedent. We were following the precedent to be found in the 1976 Act. But the procedure in that Act is defective. It does not allow for enforcement proceedings to be taken against the bodies referred to in the amendment.
The Minister tells the House that this is working out very well in practice; the way one deals with the situation is to present a report to the Secretary of State, who then presents it to Parliament. That is presumably in a debate during a dinner hour adjournment. I am not aware of a single instance in which the authorities have had to resort to that mechanism and it has been effective.
The Minister said that this area was traversed in another place and I accept that. I do not propose to press the matter further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Directions under sections 12 and 13]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 10, line 38, at end insert—
("(6) Nothing in any undertaking or direction under sections 12 and 14 above shall compel an employer to place an employee in a situation where their personal safety may be at risk.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill allows the commission which it creates wide discretion in demanding undertakings and imposing directions on a company in pursuit of equal opportunities. However, nowhere in the Bill is the scope of such directions and undertakings laid down.
My amendment deals with a special problem which has been suggested to me by an insurance company. There may be cases in which companies employ representatives to call on customers door to door. It is conceivable that in certain areas of Northern Ireland it may be dangerous for Protestant employees to be in a Catholic area and vice versa. The kind of people we have in mind are insurance salesmen, debt collectors and so forth.
In the event that, probably unwittingly, the commission overdoes its demanding of undertakings and imposing of directions, the subsection which I propose to insert in Clause 14 is a safeguard for such people. It is useful to have it in the Bill so that the employer can fall back on it if he believes that his employee will be in danger if he must follow his job in a particular place. It is merely a safeguard and I hope that the Government will find it easy to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are grateful and understand the sensitivities and concerns that have prompted my noble friend to table this amendment. All noble Lords who work in Northern Ireland will know that sectarian harassment and intimidation can take most unpleasant forms within some workforces there. We all recognise that depressing reality. However, thanks to the courageous attitude displayed by many employers, trade unionists and individuals, for the largest part there are positive indications that traditional forms of harassment and intimidation are being progressively eradicated from the workplaces of Northern Ireland. The Government's Guide to Effective Practice strongly recommends that employers and trade unionists co-operate together in drawing up Joint Declarations of Protection. And the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions recently published just such a joint declaration. I commend all those involved in both the federation and the CSEU for their positive and constructive initiative. If other employers and unions were to base similar action on this template for tolerance and mutual respect in the workplace, part of my noble friend's fears might be lessened.
The amendment would require that nothing in an undertaking or direction shall compel an employer to place an employee in a situation where personal safety may be at risk. None of us would wish to see any such consequence follow from a direction or undertaking. Indeed, it is important that all directions and undertakings are reasonable, appropriate and, above all, necessary. That is why the Bill provides grounds for appeal against both directions and undertakings in Clause 15(2). There are three such grounds. First, that in the circumstances it is unreasonable to comply. Secondly, that in the circumstances the directions or undertakings are inappropriate. Thirdly, that equality of opportunity is already being afforded and action taken to promote equality. In that case the directions are unnecessary. It follows from these appeal provisions that, if an employer felt that a direction or undertaking contained any requirement which the employer considered unreasonable,
638
inappropriate or unnecessary he could appeal to the tribunal on the relevant grounds.
It is likely that, if an employer felt that a direction or undertaking contained a requirement which involved placing an individual's personal safety at risk, he would be disposed to appeal against that requirement to the tribunal. It would then be for the tribunal to determine the matter in accordance with the circumstances of the case. Moreover, it is most unlikely that the commission would seek to include such provisions in its directions or undertakings. While the commission has extensive and incisive enforcement powers, it will be seeking to effect progress, for preference, through co-operative action with the employer. Indeed, it is in the interests of the employers and the commission that both parties should ensure that undertaking and directions are reasonable, appropriate and, above all, necessary.
Given the appeal provision in Clause 15(2), the essential professionalism of the commission, the encouraging signs of an improving atmosphere in the workforces in Northern Ireland, and the constructive work being done by employers, trade unions and individuals, the fears expressed by my noble friend are not as powerful as he sets out. For that reason we believe that safeguards exist in the Bill to meet those fears and I ask him not to proceed with the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for spelling out in considerable detail exactly the safeguards which employers have. I am satisfied that they can use them under the circumstances which they fear.
As regards the question of whether the commission should give a direction which had the unfortunate result of putting a person's life in danger, I have no doubt that they would not do so deliberately. However, with the best of intentions, official bodies are not as close to the ground as perhaps they should be. It is quite easy to issue a direction which has repercussions that people never anticipated. That is exactly what is worrying the CBI, because it fears that, with all these powers, the commission—not in the dangerous sense that we have been discussing but in all kinds of other areas—will be cut off from the grass roots of life and will make all kinds of decisions which it would not make if it did not have so many powers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Failure to comply with order of Tribunal]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 13, line 9, after ("President") insert ("or Vice-President").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 13, line 13, after ("President") insert ("or Vice-President").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 19 [Confidentiality of information]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 15, line 12, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we attach importance to this amendment. It removes the power of the Department of Economic Development to require the commission to furnish it with information in its possession. We appreciate that that power is contained in paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 5 of the 1976 Act. However, today there is considerable concern that the department should continue to reserve to itself the statutory right to call for that information.
The amendment rests on three main arguments. First, if the department has access to all the information in the possession of the commission, it could use that information to hinder the work of the commission. Having found out what is or is not being done, and if the department does not like that one bit, will it not be in a position to make known its displeasure to the commission and thus hinder its work? Is that being fair to the commission?
Secondly, is not the commission being put in a position where it might be in breach of confidence in disclosing the information? We anticipate that the commission will come into possession of a great deal of information in the course of its work and some of that information will be given to it in confidence. Should the department be entitled to receive confidential information? If the commission, in order to comply with the requirements of the department, discloses that information, will employers trust it in the future with confidential information? I ask again whether that is being fair to the commission, to the employer or to this legislation.
Thirdly, the day may come when the commission summons up its courage to investigate the department itself. However, at any stage in the preparation of the case against the department, the department could demand of the commission all the material in its possession and therefore hinder an investigation into its own employment practices. Again, I ask whether that is being fair to the commission or to the legislation. Is it being fair to the requirements of public policy in Northern Ireland?
It appears to us that by reserving or continuing to reserve to itself this power, the Department of Economic Development is putting itself in a position where it can influence an investigation. In our view, that is plainly wrong. Employers must have confidence in the commission and must have confidence that it is independent of the department and that information handed to the commission in confidence will be treated in confidence. Those are the three main reasons for this amendment.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the last argument deployed by the noble Lord for this amendment is the clinching one. A commission like this must be seen, as we have said before on several occasions, to be free-standing and independent. It must be able to
640
talk to its clients, whether employers or other people, on the basis of professional confidentiality and expertise. It must not be thought by those to whom it talks that what they say to it is open to the Government. They may not want it to go to the Government. Why should the Government want this information? I cannot imagine the circumstances in which the Department of Economic Development would or should need to force the commission to reveal to it information which it did not want to disclose voluntarily. I hope that the Minister might describe the circumstances he envisages in which this power would be useful, constructive and helpful to the commission's work.
This seems to me an unnecessary clause which undermines the authority of the commission, and that is the last thing which we should do at this moment. Nor have I known, in any other case, of a government department having this power over a quango which it appointed. I do not believe that the Government can demand that the BBC should give them all the information it possesses, or that the Equal Opportunities Commission is open to similar treatment. If a government were to ask, I very much hope that the chairmen or chairwomen of those bodies would resolutely refuse to be bullied in that way. I regard this amendment as important in principle and very important in practice: in principle because it seems to me illegitimate; in practice because it undermines the commission, and no good reason for the existence of that power has so far been given.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we have certainly appreciated the pungent and excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, together with the accurate attack of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in moving this amendment. Of course, they are quite right that discretion and confidentiality are at issue in this area.
However, in spite of the eloquence with which the arguments have been put forward this evening, your Lordships will be aware that arguments were debated in another place equally forcefully. I stress that the Government are firmly committed to evaluating the impact of the legislation on a continuous basis and formally to reviewing it after five years. The provision of information will be most important in that context. Without implying that the commission would be in the least uncooperative about providing the department with information, it seems preferable that the matter of its supply should not be left on a grace and favour basis.
There is a wider point at issue in this area. It is very important indeed that both the Government and the commission should work together in the fair employment field. There should be, and I believe there will be, a two way flow of information. The Government and the commission will not be performing the same functions of course, and the integrity and independence of the commission must be carefully protected and respected. But in an area such as developing availability estimates, we must assume that there will be an exchange of information and a development of mutual expertise. The commission, initially at least, will rely on the

641
Government's experience in the field of the statistics. By the same token, the commission in a short space of time will have compiled a unique database covering all aspects of the employment market. The development and use of such a key statistical resource are again far too important to be left to chance, let alone on a grace and favour basis. The information almost certainly will have a significant impact across a range of policies. Certainly all noble Lords, and I believe all sides in another place, have consistently urged the importance of government addressing the dimension of employment equality in implementing overall policies.
I repeat assurances given in another place that the department will not misuse information requested under this provision. Certainly there has been no question of that happening over the past 13 years and no government department will be permitted by its Ministers to hinder the operations of the commission, let alone to compromise its independence. In reply to a discussion on this matter in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has written to the honourable Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North with a commitment that the department will discuss with the commission at an appropriate time the drawing up of guidelines for the operation of Clause 19(5). This will clarify the circumstances under which the department will exercise the powers set out in the clause. We also believe that these guidelines will remove any misunderstandings that may exist about the relationship of the department and the commission in this context.
This commitment has been given by my honourable friend to the honourable friend of the noble Lord opposite. I believe that it is a worthwhile commitment and that it will work. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord's response, but he did not respond to the three specific arguments which I advanced in support of the amendment. He did not explain to the House whether the commission would be in breach of its duty of confidentiality if it disclosed information from the department which had been delivered to the commission in confidence.
The Minister has told the House that there will be discussions between the department and the commission. However, the department, now that it has this power in its grasp, will be in a position to dominate those discussions with the commission. We shall have to read very carefully what the Minister said and will have to consult collegues and advisers to decide whether this is an issue again to bring back to this House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 21 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken: moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 16, leave out lines 15 and 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that my four amendments—one of which, Amendment No. 54, I do not intend to move—were tabled rather late in the day and therefore bear the dreaded asterisk, but the usual channels did not give very much time.
I regard this as being purely a drafting amendment. I do not think that it will present the Minister with much difficulty because I cannot see how he can possibly oppose it, though I bet he will. The lines I want to delete are in Clause 21(1), which states:
"'equality of opportunity' has the meaning given by section 20 of this Act".
However Clause 20 begins:
"In this Part of this Act 'equality of opportunity' means equality of opportunity between persons of different religious beliefs".
The clause heading in the margin reads:
"Meaning of 'equality of opportunity'".
The following subsections elaborate on that original definition. If equality of opportunity has been fully defined in Clause 20, why do we have to go on and say in Clause 21 that "equality of opportunity" has the meaning given by the preceding clause? I cannot help feeling that those two lines, which are completely pleonastic and redundant, have been inserted in error. Therefore, I beg to move that they be omitted.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord took me back a number of years to when he used this excellent word "pleonastic". I believe that it was used in connection with foreign language teaching and he used it validly this evening.
The noble Lord is worried about the definition of "equality of opportunity". As I understand it, he wishes to disapply from Part I of he Bill the definition of "equality of opportunity" given in Clause 21 but wishes it to remain in Clause 20. Far from being pleonastic, I am not entirely clear as to what the noble Lord intends in that respect.
It is necessary to have a reference to distinguish "equality of opportunity" from the use of words in the 1976 Act. It is also standard drafting practice to leave no room for doubt. The definition of "equality of opportunity" in the 1976 Act, repeated in this Bill, is wide and comprehensive. It means equality of opportunity between persons of different religious beliefs and is not limited to the two major religious traditions in Northern Ireland; namely, the Protestant and Catholic traditions. It includes all persons of different religious beliefs, including, for example, the different religious beliefs within the Protestant tradition.
The amendment, as I understand it, seeks to limit that definition, but it would go further and limit the duty of the commission to promote equality to its promotion only between members of the two main communities. We believe that it is important that the new commission should continue to have the duty to promote equality of opportunity for individual persons on the basis of their religious belief—as it has by virtue of Section 1 of the 1976 Act and Clause 20 of this Bill—rather than having that broad duty limited only to the two main religious communities within the Province. In that respect the definition of "equality of opportunity"

