Sitting of 27 June 1989

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

  HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 June.

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
  Motion made,
  That the petitions of Eileen Tegg and Nicholas Holliman be referred hack to the Court of Referees.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the intention of the new general practitioners' contract is to increase doctors' list sizes.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): No, Sir. The sole aim of the new contract is to raise the standard of care patients receive from the family doctor service. There is no possibility that it will lead to any increase in average list size.
    Mr. Day: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in 1965, the British Medical Association, which was in dispute with the then Labour Government, recommended that general practitioners resign from the National Health Service? Is he further aware that the main point of dispute between the then Government and the BMA at the time was seniority payments, to which the Labour Government were opposed? Does he agree that the Opposition's present position is therefore rather hypocritical?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. There was a serious dispute between the former Labour Government and general practitioners on the last occasion when the general practitioners' contract was being revised. Obviously, the attitude of today's Labour party is rather different from that of its predecessor. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) would simply write a letter to the BMA asking what it wants the Labour party to agree to. That was not the practice in former times.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Secretary of State agree that a general practitioner should have a maximum number of patients? If there is to be a maximum, is it to be categorised according to elderly, young, indifferent, or what?
    Mr. Clarke: Nothing that I propose will increase a doctor's average list size. Obviously, patients will join the practice of a doctor whom they think gives them the right quality of care and the right amount of time. I would be most reluctant to contemplate a maximum. It would mean telling patients that they have to leave the list of a doctor whom they think is giving satisfactory service. That is not the way of going about it.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that increasing the capitation percentage of a doctor's remuneration could reduce the amount of time that a doctor can spend with each patient and that that could be counterproductive for health care?
    Mr. Clarke: No. Although I do not regard myself as a mathematical genius, I believe that most of those arguments are nonsense. A doctor's average list size is determined by the number of doctors and patients. I have no control over either of those things. Because more general practitioners keep joining the National Health Service, the average list sizes keep dropping, and I imagine that they will continue to do so. Patients will not join the list of someone who has taken on so many patients that he starts cutting the time that he spends with each patient. There is no way that anybody should or will react to the new contract by trying artifically to inflate a practice list over the average size.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the simple and straightforward way by which GPs can increase the average list size is by not appointing new partners? Is he aware of complaints, particularly by women graduates, that since he published his White Paper adverts for new partners have dried up and adverts for part-time partners have practically vanished? How can he possibly pretend that a contract that will make it more difficult for women to become established as general practitioners is likely to encourage more women to come forward for cervical smears?
    Mr. Clarke: It is an astonishing allegation that, for purely financial reasons, doctors will reduce the time that they can give patients just by not taking on another partner, and thereby willingly taking on more patients for themselves. The financial advantage to a partner in the average practice would be quite minor. I do not think that many doctors would be so irresponsible as to do that, and I do not think that patients would stay with practices that do that. I do not accept that anything in the new contract is any deterrent to women becoming full partners in general practice. I expect many more women to do so. For the first time, we are making provision for part-time principals, job sharing and so on to recognise that more women are likely to go into practice and have family commitments during some part of their careers.

    NHS Reform (Yorkshire)
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the prospects for self-governing hospitals in the Yorkshire region.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am very pleased to have received so far 10 expressions of interest in self-governing status in the Yorkshire region. I cannot yet comment in detail on the prospects for particular hospitals and units in the region.
    Mr. Greenway: Although I recognise that hospitals facing the threat of closure might not achieve self-government, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that hospitals that have expressed an interest in self-government should not have their hopes dashed by rationalisation plans formulated by health authorities since his White Paper proposals were published? In particular, will he consider the case of Malton, where the local general practitioner practice, supported by the family practitioner committee, is keen to take on a practice budget in conjunction with Malton community hospital achieving self-governing status, towards which maintaining general practitioner beds and other services is essential for improved patient care and convenience?
    Mr. Clarke: I have made it clear that self-government cannot be considered as an alternative to necessary closure and that health authorities must continue with planning their services as now. Nevertheless, I see prospects of a combination of self-government for a community hospital and of practice budgets for some local general practitioner practices leading to an increased use and better financing of popular general practitioner beds in community hospitals. If any expressions of interest come from Malton, I shall, of course, consider them with interest and on their merits.
    Mr. Duffy: Earlier this month the Secretary of State announced the regional conference for Leeds on 11 July for the hospitals that he has in mind for self-government and that are showing interest in the idea. As some hospitals in Sheffield, Doncaster and north Nottinghamshire, which fall, as he knows, within the area of the Trent regional health authority, are showing similar interest, will he consider arranging a separate conference to be located in, say, Sheffield for the same purpose?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall consider that helpful suggestion. We are not so rigid about regional boundaries as to insist that people attend a centre that is less convenient for their hospital. The meetings that I have attended so far with people from the units where interest has been expressed have been extremely successful, and I am sure that we shall have a full series of such meetings.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept from me that there is considerable excitement in Leeds at the prospect of self-government for hospitals, and positive and great interest in the possibilities for the future? However, will he join me in condemning the scurrilous scaremongering of the unions and other politically motivated people in Leeds to try to prevent self-government?
    Mr. Clarke: Local people are extremely interested in the idea of doctors, nurses and hospital managers having more autonomy over how their hospital is run. When I attend meetings with those interested, there is considerable interest as we explain in more detail how our proposals will work in financial and personnel terms and how they will be able to develop their own services. I agree with my hon. Friend. All that is happening despite the daft campaign in
    818
    some locations where people are still claiming that the proposals will lead to hospitals leaving the Health Service or to disruptions in the service. That argument is simply not sustainable when one considers the details of our proposals.
    Mr. Crowther: Is the Secretary of State aware that some consultants in the Yorkshire region are privately expressing fears that a hospital that does not become self governing may suffer a hidden penalty in the allocation of resources? Will he give the House a cast-iron assurance that that will not happen?
    Mr. Clarke: Under the new system, resources will be allocated to the health authorities and to general practitioners who hold practice budgets. They will decide the hospitals with which to have an agreement for the provision of the services that they need. The fear that the hon. Gentleman has described is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the new arrangement will work.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends that reduction in length-of-stay targets should form part of hospital contracts.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): Length of stay could be one element which health authorities might discuss with hospitals when reaching an agreement on a contract as it might be an important factor in determining how many patients could be treated within the resources available. The contract itself need not, however, specify how long a patient should stay in hospital.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that it would be disgraceful to build into a system for hospital contracts financial pressures that could lead to patients being discharged before their social circumstances in the community are right and before their medical needs are correct? Does he agree that that would simply be shifting the cash responsibility from the hospital contract on to social and community service—another sector of the budget?
    Mr. Freeman: The quality of care available in hospital is not related to and cannot be correlated with the length of stay of patients. The average length of stay of patients over the past 10 years has decreased from 13 days to 10 days. That is a reflection of the substantial increase in day surgery and of advance in medical technology.
    Mr. Redwood: How serious is the Minister about improving quality of treatment? Will he use the contracts as one way of improving quality? What progress is being made with the appointments systems as part of that package? Could those also be enforced through the contracts?
    Mr. Freeman: Quality is extremely important in hospital care. I commend to my hon. Friend and the House the new document published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 20 June entitled "Self-governing Hospitals", which goes into some detail about the importance of quality in contracts for care of patients in hospital.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from professional bodies and trade unions concerning the Government's review of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from members of the public about the White Paper "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have received in total about 8,000 representations so far.
    Mr. Hughes: Would it not he wiser if the Secretary of State were more candid with the House and admitted that all those bodies have been positively hostile to his proposals, believing that they can cause serious damage to patient care? If he did so, he could scrap his proposals and go back to the drawing board. Certainly many of his Back-Bench Members would he relieved.
    Mr. Clarke: I fear that if I say anything of the kind, it will be a long way from the truth. Although there is a great deal of public campaigning, I am having extremely helpful and constructive meetings not only with those who lead the professional organisations, but with large numbers of their members. It is obvious that the process of implementing the reforms is already under way, because the great bulk of them have been readily accepted by the majority of the medical profession and others.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he is giving serious consideration to all constructive representations made to him?
    Mr. Clarke: I can. The whole basis on which we have proceeded is to issue a White Paper and working documents inviting constructive contributions. We intend to work out in detail matters such as self-governing hospitals and general practitioners' practice budgets with willing volunteers. I keep telling my organised critics that they must choose whether they wish to remain spectators on the sidelines, merely shouting abuse, or to take part in constructive and sensible discussion on how the Health Service might be improved.
    Mr. Grocott: If it is true that the Minister is listening to constructive criticism, which some of us have reason to doubt, can he give the House one or two concrete examples of the way in which his proposals have changed as a result of the almost universal objections that he has received?
    Mr. Clarke: I spent 10 hours in the time-honoured method of beer and sandwiches in an almost locked room resolving difficulties over the general practitioners' contract and bringing to an end a very protracted period of negotiation.
    If the hon. Gentleman would look at our latest documents for those interested in self-government, he will find that there is an overall statement and a working paper describing financial and contractual difficulties, and that thinking has moved on quite a lot. Since we produced the White Paper we have put in much more detail, precisely in response to the detailed questions that have been put to us.
    Dr. Reid: I congratulate the Minister on being more restrained in his comments about doctors than he was at the previous Question Time. A careful reading of Hansard for the previous Question Time will reveal that he and his hon. Friends branded the medical profession and doctors
    820
    as being unscrupulous, misleading and liars. Will the Minister take the opportunity to dissociate himself from the comments that were made on that occasion about the medical profession?
    Mr. Clarke: I would normally rely on the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard with a little more care than he appears to have been doing. Both I and many of my hon. Friends have made strong comments about some of the advertising material put out by the British Medical Association. We believe that it is an extremely unscrupulous campaign. We have made no attacks on the medical profession or on individual doctors, except on those doctors who are misleading their patients and are making wild allegations that they know to be untrue. As I said in reply to a previous question, there is an enormous gulf between some of the public protestations on behalf of the associations and what is said in private discussion with the leaders of the BMA and others. The BMA is obviously in favour of better financial management systems, medical audit and money following the patient. We should build on that and ignore all the rather silly propaganda that appears in the newspapers.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. and learned Friend always bear it in mind that the reactions to the review from the medical profession, especially the BMA, are as predictable as Pavlov's dogs? It has always rejected every suggestion for reform in the National Health Service. Does he agree that, if he had listened to it and had not pressed through the reform of the limited list, we would have had £73 million per annum less to spend on patients?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend and I can remember many such campaigns that the BMA has run, under successive Governments, against suggestions for reform. On the strength of my latest meeting with the BMA leadership I am more hopeful on this occasion. The BMA began by accepting our aims and various features of the reforms, but it has not yet been able to put forward any positive proposals of its own that might further those aims. However, the initial outright rejection that is customary from the BMA has already begun to modify.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I give the Secretary of State the thanks of the official Opposition who, since the publication of his White Paper, had our best election results for 20 years? It is about time that he started listening to what the electorate is trying to tell him. Having told my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) that he has received 8,000 representations, will he now share with the House the breakdown of those representations and tell us how many supported his White Paper and how many wanted him to drop the whole idea and get back to the real problems of axed beds and closed wards?
    Mr. Clarke: I am afraid that I do not see my role in life as a good Samaritan to the Labour party. My principal duty is to carry through a process of reform that will produce a better National Health Service. Sooner or later, the Labour party must decide what it is saying rather than maintain its present outright opposition to everything that we propose.
    I am glad to say that many of the 8,000 representations that I have received deal with the serious detail of the White Paper and, for that reason, they do not break down