643
reflects the provisions of the 1976 Act in its basic prohibition of discrimination against individuals. That is what lies at the heart of the Bill. I believe that the amendment, however eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will not assist in that basic thrust.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I really cannot understand the noble Lord's argument. He seems to have completely missed the point of what I said. As a matter of fact, I do not care at all what is in the 1976 Act and I do not see its relevance. I used the word "pleonastic", to which the noble Lord drew attention, which simply means that this is a pleonasm—in other words, that the phrase is completely unnecessary because it has already been stated. For some reason or other the draftsman has decided to define "equality of opportunity" twice over—once in Clause 20 and again in Clause 21. Both are identical. I do not see any reason for repeating the definition.
Naturally, I do not intend to press the amendment or to take the matter further, particularly in the absence of any support. However, the Minister might care to look at the matter when he returns to his office and consider deleting the lines on a subsequent occasion. I am not looking for an undertaking.
When the definition has been given in Clause 20 why is it necessary to say in Clause 21 that equality of opportunity has just been defined in the previous clause? It is totally unnecessary and a waste of two lines in the Bill. I knew I was being far too sanguine in believing that the Minister would have no alternative but to accept the amendment. However, in view of the reply that he has given I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 16, line 20, at end insert—
(" "the Vice-President" means the Vice-President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal;").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Monitoring returns]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 10, leave out ("advertised").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it might be for the convenience of your Lordships and especially of the two noble Lords whose names are coupled with mine concerning some of these amendments, that I speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 31, 32, 35, 52 and 55.
It was made very clear to me last Thursday when we discussed a government amendment that introduced what are now subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 27, that your Lordships felt it insufficient to oblige employers to monitor only those applications that they had received for advertised vacancies. It could have the adverse effect of encouraging employers not to advertise vacancies. It is in the light of those representations that I move
644
the amendment before us this evening and speak to those grouped with it which remove the word "advertised" on the five occasions it appears together with its now otiose definition in Clause 47.
The effect of the amendments is that public sector employers and those in the private sector with more than 250 employees will now be required to monitor all applications that they receive, whether they are in response to an advertisement or as a result of a continuous recruitment campaign or situation. I hope your Lordships will agree that this meets many if not all of the concerns which were expressed at an earlier stage, particularly and very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who indeed suggested the deletion of the word "advertised" in his contribution to the debate.
We are concerned to ensure that employers do not encounter insuperable practical difficulties in monitoring. For example, to monitor on the basis of information contained in an application form is likely to be straightforward enough, but to do so on the strength of a casual telephone call or a personal approach at the factory door is quite another matter. Those casual applicants who either turn up at the factory door or make a telephone call and who are lucky enough to be offered jobs present no problems for monitoring purposes. They will be monitored as part of the workforce. But those casual applicants who are told that there are no vacancies cannot be satisfactorily monitored.
I believe that your Lordships will agree that it is impossible to oblige personnel managers to say to such a casual caller who telephones, "Sorry, we have no vacancies but, by the way, are you a Catholic or a Protestant?". For the personnel managers then to try to obtain from the caller some indication of community application is rather difficult. I believe that it would be more than that and that it would bring all this legislation into disrepute. It is for these reasons that the regulations on monitoring which the department will make, after consultation with the commission, will make it clear what an employer is to do to ensure that as many as possible of those seeking employment with him are monitored. The code of practice will in any case give plenty of advice on recruitment practices including discouraging casual practices and encouraging employers to suggest to casual applicants either that they apply in writing or they await formal notification of vacancies in the future.
I hope that explanation will be of some help to those of your Lordships who spoke earlier and who are particularly interested in this aspect. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the Minister for moving the amendment to delete the word "advertised" from the Bill. The Minister went on to consider the situation of casual applicants who turn up at the factory and who are not offered employment. As I understood him, this is a matter that will be dealt with in regulations that we have not seen. For my part I am content to support the amendment on my understanding that the mischief will not find its way back into the regulations. I wish to make that abundantly clear. On that understanding I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I believe I was the person who raised especially the question of the casual applicant. While I see the point that the noble Lord is making, I know very well that, regarding women's equal opportunities and race relations, casual applicants have often been turned away because they were what they were. A great deal of discrimination has gone on as regards the casual applicant. I am not at all sure that one is safe in saying that one does not have to monitor the casual applicant.
I do not know enough about the Irish labour market to know whether it would be obvious which community an applicant comes from. If the address was known the employer would know at once. Is that not the case? In many cases the prospective employer would be aware of that. The Minister said the applicants would be encouraged to apply in writing. That seems to be totally unreal. A great many of the kind of people who drop in will never apply in writing. One will never get rid of the casual applicant; nor does one want to. I am not sure that the Minister's confidence that this problem has no implications for equal opportunities is quite well founded.
I can see the difficulties that he has raised. It is much easier when one is dealing with the question of colour. The person seeing the applicant knows at once which category the applicant is in. I accept that it is more difficult when it is a question of whether the applicant is Protestant or Catholic. A great deal of discrimination has taken place as regards casual applicants.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to say that I mentioned at Committee stage that it is not possible to tell a person's persuasion from their address. In many cases it will be possible, but in many others it will not.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may briefly express to the noble Baroness the hope that I had not said necessarily that applications had to be in writing. I believe the noble Baroness will accept that it is extremely difficult. I mentioned that there are almost insuperable and serious problems for employers, for example, as a result of applications by members of job clubs who are encouraged to make 10 calls every day to various employers. That is putting a heavy load on employers to do as I suggested. A voice on a telephone is very difficult to identify even for someone like myself who is studying the provenance of persons in Northern Ireland in order to discover where they come from let alone identify their community affiliation or application.
It would be extremely difficult to monitor each and every one of these applications. I hope that the commission is able to find some way of avoiding the problems that the noble Baroness mentioned. She said that one such problem was race. Sex discrimination is quite clear. However, when someone makes a telephone call, which is the example we had in mind, a fair burden is put on the employer.
646
We are at one with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and, I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in wishing to see employers following proper practices in recruitment. If someone makes a casual inquiry by telephone, the employer should suggest that he go to the Jobcentre. That would probably meet the noble Baroness's point. And it is the proper channel for good practices. I think that the noble Baroness would agree that casual telephone calls are virtually impossible to monitor. One has to obtain full details and then ask the question.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I fully understand the difficulty. The noble Lord is being a little optimistic if he thinks that that is how recruitment will happen. However, I see the problem.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 20, line 15, leave out ("advertised").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is connected with Amendment No. 25, to which I spoke. I beg to move.
Lord Blease: My Lords, will the noble Lord repeat the reply that he gave to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies? Did he say that the regulations will contain some reference to the manner in which the applications will be tabulated, or will there be directions to employers for written and casual applications? This is important to the way applications are made for employment in Northern Ireland and throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. However, as the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, it is important that the regulations should be clear and amenable both to employers and to those seeking employment.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I stressed that the monitoring regulations will make it clear what an employer is to do to ensure that as many as possible of those seeking employment with him are monitored. The code of practice will give plenty of advice on recruitment practices, including encouraging casual practices and encouraging employers to suggest to casual applicants that they should either apply in writing or that they await notification of vacancies in the future. The code will clarify the definition but will not change it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 21, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert—
(" "community" means the sum total of persons adhering to the Protestant faiths, or to the Roman Catholic faith, or to other religious faiths or to no religious faith, as the case may be, in Northern Ireland.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I intervened briefly to object to the use of the word "community" in this part of the Bill. I was under the misapprehension that the Bill referred to a community in a town or a part of a town and assumed that all the members of that community belonged to one faith or another. I had not noticed the definition of "community" in Clause 27(11).

647
The draftsman can given any meaning he likes to any word he chooses, and then that is what it means in that part of the Bill. I now see that "community" is defined as meaning,
"the Protestant community, or the Roman Catholic community, in Northern Ireland".
It appears that the intention here is to imply that in Northern Ireland there is something called "the Protestant community" which consists of all the people of all the Protestant faiths who happen to live in Northern Ireland, and that that constitutes a community; and that similarly there is another community in Northern Ireland comprising all the people in Northern Ireland who belong to the Roman Catholic faith; and that is it—they are all either Catholics or Protestants. That is not the way that it is. There are no such communities.
The Protestants themselves are divided into three or four different faiths—the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Wee Frees and so on—all comprising what in the Bill is called "the Protestant community". Somehow the amendment tries to avoid facing the fact that individuals are Protestants or Catholics and instead says that they are members of a completely non-existent community. What the Bill is trying to say is what I have put in my amendment, although I am certainly not a parliamentary draftsman and I probably have the wording wrong. However, it seems to me that, when the word "community" is used in the Bill, it means the total of all the persons adhering, on the one hand, to the Protestant faiths, or, on the other hand, to the Roman Catholic faith; and finally to other religious faiths or to no religious faith.
The Bill as drafted does not admit the existence of such people. Noble Lords have probably heard about the British soldier who became involved in a political argument in Northern Ireland. He was asked, "What are you anyway, Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "I am a Jew". The reply was, "Well, that's your own business, but are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?" Jews exist in Northern Ireland, as I am sure do Moslems and Hindus. There are certainly agnostics and atheists. Yet the existence of these people is not recognised because of a black and white divide—although I am not sure that "black and white" is quite the right phrase to use—with nothing outside it.
On reading the Bill more carefully it seems to me that the Government have not addressed this problem, which is a serious, difficult and delicate one. After all, the aim of the following clauses is to make it possible to identify an individual who applies for work or for any other reason as being a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. To find this out, instead of putting the direct question to the man concerned, "Are you a Protestant or are you a Catholic?", there is an indirect question—to ask which school he went to. That is to avoid asking that unpleasantly direct question. But, if you ask what school a person went to, you will not receive the right answer. I say that because, first, Jews or agnostics presumably went to schools which were predominantly Protestant or Catholic, and the fact that they went to a particular school does not indicate their faith.
Secondly, what about the non-denominational schools. We should all like to see more of these schools in Northern Ireland, or in the Republic of Ireland for that matter. But what of the adult who, as a child, went to a non-denominational school—some of which exist in the Province—who is asked, "Which school did you go to?" All that the people concerned will know is that the person went to a non-denominational school and ipso facto it does not reveal his or her faith. The whole object of this embarrassed questioning is to find out to which faith the person belongs.
We talk about Protestants and Catholic schools, but very often they are not 100 per cent. Protestant or 100 per cent. Catholic. When my little boy is in Ireland—the Republic, I admit; but it is the same from this point of view—he is the only non-Catholic in a Catholic school. He goes to that school because it is the nearest one. It is a jolly good school, I like the teachers and all his friends are there. That is why he is there. However, if that was in the North, which is only 10 miles away, and someone asked, "Which school did Seán Godley go to?" and the answer was, "Oh, Drumeela National School", people would assume that he was a Catholic.
My noble friend Lord Longford is certainly unique in that he is a Catholic, but when he was at school he was a Protestant. He was not just at a Protestant school; he was a Protestant. Therefore what is the good of asking to which school he went? It would give a completely erroneous impression.
I turn now to Clause 28(3)(a), and perhaps the most ludicrous part of all. It actually states that a Roman Catholic attending a Protestant school is to be treated as a Protestant. It provides that:
"where an applicant—
(i) has stated that he attended a particular primary school … the employer may be required to determine that he is to be treated as belonging to the community concerned".
Therefore this Protestant must be treated as a Catholic; or the Catholic has to be treated as a Protestant. That is nonsense. If you want to find out what a man's religion is, and that is really what you want to know, then you say to him, "Are you an RC or a Prod?" It is as simple as that. The present wording in the Bill is not good enough; it has not been thought through. The real implications and the real delicacy of the whole matter have not been fully appreciated.
If the necessity for such redrafting cannot be seen by the Government—because they are the only people who can alter it and put changes into the Bill at a later stage—then the best course, as I see it, is at least to accept the change proposed in my amendment. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I appreciate the point which has been raised by the noble Lord. He raised it with eloquence and with considerable passion. Of course I appreciate the noble Lord's wish that we should try to see that Northern Ireland is recognised as consisting of a single community. However, at all times we must look to what is defined in Clause 27(11). It is in Part II of the legislation that we are

649
defining the word "community" for the purposes of the Bill. We have addressed this problem. Indeed, it has taxed most considerably my right honourable friend and my honourable friend as well as many of us involved in the legislation.
I must stress to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that we are addressing the problem of equality of opportunity and life in the workplace as it exists in Northern Ireland. Whatever words we apply to the situation, there are clear and long-standing differences between the employment experiences of the Catholic and the Protestant communities in Northern Ireland. I think that it may be fair to describe the two groups as two communities, or perhaps two sections of the same community. However, we have adopted the description of two communities in the interests of clarity. Nevertheless, I appreciate the points raised by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of what would be done when monitoring applied to persons of the Jewish or Moslem faiths. In the event that persons indicate that they are not members of the Catholic or Protestant community, they will have their answer recorded as "non-classified". I can assure your Lordships that provision will be made by way of regulations for such persons who are not members of the Catholic or Protestant communities; in other words, measures will be laid out in regulations.
I must say that the amendment moved by the noble Lord would insert into the Bill a reference to something other than "community" which we think is the best yardstick. The noble Lord may be right, and indeed your Lordships may be correct. The definition may not be perfect, but we think that it is the best available yardstick as a basis for Part II of the Bill.
We think that to insert something other than the definition which we have would be complex and would blur the definition in the Bill. We also think that it would remove from the Bill, especially from Part II which, your Lordships will see, sets out the new duties for employers in respect of their workforce, the vital distinction which is essential to the working of the mechanism of monitoring, reviews, affirmative action, goals and timetables.
The definition may not be absolutely perfect in every respect. However, it is certainly the best one and we believe that it will be effective in dealing with the main thrust of the Bill before us tonight; that is, equality of opportunity in the workplace.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his words. He always shows a great understanding of the problems involved. The irony always strikes me of him being a Minister in Belfast when he is himself a member of the Roman Catholic faith. I am most grateful to him for his words about regulations. I am glad to know that those regulations will be effective.
I stand by everything I said. I was not convinced by what the Minister said, any more than he was sufficiently convinced by what I said. However, particularly in view of the little undertaking he gave, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Regulations as to monitoring]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 21, line 48, after ("Department,") insert ("showing, in particular, to which community, if any, its members mainly belong,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is no more than a drafting amendment. Clause 28(2)(g) requires:
"the Commission to maintain a list classifying each school in Northern Ireland".
If we turn to Clause 29, it is clear that the purpose of that classification is to show to which section of the community, if any, its members may belong. However, in Clause 28 there is no instruction as to the way in which those schools will be classified; it merely states that they must be classified. There are all sorts of ways in which schools can be classified. Are they male, female or co-educational? Are they primary or secondary? What age groups are there? Are they basically Catholic schools, Protestant schools or inter-denominational schools?
Although it may be obvious to us that the Bill is talking about classification according to the denomination of those who attend, that is not stated in Clause 28. Therefore there is no obligation to include that detail in any classification. I propose that it should be stated in Clause 28 that among other things the classification should invariably show what it is there for—to which community its members mainly belong. It is to clarify that point that I propose to insert the two lines in Clause 28. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the words,
"for the puposes of monitoring"
in Clause 28(2)(g) have the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken intends. The amendment, and the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, would broaden the scope of the monitoring returns beyond the present breakdown between Protestants and Catholics. That goes some way to reflect the perception that the effect of monitoring will be permanently to label persons as Protestant or Catholic, and thus perpetuate the problem caused by the religious divide.
The intention appears to be to require the department to classify each person attending a school in Northern Ireland according to the religious affiliation, or even the lack of it, of that individual. The detail is unnecessary for the purpose of school classification. It is enough for classification to know whether a school is attended mainly by Protestant or mainly by Catholic pupils. It is not necessary to specify the affiliation and still less the belief of each individual.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to my own known affiliation. My school was attended mainly by boys of the Protestant faith and so that would be no indication in my case. I suspect that it would be true of many people in your Lordships' House.
I stress that the words in Clause 28(2(g) have the meaning which the noble Lord intends them to have. For that reason, his amendment will not add to the Bill. We believe that Clause 28 should be left as it stands.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I seem to be having some difficulty in getting my thoughts across to the Minister. Of course that is entirely my fault. I have found the reference for which I was looking. It comes in Clause 28(3)(a)(i) where we talk about:
"a school classified in any list maintained by virture of subsection (2)(g) above as a school attended mainly by members of a particular community".
The list that is produced will show the members of which community may be attending. That is in that sub-paragraph. The point that I was trying to make was that there is nothing in the preceding sub-paragraph to insist that the information which has to be provided is given. It is not a major point. As I said before, I regard it as a drafting point. I think that it would improve and clarify the Bill. In view of what the Minister has said—again I appreciate the manner in which he said it—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 22, line 24, at end insert—
("(3A) The regulations may require compliance with any direction of the Commission to a particular employer to apply the prescribed methods for determining the community to which a person is to be treated as belonging for the purposes of monitoring in a manner different from that otherwise authorised or required by the regulations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to Amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 29 honours a commitment given in another place. It is intended to deal with the eventuality that a group of workers combine together in answering the direct or indirect questions in such a way as to supply false information; for example, by falsely declaring themselves to be either Protestant or Roman Catholic.
The amendment provides that the monitoring regulations may authorise the commission to require an employer to apply the prescribed methods in a manner different from that specified in the regulations. The effect of Amendment No. 29 will be to enable the commission to change the order of the monitoring methods set out in the regulations so that the residuary method can be substituted for the direct or indirect method when the commission is of the opinion that those methods have not provided a satisfactory return.
Accordingly, if there is evidence of collusion in the use of the direct or indirect methods, or—despite the criminal offences applying—the submission of false or misleading information, then the commission will be able to require the employer to use the residuary method and, to take one example, to determine perceived religious affiliation by reference to information contained in personal records. The overall objective is to obtain a monitoring return which will provide as accurate a basis as possible in determining the need for affirmative action if necessary.
The two amendments fulfil a commitment that we gave in another place. They are mildly technical, and, with that, I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as the Minister has explained, the amendments resolve a difficulty which had been identified in another place and we are pleased to support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 22, line 25, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (3A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Monitoring applicants]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 31 and 32:
Page 22, line 29, leave out ("advertised").
Page 24, line 17, leave out ("advertised").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I move Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. I spoke to these amendments in the group with Amendment No. 25 dealing with the point on advertising. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Periodic reviews by employers]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved amendment No. 33.
Page 24, line 36, leave out from ("specify") to end of line 39 and insert ("but nothing herein contained shall prevent or restrict in any way the right of the Commission to seek information supplementing the information contained in the return.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should point out that there is a mistake in the wording of the amendment in the Marshalled List. The fourth word is "unlawful" but it should have been "contained". The amendment should read:
"but nothing herein contained shall prevent or restrict in any way the right of the Commission to seek information supplementing the information contained in the return.".
I cannot explain why that mistake was made, except that we were probably racing against the clock.
Those members who were present at the Committee stage will recall that there was a long debate over a government amendment. The effect of that was to prevent the commission from going back to the employer to seek supplementary information. There was a ban of six months which prevented it from going back for the supplementary information.
That government amendment at Committee stage was criticised because it could lead to delay and could indeed encourage employers to file vague, imprecise and slender information. The effect of our amendment this evening is to limit the effect of the Government's amendment so that it would not prevent the commission from seeking information, supplementing the information contained in the return. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, briefly, I think that employers would prefer the wording in the Bill as it now stands.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, that may be so. They may prefer it. However the question is whether they are right to prefer it. That is what is at issue. It seems to be very odd that we should lay down a regulation or, in this case, a law which says that a body is allowed to ask for information. If it receives totally inadequate information from the source of that information, it has to wait six months before the information is corrected. For the life of me, I cannot imagine that this is efficient, that it encourages people to provide information or that there are precedents where this kind of delay has proved useful, constructive or helpful to the inquirer or to those on whose behalf one is inquiring.
In Committee, the noble Lord said that it was quite all right because if the commission received an inadequate answer, or if the answer were patently trying to delay matters, it could institute a full scale inquiry. That is using a sledge hammer to crush a pea. All the commission wants to do is to be able to pick up the telephone and say, "Look, you didn't tell us all we wanted to know. Perhaps you don't know it, so let us know if you do not know it. If you do know it, then please tell us". That seems to me to be totally common sense. It is the point of asking the question. When we ask someone a question, we very rarely receive a complete answer the first time. That is ordinary human experience. I do not see why it should be different in Ireland or under this Bill.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if all noble Lords have finished speaking, I am delighted to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I shall have one or two words to say about his remarks later, but if he believes that everybody will get the answers right the first time and every time, we shall be most interested. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene, but I shall come to his point later when I make special reference to it.
I appreciate the concern of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, on the matter, as well as that of my noble friend. It arises from a number of associated amendments moved by myself at an earlier stage. I hope that I can set the amendment before us in the context of the previous amendments which were those that I moved at Committee stage. They had two primary effects. First, they extended and amplified the powers of the commission by providing that it can obtain from the employer any of the information which he might want to use for monitoring; and by providing further that the commission can exercise its powers whether or not a monitoring return has been submitted. As your Lordships may recall, the commission's former powers hinged on the employers having submitted a monitoring return and extended only to information supplementing that given in the return. To balance these important extensions of the commission's powers and in common with the rights of inquiry conveyed by Clause 32(6) and (7), we limited its powers of inquiry to six-monthly intervals. We think that that strikes the right balance between firmness and fairness, especially since we do not believe that this limitation will prove constricting.
Perhaps I may take an example to Illustrate the point. If the commission asks an employer for three
654
specific pieces of information and only two are supplied, then the employer is committing an offence under Clause 32(10). Noble Lords will see that at the top of page 26. In that case, the employer must supply the remaining piece of information or he would, quite rightly, be liable additionally to the continuing offence in Clause 32(11)(b). In practice, the threat of prosecution for such a criminal offence, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is taking a sledge hammer. But the threat of prosecution for such offences means that the employer would provide the remaining information.
My reference to the criminal offences is important and I think we have to keep this in mind in relation to the issue. But the stiff criminal sanctions exist for employers who do not supply the requested information. When employers provide the information, we think that it is quite sufficient for them to do so and that they should not be unnecessarily harassed by, as the noble Lord has suggested, not just one but, as we see it, repeated inquiries for different information at less than six monthly intervals.
As I pointed out, we think that the amendment strikes a balance. We have already made some movement at an earlier stage and we believe that the amendment will provide adequate powers to the commission, as well as seeing that employers are not needlessly harassed. If it is a major point, then six months is not too long to wait. If it is a minor point, then perhaps it might be dealt with in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. But we think that the amendment is reasonable and necessary. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, is the Minister adopting my amendment? Since he has moved my amendment, then I am pleased to accept the situation.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, that is quite contrary to the procedures of the House. The Minister made an error. He was shooting down that amendment. He said it was his amendment. He did not say that it was the noble Lord's amendment. He got muddled. We are dealing with Amendment No. 33.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I shall be generous to the Minister and not press my point. I must say that I am not at all satisfied that the Government have fully recognised the mischief which their own amendment has created.
I am not at all surprised by the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to our amendment. There was nothing at all novel about that approach. It appears to me that whenever the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, sees an opportunity to try to weaken the Bill, he grasps it.
We shall certainly read very carefully what the Minister has said in response to the amendment. We shall possibly return to it at Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 26, line 14, after ("and") insert ("in a case where it was reasonably practicable for him to comply with it after that time, to show").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 50. The point of these amendments is to deal with one set of circumstances which is unlikely to arise but which might do so. Under Clauses 32, 36 and 45 the commission is empowered to request information from an employer. It is an offence to fail to provide that information by the specified time, but the Bill provides a reasonable excuse defence both in respect of the timing and the substantive offence. However, as drafted, the defence would not help an employer who could not provide the requested information even after the time specified because, for instance, his premises had been bombed or all his records had been destroyed by fire. It would clearly be unjust in such circumstances for the employer to be liable to the substantive and continuing offences when it was evident that he was never going to be able to provide the information requested.
Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 50 are intended to deal with this exceptional contingency. I must emphasise strongly, however, that they do not alter the position of an employer who, while having an excuse for not providing the information on time, has no excuse for not providing it at all. He is still obliged to provide the information, and is committing an offence if he fails to do so. I hope that your Lordships will regard these amendments as fair and reasonable. With that I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we have listened to the Minister's explanation for these three amendments. However, the amendments are not confined to the situations mentioned by the Minister. We would point out that the purpose of this group of amendments is to provide employers with yet another line of defence where they have failed to carry out the orders of the tribunal. It appears to us that, once again, the department is coming to the aid of the potential discriminator. For that reason, we are unable to support the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I believe employers will welcome the amendment as a very reasonable extra freedom for them. They have been boxed in by this Bill much more than is, in many cases, reasonable. My noble friend's explanation for the amendment is a very sound one. I hope your Lordships will agree to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Notices about goals and timetables]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 28, line 34, leave out ("advertised").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was part of a large group to which I spoke earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 29, line 31, after ("and") insert ("in a case where it was reasonably practicable for him to comply with it after that time, to show").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment a moment ago. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Employers in default: notice stating they are not qualified]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 44:
Page 30, line 34, after ("of") insert ("that section or").
Page 31, line 6, leave out from ("above") to ("by") in line 7.
Page 31, line 8, leave out from ("default") to end of line 12.
Page 31, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 and insert ("Where notice has been served on a person under subsection (2) above, the Commission shall, if it is at any time satisfied, whether on an application under subsection (6) below or otherwise—