    821
    into yes and no answers. It is only the Labour party which is continuing to reject outright each suggestion that happens to come from the Government.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Has not the unscrupulous and misleading campaign carried out by the BMA so confused the doctors that they do not know whether to sign the contracts that have been placed before them and which the BMA has recommended?
    Mr. Clarke: I fear that that is the case. The BMA has run a strident campaign, but when it called a conference to endorse the deal that its leaders had negotiated with me it was unable to get consent. Now, no doubt, it is trying to explain it to many doctors who mistakenly fear that they will lose income as a result of the changes, and who also feel that they should be left to decide entirely for themselves what they do and how and when they do it. That is not the basis on which we should proceed given that the BMA began by agreeing with me that a new and better contract was required by April 1990.
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial help is to be given by his Department to those hospitals that are seeking to explain to local communities the Government's White Paper on the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): No specific financial allocation has been made to health authorities for this purpose. However, health authority chairmen and senior National Health Service managers have attended national and regional conferences, and received written material and visual aids to help them to explain the proposals and their implications to NHS staff and the public. This commitment to communication will continue throughout the period of the implementation process.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that the document entitled "Working for Patients" contains an obligation to explain to patients the implication of the White Paper? Today we have repeatedly heard the Secretary of State bitterly condemning doctors who are seeking to do that because he does not like the points that they are making to their patients. Wandsworth health authority, whose area the hon. and learned Gentlemen and I represent, wants to explain the White Paper, but it cannot do so because it does not have the money. Therefore, the very people whom the White Paper is supposed to he about will not have the opportunity to have it explained to them or to have their queries answered. That is a typical example of the Government imposing decisions on the very people who will not be given any opportunity to voice their objections to them.
    Mr. Mellor: A shortened version of "Working for Patients" has been made widely available to the public and there is ample opportunity for lively debates on the merits of the White Paper to be conducted in the local press. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is happening in our local press.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been working for patients in his constituency by building a new 700-bed, £35 million hospital—something inconceivable in the decade when the Labour party was in power, when capital spending was slashed to the bone. We shall continue to work in that constructive way for patients in Tooting.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with the leading article in my local paper which pointed out that local communities would have to be deaf, daft, or both, if they were not already well aware of the Government's proposals? Does he accept that excellent hospitals such as that at Lancaster and outstandingly good general practitioners, who are already providing many of the services for which they are not yet paid, will benefit enormously, as will their patients?
    Mr. Mellor: I am sure that what my hon. Friend says is right. The danger of a public debate arises if some people choose to use a debate about a great national service merely to spread propaganda, rather than truth, which means that the public debate becomes muddy. However, I am sure that the fact that the Government have proposals for improving patient care will stand us in good stead in the next decade when, as we all know, there will be unprecedented pressures on the NHS. It is better that we do that rather than act like those who throw mud around, but have no constructive proposals of their own.
    Ms. Harman: Why is it that although local communities receive an unwelcome dose of Government propaganda about their Health Service proposals, they have no say as to whether their local hospitals should be opted out of their local health authorities? If the Minister really believes, as he says, that more Health Service decisions should be taken locally, why does he not give local people a ballot before their local hospital is opted out?
    Mr. Mellor: There is a lack of coherence in the criticism from the Opposition. The Government were criticised by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for apparently not having made money available to tell local people about the proposals and are now being accused of putting forward a barrage of propaganda. The hon. Lady knows that no National Health Service hospital will opt out of anything; it is simply a matter of whether it becomes self governing within the NHS. Parroting slogans like demented mynah birds does the Opposition no good because people will realise that self-governing status is quite different from opting out. The decision as to whether a hospital should have self-governing status, like other decisions made within the NHS, will depend on whether, having taken account of the different voices, there is a good management case for doing so. The NHS has never been run by ballot, and it will not be in the future.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the effects of the proposals for medical audit outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will explain the intended effects of the White Paper proposals for medical audit.
    Mr. Mellor: The objective of the comprehensive system of medical audit proposed in the White Paper is to provide necessary reassurance to doctors, patients and management that the quality of medical care is under continual examination, and that clinical outcomes are being measured and thereby the best possible service provided for patients.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that at the outset there was considerable hostility to the concept of medical audit, but that with further

    823
    understanding there has been near-universal acceptance, and even welcome, of this valuable concept? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that, with careful consideration, the BMA might find some useful pointers for the future conduct of its campaign?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Clinical audit was pioneered by doctors and we are merely proposing to systematise it. As I made clear in an announcement to the House earlier this month, we made available £1 million for pilot projects, for which we have had enthusiastic applications across the length and breadth of the country. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear at our last meeting with the BMA there was a welcome not only for that part of the White Paper, but for improved information systems, the concept of money following patients and so on. I hope that the public propaganda battle will soon come into line with the obvious measure of agreement which exists on a number of key points in the document.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will nurses be included in the medical audit programme and how much money have the Government targeted to put the system into operation to provide the back-up to the National Health Service?
    Mr. Mellor: The measurement of clinical outcomes will show the effectiveness of all parts of the clinical process. So far, the sum of money made available for pilot studies is in excess of £ 1 million. We shall obviously move forward and ensure that as this becomes systematised, fresh resources will be made available at every stage.
    Mr. Hayes: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is not at all surprised that medical audit, which is about quality control, has been welcomed by all the medical professions. Is he encouraged by the fact that not only medical audit but money travelling with patients and resource management have been accepted by the BMA and other bodies? Does that not explode the myth that the medical profession is wholly opposed to the White Paper?
    Mr. Mellor: I hope that that also demonstrates that a barrage of inaccurate propaganda will not drive the Government off the reforms. Then we can have more sensible discussion of the merits and the detailed application of the proposals, and less propaganda calculated to mislead rather than to shed light on what everyone knows to be the vital necessity to change the service to fit the 1990s, when it will be subjected to unprecedented pressure. I believe that as time goes on more and more people will be compelled to admit that there is much merit in our proposals.
    Mrs. Mahon: When the Minister goes on his round of regional consultations with management, will he discuss medical audit in detail? Will he also tell us where his meeting with management in Leeds at 10 am on 11 July will take place? When I contacted his Department last week I could not find out.
    Mr. Mellor: I shall communicate that to the hon. Lady willingly. The meeting is about self-governing hospitals, but there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss other key proposals in the White Paper.

    Handicapped Children
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any representations about the number of handicapped children in institutional care; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met a deputation from Exodus earlier this year to discuss mentally handicapped children in hospital care. We have not received any representations about other groups of handicapped or disabled children in recent times.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to assist British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, and other such bodies, to find homes for handicapped children when they are needed? Does he accept that the figure of 5,500 handicapped children in institutional care, shown in the the first-ever survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, is far too high—about twice as high as previous estimates?
    Mr. Freeman: About three in 100 children are born with some disability—that is, about 360,000—and about 5,500 are in institutional care. I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for putting as many of them as possible into proper family care: we provide the agency to which he refers with about £300,000 a year, and support it strongly.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware of the staggering increase in the number of children and adults in short-term institutional care—from 11,000 in 1975 to 36,000 in 1985, according to the Audit Commission? Is there any way in which he can avoid the charge that those figures are an absolute condemnation of the level of support services in the community?
    Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the number of children undergoing short-term care in institutions has risen. That is partly a reflection of the fall in the number of children in long-term institutional care. Most children going into temporary care are there for between one and three months.
    Mr. Favell: The Griffiths report recommends that each social services department should ensure that adequate facilities exist for handicapped people in the community in each local authority area. That is fair enough, but is it sensible to suggest that social workers should assess the individual needs of each handicapped person? Would it not be far better for general practitioners to do that, and to take responsibility for their patients? After all, primary health care teams have doubled in size in recent years, and there are adequate facilities to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. Doctors have an important role to play, and we shall keep his suggestion under careful review.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not an affront to handicapped children in institutional care, and also outrageous, that many of the most important sections of the all-party Disabled Persons Services, Consultation and Representation Act 1986 are still awaiting implementation three years after Royal Assent? Does that not diminish the standing of the House? Is the Minister aware that local authorities of all persuasions now complain about a lack of resources with which to provide services under the

    825
    parent Act, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970? When will he respond to the just demands of disabled people and their organisations?
    Mr. Freeman: The Government announced yesterday that there would be a response to Griffiths before the summer recess, and that there will be a debate, in Government time, at the appropriate time thereafter. The issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises will be addressed then.

    Electoral Registration
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many constituencies in England electoral registration has fallen by 1,000 and more in the last year and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is responsible for statistics relating to electoral registers. A volume entitled "Electoral Statistics 1989" is available in the Library. This indicates that the electoral register fell by 1,000 or more in 76 English constituencies between 1988 and 1989, and there were increases of 1,000 or more potential voters in 63 constituencies.
    Mr. Barnes: The report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows also that there was a decline in England of 82,491, and offered as a reason for this that, as it could not be demographic changes or migration, it could have something to do with registration or with the postal strike of 1988. Unfortunately, the postal strike does not account for a similar collapse in Scotland between 1987 and 1988. Who is fiddling the franchise in Finchley and another 75 constituencies in England? Is this the only way that the Government feel that they can hold on to seats?
    Mr. Freeman: I am somewhat baffled by that supplementary question. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the electoral registration procedures and the franchise is not being fiddled.
    Mr. Jessel: As to demographic aspects of the electoral register, has my hon. Friend any information about how many centenarians are on the electoral register? Are they not tending to increase in number, and does this not show an improvement in the nation's health?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes. What is more, the doctors' contract makes specific provision for improving care for the very elderly through doctors visiting the over-75s on an annual basis and through higher capitation fees for the elderly.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received in respect of his proposals to cash-limit general practitioners' budgets.
    Mr. Mellor: General practice budgets are not to be cash limited.
    Mr. Smith: Under the White Paper proposals, both the larger practices that become budget holders and all the rest, through the indicative budgets set for family practitioner committees on drugs costs, will be subjected to cash limits. Is it not the case that that can only have the effect of undermining the confidence of patients in the
    826
    doctor-patient relationship, as the cash considerations threaten to displace medical considerations? As a result, patients will increasingly fear that the cost of their treatment rather than the medical need for their treatment will take priority. Will this not damage the most valuable part of the NHS?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman builds a house on sand because his basic premises are completely wrong. First, in terms of large practices, anyone who chooses to have a practice budget will choose to do so because he believes that he can operate effectively within it. That is quite different from an imposed cash limit. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman really thinks that an indicative drug budget is the same as a cash limit, he is being misleading. He should know that an indicative budget is a way to show general practitioners where their prescribing practices place them compared with others. I am happy to repeat that once again. Every patient will get the drugs that he needs, and that is a pledge.
    Mr. McCrindle: In view of the predictable opposition to indicative drug budgeting by the pharmaceutical companies, will my hon. and learned Friend the Minister take this opportunity to restate what he sees as the benefits to patient care of the Government's proposals?
    Mr. Mellor: It will be in the interests of patients who really need drugs, particularly expensive drugs, and there should be proper control of budgets to allow us in future to pay for the drugs that patients need. I know of no other enterprise for which £2,000 million of expenditure would be treated on the basis that those who sign the prescription forms can do anything they like. There is no threat to patients because doctors are being put under some pressure to prescribe generically instead of prescribing branded drugs which are twice as expensive. If we are to find the elbow room to afford the wonder drugs of the future, we must be sensible about not paying excessively for less than wonderful drugs which are merely branded instead of generic.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on reaction in the North Western regional health authority to his recent White Paper.
    Mr. Mellor: Reaction from the authority has been most positive. Members of the authority had an opportunity to consider the Government's White Paper "Working For Patients" at a seminar arranged in the region on 17 April. Since then the authority has forwarded to the Department expressions of interest in self-governing status from eight hospitals and one community unit, and in doing so they drew attention to the need, which we fully accept, to protect medical education and research.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister take into account the fact that of the eight hospitals in the north-west region, four of them—Christies, Manchester royal infirmary, St. Mary's and the royal eye hospital—are not simply district-based services, but provide regional specialties? Does the Minister recognise that the medical professionals, the ordinary people in the street and the whole of public opinion in the north-west is hostile or suspicious of the Government's proposals? Why will the Government not

    827
    agree to some form of consultation, or even ballots, outside the districts directly affected? The proposals affect the whole of the north-west region.
    Mr. Mellor: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not true to say that all the groups to which he referred are opposed to the expressions of interest in self-governing status. I can show that there is substantial support already for self-governing status in those hospitals that have expressed an interest.
    Regional specialties will continue to be provided and we are aware of the need to ensure that regional specialties are protected. There will also be ample opportunity for people to make their views known before the Secretary of State has to take any decision on self-governing status. Indeed, an expression of interest is not the same as a formal application and none of those hospitals have been invited to, or have made, formal applications.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. and learned Friend will have noticed in the response of the North Western regional health authority to the White Paper "Working for Patients" three expressions of interest to form National Health Service hospital trusts. In Wrightington hospital in the West Lancashire district health authority 95 per cent. of the patients come from all over the region and from the rest of the country. Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that his proposal for money following the patient is ideal for that hospital as it will provide better care and more independence for the doctors at that hospital?
    Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am glad that he referred to Wrightington hospital. The senior medical staff at Wrightington have been the driving force behind the expression of interest from that hospital for, I suspect, precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend has given.

    Tuberculosis Vaccinations
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when it was decided to discontinue the routine vaccination of pre-school children against tuberculosis.
    Mr. Freeman: Pre-school children are not routinely vaccinated against tuberculosis. The BCG vaccine is currently recommended for children generally at aged 13 and for infants born to immigrants from developing countries, or where there is a family history of the disease. It is only the school vaccination programme at aged 13 that has had to be postponed due to a temporary shortage of the BCG vaccine.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that preventive health care works only when it is in use and that this programme is tremendously important particularly for immigrant families which suffer from active tuberculosis? Does he agree that it is quite likely that the disease will again become the real difficulty that it used to be in my youth unless the programme is reinstated as rapidly as possible? Is what is happening now a demonstration of how much the Government care about preventive health care?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of preventive health care. Vaccination of the priority groups is continuing; it has not been stopped. Britain now has some 4,000 cases of tuberculosis a year
    828
    compared with some 40,000 in 1948. That is still too many and I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of that programme for the immigrant population.