(a) in the case of a notice served by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above, that he has served on it a monitoring return for the period concerned that complies, so far as is reasonably practicable, with the requirements of section 27 of this Act and regulations under section 28 of this Act, or

(b) in the case of a notice served by virtue of subsection (1)(d) above, that he is complying, or has fully complied, with the order concerned").

Page 31, line 22, leave out ("subsection (5) above") and insert ("this subsection may be made by the person on whom the notice under subsection (2) above was served but").
Page 31, line 25, leave out ("subsection (5) above") and insert ("this subsection").
Page 31, line 28, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
Page 31, line 31, leave out from ("satisfied") to ("the Commission") in line 33 and insert—

("(a) in the case of a notice served by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above, that the appellant has served on the Commission a monitoring return for the period concerned that complies, so far as is reasonably practicable, with the requirements of section 27 of this Act and regulations under section 28 of this Act, or

(b) in the case of a notice served by virtue of subsection (1)(d) above, that the appellant is complying, or has fully complied, with the order concerned").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 37 to 44 en bloc; that is, all the amendments in Clause 38. Under the provisions of Clause 38 as drafted, an employer who is in default of his obligations in respect of monitoring returns can be served by the commission with a notice that he is unqualified for access to public contracts or government grants. Once he had ceased to be in default, that notice would be cancelled. But the situation could arise where an employer who could not provide all the monitoring information required would remain permanently in default and permanently cut off from contracts and grants. This would occur, for example, if he failed to monitor applicants when required to do so and failed to submit a monitoring return. He would be subject to various substantial penalties for those failures; but, since his failure to monitor applicants in a particular year could not be subsequently remedied, he would remain permanently unqualified under Clause 38(4)(b), as drafted.
Amendment No. 37 therefore provides that where the commission has served a notice of disqualification on an employer, arising from his failures in compliance in regard to monitoring returns, it must cancel that notice where it is satisfied that the monitoring information which the employer has provided, though incomplete, is as complete as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. This does not mean that the employer will escape penalisation under Clauses 27 and 28: it simply means that he is not permanently deprived of access to contracts and grants in circumstances when he is no longer able to comply with the requirements of those clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Notice stating that connected and other persons are not qualified]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 49:
Page 32, line 16, after second ("notice") insert ("(a)").
Page 32, line 18, leave out from ("cancelled") to ("in line 21 and insert ("or (b)").
Page 32, line 22, after ("Commission") insert ("whether on an application under subsection (5) below or otherwise").
Page 32, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("before") in line 26 and insert ("An application under this subsection may be made by the person on whom the notice under subsection (1) above was served, but if he has previously made an application under this subsection may not be made").
Page 32, line 29, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(5)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 en bloc. These amendments tidy up the provisions of Clause 39. By virtue of Clause 39 notices of being unqualified for access to contracts and grants may be served by the commission on persons or bodies who are connected to an employer who is unqualified so that there is no possibility of the sanction being evaded by the unqualified employer using a subterfuge.
What these amendments do is to put an obligation on the commission to ensure that the validity of such notices is kept under review. The amendments do not alter the effectiveness of the regime whereby unqualified employers are debarred from contracts and grants. What they do is ensure that connected persons and bodies are not needlessly involved in the process of ensuring that the sanction is fully applied. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [Additional powers of Commission to obtain information]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 35, line 27, after ("and") insert ("in a case where it was reasonably practicable for him to comply with it after that time, to show").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier in connection with Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Procedure in case of default by Crown bodies]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 36, line 3, after ("28") insert ("or 29").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment consequential on the insertion into the Bill at Committee stage of the new clause, now Clause 29, and ensures that the enforcement procedure for Crown bodies extends to such bodies in breach of their obligations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 36, leave out lines 25 to 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52. I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 36, line 30, leave out ("other than a contract which normally involves employment for less than sixteen hours weekly,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will bring part-time workers who work fewer than 16 hours a week within the scope of the Bill and in particular of its monitoring provisions. As the Bill stands, they are excluded from the definition of employee contained in Part II of the Bill. This amendment rests on two main arguments. The first is that in some industries such as retailing, distribution and also aspects of the public sector where the workforce is predominantly part-time, they would be exempt from the Bill's provisions on monitoring. In its response to the Bill the Fair Employment Agency considered that the exclusion of such employees from the definition was a major misjudgment and that it would have serious side-effects. I understand that that is also the opinion of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
The second argument is that the majority of part-time workers are women and that their exclusion from the definition might lead to a significant number of women being denied equality of opportunity in employment. Those are the two main arguments in support of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said, there are industries in which large numbers of part-time workers are employed and a very high proportion of those workers are women. Therefore, the exclusion of a substantial number of women from the scope of monitoring has been described not only as a classical example of the invisibility of part-time women, which it undoubtedly is—as though they did not exist in the employment field at all and needed no protection—but in addition it will also lead to returns from the monitoring which are extremely misleading.