    Midwives
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of midwives currently working in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Mellor: At 30 September 1987, 19,320 whole-time equivalent midwives were employed in the National Health Service in England.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister explain to the House why morale among midwives working in hospitals is so low, why the numbers leaving the profession are steadily increasing and why recruitment is proving so difficult?
    Mr. Mellor: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. There are 20 per cent. more midwives today than there were a decade ago arid never have midwives been better paid than they are now. In the past 12 months their pay has increased on average by some 20 per cent. There is absolutely no reason for midwives' morale to be anything other than high.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the European Council meeting in Madrid.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the continuing importance of a sound defence policy, is my right hon. Friend not relieved that the Government can rely on friends who believe in nuclear deterrence rather than nuclear disarmers such as Mr. Ron Todd?
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I agree. However much the Opposition try to hide it, with their present defence policy they could not sign up to NATO's excellent comprehensive concept which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the 15 other NATO leaders agreed last month.
    Mr. Hattersley: What is the Government's revised forecast for the annual deficit on current account?
    Mr. Wakeham: It is not my job to give revised forecasts at the Dispatch Box at this time. It is also unwise to draw conclusions from one month's figures. The May current account figure of £1·3 billion is the lowest monthly figure since last September and the signs that import growth has been slowing down in recent months suggest that the tightening of monetary policy may be starting to influence recorded trade.
    Mr. Hattersley: What sort of an economic policy is it that rejoices, as the right hon. Gentleman has just rejoiced, at the worst balance of payments figure—worst except for eight previous months in our history—a forecast for the current year which would be infinitely worse than the

    829
    Treasury predicted at Budget time, and a balance of payments which produces interest rates which continue to impose intolerable burdens on home owners? What sort of an achievement is that and what sort of a triumph is it that the Leader of the House boasts about?
    Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman is so fond of working out his supplementary questions that he does not listen to the answers. I started my answer by saying that it is unwise to draw conclusions from one month's figures, and that is not boasting about figures. The Government's policies, which have successfully brought down inflation in the past, will do so again.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House have time in his busy day to send a message of congratulation to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for fighting so hard for common sense and stopping Britain being sucked into the kind of bureaucratic Socialist nonsenses that we had at the time of George Brown and Harold Wilson's national plan?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly do as my hon. Friend asks. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a statement to the House when she returns, but things look pretty good to me.
    Ms. Abbott: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Abbott: When will the Government meet the very real grievances and concerns of people throughout the country, and particularly of general practitioners, about the Government's proposals for the Health Service?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is negotiating—as would have been apparent to any right hon. or hon. Member present in the Chamber for health questions—to reach a satisfactory solution over doctors' contracts. I have no doubt that satisfactory arrangements will ultimately be made.
    Sir William Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that since 1983 employment in this country has increased by nearly 3 million and is running at an all-time record high? Does he agree that that economic achievement and success has been made possible only because of sound financial policy, encouragement and enterprise that the Government have persistently pursued?
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes. More people are in work than ever before. Between 1983 and 1987 as many new jobs were created in this country as in the whole of the rest of the European Community put together. Over the past decade, self-employment has risen by more than 1 million as people have responded to Government policies of deregulation and of encouraging enterprise and initiative. A 1 million fall in unemployment since the last general
    830
    election was achieved in less than the two years that Labour claimed their reckless policies of high spending and phoney jobs would take to produce the same result.
    Mr. Winnick: Now that the Prime Minister is out of the country, will the Leader of the House say whether Cabinet Ministers are haunted by the date of 13 July 1962—the night of the long knives—when seven members of the then Cabinet were sacked by Harold Macmillan? If this is the right hon. Gentleman's last appearance in the House deputising for the Prime Minister, may I express my regret that he has served under a leader who blames everyone but herself for failures and wish him every success for the future—with or without redundancy money?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has more experience of losing elections than I have. In my judgment he must get ready to lose a few more.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend, and through him my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, agree that a necessary precondition of our joining the European monetary system is the abolition of exchange controls by the other member nations, which is something that we did with great success in 1979?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is highly desirable that all our European partners should follow our lead in abolishing exchange controls. As to the outcome of the Madrid summit, my hon. Friend should await the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her return.
    Sir Russell Johnston: As it is now clear, and has been remarked upon by the Treasury Select Committee, that the Government signed the Single European Act without believing in it, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not about the same sort of business in Madrid?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am not responsible for Select Committee reports, except for that which the House approved the other day. However, I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not sign a communiqué with which she did not agree.
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend, in support of the action taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), find time to discuss with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the alarming reports of an acid house party in Berkshire at the weekend and to consider with him whether adequate powers exist in current legislation to deal with such menaces or whether fresh legislation is required to protect young people from being ensnared in the vicious circle of drug abuse?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that press reports of drug taking at the events at White Waltham are deeply disturbing. A police investigation is in progress. The Home Secretary has asked the police for a full report. The wider implications will be considered when the report has been received. The police already have tough powers to tackle the misuse of drugs and the menace of drug dealing. They have powers to trace, freeze and confiscate the assets of those involved in the evil trade of drug trafficking.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House remind the SLD—
    Hon. Members: Who?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced. He cannot ask the Leader of the House to undertake anything for which he is not responsible.
    Mr. Skinner: The Leader of the House is responsible, Mr. Speaker, in his capacity as Leader of the House, if the Short money is being paid to parties that have a specific name. [Interruption.] Will he therefore recall the correspondence that we had last year when that party was in the throes of changing its name? He ought kindly to remind it that it got the Short money under one name and that if it intends to change its name again it had better be careful or it will lose the lot.
    Mr. Wakeham: On this particular issue, I think that the Members of the party who sit behind the hon. Gentleman had better take notice of him, because he is one of the greatest living experts on this matter. I treasure very much the letter that he wrote to me in his own fair hand some time ago setting out the whole position.
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the Government's economic policies, will my right hon. Friend consider recent comments that nationalisation is no solution to social ills and that free markets are the best way to signal the desires of consumers and to encourage innovation? Those remarks were made by Willy Brandt, the president of the Socialist International, to which the British Labour party still subscribes.
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree that nationalisation is no answer to anything. The Labour party purports to be a convert to the market and to a partnership between Government and industry, but its notion of a partnership is like the walrus and the oysters.
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Leader of the House obtain immediate instructions from the Prime Minister to withdraw amendments in the other place that would give
    832
    privatised water companies immunity from prosecution and allow untreated sewage to be released into our rivers? The fact the Prime Minister feeds us that stuff, with authority, about the economy is no reason for releasing it into our rivers.
    Mr. Wakeham: The House will have an opportunity to consider the Bill which is now in another place when it returns here. I have no intention of taking the hon. Gentleman's advice. When the Bill returns here we shall be able to debate any changes that are made in the other place. I believe that our record is better than that of virtually any other country in the European community.
    Dr. Glyn rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Glyn: Contrary to suggestions, I missed the party by half an hour. I have impressed on the Home Secretary that it is necessary to tighten the law that relates to these sort of events which are held on private property with the consent of the owner. At the moment there is only one sanction—a £1,000 fine. The amount of money that was made on that occasion was enormous with 11,000 present at up to £40 a ticket. No provision whatsoever had been made for proper hygiene, but the police had no power to intervene because the party was held on private property.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he just said and I know that the Home Secretary will be interested in hearing his views on the matter. As I said, my right hon. Friend has called for a report, and he will consider the issues involved after that.
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his previous answer relating to the subject of unemployment? Is he aware that, despite the figures that he gave, hardcore unemployment in this country remains virtually unchanged and that only by massaging and fiddling the figures are the Government able to paint a picture which suggests that the whole problem of unemployment is now off the agenda? Is he aware that unemployment is still causing great hardship among families, who consider that such steps as the Government have taken represent a policy of complete disregard?
    Mr. Wakeham: That supplementary question is just not a reasonable analysis of the situation. The Government's policies have created a great many jobs in Britain. Of course there are still problems, but we shall tackle them vigorously with the policies that have been so successfully pursued over the last 10 years.

Wang Laboratories (Plant Closure)
3.31 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will make a statement on the closure of the Wang corporation's electronics plant at Stirling and on his Department's recent negotiations with the company.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am deeply concerned at the decision by Wang Laboratories to close its Stirling plant. The decision appears to have been forced on the company by commercial pressures worldwide and in no way reflects on the excellent work force at Stirling.
My immediate concerns are to ensure continuity of employment for the work force and to ensure that the skills and facilities which have been developed at the plant are not lost to Scotland. I have had discussions with senior representatives of the company with a view to achieving this end. The Government stand ready to co-operate with the company and others in seeking the productive use of this plant and of its fine work force.
Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State accept that the closure of the Wang plant is a bitter blow, particularly because it was so flamboyantly advertised by Ministers as a showpiece of the new technology built into the Stirling campus and promising at least 700 jobs that will now not materialise? Does this not underline the importance of attracting industry which has decision-making power and is based on substantial research and development capacity?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman note that, while we accept that risks are inherent in the attraction of inward investment, it is equally important that we learn what went wrong in this case? Will he answer the following questions? What public funds have gone to Wang, and in particular what funding has been sunk in the £3·5 million extension for which he cut the first sod only in March 1987? When was the last instalment paid and what steps are being taken to recover the money? Are steps being taken to alter the system, given the similar and harrowing experience that we had with the Caterpillar company?
Judging from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's press statements, the Scottish Office learned of the closure only a week ago. That suggests either a failure in monitoring what was happening in a company in receipt of substantial funds or a lack of frankness on the part of Wang. Will he give his views on that?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say more about the prospects of the plant being sold as a going concern, so saving the jobs? Has Wang given any assurances that it will take a realistic and helpful view of the transfer of the plant, if there is such a possibility?
I come to possibly the most discouraging aspect of the matter. Wang has chosen to concentrate its European operations in Limerick and not in Stirling. Can the Secretary of State throw any light on the reasons why that decision was taken? Are we not entitled to an explanation, given that the Secretary of State was quoted, when inaugurating the recent extension, as urging
"Scots to have as much faith in their country as Americans"—
and particularly Wang—
"had in it as an ideal location in which to invest"?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall deal with the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman. On his final point, the explanation given by Wang is that its plant in Limerick is much larger than its Stirling plant—which it undoubtedly is—and has excess capacity. Because of its poor global economic position, it intends to concentrate its activities at one European plant, and it has chosen the larger plant at Limerick, which has excess capacity and can absorb a certain amount of the work done at Stirling.
Wang has said that it intends to be extremely helpful in seeking an alternative user for the plant. It is in its interests to do so, and I have every reason to assume that that will be a priority. We shall obviously keep in close contact with Wang on that matter.
A total of £3·7 million has been paid to Wang since 1982, and the last payment was due in February of this year. Under the rules that operated in 1982, no company is bound by the offer letter to repay grant, but in specific circumstances there may be grounds to seek to reclaim money paid, and we are studying that.
On the question of any change in the system, I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that, when the negotiations with Wang took place in 1982, the system then in force was that applied under the previous Labour Government. Since then we have changed the rules, and all offers of regional selective assistance on applications submitted since November 1984 have specific clauses to ensure that the Government can reclaim part or all of any money paid in the event that the recipient company runs into difficulties within three years of the final payment. In addition, since 1984 any sums paid to a company investing in the United Kingdom are related not to the capital that that company has invested but to the number of jobs created as opposed simply to the number of jobs that it had promised to create.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that since 1984 the rules applied have been much stricter and enable clawback. Had the current rules been in force at the time of the original negotiation with Wang, every penny paid to it could have been required to have been repaid to the Government in the circumstances that have now developed.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the sad decision by Wang was made because worldwide it has been laying off employees because of the advance of workstation networks in the market at the expense of mini-computers? Does he further agree that the electronics industry in Scotland remains in extremely good health, as has been shown by Compaq's recent announcement at Renfrew? Has not by far the most important decision relating to the Scottish economy during the last few days been the announcement of a plan for a £1,000 million additional investment and 35,000 new jobs in Strathclyde?
Mr. Rifkind: New investment coming into Scotland is encouraging, both in the electronics industry and elsewhere. Not only are there the 500 additional jobs announced by Compaq at Erskine in the electronics industry, but there has recently been a decision by Sun Microsystems to establish a plant at Linlithgow. In the non-electronics sphere, only this morning the Crusader company announced its intention to relocate 380 jobs, most of which will be transferred from Reigate to Greenock in the enterprise zone in Inverclyde.

835
Scotland clearly remains a very attractive place for investment, both for the electronics industry and for other industries. The electronics industry in Scotland employs some 43,000 people, so the investment by Wang—useful and important though it was—represents only a tiny proportion of the total.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituency abuts the Stirling plant and that the travel-to-work area of Alloa has an employment rate of 20 per cent? Is he further aware that it is especially disappointing for the Central region that Wang was the only electronics firm that has ever been attracted to it'? Does not the difficulty that the region has experienced in securing such employment make it doubly difficult for us to believe that there will be any great enthusiasm on the part of any other company to come to the region? Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman make full use of all the assistance and attraction that he can provide to prevent future employment draining off to the new towns, which seem to be obtaining the bulk of hi-tech employment in Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the agreement of all his colleagues on that observation. The Wang plant in Stirling remains a very attractive building, with an existing, trained, highly qualified work force. I do not share his inherent pessimism as to the ability to attract a company to use the excellent work force and the excellent plant in Stirling. Of course, none of us can guarantee what the outcome will be, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would do a service to his constituents if he sought to maximise the attractions of Stirling rather than to suggest the opposite.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Is it not reprehensible that the management of Wang did not consult Her Majesty's Government before it took its precipitate decision, bearing in mind that the Government are a substantial investor in the company? May I be assured that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will try to make sure that clauses are built into all investments to ensure that consultation takes place before such decisions are made and that payback will be required at all times?
Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly desirable that there should be maximum consultation with Government when decisions of this kind are contemplated. I assure my hon. Friend that in all offers of regional selective assistance since 1984 the possibility of clawback has been written into the conditions of offer. That is a substantial improvement on the position that existed for a good number of years before that.
Mr. James Wallace: The Government have set great store by their inward investment policy. The decision must come as a great blow to them. What implications for the future of that policy does the Minister think the announcement has, following the decision of Caterpillar? In regard to future projects, what will be done to try to ensure that they have some research and development and design component, together with managerial functions, so that we do not become vulnerable to branch factory closures?
Mr. Rifkind: There have been a vast number of decisions on inward investment into Scotland over the years and only a tiny fraction have withdrawn subsequently.
As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I have seen suggestions, both in his question and elsewhere, that we should be disinterested in possible investment that is only of an assembly plant nature. I countenance strongly against that. If one considers the experience in Scotland, one sees that many plants that began as assembly plants go on to much greater things. IBM began as an assembly plant, as did Digital and Hewlett-Packard, but in each case we see the company as a major operation going far beyond pure assembly; they are production centres and sources of research and development in Scotland at present. So the fact that a company may be first attracted to Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom for a limited purpose s in itself not a reason for dissuading it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that many other parts of Europe would be only too happy to step into the breach if we showed disinterest in possible investment on such grounds.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the announcement b} Wang underlines the inherent unreliability of a system which, by use of cash grants of public money, encourages companies to set up business in places that they might not otherwise choose, with that business, on any downturn, becoming the most vulnerable? How would he react to what must be the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the criticisms of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—that the practice should be discontinued in future?
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly think that the old system was less satisfactory because it did not explicitly and directly tie any grant to the number of jobs created and it did not allow for a specific right of clawback if within a certain period the jobs ceased to exist or the economic activity ceased. Clearly that made it easier in the past for companies to consider withdrawal from the United Kingdom in the event of any problems developing. That is why the Government decided to address themselves to the problem and in 1984 changed the rules substantially, which makes withdrawal much less likely in future.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have reason vividly to remember Wang coming to Stirling because I happened to be the Member of Parliament for Stirling when the company was attracted there? Whatever the Secretary of State says about the old system employed by the Labour Government, the fact is that his predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Defence, negotiated the deal in 1982, three years after his Government came to power, under the terms and conditions that prevailed at that time. The Tones had three years to change the system if they were worried about it, but they did not lift a finger.
I deeply resent what Wang has done to my former constituents over the last few days and the disgraceful way in which the people of Stirling have been treated. [Interruption.] Why should the Secretary of State be surprised? I have a 1982 Scottish Office press notice in which his predecessor, the then Secretary of State, said:

837
"We offer investors a climate in which they can make money supplying a Europe-wide market, keep it out of the hands of the tax collector and repatriate it at will".
That is exactly what Wang has done, and the Tories are as culpable as Wang.
Mr. Rifkind: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to conclude his question by saying that the Tories are as culpable as the last Labour Government. When my right hon. Friend made that announcement in 1982, the hon. Gentleman was the first to welcome it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was the first to welcome it. He went on record at the time, saying how delighted he was that Wang had been persuaded to go to Stirling, and he congratulated the Government on what they had achieved. The hon. Gentleman must not apply double standards. He should acknowledge that the Government came to their conclusion about five years ago, under my right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, and that the terms under which these matters have been negotiated, both under the previous Government and in the first few years of this Administration, were too lax in respect of the requirements they expected from overseas investors. That is why that has been changed, and that is why it should be applauded by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Surely it is obvious that there can be no guarantee that grant-aided plants will succeed, which is why we welcome putting in the provision for clawback in the 1984 legislation. That was never done by previous Governments. Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind Opposition Members of the closure of Linwood, into which huge sums of money were pumped by the previous Labour Government? They got virtually none of it back when a multinational replaced it a few years ago.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Members to stick to the main question. We have a heavy day in front of us.
Mr. Rifkind: We would all take the view, as my hon. Friend implies, that it was sensible to introduce the changes that were announced in 1984. They ensure that, in certain circumstances, public funds that have gone to a company can be returned to the public Exchequer if the basis on which they were granted does not turn out to have been fulfilled.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, after a long effort with the electronics industry in Scotland, only one tenth of employed people are employed by indigenous Scottish companies and the other 90 per cent. are controlled by external capital? Does that not lead him, along with the Scottish Development Agency and Locate in Scotland, to look for a fundamental review of strategy in the electronics industry? The Wang episode is only one example; there are other potentials along the line. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that I am telling the truth.
In the review, will the Secretary of State consider the clawback, not only in relation to Government money but the enhanced capital asset of the plant, so that the clawback should rightly go back to the people of Scotland? It would be much easier to find an alternative tenant for the Wang factor if Wang were not selling the factory on the open market at a price dictated by it.
Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. If the Scottish National party is hostile to 90 per cent. of the electronics industry in Scotland, which he says is controlled from outside Scotland, he has just suggested signing the death warrant for about 40,000 jobs. If that is the view and objective of his party, I am sure that very few people in Scotland will be prepared to agree with it.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State cannot ignore the fact that, for Wang, he is the public representative of the taxpayer and the people of Scotland. Why, once again, was he caught with his trousers down? He is our public representative. He should tell us why Wang could take its decision with so much Government money in the plant and why he did nothing about it. He will be unable to do anything about it once it has been made.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman obviously lives in a totally different world from that of the rest of the British public if he believes that a Government can forbid an overseas company from deciding to withdraw its investment. As the hon. Gentleman is presumably now well aware, under the conditions that were introduced by this Government, any decision announced since 1984 has an automatic right to clawback of any public funds. On Wang, there may indeed be grounds to seek to reclaim moneys paid, and we are studying them at present.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the business for today. We have an important debate ahead of us in which many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. I shall take two questions from each side of the House.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government have had substantial success in attracting new companies into the Scottish economy and that that task could be made more difficult by the crusade against multinational companies by Opposition Members? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the possibility that that company may have decided to concentrate its European production at Limerick because of the excessive subsidies given by the Irish Government—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the point. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the question. This is not a debate.
Mr. Marshall: I had hoped that I was sticking to the question, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about Wang concentrating its European production at Limerick and asking my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that that was not due to excessive subsidies, and, if it was, whether he will make representations to Sir Leon Brittan.
Mr. Rifkind: I understand that the company's main consideration was to concentrate its European activities in one plant. If the company had decided to concentrate its European activities in Stirling, major new investment would have been required. However, by concentrating it at Limerick, the company has been able to use the unused capacity in its plant in that country.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: What was the size of the payment that the Government made to the Wang corporation in February this year? Why do the

839
Government try to claim all the credit when companies such as Wang come to Scotland and yet try to disclaim virtually all responsibility when they pull out? Is not this case indicative of a basic failure in the Government's industrial strategy, whereby billions of pounds of public money can be handed out to multinational companies which are here today and gone tomorrow precisely because the Government refuse to impose stringent conditions to make multinational companies accountable to their work forces and to the communities in which they are located?
Mr. Rifkind: The sum paid at the beginning of this year —the last tranche—was approximately £250,000, but I shall check that figure. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's final remarks, this Government, unlike his own, have begun to introduce the sort of stringent conditions that the last Labour Government did not think were necessary.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not the role of Government to try to pick winners and that this case demonstrates the hazards of trying to do that? Will he remind the House of the Government's successful history in creating the climate and environment for investment which alone can lead to permanent, sustainable jobs? In so doing, will he remind the House that one man's grant is another man's tax bill?
Mr. Rifkind: Regional selective assistance is not paid automatically to any applicant. Before any grant is paid, an application would normally have had to be considered and approved by the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board or by the similar boards that serve England and Wales. Therefore, an assessment of the viability of a project is made by an independent body that gives advice to the Secretary of State and to the Government Department concerned.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one with dismayed constituents working at Wang and who has visited the factory on two occasions, may I say that it is difficult to have good foresight in an industry in which investment decisions may be extremely tricky and where products change. I express certain sympathy with the company; it may well have done its best. May I ask two factual questions?
Mr. Speaker: Just one, please.
Mr. Dalyell: Since October of last year, how much Government money has gone into Wang and—this is a related issue—why did Wang give the Scottish Office only one week's notice of what it was going to do? It must have known that there would be difficulty because it was receiving considerable sums of public money.
Mr. Rifkind: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, since October or November of last
840
year, just the final tranche of the sum originally agreed in 1982 has been paid. That was the sum to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). On the question of a period of notice, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would have been desirable if direct contact had been made at an earlier stage. The company has apologised to the Scottish Office for that. It is a most regrettable fact that that did not happen. Naturally, I must accept its apology, but it would have been better if it had not been needed in the first place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I have been unable to call the three hon. Gentlemen, but I shall certainly bear in mind their claims when we return to the matter.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It is a very heavy day.
Mr. Leigh: If this country created more jobs than the rest of the EEC together, how much parliamentary time would there be available to discuss other issues if every time 300 jobs were lost at a factory you, Mr. Speaker, allowed 25 minutes to discuss it?
Mr. Speaker: The granting of a private notice Question is a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

BILLS PRESENTED
  BAIL (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Keith Vaz, presented a Bill to make further provision in relation to bail in or in connection with criminal proceedings in England and Wales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (IMPROVED PROVISION OF SERVICES)
  Mrs. Alice Mahon, supported by Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Max Madden and Ms. Mildred Gordon, presented a Bill to require improved provision of services in all aspects of the National Health Service; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

Ban of Useless Animal Experiments
3.56 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban experiments upon animals of dubious or unproven value, including tests for cosmetic and warfare purposes, certain LD50 and Draize eye tests; to empower the Home Secretary to ban further categories and types of animal experiments; to amend the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to ensure that all proposed animal experiments are subject to independent scrutiny to determine their worth and to specific approval by the Home Secretary; and for connected purposes.
The continuance of so many useless animal experiments in this country is a public scandal and is against the wishes of the British people. Many of the tests are unnecessary and obsolete. The Government published figures that showed that in 1987 the overall number of scientific procedures was 3,631,393, and that more than 70 per cent. of those were carried out without anaesthetic. That worked out at about 10,000 a day. There will be 70 such procedures in the 10 minutes that I shall address the House. In 1986 there were 3,112,100. The Government decided to adjust seasonally their figures for scientific procedures down to 2,953,900, which is a 5 per cent. reduction on 1986. The House can see, however, that the number is still about 3 million. Therefore, the project system that was introduced in the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has not significantly reduced the number of animals used. In the Committee on that Bill, 1 proposed bans on useless tests. That is still the most relevant and humane way forward.
My Bill proposes to introduce a ban on cosmetic tests which are useless. In 1987 there were 14,534 such tests. The EEC definition of a cosmetic product is
"any substance or preparation intended for placing in contact with the various external parts of the human body (epidermis, hair system, nails, lips and external genital organs) or with the teeth and the mucous membranes of the oral cavity with a view exclusively or principally to cleansing them, perfuming them or protecting them in order to keep them in good condition, change their appearance or correct body odours."
Those products are designed to beautify the hair or skin or to improve the appearance generally. They are products such as creams, lotions, oils, face masks, toilet soaps, perfumes, toilet waters, bath and shower preparations, shaving products, lipsticks, make-up and cleansers, shampoos and sunbathing products. There is a long list of them. However, the public overwhelmingly want a ban on those tests. They see them as being unnecessary, especially as there are already enormous numbers of ingredients capable of doing that work. There does not need to be wholesale new slaughter.
I welcomed Avon's decision last week to ban animal tests in its laboratories. It admitted that that decision was influenced by the consumer boycott. The public want beauty without cruelty. The Home Office is a long way behind the public. It has issued six project licences. However, in a written reply to a question on 24 January about what restraints the animal procedures committee had imposed on those licensees, it was said that that information could be found in a detailed statistical return. That will not stop a single test.
The truth of the matter is that the Home Office has set broad parameters for the granting of project licences, which are being granted to testing laboratories such as Toxical and Hazelton. It is left to the discretion of a laboratory whether the test commissioned by the cosmetic
842
company is justifiable. The APC—the animal procedures committee—is not evaluating each procedure, so the current situation is virtually the same as it was before the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Bill was introduced. It has already been acknowledged that at least two APC members want a ban on such tests. The ingredients for the cosmetic products have been long established and tested through human-experience and there is no need for new tests on animals.
My Bill also calls for a ban on warfare experiments on animals. The Government refuse to provide the number of such tests carried out on animals, but, since 1916, when Porton Down was established, they must have run into millions. Such tests are the most ghastly and cruel experiments ever undertaken in Britain, but the details of them and their number are rarely published, so there is no justification for them. What is even worse is that Porton Down has Crown immunity so that it can get away with what it likes. It was even referred to in "Spycatcher", by Peter Wright, who said:
"On one occasion I went down to Porton to see a demonstration of a cigarette packet which had been modified by the Explosives Research and Development Establishment to fire a dart tipped with poison."
A sheep was bumped off and Peter Wright said:
"I knew also then that assassination was no policy for peacetime".
Animals at Porton Down are being used for such experiments.
Chris Fisher of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, in an excellent article, also says that such tests are unjustified and states:
"The official justification for continuing with this kind of research goes something like this—in order to be able to defend ourselves against chemical or biological attack, we must first invent the weapon to be used against us so that we can develop a defensive response! This strategy, if it is to be believed, is the equivalent of developing a drug to combat a disease which does not exist yet."
In those circumstances, such tests are of no use to the public. Mr. Fisher concludes:
"the close co-operation between the scientists at Porton and their counterparts in the US and other allied countries meant that they were partners to an offensive research programme."
They are not involved in a defensive programme. We should also remember that we have signed treaties to the effect that we will not undertake chemical and biological warfare.
It is also morally indefensible to carry out ballistic tests on animals. The armed forces should use alternatives such as gelatin for still target tests.
My Bill also tackles toxicology experiments such as LD50 and Draize eye tests. It has already been shown that animals are bad models for humans in such tests as unexpected side effects are displayed in humans. Fewer than 50 per cent. of such tests are shown to be accurate. In 1987, 111,313 classical LD50 tests were carried out on animals. Animals were dosed with a substance to determine the level that would kill 50 per cent. of them. The Zurich Institute of Toxicity has said:
"For the recognition of symptomatology of acute poisoning in man, and for the determination of the human lethal dose, the LD50 in animals is of very little use."
FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments—has said:
"it is now widely recognised that the precise LD50 value this method is supposed to provide is an unobtainable illusion, because of a variety of uncontrollable biological variables.