659
I would add that this might be classified as indirect discrimination, since the people who would be largely affected are women. So because it is inaccurate, because it seems to me to disadvantage women in particular and because it disadvantages part-time workers in general, I think this error in the Bill should be corrected.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Prys-Davies, would add significantly, as has been said in another place, to the burdens laid on business without any corresponding benefit, we believe, for the commission. In addition it is likely to make the registration and monitoring provisions very impracticable. It would mean that in connection with his registration and monitoring responsibilities an employer would have to count all persons employed in his concern. That, at least in the short term, would be unreasonable because he would have to include all those working part-time, whoever they might be, and all casual workers who might be working for him for very short periods.
Quite apart from the considerations of cost and practicality, we think there would be a risk that monitoring casual employees could easily mask trends in the employer's core, main workforce. What we are crucially interested in is access to permanent employment in the core workforces of public and private sector employers. We therefore decided to focus the monitoring on jobs for which an employer is required to give written terms of employment. That is defined as employment of 16 hours a week or more. So, although for monitoring purposes employees who work for less than 16 hours a week would be excluded from the statistics, this has to be balanced against the problems and burdens placed upon an employer by a more inclusive definition.
Furthermore, we think it is very important to bear in mind that following discussions on this issue in another place the Bill has already been amended, so that the department is empowered at the appropriate time to amend the figure of 16 hours a week so as to oblige employers to include in the monitoring returns employees who work fewer than those hours. I believe this is an appropriate reply to the concerns which have been expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, had one further query about indirect discrimination. He mentioned women specifically and also part-time workers. Women comprise almost all the part-time workers covered in the Bill. Recent surveys of the labour force in Northern Ireland indicate that under 7 per cent. of employees in Northern Ireland—I refer to the total workforce—work for less than 16 hours a week. That figure is subject to sampling error. It could be somewhere between 6 and 8 per cent. However, a proportion of those employees will be employed in concerns which fall below the threshold for registration in any case. Therefore, as regards part-time workers and especially the most vulnerable ones—the women part-time workers —we believe that the number in question would be fairly small: it would not be very significant. We think we have got the figure right and, as I pointed
660
out, there is machinery for altering the figure should it be necessary. We believe that 16 hours is the right benchmark and that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we do not find the Minister's explanation to be totally satisfactory. Indeed, considerable dissatisfaction was expressed in another place. The Minister refers to the power which I think is found in Clause 47(2), which will enable the department to vary the limit of 16 hours. However, that power enables the department not merely to raise the limit but also to lower it, which we find amazing. I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division but we shall wish to consider what has been said by the Minister. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Index to Part II]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 39, leave out line 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last in the series of amendments to which I spoke with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
9 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 39, line 41, after ("condition") insert ("policy or practice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first amendment addressed to the meaning of the term "indirect discrimination". This was the subject of a great deal of discussion in Committee. We believe it is important that we should get the definition right because it is by virtue of this definition that indirect discrimination becomes unlawful. We argued in Committee that the definition of indirect discrimination contained in Clause 49(2) is too narrow, because the criterion or barrier of which an unsuccessful applicant complains must be shown to be "a requirement or condition" which is not related to merit and which is not justifiable.
We drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Court of Appeal had now narrowly construed the phrase "requirement or condition". Indeed one member of the court, Lord Justice Balcome, in giving his judgment in the Mear case, indicated that there were strong arguments that the absolute bar construction of "requirement or condition" may not be consistent with the object of the legislation. He went on to suggest that the law might need reform. This is the place to reform the law.
The definition contained in Amendment No. 56 will broaden the concept of indirect discrimination. In Committee the Minister resisted the amendment, claiming that the problem was not one about the technicalities of the definition:
"but much more with the unintentional and structural discrimination that occurs through slack and lax employment practices".—[Official Report, 11/7/89; col. 177.]

661
It seems to me that the Minister was making out the case for this amendment. Our amendment would address the problem of slack and lax employment practices as well as "requirement or condition", whereas the government definition will not address the problem unless the criteria complained of amount to a "requirement or condition".
Slack and lax employment practices will persist under the Government's definition, whereas they would be caught within the net of the amendment. That essentially is the argument for our definition. Broaden the definition and we shall catch the practices which do not come within the narrow construction of the terms of "requirement or condition". I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, had to say about his amendment. I think he will agree that it concerns one of the tests which must be satisfied by a person who complains of indirect discrimination. As such it could have far-reaching implications for the entire Bill. As the noble Lord pointed out, we covered the same ground in our deliberations in Committee. I fear that I may have to go over it once more. This time I hope to be more concise.
The existing definition of indirect discrimination which we have included in the Bill is the same as that which is used in sex and race legislation. It is also basically a fair definition. It does not load the system too heavily on one side or the other. I believe that it is fair for a complainant to have to show that he was excluded from employment by the application of an absolute and exclusive condition. To broaden the definition in the way suggested by the amendment would open the way to complaints that any of an employer's policies or practices had led to an individual being discriminated against. The allegation would be less clear cut, and the tribunal would have difficulty in reaching consistent decisions. We think further that it would be basically unfair to open proceedings against an employer on such a basis.
That is not to say that the existing definition gives scope to an employer to continue with unsatisfactory practices. I have gone on record as stating, and it has been said also by my honourable friends in another place, that the real difficulty in Northern Ireland in practical terms is not necessarily with the technical definition of indirect discrimination but with unintentional discrimination brought about by informal and careless recruitment practices. The real attack on discrimination will be by means of the provisions in the Bill for employer reviews, commission inquiries and investigations, and agreed follow-up action. As your Lordships are aware, the basic thrust of the whole Bill is centred on the provision of equality of opportunity by means of good practice. If we can establish good practice as an accepted part of an employer's philosophy, then the incidence of discrimination will inevitably diminish.
That is why I believe the thought behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord
662
Prys-Davies, is somewhat misdirected. As we see it, the amendment seeks to use individual cases of discrimination as a lever to promote wider changes in employment practice. We have adopted the alternative approach, concentrating on the strong and incisive enforcement of good practice backed by both economic and criminal sanctions.
The other advantage of our definition is that it is common to sex discrimination also. As has been made very clear in our discussions on affirmative action training, it is necessary for an employer to be aware of his responsibilies in both areas of anti-discrimination law. It would complicate life unreasonably if one definition applied to religious discrimination cases and another to those of sex discrimination.
I go on record once again as stressing that we believe that the Government's approach to this issue is the most appropriate one and that the implications of changing the definition of indirect discrimination would not be helpful, least of all in this particular area of Clause 49. For that reason, I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept the amendment this evening.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister has been unable to see his way clear to accept this amendment. In support of the amendment I should tell the House that the weakness in the definition was spotted as long ago as 1987 by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland, which is the Government's advisory committee on human rights in the Province. That was the commission's view in 1987, but the Government seem to have set their face against widening the definition. Therefore we believe that the Bill will not work as well as the Government hope. It is an issue on which we should take the view of the House.
9.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 48.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Barnett, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Brooks of Temorfa, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Winstanley, L.

Longford, E.

663

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lyell, L.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Barber, L.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Blatch, B.

Morris, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Caithness, E. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cowley, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Denham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dundee, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eccles, V.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trafford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 50 [Complaints of unlawful discrimination]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 41, line 47, at end insert—
("and
(d) a recommendation that the respondent takes such action for promoting equality of opportunity as appears to the Tribunal to be reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances, providing however that such a recommendation shall not be subject to subsection (5) hereof").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would allow the tribunal in the course of a hearing, if it comes across evidence of failure to provide equality of opportunity but not of indirect discrimination within the restricted meaning of the Bill, to make a recommendation that the employer takes action to provide equality of opportunity.
Clearly this is a compromise in so far as it would be open to the employer to ignore the recommendation without attracting a penalty. However, we think that it would be a valuable power to give to the tribunal. It would be valuable for two reasons. First, the recommendation would be attached to the tribunal's verdict. It would therefore enjoy the status of a tribunal recommendation. Because it would enjoy that status, we believe that it could have a strong, persuasive effect on an employer.
Secondly, it would have the effect of harmonising the practice of the commission with the case law of the tribunal. The amendment would avoid a situation where an employer could violate the equal opportunities policies recommended by the commission, and possibly by the Government, and yet appear to receive the blessing of the tribunal for doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, may argue that the amendment is not necessary because the tribunal has an implied power to make a recommendation, and therefore it is not required. We accept that the
664
tribunal will have the implied power, but we believe nevertheless that by setting it out on the face of the Bill the tribunal and the parties will be aware of its existence. For that reason the tribunal may be more likely to make use of it.
We invite support for the amendment which would convert an implied power into a specific power. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment was superbly and eloquently argued by the noble Lord. However, I am still a trifle puzzled because it seems to be attempting to strengthen the role of the tribunal in regard to recommending action in individual cases. It also makes a confusing reference to an enforcement mechanism—that provided by subsection (5)—which applies only to recommendations made under another subsection and which is not applicable in the circumstances set out by the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to explain the position. The amendment contains a reference to subsection (5). However, that is a mistake on our part. Earlier today we complained about being rushed into preparing our amendments on Friday. Afterwards I realised that there should be no reference in this clause to subsection (5) because it is to be a recommendation which is not accompanied by a penalty.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in view of the rush, I mean no discourtesy. Nevertheless, the amendment makes a reference and I hope that with patience the noble Lord will bear with me while I try to explain our case.
We are discussing the definition of indirect discrimintion in the Bill. Since, for reasons which have been explained in our discussion of what is now Clause 49, the Government cannot accept a new definition of indirect descrimination, the noble Lord is seeking to give the tribunal a more interventionist role in individual cases of discrimination. The objective of the amendment, as I understand it, is that, where the tribunal finds a complaint before it to be well founded, it may recommend that the respondent takes whatever action appears appropriate to the tribunal to promote equality of opportunity.
The Government have already placed a duty on the commission—where they consider such a duty more appropriately rests—to follow the proceedings in individual cases, to form an opinion that there had been a failure to afford equality of opportunity and to accept written undertakings from employers on the remedial action to be taken. If undertakings are not forthcoming, the commission can proceed to full-scale investigation of the employer under Clause 11. In our view the amendment is still unnecessary. The forming of an opionion by the commission acts as a clear signal to the employers that remedial action is required.
As I explained in moving the earlier amendment, we believe that it is inappropriate to place the power to recommend that the respondent take action on the tribunal rather than the commission. It is inappropriate because the only way of enforcing a