843
Moreover, it has been used to place chemicals in a small number of broad categories (such as very potent, potent, marginal and no significant effect)."
Such categories are useless, yet animals are being killed in such tests. FRAME has also referred to the former Minister at the Home Office, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who said on 11 March 1986 that the LD50 classical test was rarely used in the United Kingdom, yet more than 111,000 such tests are carried out. So much for its rare use.
In 1987, there were 24,314 Draize tests, in which a substance is dripped into the eye of an animal and left for seven days to that the amount of swelling, soreness and ulceration can be assessed. We could ban Draize immediately. Many companies, such as Health Designs Incorporated and the Noxell corporation, have already developed alternative testing. One alternative is not to do the tests if they are not worth while in the first place. Other alternatives include the use of cell cultures, computer modelling, mild tests on human volunteers and constant and more extensive surveillance of medicines after they have been made available for general prescription. FRAME has produced a long list of alternatives. The Government have put up a mere £60,000, a pathetic amount for studies of alternatives. My Bill would shift the burden of proof to the experimenter.
The Minister and the Government have shown themselves to be uncaring. They will not even label products to show whether tests have been done on animals to allow people to make a choice for themselves. That attitude is morally reprehensible and scientifically dubious. As FRAME said:
"Animal experiments that are unnecessary use unnecessarily large numbers of animals or are unnecessarily painful"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for 10 minutes.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Eddie Loyden, and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Ban of Useless Animal Experiments
  BAN OF USELESS ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS:
  Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to ban experiments upon animals of dubious or unproven value, including tests for cosmetic and warfare purposes, certain LD 50 and Draize eye tests; to empower the Home Secretary to ban further categories and types of animal experiments; to amend the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to ensure that all proposed animal experiments are subject to independent scrutiny to determine their worth and to specific approval by the Home Secretary; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

  Football Spectators Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the motion for an instruction in the name of the Secretary of State and am prepared to allow it to be referred to during the Second Reading debate. Is the House agreeable to the two motions being debated together?
  Dr. John Cunningham: No.
  Mr. Speaker: In that case the motion for the instruction will be debated separately. However, I am still prepared to allow it to be referred to on Second Reading. I warn those who may be called to speak on the instruction that the scope of that debate is much narrower than that on Second Reading.
  In view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, I propose to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 and 9 o'clock. I make a special appeal to those who may be called before that time to bear in mind that limit, because it would be inequitable if they spoke at greater length.
  4.8 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the House will know, the Bill is addressed to the continuing problems of hooliganism associated with football, both in this country and abroad. Part I of the Bill provides a framework for a national membership scheme for spectators at designated football matches in England and Wales. Part II gives the courts powers to impose restriction orders on convicted hooligans to prevent them from travelling to English and Welsh matches abroad.
  This Bill comes to us having completed its passage in another place. As the House is aware, the Government felt it right to delay the Bill for two months following the terrible events at Hillsborough stadium on Saturday 15 April. Before I go on to talk about the Bill, I should like to add my personal sympathy to those bereaved and injured at Hillsborough, and to the people of Liverpool as a whole. As my noble Friend Lord Hesketh said in another place on Third Reading of the Bill on 16 June, we must all share the hope that this, the latest in a long line of tragedies that British football has suffered in the past 40 years, will also be the last.
  Following the Hillsborough disaster, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary invited Lord Justice Taylor to chair an inquiry into what happened there, and
  "to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports grounds".—[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 19.]
  His is an independent inquiry, and the content and timing of his report are entirely a matter for him. I stress, however, that the Bill was amended on Third Reading in the other place not to anticipate in anyway, but to allow Parliament to take account of Lord Justice Taylor's eventual report. Parliament will now have two opportunities to debate the national membership scheme following receipt of Lord Justice Taylor's final report: the first before a football membership authority is appointed, and the second after the scheme has been submitted, and approved by me.
  Dr. Cunningham: Does that mean that the Secretary of State will bring to the House a scheme that will not be amendable in any way?
  Mr. Ridley: The House can reject the scheme if it wishes. Furthermore, the original Bill is there not to enable a scheme to be debated in every detail by Parliament, but to allow football to have the authority of Parliament to introduce such a scheme. By proceeding with the Bill now, we can put the framework for the national membership scheme on the statute book and be ready to proceed rapidly if Parliament so decides in the light of any comments that Lord Justice Taylor may make. The final decision to implement the scheme will not, however, be made until it has been debated twice more.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: Would not my right hon. Friend very much increase support for part I if he gave an unequivocal undertaking now that if Lord Justice Taylor expressed serious doubts about, or opposition to, an identity card scheme he would not proceed with part I?
  Mr. Ridley: I do not think that we can prejudge what Lord Justice Taylor may say. We have deliberately amended the Bill so that—on not one occasion but two—not only the Government but both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to give their views on whether the scheme as proposed by the Football Membership Authority should proceed. Surely my right hon. Friend would not want to fetter Parliament's decision on whether it wished to proceed with the scheme, whatever Lord Justice Taylor may or may not say. I am sure that he would not suggest that we should abnegate our responsibilities to someone whose report we have not yet seen.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I can see that a number of hon. Members wish me to give way. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), but after that I am sure that the House would prefer me to make a little progress, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman said that the scheme would be debated in the House twice. Can he tell us when and at what time? Will it be in the middle of the night, or can we have a proper debate for some hours? Even at this late stage, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to the House being allowed to amend the scheme? It is ludicrous that the arrangements should be on a negative basis—that we should vote either for or against the scheme without any opportunity to amend it.
  Mr. Ridley: The debate will not take place until Lord Justice Taylor has delivered his final report, but I shall invite the House to consider the proposal that 1 appoint the Football Membership Authority, which will then design the scheme. When it has done so, it will be for me to consent to it. There will then be another debate in which the House will have a further opportunity to give its views.
  I think that, even in his absence, I can give an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that adequate time will be provided for the two debates, which will take place at times agreed between the usual channels. There is no question of our trying to confine them to the small hours or to a Friday morning.
  Dr. Cunningham: Does not the Secretary of State see the hopeless position that he is portraying when the centrepiece of the legislation, the scheme that is supposed to deal with the problems, will never be debated in detail in Parliament, and Parliament will never have the chance to influence it?
  Mr. Ridley: Does not the hon. Gentleman see the point that this is a highly technical scheme, which will be produced by the football industry and the people in it? It has never been proposed, and is not proposed now, that the details of the scheme should be amended according to the votes in Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked in business questions last Thursday whether the Bill's scope would allow for amendments on safety matters. In response to that question, I am proposing that the House should instruct the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill that it has the power to make provision in the Bill relating to any aspect of the safety of spectators at designated football matches.
  The Government do not intend to bring forward wide-ranging amendments on new safety measures in this Bill. Under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, as amended by the Fire Safety and Places of Sport Act 1987, the Home Secretary already has the powers to make orders that, for example, could contain a provision requiring local authorities to include certain terms and conditions in safety certificates for a sports ground. The existing legislation does not, however, give the Home Secretary any enforcement functions. We have it in mind to propose an amendment to this Bill to provide a power to give the Bill's licensing authority a monitoring and enforcement role, to back up the Home Secretary's existing powers under the safety of sports grounds legislation—although only in relation to designated football matches in England and Wales. This will add to the Bill powers to enable us to deal with safety matters, on receipt of Lord Justice Taylor's report.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The Secretary of State will be aware that, immediately after the Hillsborough disaster, the Home Secretary drew attention to the need for all-seater stadiums. The Minister for Sport has made some statements about that which will no doubt be referred to in the debate. Will the proposals dealing with safety take that on board? How will the powers to enforce that be provided? What funds, if any, will he available if the Government go down that road?
  Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to confirm what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when he made the statement about the Hillsborough disaster. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has already had one meeting with the football authorities to discuss the possibility of all-seater stadiums. There is considerable support in the House for the concept, provided that it is adapted to the most suitable grounds and limited to those grounds where it is considered necessary. This matter will take some time to resolve, but it is right that the Bill and the instruction to the Committee should be wide enough to enable my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to use his powers to make any such provision if that is decided to be the right way forward. I cannot at this point commit the Government to providing finance for such hypothetical situations.
  It seems to me desirable that the Committee should be enabled to consider amendments concerning safety

  847
  generally. The intention is not to anticipate Lord Justice Taylor's report, but to enable us to deal with his recommendations, just as the amendments that we made in another place—to provide for parliamentary debates on the scheme after Royal Assent—allow the House to consider any comments that Lord Justice Taylor may make on the membership scheme in his final report.
  The Hillsborough disaster and Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry are rightly very much on all our minds. That is why I have explained today how we have taken account of them. However, the Hillsborough tragedy does not remove the need for the anti-hooliganism measures provided for in parts I and II to proceed in this Session of Parliament.
  Hooliganism has been a fact of football life for all too many years. Since the mid-1960s, it has deterred millions of genuine football supporters from attending matches. Attendances fell from 35 million in 1967–68 to 21 million in 1987–88. Football hooliganism has made life very unpleasant for those who live or trade near football grounds, and the behaviour of England football supporters abroad has brought only shame to this country.
  However, the Opposition may tell us, and I have heard mumblings from the Opposition Front Bench already, that all this is changing, that attendances are beginning to rise —so they are, very slowly. We may be told that a number of valuable measures have been taken in the past few years to tackle the problem, and so they have—restrictions on the sale of alcohol at football grounds; powers for the courts to impose exclusion orders on convicted hooligans, all as a result of Government legislation; stronger police co-ordination both nationally and internationally; more co-operation between the police and football clubs; effective segregation of rival groups of supporters inside grounds and the introduction of closed-circuit television.
  These measures have been worth while, I agree. They have been taken very largely as a result of pressure from the public and from Government rather than at the voluntary initiative of the football authorities. Unfortunately, although they have been worth while, the measures taken so far have not been enough. They have just about contained the problem. They have not cured it. We still need about 5,000 police to control football crowds every weekend of the football season—largely at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
  Violence continues. The 1987–88 domestic season ended with a number of serious incidents of violence and was followed by the disgraceful scenes involving English football followers in West Germany in June last year. The season which finished last month has seen regular outbreaks of trouble both at and away from football grounds, culminating in a number of serious incidents on 13 May, less than a month after Hillsborough.
  On that day, there was a pitch invasion at Crystal Palace football ground by Birmingham City football supporters, in which 16 people were injured, including a stabbing. At the match between Bristol City and Sheffield United, fighting between rival groups of supporters spilled over on to the pitch and held up the game. There were disturbances up and down the country—in Sheffield, in Cheshire, at Southampton railway station and at the Toddington service station on the M1. In all, more than 300 people were arrested on the weekend of 13 May at or on their way to or from football matches.
  The claim that football hooliganism has ceased to be a problem inside football grounds is simply not borne out by the facts.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Had this Bill been on the statute book at the time of the disturbances in West Germany which were attributed to British fans, how many of those British fans would have been subjected to restriction orders? Is it not the case that there was not one conviction then?
  Mr. Ridley: If this Bill had been enacted and had been in force for a few years, a large number of hooligans would have been banned from membership schemes and we could have prevented them from travelling to the overseas matches. I do not claim that this would work in a very short time, because it is necessary to have the bans on those who would commit—
  Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman once. If I give way now, it will be for the last time.
  Mr. Howell: The Secretary of State is very generous. He is now considering a very important matter. It is not the practice of continental policy authorities to charge those offenders, as we saw during the competition in Germany. They keep the fans overnight and then get them out of the country as fast as they can. They are not brought before the courts in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is right: in those circumstances, there will be no offence to proceed against in this country under the terms of this Bill.
  Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. If they were hooligans, they would have been brought before the British courts and would have had to report during major overseas matches under part II of the Bill.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I am being interrupted by the hon. Gentleman who is about to make a speech. Could he not develop his points when it comes to his turn? However, I shall give way.
  Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State explain in a little more detail exactly what he has just said? With what will those people who have been detained overnight in police cells in European countries before being returned to Britain be charged? Since they are not charged abroad, and will not be charged here, how can they be excluded from travelling in the future?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman holds the record for missing the point. He has done so during the past three years that he has been shadowing me, and today is no exception. The point is that those who are convicted of hooliganism in British courts will be required to report here and so will not be able to travel abroad. Does he not realise that the sooner that the Bill is on the statute book the sooner those people will be caught in the way that I have described? The longer that we delay, the more will be free to go to Europe to make a nuisance of themselves.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that what he has accurately described—arrests, hooliganism and the peace and quiet of towns and cities being shattered—surrounds a game of sport? Is it not a fact that those in Britain who have no interest in football—the vast majority—are desperately seeking an assurance from the Government

  849
  that something will be done, and the Bill is one way of correcting the terrible problems that Britain's towns and cities have suffered for many years?
  Mr. Ridley: I never understand why the hooligans on the Opposition Benches associate themselves with the hooligans in the football grounds. They should be aware that public opinion polls show that some 80 per cent. of the population want the problem dealt with.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way.
  When the Government bring forward measures to deal with the problem, the Opposition should be more—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already told the House that a great number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, some of whom are rising now. It will be difficult to call them if the Secretary of State is not allowed to continue.
  Mr. Ridley: I must comply with your request, Mr. Speaker, and make a little more progress.
  The truth is that the measures in place so far are simply not enough to put a stop to football hooliganism. Even the chairman of the Football Association reacted to the events of 13 May by calling for a ban on all away supporters —a significantly more restrictive control than we have proposed. His own organisation promptly came up with another proposal for a membership scheme of a different kind.
  Football has had many opportunities to put its own house in order. It has failed to take them. Before the decision to introduce the Bill was taken last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association, at a meeting on 6 July, if they would voluntarily introduce a national membership scheme. They said that they would not, and the Government subsequently introduced the Bill. The continuing incidence of football violence since then has demonstrated just how right we were.
  Part I provides a statutory framework for a national membership scheme for football spectators and for the licensing of football grounds in relation to the scheme. It provides for me to designate the matches to which the scheme will apply, to appoint a Football Membership Authority to draw up the scheme and for the Football Membership Authority to submit it to me for approval. On each of those three key points, my powers are exercisable only by statutory instrument, subject to the negative resolution procedure. In each case, the House will be able to debate and vote on the issue. It is our intention, and that of the football authorities, that they should set up and run the FMA. As a result of an amendment moved in another place, both the FMA and I are required to consider the possibility of phasing the introduction of the scheme.
  Clause 5 lays down requirements that the scheme must satisfy and others with which it may deal. Its contents have been expanded a little as a result of amendments made in another place to specify exemptions for disabled people and accompanied children in designated areas and to
  850
  provide for temporary membership arrangements for the clubs to use. Those amendments meet the genuine concerns of clubs about the practical application of the scheme without weakening its basic purpose, which is to limit admission to spectators who are members of the scheme or who are authorised by it.
  Clause 5 provides also for the Football Membership Authority to disqualify people from membership of the scheme at its discretion, and its powers to do so were clarified by amendments made in another place. The clause specifically provides that the full protection of the Data Protection Act 1984 will be available to applicants and to members of the scheme.
  People who are convicted of an offence that is among those listed as relevant in the schedule to the Bill will be banned from membership of the scheme for a fixed period of either two or five years. It will be an offence to attend or to attempt to attend a designated football match for anyone who is not a member of or otherwise authorised by the scheme. It will also be an offence for a club or anyone else to admit spectators to a designated football match without a licence for the ground. The powers of the licensing authority are set out in clauses 8 to 11.
  The licensing authority will be the Secretary of State or a body appointed by me.
  Mr. Tony Banks: He is worse than Hitler.
  Mr. Ridley: The authority's job will be to ensure that clubs have the equipment and are following the procedures required to enable the national membership scheme to work. If a club deliberately ignores the conditions of its licence it will run the risk of conviction for a criminal offence. If it is seriously or persistently in breach of its licence the Bill provides for the licence to be suspended or revoked.
  A final decision to go ahead with the scheme will depend on parliamentary approval, when we have had the chance to consider Lord Justice Taylor's report. Even then it will, of course, take time to put the scheme in place. We shall not introduce it until we are confident that it will work effectively and safely. Subject to appropriate technology, we hope to see implementation achieved in the early months of the 1990–91 football season.
  Mr. Michael Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman has followed previous debates, he will recall that one of the main criticisms of the plan as previously presented, and which the details that he has given today confirm, is that it will harm the position of many smaller clubs. Clubs will see the size of their crowds persistently reduced, which will put many of them out of business. What is the Government's best calculation of the number of clubs that will be injured by the scheme in that way?
  Mr. Ridley: My present estimate is zero. Nothing could have done more damage to football than hooliganism, which has reduced the size of gates from 35 million people to 21 million. If football can regain only half those lost spectators that will transform not only the sport's finances but the fortunes of some smaller clubs. Would the right hon. Gentleman argue after a serious hotel fire that we should not introduce new regulations on hotel safety because that might bankrupt some smaller establishments? Is that the line that the right hon. Gentleman is taking?
  Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the question that I and many others have put? What is the Government's calculation, irrespective of other matters, of the harm done by the Bill to the number of people attending football matches? What will be its effect on many of the smaller clubs, and is it the Government's firm intention to proceed with a plan that will drive many of them out of business?
  Mr. Ridley: I have already answered that question. My answer was zero.
  Part II deals directly with the problem of football hooligans abroad. The behaviour of such people has been a national disgrace for years. I do not think that there is any argument about the need for these provisions.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No, I really must get on.
  Clauses 12 to 16 provide that when someone is convicted of a relevant offence, as defined in the Bill, the court may also impose a restriction order requiring him, or her, to report to an agency when certain matches take place abroad. Restriction orders will run for the same periods as automatic disqualification from membership of the scheme in this country—two years or five, depending on the severity of the sentence.
  Mr. Dicks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State does not intend to give way.
  Mr. Ridley: The court must be satisfied that a restriction order would help to prevent or reduce violence or disorder at matches abroad.
  Clauses 17 to 19 govern the operation of reporting agencies. The reporting agency will set the time at which someone subject to an order must report, so as to ensure that he cannot attend the match. Offenders will have rights of appeal against the court's decision to impose restriction orders, but once the order is made, failure to report when required will itself be a criminal offence.
  Clause 20 allows for an application to be made for a restriction order in cases where someone resident here has been convicted of an offence outside England and Wales.
  Mr. Dicks: As I understand my right hon. Friend, he has said that if the restriction on hooligans travelling abroad had been in operation two years ago, some of the offences that have been committed abroad would not have happened. Does my right hon. Friend know that I received a letter from the Home Secretary just over a year ago in which he told me that it was impossible to introduce any measure that would prevent people from going abroad? What has happened between then and now to alter the position?
  Mr. Ridley: The question related to taking away people's passports, which my right hon. Friend could not possibly do. However, this measure will solve the problem to the satisfaction, I hope, of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and myself.
  852
  I recognise that there has been controversy about the Government's proposals, in the police service and in football itself. Of course, the police are rightly concerned that the national membership scheme should riot be introduced until the technology is ready. So are we. It is our intention that the Association of Chief Police Officers should continue to be consulted closely as the scheme is drawn up. The football authorities will be drawing up the scheme themselves. It will be their responsibility to produce a scheme that best suits the needs of football, within the framework of the Bill. If they and the clubs will take a positive rather than a negative approach to the scheme, they and their supporters will benefit from it. Individual clubs should see this as an opportunity to develop closer links with their supporters—as their members—not to put them off.
  I began by referring to Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry. I will emphasise again now what I said at the beginning: Parliament will have not one but two opportunities to debate and vote on the national membership scheme after we have received the report and in the light of any comments that Justice Taylor may make on the scheme. By proceeding with the Bill now, we can put the framework for the scheme in place and make it possible to move on rapidly with the scheme, if Parliament agrees that we should do so when it has seen what Lord Justice Taylor has to say.
  It would be irresponsible to throw away the progress that we have already made on this Bill by delaying it for one year. The case for both parts I and II remains conclusive. Events since Hillsborough have shown only too clearly that hooligans continues to infect football. The national membership scheme offers the prospect of removing that infection in the interests both of genuine football supporters and of others whose lives are damaged by the behaviour of football hooligans. We should not hesitate to put the framework for the scheme in place.
  4.40 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I agreed with the Secretary of State when he again reiterated on behalf of Government Members the sorrow that people felt about the tragedy at Hillsborough. We on the Opposition Benches shared his expressions at least on that, if on little else, in what seemed to be the speech of a team member bound for relegation.
  The preparation and promotion of the Bill have all the familiar trademarks of the domineering attitudes of the Prime Minister. The Bill epitomises all that is wrong with the Government and with many Conservative Members. As with the poll tax and water privatisation, the Secretary of State promotes the Bill only because the Prime Minister says so. She is determined to impose a national membership scheme and identity cards on hundreds of thousands of law-abiding football supporters. She is determined to do that against the advice of soccer administrators and the Police Federation and against all the evidence that her scheme is irrelevant to the problems of hooliganism and violence which have grown dramatically under her Administration.
  This is not simply the wrong Bill at the wrong time. It is the wrong Bill at any time. Every team has its strikers and its specialists for dead ball situations and corner kicks, and the Thatcher team is no exception. Today we heard from the Secretary of State, her special own goal specialist,