665
recommendation such as is suggested in the amendment would be by means of an investigation by the commission. Indeed, it seems as though the purpose of the amendment is to provoke such an investigation. But this could cause considerable complications. An investigation could lead to undertakings and directions. These undertakings and directions may be appealed to the tribunal. If it was a tribunal recommendation which stimulated the investigation in the first place, then no employer would have any confidence that his appeal would be heard objectively. The amendment would thus unintentionally and inevitiably compromise the position of the tribunal. Given the status, prestige and enforcement powers accorded generally to the tribunal by the Bill, we consider it essential and imperative to respect the integrity and objectivity of its judicial status and appellate functions. For that reason, we must agree to differ, and I cannot accept the amendment set out so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am not sure that I presented the case eloquently. I fear that I failed to convince the noble Lord of the essential nature of this amendment. In any event, the tribunal will have the power to make the recommendation. That is part of its inherent jurisdiction and it will have that power. There would be no need for this amendment had the Government accepted our definition of indirect discrimination, but that they have failed to do.
We now have to consider whether we shall bring back this amendment in a refined form because I can see that, as drafted, it is imperfect. That is a matter which we shall consider and on which we shall consult with our advisers. We shall possibly return with this amendment in a refined form at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Provision of training]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 46, line 3, leave out from ("37(A)") to end of line 23 and insert—
("Nothing in Parts III or IV shall render unlawful any act done by—

(a) an employer,

(b) an employment agency

(c) a vocational organisation, or

(d) a person providing services mentioned in section 22(1)

in or in connection with affording members of a community in Northern Ireland access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for employment, for employment in a particular capacity, or for a particular employment or occupation, provided that access to those facilities for training is not intentionally and exclusively confined to members of that community.
(2) For the purposes of this section "community" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government approve of affirmative action; namely, action designed to secure fair participation in
666
employment by members of the Protestant or Catholic community. We fully support affirmative action.
However, the employer who sets up an affirmative action scheme must be protected from a claim that his affirmative action programme itself constitutes a violation of the prohibition againt discrimination. The Government now accept that the employer must be protected from that challenge and seek to do so in the complex Clause 53.
We believe that Clause 53 is faulty, as it protects the employer only from a charge of indirect and not direct discrimination. The protection which is required in this sort of legislation is normally given by a specific exemption for an affirmative action scheme. Indeed, it was pointed out in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that British legislation on race and sex allows for gender and race exclusive training.
Amendment No. 59 exempts affirmative action schemes for the benefit of under-represened groups, provided that access to the training is not intentionally and exclusively confined to the members of that community. Therefore, that is the case for this amendment. We believe that it is superior to the Government's own Clause 53. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, this seems to me in many respects the most difficult and the most important clause that we have discussed. What has happened in the past is that, although we have had a law in existence since 1976, it has been shown to be largely ineffective in changing the balance of opportunity between the two communities.
The reasons for that are manifold, but one is discrimination and another is a form of discrimination which leaves any group—for example, the Catholic group—at a disadvantage, not only because of where they live but also because of their qualifications, or so it would appear from their under-representation in certain occupations. The only test by which we can tell if the law is working is whether that representation changes. Therefore, we have to devise means which will qualify the under-represented group to get into the occupation in which it is under-represented. That means training.
We have tried this in the Race Relations Act and in the Sex Discrimination Act. In both those Acts we have clauses which are devoted to the training of either women or members of ethnic groups. This is special gender-related training—gender-specific it is called—or race-specific training so that those groups can be brought up to a standard where they can compete. The position is then reached that in the application for a job it is done strictly on merit. However, what is not done on merit is the training offered to those people who have been disadvantaged. That is why it is so difficult and complicated.

667
One also runs into two different problems—I have drawn the attention of the Minister to Clause 47 in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and I also draw his attention to the comparable clause in the Race Relations Act 1976. Both seem to me to be simple, clear and unambiguous. There may be special reasons why they cannot be translated into Irish legislation, and if so I should like to hear them. But it seems to me that the criticisms made of the Government's clause by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, were well-founded.
For example, the real trouble, pointed out by the noble Lord, is that if people followed that clause they might find themselves guilty of direct discrimination. Let us suppose that one sets up a training centre in West Belfast. It would be a foolish person who did not know that that would make it almost impossible for members of one community to attend that training course. Indeed, that would be the purpose—not to prevent the others attending it, but to catch those who had not in the past been able to get training. I should have thought that would be said to be direct discrimination.
I do not see how the Government's clause avoids that problem. The second difficulty is that I understand the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland is worried about the clause and believes it may suffer from it. Therefore, I feel that even at this late stage this crucial element in the Bill—the part that is atttempting to change the situation—deserves most careful thought, even if it is only in the next few days. The amended clause put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is an improvement on the clause in the Bill. It may not be perfect, and perhaps we should endeavour to get something better, but it is certainly better than the present clause. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, takes us once again into very familiar territory. I was not necessarily thinking of West Belfast this early in the evening. We are dealing with affirmative action training and protection from both direct and indirect discrimination. When we come to our own alternative Amendment No. 60, I shall have something more to say, given that there is that possibility. I ask your Lordships to glance at the contents of what is now Clause 53.
I believe that clause meets the purposes which I understand this amendment is designed to achieve. It does so by applying a test which is more objective than that of intention which is proposed in this particular amendment. Essentially this is a reworking and refining of an amendment moved and then withdrawn at an earlier stage by the noble Lord. It certainly helps to clarify the distinction which noble Lords opposite draw between what they refer to as religious-specific and religious-exclusive training. In their terms religious-specific training means training taking religion into account to the extent of explicitly targeting training on an under-represented community, but not excluding those of other religions. I believe the noble Lord's
668
reference to West Belfast and the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, at an earlier stage, were relevant in their area.
Religious-exclusive training, in this amendment involves excluding all those who are of another religion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for refining his by now very familiar amendment to make their distinction clearer; and in doing so of course, for recognising that clarification was needed on the point. The new amendment also removes explicit reference to the Catholic and Protestant communities from the face of the Bill but achieves the same effect by attracting the definition of community in Part II of the Bill.
What is at issue in this amendment are two different approaches to the same basic objective. For the reasons outlined at an earlier stage when moving the adoption of what is now Clause 53, we believe that that clause is the best means of securing that objective. It protects affirmative action training from both direct and indirect discrimination while continuing to make it clear that religious-exclusive training is illegal. In other words, in selecting a group of people for training an employer should not be permitted to select on the basis of religious belief or political opinion.
I know that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested that an intention to benefit a particular religious group will amount to direct discrimination by virtue of Clause 53. I have to disabuse him. That is not so. Clause 53 provides for the targeting of training, both in terms of location—that is the West Belfast argument—and in terms of class. That would cover women or race if needs be. So it can be used effectively to target training to areas, or in terms of selection criteria, that would favour an under-represented group and would be intended to do so. It follows that religious under-representation would be taken into account in targeting the training without risk of direct discrimination. We have carefully framed what is now Clause 53 so that a person who intends to benefit an under-represented group is protected from allegations of both direct and indirect discrimination, so long as members of the majority group are not expressly excluded.
I hope that in my words, which may not be as eloquent as those of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, I have explained why we believe that Amendment No. 59 is not a suitable vehicle for achieving the objectives which are sought for it.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this is obviously a difficult and complex area of the Bill. There is a significant difference between the Government's position and the position of the Official Opposition. We believe that affirmative action programmes designed to rectify religious imbalance in the composition of the workforce must inevitably contain an element of direct discrimination on religious grounds. But, according to the Bill, employers are not allowed to take this factor into account when pursuing affirmative action. We believe that in practice the Government's position is untenable. We are at a loss to understand why

669
they are determined that employers in this situation shall not take religion into account when designing their schemes of affirmative action, given that the object of affirmative action, as spelt out in Clause 57, is to secure fair participation in employment by members of the two religious communities.
If the Government are not prepared to provide explicit protection for religious specific training programmes, it will be a brave man who will set up a religious specific training scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the Minister have said that this is a difficult area. We do not think that Clause 53 deals adequately with the position. However, we shall read the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and of the Minister and probably return with this issue at Report stage.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister said that one cannot have religious exclusive training programmes because that would be direct or indirect discrimination. The whole point of sections in both the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act is that there are provisions relating to the underprivileged and under-represented groups. That is the whole purpose of the exercise. As I said in Committee, there are women-only management training courses. They are exclusive to women. Men cannot go on them. That is permitted by the legislation. It exempts them from the charge of indirect or direct discrimination. That is specifically said in the legislation.
In Committee I understood the Minister to say that the women were arguing that any such training, focused exclusively on the minority religious group, the under-represented religious group, would fall foul of the sex discrimination legislation. Could not that problem be avoided by saying that any religious exclusive training must provide for both male and female in that exclusive group? If that were so, it would meet the problems of the women who say that exclusive religious training might leave out women altogether. Could that not be brought in so that the objections can be met by writing into the Bill that it must include both male and female in the exclusively selected group? I ask that as a question. If that is the only objection as regards women, I can see no other objection to exclusive training. Of course exclusive training is what you want if you wish to enhance the opportunities of the under-represented group.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and at this late hour I am afraid that I do not have much to add to what I have already said. I am not entirely on all fours with what the noble Baroness is driving at, but perhaps I may consider carefully what she said and, if she wishes, we may take further action at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. I think that that is all I can do in the circumstances. I cannot give a helpful or indeed a meaningful answer this evening.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No 60:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Redundancy
. After section 37A of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 there is inserted—
"Redundancy
37AA.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a practice relating to the selection of employees who may be dismissed as redundant is followed by an employer in pursuance of affirmative action and in accordance with an agreed procedure, and

(b) the practice does not involve the application of any condition or requirement framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion, but has or may have the effect that the proportion of employees of a particular religious belief or political opinion who are selected is smaller than the proportion of employees not of that religious belief or, as the case may be, not of that political opinion who are selected.