  853
  and as with previous speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, the majority of his colleagues in the Cabinet have an arranged away fixture, while he is at the Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the old Robin Hall and Jimmy McGregor song:
  "Fitba' crazy, fitba' mad.
  It's the fitba' that's robbed him of the wee bit of sense he had."
  In January of this year, the Secretary of State said in a press release that the Bill would
  "break the link between violence and football."
  He said that knowing—if he did not know, he should have been aware—that the majority of incidents of violence, hooliganism and arrests already take place outside football grounds. The tragedies at Bradford and Sheffield were not caused by violence or hooliganism.
  The Popplewell report did not recommend the proposals in this measure, which is being unnecessarily pushed through Parliament in the middle of the Taylor inquiry, which is specifically charged with making recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports grounds. It simple does not bear examination for the Secretary of State to say that the House should proceed to reach conclusions on legislation before what should be, and almost certainly will be, a watershed report about the circumstances and situations in and near sports grounds in this country. It is, frankly, ridiculous to ask Parliament to legislate in advance of that vitally important investigation, and the conclusions that it will take many more months to formulate.
  The overwhelming majority of spectators of course want better standards of behaviour on and off the pitch, and the Professional Footballers Association, fan clubs, the Football Association and the Football League all recognise the need to go on working to improve those standards. But requiring all football supporters—lawabiding citizens overwhelmingly—to carry identity cards is irrelevant to those aims and objectives.
  There is a clear and urgent need for soccer stadium facilities to be fundamentally improved, but far from bringing extra financial resources and essential investment into football clubs, the Bill is likely to reduce attendances and income, redirect existing and often inadequate cash to the equipment and administration necessary to operate a compulsory national indentity card scheme and bring many clubs in the lower divisions in England and Wales, despite what the Secretary of State said, into serious financial difficulties, if not into insolvency.
  The Government's proposals are far more likely to deter decent football supporters than they are to deter hooligans. Once more we see the Government ignoring the advice, opinions and evidence of the people on the spot—the police, club administrators and those responsible for managing the situation—and imposing yet another central Government regime, another quango.
  The Secretary of State recognised that the situation outside grounds, on trains and on public transport generally, was where the major problems existed when he said, in his 17 January press statement, and repeated today when talking about motorway service stations:
  "Outside football grounds the behaviour of rival groups of supporters"—
  although I believe that to be a misuse of the word—
  854
  "makes life intolerable both for law-abiding football supporters and for those who live or trade nearby, or wish to travel by train on the same day as a football match."
  We share the right hon. Gentleman's view on those points, but the possession, or lack of a compulsory identity card will not prevent the incidents which are all too common in Britain today, whether or not football is the focus. Indeed, it could make the situation worse by requiring people to leave home or work earlier to ensure entry on time.
  It could lead to more people spending more time in town and city centres before games, thus increasing the potential for disputes and disturbances—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because people do not want to queue up and miss the beginning of a game. They want to ensure that they get into the ground, and therefore they will travel earlier. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members went to a few more football matches, they would know all about it.
  For several years, under pressure, it is true, from fans, from public opinion, from Parliament and—I agree with the Secretary of State—from the Government, football clubs have taken, and are continuing to take, action to improve the situation inside grounds. The effective segregation of fans, family enclosures, close co-operation with the police and the installation of closed-circuit television have all been important and beneficial advances.
  Local community schemes and, increasingly, good co-operation between clubs and local councils are also making a positive contribution to improving the situation. This essential progress must continue and that financial support from the Football Trust and from central and local government should be increased wherever possible.
  The Bill, however, is irrelevant to all of those issues. It simply does not touch them. The Football Association, the Football League, the overwhelming majority of football clubs in England and Wales, the Police Federation and football supporters share that view. The evidence available to the House supports our conclusions and not those of the Secretary of State.
  Nobody in football would deny that there is a problem of hooligan behaviour which attaches itself to the game, more regularly in some places than in others, but it is not unique to football. Other sports and society at large are afflicted by public disorder and violent crime.
  The nature of the problem which attaches itself to football has altered significantly. Although there are still incidents of violence and disorder within grounds, those have been contained and trouble-makers are quickly identified and dealt with by improved policing, aided especially by closed-circuit television, now present at all league grounds.
  The 6,147 arrests during the 1987–88 season represented a tiny proportion, 0·03 per cent., of the 18 million attendances at games in that season. That compared with arrest figures for the population at large of 3·9 per cent. The number of arrests is, of course, a measure of the effectiveness of club and police control, and as it gets more effective, the purpose is to weed people out and get them out of the grounds. Many of the offences included in that total occurred away from the grounds and would not be directly dealt with by a mandatory identity card scheme. Indeed, two thirds of those offences occurred outside the grounds and only about 2,000 arrests were made within them. Of the 6,147 arrests during the season, in only 1,089 cases did conviction result in exclusion orders—a sign, at least, that a considerable number of those arrests were not for violence or serious disorder.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: Given the scale of policing at football matches, the fact that football matches take place under close scrutiny and the fact that police officers are in large-scale attendance in the towns before matches, is it not remarkable that the scale of offences is so high? It is no point comparing that with what happens with the public at large, who are not subject to closed-circuit television or close scrutiny. It is remarkable that the scale of offences at matches is so high when there is such close scrutiny.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. With 18 million attendances, the scale is not high compared with other aspects of crowd behaviour in other circumstances.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman appears to be reaching the conclusion that all is well and that there is no need to do anything—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the impression that the hon. Gentleman is giving. He will be laughed out of court if he persists with his complacent and stupid attitude.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State is more dozy and dim than I had thought. It is clear that he has not been listening, but if he reads Hansard tomorrow he will realise that I said that all is not well, that we all recognise that and that we want further improvement. We do not think that his proposals are relevant to the problems.
  With the help of the Football Trust, all league clubs now have closed-circuit television at their grounds. In addition, a further £500,000 has been allocated by the Football. Trust this season to provide the police with 45 portable systems to improve evidence gathering, which will enable them to take more positive action against troublemakers. That is the measure that the football authorities and the police believe will deal most effectively with the problem within the grounds, by deterring people from committing offences and by more quickly identifying those who have committed them. With one exception, all league clubs have voluntarily introduced partial membership schemes in the home areas of their grounds. All the clubs have comprehensive local plans to deal with the safety and control of spectators, which have been drawn up in consultation with the local police and local authorities. The vast majority of league clubs have family enclosures at their grounds, and they are now attracting more arid more families to the game. Indeed, as the Secretary of State rightly said, attendances have been rising over the last three seasons.
  The football-in-the-community scheme co-ordinated by the league and the Professional Footballers Association has proved effective in bringing clubs closer to their local communities. Some 34 clubs are involved and there are plans for extending it throughout the league. Many of the clubs not involved in the scheme have introduced a community programme on their own initiative. At 93 per cent. of clubs with a PFA scheme for the 1987–88 season, arrest levels were below their divisional average.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Gentleman said that most grounds now have closed-circuit television to help the police. Does he accept that at Selhurst park on 19 May there was a pitch invasion during which 16 fans were arrested and one was stabbed? As there was closed-circuit television available on that occasion, does he now accept that it was obviously inadequate to
  856
  deal with the problem? Many people involved in offences on that day were beyond the policing available and so got away with them. Are not the hon. Gentleman's proposals inadequate to deal with the problems?
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept any of what the hon. Gentleman says, other than that there was a serious disturbance at Selhurst park. However, I am not yet sure of the reasons for that disturbance and I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is sure either.
  Mr. John Fraser: I was at that match. One of the problems was that the fences had been taken down because of the recent Hillsborough disaster—a problem now facing many grounds. If the police had tried to arrest all those who invaded the pitch—they had no support from the majority of supporters—there would have been a major incident. I do not in any way excuse what happened at Selhurst park—it mainly involved Birmingham supporters—but it was caused partly by the taking down of fences as a consequence of Hillsborough. There would have had to be mass arrests for the Bill to have been of any consequence.
  Dr. Cunningham: In December last year, the Police Federation said about the proposed national membership scheme:
  "Think again, Mr. Moynihan. The report of Sports Minister Mr. Colin Moynihan's working party on a national membership scheme for football has come in for almost universal condemnation. Sadly the strictures are deserved, for this is an extraordinary mish mash of good intentions and half-baked nostrums. If the Government insists on using its majority to steamroller this scheme through Parliament, the results could be disastrous."
  Those were the comments of the police about the proposals. The Police Federation continued:
  "When the scheme breaks down, it will do so on match days and give rise to the threat of even worse disorder than it seeks to suppress."
  Mr. Michael Shersby: The hon. Gentleman is quoting views that the Police Federation expressed some months ago. Is he sure that they are the same today? He may find that they are not.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am sure that the police do not support the proposals in the Bill.
  The Bill is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions and is full of holes. It is merely an enabling Bill; the heart of the Government's proposals—the so-called national membership scheme—is missing. That is to be left to a football membership authority. The Bill, however, makes no reference to the football membership authority recommended by the Minister's working party. Instead, it says the Secretary of State will appoint an administrator —who may, or may not, be the football membership authority. We do not know.
  Whatever the House decides—not only today but in Committee—in advance of the Taylor inquiry report, the House cannot in any way influence the details of the heart of the proposals. The Secretary of State will determine that and bring it to the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.That is a wholly unsatisfactory way for the House to be asked to deal with such a matter, and in their heart of hearts Conservative Members know that to be so. The House is being asked to give the Secretary of State for the Environment a blank cheque for the proposals, and it should not do so.

  857
  I say to Conservative Members who have misgivings about the Bill—as many had misgivings about previous legislation such as the poll tax and water privatisation—that it is no good looking to the House of Lords to amend the Bill; it has already been in the House of Lords. Conservative Members cannot fall back on that excuse. If they intend to influence these matters, they must do so here and now through their vote in the Lobby tonight. There is no other way.
  Mr. David Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? Is his answer to the problem more police, more dogs, more horses and more fences? If, as I suspect, it is, will that continue until there are more police than there are spectators? Does he agree that it is about time that the Government and the House protected the vast majority of people who go in trepidation every Saturday in areas where football matches are being played?
  Dr. Cunningham: Since my answer to the hon. Gentleman's unsimple question is no, all his supplementary questions fall. I do not agree that the answer is more police, more dogs and more horses. I think that he knows that very well. Nor do I say, incidentally, that the answer is the scheme that he and others have pioneered in the football club with which he has had a long association. That seeks to ban away supporters altogether.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will my hon. Friend point out a major hole in the Bill that has been brought out by the Football League—that it is the custom at football matches to open the gates for people to leave 15 minutes from time? If the gates were locked until the 90th minute, there would be chaos. When the gates are opened 15 minutes from time, what is there to stop anyone walking in free, without a membership card? People do it now. Anyone could walk in without a card and cause a riot.
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. That is a problem that again is not addressed by the Secretary of State's proposals.
  Unlike many of the existing voluntary schemes, the Government scheme comes without any real benefit to members. No entitlements or rights will flow from being forced to have an identity card. It is nothing less than compulsory identity cards for up to perhaps 4 per cent. of the population of England and Wales.
  The Government have rightly excluded Scotland from the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is nonsense for England and Wales. We support the exclusion of Scotland but at present Scottish and Welsh teams compete in European tournaments. Under the Government proposals Welsh fans will be required to carry identity cards; Scottish fans will not. English fans travelling to Scotland will be required to carry identity cards but Scottish fans travelling to England will not.
  What will happen, for example, at an England versus Scotland match at Wembley, with Scottish supporters travelling down for the day, and Scots men and women who live in England claiming that they are just down for the day as well? Will a Scottish person living and working temporarily in England be required to have an identity card? Ministers have no answers to these questions. If the Secretary of State has got an answer, I will be happy to
  858
  give way. I think in football parlance that is called a set-up pass; selling one's team mates short would, I think, describe the Secretary of State's behaviour in pointing to his hon. Friend.
  To admit people without identity cards to a designated game will be a criminal offence, punishable by a prison sentence. What will be the position, and who will be responsible for order and for taking decisions if, in the interest of safety and public order, the police instruct ground authorities to open the gates and admit people, whether or not they have tickets and cards? That is exactly what happens from time to time every season. Who will be responsible? Who will be in charge? There is no answer to those questions either.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Before my hon. Friend goes too far away from the Scotland versus England example, may I point out that there was a lot of trouble associated with the recent international at Hampden. All that trouble took place in the streets and in the city centre. If the Government would do something to stop marauding Fascists who have nothing to do with football attaching themselves to football crowds, they would be getting to the core of the problem. The proposed scheme would have been utterly irrelevant to everything that happened in Glasgow that day.
  Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend, although we might not agree about the outcome of the match.
  Part I of the Bill is totally unacceptable and clause 5 is particularly obnoxious. Does the House really believe that pensioners, who will have to carry identity cards, are a threat to public order? Are women a major cause of hooliganism? I understand from debates in another place that the Government insist that women cannot be excluded because male troublemakers would dress up and pose as women to gain entry. On such stupidities do the Government rest their vacuous case. All unaccompanied children aged 10 years and over will be required to have identity cards. There is no evidence to support the need for that draconian proposal. Season ticket holders who pay large sums to guarantee their seats and their comfort at every home game will also be required to carry identity cards.
  A major anxiety occasioned by the proposal to introduce a compulsory scheme is the prospect that fooball will lose a great many casual spectators, estimated at 20 per cent. of attendances and probably including a great many hon. Members. These people may go to matches two, three or half-a-dozen times a season. They and we often have no particular club allegiance, although I have; I say it quietly—Newcastle United.
  In London and other major cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool many people may go to different grounds. The Government should recognise the problem posed by the potentially damaging loss of income which is worrying dozens of football administrators. How will the proposals cater for the spectator who decides at short notice to attend a match? Football clubs need flexibility to be able to issue cards on match days even for a single fixture. At larger clubs that attract much casual support the proposed scheme will lead to considerable administrative difficulty, delays, frustration and even anger.
  Similar arguments apply to foreign visitors. Large numbers of spectators living in Europe, particularly Holland and Scandinavia, visit London clubs frequently, if