(2) The dismissal of an employee in pursuance of the practice is not by virtue of section 16(2) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 61. Both amendments are tabled in my name on the Marshalled List. The intention behind Amendment No. 60 is, I hope, apparent. We recognise, and I believe that it is generally accepted, that redundancy practices could have an effect which would compromise progress towards fair participation. If the result of affirmative action carried out by an employer had been to help correct under-representation in the workforce, it is not too difficult to see how a typical redundancy scheme, operating on the last in, first out basis, could completely undermine the beneficial results which he managed to achieve.
We have set our face against job selection or promotion, let alone selection for training courses, on the basis of religion. The merit principle applies at the point of selection. It follows that we are not prepared to act in the selection for redundancy on the basis of religion. Such selection would be discriminatory and illegal and would be contrary to the basic principles of fairness and equity which inform this legislation. Redundancy which is discriminatory in itself is therefore unacceptable as a solution to the problem that we have identified.
There is one more consideration. In drawing up the criteria for a redundancy scheme we must look into the overall balance of skills, qualifications, disciplinary record, flexibility and so on of the workforce as well as the long-term requirements of the employer. Leaving other considerations aside, we think that it is wrong to expect an employer to implement a redundancy scheme which maintained progress in the fair employment front but which denuded his undertaking of necessary skills and experience. All of those are important considerations. They have helped our thinking and they indicate the general context for this amendment.
I believe that the amendment is essential. It will allow an employer to safeguard the progress which has been made for fair participation. Further, it will not jeopardise industrial relations because it is firmly based upon agreed procedure, and it will protect the

671
employer himself from charges of direct or indirect discrimination. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord for introducing this amendment to the Bill, but we are concerned about the proposal. On Second Reading, and again in Committee, we pressed the Government to include redundancy procedures within the context of promoting equality of opportunity. We thought that the progress towards fair participation should not be weakened or compromised by redundancy schemes.
The Minister promised that the Government would introduce an amendment, and we now have that amendment. It is complex. It appears to us to be faulty in conception and in execution. It is faulty in conception, because it purports to protect those redundancy schemes which are themselves part of an affirmative action. What is the position when a company's redundancy policy is not part of the affirmative action? If a business runs into unforeseen difficulties, it may have to make certain employees redundant. That redundancy would not be part of an affirmative action programme. What will happen where the redundancy scheme is not part of the affirmative action policy?
It is faulty in execution because the redundancy must be,
"in accordance with an agreed procedure".
That term is not defined. Will the Minister tell us with whom the procedure must be agreed? Who is to be the other party to the agreement? If it is meant to be the trade unions, the shop stewards, has the point been cleared with the unions? We are uneasy about the amendment. It appears to be extremely complex and faulty on the two grounds that I have mentioned.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I wholly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said about the obscure phrase,
"in accordance with an agreed procedure"
because we do not know with whom it is to be agreed, what the procedure is or who would agree it if it were proposed..
What struck me earlier was when the Minister said that the Government have set their faces—I believe that I quote him—"against job selection or training on the basis of religion". If that is a statement of government policy, it explains why they have such trouble with Clause 53, which is about training on the basis, and it has to be on the basis, of under-represented religious groups. It is therefore in some way training on the basis of religion.
Does the Minister mean what he says? If he means what he says, he cannot have that kind of training. If he does not mean what he says, what does he mean? This is close to the heart of the matter around which we have been walking for a lot of this evening. In other respects, I agree fully with what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, says.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may attempt to clarify a point because I am also confused about redundancy in relation to agreed procedures. It must
672
obviously be in relation to an agreed procedure with the trade unions. I envisage that any redundancy programme drawn up in agreement with the trade unions would include certain specific factors, of which one might be skill and another length of service. It is almost certain to take into account length of service—last in, first out.
The normal practice is for the unions to ask for last in, first out and then to make reservations to the point on various grounds. If those criteria are laid down clearly enough, it is possible for members of either religious group, if they are made redundant, to challenge that under the terms of those criteria they should not have been made redundant. They can protect themselves. I am not sure whether it needs to go into the legislation. If there are clearly defined factors to say who is to be made redundant, and you, Mr. O'McCarthy, are made redundant and you can at least show that under the terms of all those factors someone else—Mr. Prot—should have been made redundant, you can surely claim that that is unlawful discrimination.
What worries me here is the extent to which last in, first out is a major criterion for redundancy, as it frequently is. Could it not be the case that in certain areas where until recently almost all the people taken on have been Protestant and then, because of the operation of a non-discriminatory policy, a considerable number of Catholics are taken on, last in, first out means that they will be the ones to go? That is correct under the last in, first out criterion. However, incorrectly it could be indirect discrimination and the point needs to be clarified.
The idea is to have criteria which are clearly understood and agreed with the trade unions and then applied in redundancy. That leaves open the opportunity for someone to appeal that in terms of these criteria there has been discrimination on the grounds that somebody has been shuffled onto the list who ought not to be. We all know that this happens again and again in connection with redundancy.
People are shuffled onto the list because they are somebody's non-blue-eyed boys. This happens everywhere. If they can take their case somewhere, to the tribunal, and establish that it was discrimination on grounds of religion and not in accordance with the criteria, then they are covered. However, that does not cover the last in, first out point, unless something is put into the legislation to make sure that it does. I should like clarification on that point.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may reply. I have listened to what the noble Baroness has had to say and I shall certainly come to the point of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter. We are most grateful for the contribution from the noble Baroness. She has discerned the scope and intent, as well as the effect of the amendment. I shall have one or two more amplifications to add to the process of redundancy.
First, I have a definition here of agreed procedures. This follows other industrial relations legislation

673
which requires agreement to redundancy measures by employees and their representatives. So I hope noble Lords will agree that, as far as possible, in this difficult and often painful area agreement between employers and employees' representatives is paramount. I stress that where the redundancy scheme is not part of affirmative action the employer has no special protection. Indeed, he does not need any. I have stressed that we are concerned only to protect against the erosion of gains, not to provide for selection for redundancy on the basis of religion.
Perhaps I may amplify the amendment slightly. It gives employers the flexibility which I think is necessary in this area to negotiate a redundancy scheme which must not involve any condition or requirement framed by reference to a religious belief or political opinion. But as the noble Baroness pointed out, it may have a disproportionate effect on one community. It protects such schemes from the problems of both direct and indirect discrimination.
However, in order to do that we must meet three conditions. I shall just go through them briefly. First, the scheme is being carried out in pursuance of affirmative action. That means that the objective of the scheme is to help secure fair participation in employment. Secondly, the scheme must be in accordance with the agreed procedures. That means that it would have been agreed by the unions or the representatives of the employees, and it will certainly not in any way constitute a threat to good industrial relations. Thirdly, the scheme must not be selective on the basis of religious belief or political opinion.
That means that, while a larger number of persons from one community than from another may be affected by the scheme, religious belief or political opinion is not made a condition for inclusion in it. That is, of course, fully consistent with the protection which is afforded to affirmative action training by Clause 53. I hope that that goes some way to amplifying what I set forth at the outset. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing up this aspect of the amendment. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not think the noble Lord dealt with my problem about last in, first out. There has been a recent recruitment programme which has taken in a larger number of Catholics than Protestants. The latter would therefore under a last in, first out criterion, go.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the last in, first out method is one of several methods. As I said, if by an agreed procedure a large number of Catholics was the result, I think that in the three conditions which I stressed that would certainly be part of the agreed procedures. I do not believe there is any need for a specific reference to last in, first out schemes. Although they may be in the majority, other schemes may exist also. They are covered by the amendment to the extent that in appropriate circumstances we should want to see such schemes abandoned. That would be precisely the case when a last in, first out scheme would have the effect of eroding gains made by the under-represented community.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, with the leave of the House, will the Minister indicate precisely what part of his amendment deals with the practice of last in, first out?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I said that last in, first out was one of a number of schemes. I do not necessarily take the thrust of the noble Lord's point. However, we are coming close to abusing the rules on Report. I have stressed all the conditions and the agreed procedures and I think that last in, first out, where it is covered by the agreed procedures, should not represent a problem. I covered the other problems which may be in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
As I said, the amendment, if it is carried, will give employers flexibility subject to three conditions. I think the noble Lord heard what I said, but those three conditions certainly would cover all aspects of last in, first out. I amplified that for the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Measures to encourage applications etc. from under-represented community]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 46, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 25 and insert ("After section 37A of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 60. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Meaning of 'affirmative action]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 47, line 22, at end insert—
("and "fair participation" means a more representative distribution of employment between the two communities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this amendment is to define the concept of fair participation which is used in the Bill. Affirmative action is defined in Clause 57 as action which is designed to secure fair participation in employment by members of the two communities. That is a key concept, but nowhere in Clause 57, or anywhere else in the Bill, are the words "fair employment" defined.
In Committee, the Minister introduced at least two amendments. The concept of fair participation was used in both of them, but again the term was not defined. We do not quite understand the Government's reluctance to define the term. Amendment No. 62 offers a definition. I should be the first to accept that there is no novelty at all about the definition which appears in our amendment. It is not a definition that we have thought out. The definition comes from the Government White Paper which preceded the Bill.
We believe that a Bill such as this, which is designed to promote fair employment, should be specific about what is meant by the term. The amendment provides a definition and we believe that that definition gives an objective standard by which progress towards equality of opportunity can be measured. Therefore we believe that the definition would improve the Bill substantially. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment raises an issue that we have been through at considerable length both here and in another place as to what is a proper definition of "affirmative action". The term can be given different definitions in different jurisdictions. The noble Lord has suggested the meaning of "affirmative action". There is a definition in paragraph 3.20 of our White Paper—I am thankful to learn that the noble Lord has looked at it—and one wonders why it does not appear in Clause 57. However, we do not think that this amendment is necessary or indeed that it would meet the spirit of paragraph 3.20.
May I explain briefly the two main points? The definition of "affirmative action" in the Bill is deliberately drafted as widely as possible. We did that in order to strengthen the Bill by avoiding too specific a definition which would prove limiting in
676
subsequent interpretation and practice. The definition strengthens the Bill by giving the commission—the commission itself will draw up the code and specify alternative action measures within it—the widest flexibility and discretion in issuing recommendations and directions on the specifics of affirmative action. The same discretion would be given to the new tribunal when it issues orders of enforcement which incorporate affirmative action measures.
The objective of promoting more representative distribution of employment within the workforce is set out and that objective is implicit in the three aspects of the definition of "affirmative action". First of all, there is action designed to secure fair participation in employment by members of the Protestant or Catholic community by means including the adoption of practices encouraging participation. Then there is the modification or abandonment of practices which restrict or discourage fair participation.
I come back to fair participation in the terms suggested by the amendment. It is left at large in the Bill; it is not defined. That is deliberate, for the reason that fair participation depends upon the circumstances of each individual case. It can be defined, first, by the employer himself taking account of his location, the jobs on offer, the wages paid, the nature of the work and the prevailing pattern of travel to work. The second instance can be defined by the commission in a number of circumstances when it analyses monitoring returns and when it inquires into a new employer's monitoring returns on the outcome of his review. Similarly, the tribunal could take a view of what constituted fair participation, considering any appeal against the direction of the commission.
For all these reasons, I have to consider the amendment proposed by the noble Lord to be unnecessary. Certainly we endorse the spirit and the intention behind it. We understand that he wishes to achieve something further, but we think that that is already incorporated in the broad and expansive definition of "affirmative action". That is why we would ask your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for a few crumbs of comfort. I have had a quick look at Clause 57, to which he has referred, but I do not see the term defined there. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, it is puzzling why this definition was adequate when the White Paper was published but is now no longer adequate. That is not at all clear to me. Indeed, if I may be frank, we on these Benches are left with the impression that the Government's real reason for refusing to adhere to the definition in the White Paper is possibly connected with their unwillingness to set themselves targets for reducing the staggering differential rate of unemployment between Catholics and Protestants. That is the uneasy conviction which is growing among us. However, I shall not press the matter further this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of certain provisions of Fair Employment (Northern reland) Act 1976.
. Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 (certificate that act done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, or of protecting public safety or public order to be conclusive evidence of that fact) should cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a long discussion in Committee about this amendment. Its effect is to allow independent scrutiny by the judiciary of the national security notices issued by the Secretary of State. It was also discussed at Second Reading.
I want to emphasise that we accept that the Secretary of State must have the right to issue a national security notice even though the effect. of that notice is to prevent an investigation by the commission into the merits of a claim of alleged discrimination. It worries the Official Opposition and many people in Northern Ireland that, as the law stands, that certificate cannot be challenged. It is unappealable and cannot be challenged.
In Committee the Minister seemed to draw comfort from the fact that certificates had only been issued on 17 occasions. That, we believe, misses the point. I accept that there were 17, but there is no means of knowing whether those certificates had been validly issued.
In Committee the Minister opposed the amendment on the basis that to dismantle the certification process would undermine national security. We did not advance that argument. The argument is totally misconceived because the amendment does not call for the procedure to be dismantled.
We pointed out in Committee that under Part II of the Bill a contractor who is certified by the Secretary of State as being an unqualified person on grounds of national security is entitled to apply for judicial review of such a decision. If a contractor is entitled to judicial review, why cannot the ordinary individual who believes that he has been unfairly discriminated against apply for judicial review? Moreover, but subject to what the Minister will have to tell us about the Government's Amendment No. 68, a national security certificate issued under the sex discrimination order can be the subject of judicial review.
As I said, there is widespread concern in Northern Ireland and, I believe, among the Opposition parties generally about this order. Indeed, the Minister in Committee acknowledged that there was concern. The fact that the certificate has been issued on only 17 occasions in no way allays our fears. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment. Not only is it causing concern in Northern Ireland, but it seems quite unacceptable in any part of this country that the Secretary of State should have the power to issue a certificate which is then conclusive
678
evidence that an act has been committed and prevents any investigation into a complaint in respect of which such a certificate had been issued. That cannot be regarded as a respectable mode of procedure or one which inspires confidence anywhere. In my view it is totally unacceptable.
I thought that the Minister had said at Committee that he would consider the position, and that he saw the force of introducing some independent element to scrutinise these matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has pointed out, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 has been amended to allow judicial review in the context of sex discrimination in Northern Ireland. Why is it only allowed to women and not to other people? It seems to me that the Government have a duty to do something about this.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, went over this ground at an earlier stage. It was raised even at Second Reading. I acknowledge that both noble Lords this evening have produced one or two new, interesting sides to the argument. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that I deployed at an earlier stage, let alone at Second Reading. Perhaps I may make two points in defence of our position.
We are on all fours with the noble Lords who have spoken that the arbitrary use of power is reprehensible. However, as I tried to stress last week, and I certainly would point it out again this evening, the way in which the power of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State under the 1976 Act to issue Section 42 certificates is used is by no means arbitrary.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, took me to task last week—he has taken me to task again tonight—by saying that 17 certificates issued in 13 years is too many. Perhaps it is. But both noble Lords, and all of your Lordships who are here this evening, will be conscious of the very considerable responsibility which is vested in my right honourable friend in exercising that arbitrary power. We are discussing security. We are discussing not just reasons which might be relevant elsewhere—in your Lordships' House, in England, in Wales or in Scotland—but matters of security and of 'very difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, accepts this point. I certainly stress it once again. Any decisions-17 in 13 years—are taken only after the very closest inquiry, scrutiny and deliberation.
At Committee stage recently I stressed that we are still examining the administrative procedures which are followed before a certificate under Section 42 is issued. I am afraid that I cannot be more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, than I was last week about how our inquiries are proceeding. I assure him that we shall continue to examine this problem to try to identify any ways of making changes to the system under Section 42, both in administrative terms and in terms of trying to identify—the noble Lord raised a point on my earlier words—means of introducing an independent element.

679
I do not see that this will remove the suspicion, but I feel that it will go some way to allaying the suspicion with which Section 42 certificates are regarded in some quarters. But at all times we must remember the security interests which this system is designed to protect. I should be very dishonest if I suggested that we were able to bring forward proposals in the near future, let alone at a later stage. We take on board all that has been said this evening by your Lordships. We are looking hard at it but I am afraid that I cannot recommend the acceptance of the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said. It is a disappointing response, bearing in mind that on the Government's own evidence they have been considering the procedures since before the Bill arrived in this House. We did not say that the Government had issued too many certificates. We did not make that point. The point we were trying to make was that whether the certificates were 17 in number or not, there was no means by which an individual who felt that he had been wrongly discriminated against could call for that certificate to be the subject of judicial review. It is as simple as that.
I adopt all the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I merely concentrated on the experience of Northern Ireland because at least it has experience of this system. It is aggrieved by the system. I fear that I cannot take the issue any further tonight, but the Government must surely take the point that it is not sufficient for justice to be done. Justice must also be seen to be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 50, line 34, leave out ("either") and insert ("any").
Page 50, line 36, after ("President") insert ("or Vice-President").
Page 50, line 40, leave out ("section 2") and insert ("appointed under section 3(1)(c)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments in the enormous parcel of amendments to which I spoke when I moved Amendment No. 3. They are all consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 54, line 18, at end insert—
("29A. At the end of Article 63 of that Order there is added—
"(3) Where a complaint is presented to an industrial tribunal under paragraph (1) and it appears to the tribunal that the act to which the complaint relates is one in respect of which (as being unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976)—
680

(a) a complaint could be made to the Fair Employment Tribunal for Northern Ireland under Part III of that Act; or

(b) such a complaint has been made, but the proceedings under that Act have not been disposed of,

the tribunal shall not proceed further under this Order in relation to the complaint unless all proceedings which can be taken under that Act in respect of the act have been disposed of" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have had a whisper from my noble friend that I should be brief. I shall be. This amendment concerns sex discrimination. I had a note on a previous amendment asking the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to wait for his reply until I reached the amendment on sex discrimination, as I now have.
This concerns the circumstances that might arise when there is a complaint of unlawful discrimination under Part III of the 1976 Act which could also give rise to a complaint of unlawful discrimination under Part III of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The amendment seeks to ensure that if there is an issue under Part III of the 1976 Act, that issue is decided first. As such it makes provision equivalent to that of Article 29(2) of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 in respect of a complaint of unfair dismissal where the facts giving rise to the complaint also raise issues under Part III of the 1976 Act.
To ensure that the provisions are effective, we believe that it is necessary to lay consideration before an industrial tribunal of a complaint of sex discrimination which might also involve issues of religious discrimination. That is what the amendment sets out to do and what it will achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this is another amendment which causes us considerable concern. The Minister has explained the background. It is designed to meet the difficulty which he identified. The Government's solution is to seek to get around the difficulty where there is a conflict between the two pieces of legislation by suspending the proceedings under the sex discrimination order until such time as the proceedings under the fair employment legislation, including possible appeals, have been concluded.
The Minister has not explained to the House why the Government have decided that the sex discrimination proceedings are to be delayed. We have not been given the reasons. He has merely asserted that under this amendment they will be delayed.
We criticise the proposal on three main grounds. First, the proceedings under the Fair Employment Bill could be delayed for two or three years. There may be an appeal to the tribunal, from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal, from the Court of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of this House or a judicial review. A delay of that order—indeed, a delay of 12 months—could prejudice the interests of both parties to the proceedings. We believe that that is wrong.

681
Secondly, the solution appears to us to offer less favourable treatment to a woman claiming to have been discriminated against under the sex discrimination order. Therefore, we are entitled to ask whether the result will mean a conflict with Community law. Thirdly—and this is an aspect of the second argument—the solution would block or delay a woman's access to a Community-derived right and we believe that that could be contrary to Community law.
The amendment, coming at the end of a long day, has grave implications for the application of Community law. We believe that it is contrary to equal treatment directives. I personally have no experience of Community law. However, if it is contrary to Community law, might it not be possible for an individual or an organisation with a specific interest in discrimination policies to apply for an injunction in order to prevent Parliament from approving the amendment?
Perhaps the Minister can say whether the Department of Economic Development, which appears to have stumbled across this solution late in the day, has taken advice from a barrister specialising in Community law as regards the legality of the amendment. If it has not obtained reassuring advice from counsel, should the Government not withdraw the amendment until advice has been received between now and next Thursday?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I presented this amendment in indecent haste. The noble Lord has had a full innings and I shall reply briefly. Under Clause 6 your Lordships will see that the president of the Industrial Tribunal and the Fair Employment Tribunal is empowered to direct that any matters relating to unfair dismissal or sex discrimination raised in a case of religious discrimination before the Fair Employment Tribunal may be heard by that tribunal.
As regards European law, I am advised that we are confident that the amendment does not breach the equal treatment directive. As I said to the noble Lord during Wimbledon, that is the instant volley which I trust will land within the lines. That is the advice I have at present.
Perhaps I may outline the procedure which we envisage will operate. In a case of sex discrimination, an element of religious discrimination arises. The industrial tribunal adjourns. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is rather unrealistic in suggesting that it will adjourn for two to three years to hear these cases. The noble Lord shakes his head but he will be aware of the large tomes, and not just the Mear and Pereira cases which we discussed at the last stage of the Bill. I do not think that they would have required any such adjournment. However, in this case the industrial tribunal would adjourn and the complainant would make a complaint of religious discrimination to the Fair Employment Tribunal. That tribunal would hear both sex and religious discrimination cases simultaneously. I understand that that is how settlement of the case would be achieved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 69:
Line 2, leave out ("an office of President") and insert ("offices of President and Vice-President").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Isle of Wight Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Medway Tunnel Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ABBEY NATIONAL FREE SHARE ISSUE
  ABBEY NATIONAL FREE SHARE ISSUE
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS: USE OF ENDOWMENTS
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS: USE OF ENDOWMENTS
  MARRIED QUARTERS: SALE POLICY
  MARRIED QUARTERS: SALE POLICY
  MARRIED QUARTERS IN LONDON AREA
  MARRIED QUARTERS IN LONDON AREA
  HEALTH EXPENDITURE
  HEALTH EXPENDITURE
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: SAFETY OF TICKET GATES
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: SAFETY OF TICKET GATES
  FERRIES: SAFETY MEASURES
  FERRIES: SAFETY MEASURES