  859
  not regularly in some cases. Similarly, Irish spectators travel to watch Liverpool and Everton in particular. The European and Irish spectators may in future have to present their passports at football club offices to obtain a one-match membership card and a ticket. The proposal is preposterous.
  In its independent report on the Government's proposed scheme, Arthur Young stated that it had examined the technology available and had identified six options. The review showed:
  "No one supplier was able to demonstrate conclusively at this stage that their technology or approach could satisfy the total requirements of the national membership scheme."
  We have only to go into London Underground at rush hour to see what happens. When there is a crush, the barriers are opened and everyone is allowed through. It is exactly such hold-ups, delays and aggravation that the Secretary of State proposes to impose on football spectators and clubs.
  The problem that continues to cause football authorities, clubs and the police the greatest anxiety is the possibility that the technology will fail on a match day at more than one club, just before the start of the match, when thousands may be waiting to be admitted. What will happen then? The police will advise the club to open the gates. They will break the law by asking someone to commit a criminal offence and render himself liable to a gaol sentence.
  At the briefing meeting for club chairmen on 17 January, the Secretary of State apparently said that local police will not have overriding powers to instruct clubs to suspend the operation of the membership scheme in order to admit spectators without checking cards. However, we know that, in the past, when all-ticket matches have been played, the police have done just that—admitted spectators without tickets, in the interests of public safety and order. The Secretary of State says that he will stop that. He will be responsible for the problems that result or, alternatively, for the fact that thousands of people, who want to see a match, have tickets and are members, will have to be turned away. That is a recipe for civil disturbance outside football grounds.
  I see that the Secretary of State has written to all Tory Members pleading for loyalty in the Lobby tonight. One of his loyal and hon. Friends has kindly sent the Opposition a copy of that letter. It would be interesting to see the loyal reply from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). In any event, as I am sure that right hon. Gentleman would say, the best form of loyalty to one's friends is to tell them the truth, however unpalatable it might be. No amount of fudging can cover the huge inadequacies of the Secretary of State's proposals. He is fudging.
  Typically, the Secretary of State is deliberately inaccurate and misleading in his letter to all Conservative Members. In his letter, he claims:
  "The FA made a significant change of direction on 18th May in a statement which embraced the principle of a membership scheme."
  The Secretary of State appears to be referring to off-the-cuff remarks by Mr. Bert Millichip, but the FA and the Football League, in a brief to the House today, continue their opposition to part I of the Bill, which they describe as "seriously flawed".
  They go on to say that it
  "should not be considered in detail before full account has been taken of the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor."
  860
  We share their views.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the letter was sent not only privately to Conservative Members but to all hon. Members—at least to other hon. Members—including myself on 21 December? The Minister with responsibility for sport said:
  "The Government, police and the football authorities were represented on the working party and agreed its recommendations."
  Quite clearly, they did not. The Football League told me that that was misrepresentation. Later, on 23 February, the Minister wrote:
  "I recognise that the football authorities have made clear all along their opposition to the principle of the scheme."
  Therefore, is there not only dubiety in the Government's letter to Conservative Members but a calculated intention to mislead?
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend's comments are borne out by the letter that he received, of which I have a copy, from Mr. J. D. Dent, the secretary of the Football League Ltd., dated 28 February this year. Mr. Dent wrote:
  "Dear Mr. Spearing"—
  I will not read the whole letter—
  "It is good of you to take up with the Minister his misrepresentation of the football authorities' views and I am most grateful to you for this."
  There we have it—the football authorities themselves saying that the Minister with responsibility for sport was misrepresenting their position.
  We can at least agree the principle of part II of the Bill and the intention to restrict people convicted of a football-related offence from travelling to matches abroad. That proposal rightly enjoys general support, but, again, there are weaknesses in the detail of the Bill. Police in Europe often do not charge detained troublemakers but simply return them to Britain as soon as possible. As they stand, the proposals simply cannot deal with those people —there will be nothing to exclude them for. In addition, exclusion will require a very large administrative effort by the police effectively to implement the reporting scheme nationwide when matches abroad are designated.
  This Bill is the imposition of central Government control upon a single sport. It is unprecedented in its implications for civil liberties, and it has no parallel in Europe. Once again, it gives the Secretary of State powers that effectively prevent proper Parliamentary scrutiny of his proposals. It would punish football and the game's supporters for the hooliganism and public disorder that are endemic in Tory Britain. As the Association of Chief Police Officers reported last year:
  "From Petersfield to Penrith, from Barnstaple to Bridlington, come reports of unprovoked attacks on property, public and police".
  The chief officers referred to 251 incidents, involving 36,000 people, in which over 2,000 arrests were made. That is, 2,000 arrests from 36,000 people in towns and cities around the country. That is as many as the arrests from 18 million football supporters in a whole season, and Conservative Members say that they are dealing with the right problem. They are not even aiming at the right target. There were 1,700 arrests at race meetings alone in this country last year—600 at Royal Ascot in one week. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I will not give way.
  Mr. Holt rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has made it clear that he is not giving way. I call Dr. Cunningham.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.] Pardon?
  Mr. Holt rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman use the word "liar".
  Mr. Holt: I will withdraw the word "liar". The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, and he is afraid to give way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Dr. Cunningham.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman flatters himself.
  Mr. Holt: Give way—see if you can give way.
  Dr. Cunningham: After his behaviour, I am certainly not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Regrettably but true, it is the case in this country, that, wherever and whenever large numbers of people gather, there are always some arrests. As the figures show, to single out soccer is misguided and plainly wrong, especially when the situation in soccer grounds is improving because of the actions that are being taken.
  In early 1988, the Association of Chief Police Officers commissioned the centre for football research at Leicester university to undertake a survey of senior police officers with responsibility for policing Football League grounds. In all, the centre received replies from officers at 90 of the 92 Football League grounds. The survey covers a wide range of issues involving contemporary policing methods at football, but there is particular focus on a compulsory national scheme. The results of the survey—the most comprehensive one that we are aware of—show that the senior officers were divided about the Government's proposed scheme. A large proportion of them believed that hooliganism inside grounds is decreasing—the evidence bears that out—and four out of five of those senior police officers believed that hooliganism outside grounds was not worsening.
  There is growing violence in all aspects of British life. It is more dangerous than ever before in our streets and on our public transport systems because of the increase in crimes of violence under this Government. To single out soccer grounds ignores where most violence takes place. Because of better crowd control, closed circuit television cameras and improved policing, football grounds are actually safer places to be than the average high street on a Saturday afternoon. The Labour party has supported the measures that were put into action by the Football League and the Football Association in their fight against violence associated with football. These actions have been successful in reducing the percentage of those arrested for any offences related to football to 0·03 per cent. of spectators, while the national average for criminal offences is 3·9 per cent. of the population. Football has done that, at a cost of £15 million to itself. A compulsory identity card scheme will cost many more millions and again the Government are inconsistent.
  862
  Let us consider the Secretary of State's performance in the House two weeks ago. The latest figures show that in 1985, 1,200 people were treated in hospital after being attacked by dogs. The Post Office unions claim that there are 5,000 dog attacks on postmen and women every year. It is estimated that about 1 million people in Britain are bitten by dogs every year. Yet this same Secretary of State rejected a dog owner registration scheme as
  "complicated, bureaucratic and expensive to administer".— [Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 1076.]
  Mr. Tony Banks: The score must be 6:0 now.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Bill is not based on ideology, but on idolatory. The Prime Minister must have it, however stupid and however nonsensical. This is the Prime Minister who, on 18 May, was the subject of a four-page spread in the Daily Mail—a typical Daily Mail hagiography. Its banner headline reads:
  "My European Nightmare by Maggie".
  Well, that was one of her dreams that certainly came true. If we read beyond the headline, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
  "As I said in my Bruges speech, we are practical. They have identity cards, but can you imagine compulsory identity cards in this country? We recoil from it."
  That was what the Prime Minister said barely one month ago, but today we have a three-line Whip on all her Ministers who are being dragooned into the Lobbies in favour of compulsory identity cards for football supporters.
  The Bill is based on blind support for that increasingly isolated and erratic Prime Minister. It should not proceed before Lord Justice Taylor—
  Mr. Ridley rose—[Interruption.]
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in a moment.
  It should not proceed before Lord Justice Taylor reports and it should be referred to the special statutory committee procedure so that witnesses can be called to give evidence and to answer questions from the Committee; so that we can have the football authorities, the police and, if necessary, Lord Justice Taylor here to comment before the legislation goes through. The Government's decision to press ahead with the Bill at this time and in this way, while the inquiry is still sitting, is not rational.
  Mr. Ridley: Half an hour after I last intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech—after half an hour of absolute twaddle—it is now clear that the hon. Gentleman does not think that anything is wrong and does not think that anything should he done.
  Dr. Cunningham: I advise the right hon. Gentleman to quit and to think about his goal difference because it is getting worse all the time—
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is time for the yellow card.
  Dr. Cunningham: I unreservedly offer the support of the Labour party for any Bill which is genuinely and effectively concerned with football safety and the enhancement of a great national game. These are not and should not be matters of party political dispute. But this Bill does not meet those requirements. As drafted it can never do so. That is why we are opposing it tonight.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: Inevitably the House has been treated to a certain amount of humour from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and, I suppose, to a certain amount of factual evidence that supports his party's opposition to this excellent Bill. However, what he was short on, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly pointed out in his two interventions, was any type of answer to the terrible problems not only that we face as a country, but which football itself faces.
  Much of the hon. Gentleman's argument was flawed. In his defence he quoted the Police Federation's opposition to the Bill, omitting to mention, of course, that just four or five weeks ago it reversed its opposition and said that it was in favour of the "no away supporters scheme" as exemplified at Luton. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Football Association in his favour, not mentioning of course, the words of Mr. Bert Millichip who has been described in a sedentary intervention as "a 68-year-old nonentity". He said:
  "I do not know where we go from here. I just do not know what course of action we can take, but something has got to be done."
  The problem with the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he did not give the House any fresh ideas. The complacent attitude of the hon. Gentleman and of his right hon. and hon. Friends belies the fact that they have understood the fundamental principle of the Bill.
  Conservative Members appreciate that the problem exists. We shall not sit idly by and watch hooliganism spread throughout the greatest of our national games. Perhaps in the minds of some of my hon. Friends we are attempting to deal only inadequately with the problem, but the hon. Member for Copeland gave no answers in his speech.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, which was supported by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), the right hon. Gentleman said that we should never have enacted that legislation.
  Mr. Denis Howell rose—
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman said that we should never have done it, but he supported the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and I served on the Committee on that Bill. He knows that it was rushed through this and another place in a day and a half with the full support of the right hon. Gentleman and his party. However, he is now saying that that Bill was a mistake, and saying, "We should not have supported it," and, "I have no other answer."
  Mr. Howell: The Opposition have never supported the proposal that drinks should not be sold inside grounds —[Interruption.] No, we have always said that the problem was drinking outside grounds. If the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will consider Hillsborough and if he will look at the police report on Crystal Palace, he will find considerable evidence—I am sure that Lord Justice Taylor will tell us this—of people arriving late because they had been drinking outside the ground. One effect of that legislation has been to aggravate
  864
  the late arrival of people who cannot get a drink inside the ground. That has caused additional difficulties, which we predicted at the time.
  Mr. Carlisle: I advise the right hon. Gentleman to go back to Hansard and to read the record and the surrounding press comments of the time. The measure was supported by almost all hon. Members. If I recall correctly, there was little division between us. The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to remember that at times he has supported certain measures and at others he has not.
  None of that alters the fact that throughout this argument, no Opposition Member—on either the Front or the Back Benches—and no member of the Football League or the Football Association has come up with any real solution to the terrible problem that we face.
  Although the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland was humorous at times, Conservative Members consider this to be a serious problem. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman lives in an ivory tower away from the problem on Saturday afternoons, but if he lived near any of the football grounds where nearby residents have suffered terrible afflictions because of football hooliganism, his attitude would be somewhat less light-hearted and more serious.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not have a sense of humour, but I am grateful to him for giving way. I never said that this is a laughing matter. What I said was laughable was the performance and proposals of the Secretary of State.
  As the hon. Member for Luton, North has made an allegation, I should make it clear that I am very familiar with the conditions and the circumstances around many soccer gronds—for example, St James's park, Roker park and Elland road—and rugby grounds, too. I am a regular —although, unfortunately, not as frequent as I would like —attender at sports occasions. I watch Sunday soccer and a lot of schoolboy soccer. My greatest pleasure is watching my son play centre forward for his comprehensive school team.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman says that, but he still does not answer the basic problem, or perhaps even acknowledge that there is a problem.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later, because I know that he will probably want to intervene.
  For many of us the Bill has been a long time coming. Inevitably, there was a right and seemly delay after Hillsborough. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for listening to those of my hon. Friends who thought that we should sit back and wait for some interim comments from Lord Justice Taylor, and as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, at the end of the day to take into account the findings of Lord Justice Taylor.
  Over the years, this game—I remind the House that, after all, it is only a game—has attracted an element of hooliganism and criminality which has resulted in deaths and injuries, in towns and cities on Saturday afternoons being turned, by military operation, into no-go areas, and in public transport being completely unsafe for those who wish either to travel to the match or to the area of the match. Those living around football grounds have suffered

  865
  the desecration of their gardens, broken windows and abuse. Regrettably, all those matters are associated with football. It is a fact that the crowds have halved in about 20 years and that the disgraceful behaviour of our so-called soccer fans abroad has brought shame and disgrace on the name of this country and on many of our towns and cities. That is why I salute what the Government are doing. They will not sit back and let the problem continue.
  The saddest night of my life was in March 1985 when I attended the FA cup quarter final. My club, Luton Town —just outside my constituency—was playing Millwall. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who may be worrying about the Bill, that had they been with me that night—some of them may have experience of what football hooliganism really means—they would have seen the way in which people behaved. Half-crazed with drink and with the knowledge that their team was losing, those hooligans took vengeance on my club by ripping out the seats, by tearing down the goal posts, by bursting through the fences and by injuring people. The situation was so bad that the young cadets of the St. John's ambulance, who were there to help those who needed help, were not allowed out on to the pitch. The police were attacked with iron bars and seats. On that night the whole area around the ground was devastated by the damage inflicted by those hooligans.
  My hon. Friends say to me, "Yes, but is this the answer? Have we really come to the stage where we must force people to have membership cards?" I tell them that, if they had seen those scenes—which have sadly been repeated in and out of football grounds throughout the country—they would perhaps have some sympathy with the arguments of my constituents.
  Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that Luton Town was very much to blame on that night? First, it did not print any replay tickets and did not have them ready to give to Millwall supporters on the previous Saturday, which has been standard practice for many years; secondly, it let 8,000 people into a section of the ground which probably would hold only 5,000; and, thirdly, the Bedford police were not ready, despite warnings sent from St. Pancras station, and had no experience of such trouble. The crowd had to invade the pitch to save themselves. When Luton Town and the police realised what a massive clanger they had dropped, to save itself from an investigation, Luton Town brought in its scheme. Much of the problem was due to bad organisation. Luton Town let far too many into the ground and was not able to police it.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words, if expressed to my constituents in the Luton and Dunstable hospital the following morning, would have been of great comfort. Of course people say that it was not the fault of anybody, bar those in authority. It was not the fault of football fans: it was because Luton town did not allow enough police for the ground and it let too many supporters into the ground. I can tell the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), because I was there, that it did not let them into the ground—they burst through the gate a la Hillsborough style. His attitude is the same as that of other Opposition Members—it is always someone else's fault, but never the fault of—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Terry Fields: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has clearly stated that people burst into the Hillsborough football ground. That is a lie. It is a distortion of the truth.
  Madame Deputy Speaker: I am sure that, if that is incorrect, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) may reflect on it and make some correction. I shall just say to the entire House that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, and that it may be counter-productive for too many hon. Members to approach the Chair and to show their interest in speaking.
  Mr. Carlisle: I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Field) that it would be presumptuous of anybody to state what happened at Hillsborough. He will know, however, that the facts suggest that those gates were left open or, as I said about Luton, they were burst open. I did not say that they were burst open at Hillsborough. —[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Broadgreen stop wagging his finger at me? The problem at Hillsborough was similar to the one at Luton. The difference, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, was that the crowd spilled on to the field at Luton.
  Those sad events left deep scars on my local club and on my town. My hon friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and his colleagues on the board of directors of Luton Town took the sensible, necessary and drastic step of saying that that would not happen again and that they would pursue the experiment of a "no away supporters" scheme. In the three years or so since that scheme was introduced, we have had one arrest. The police go home at half-time. Families have returned to the ground. It is a delight to see young children there. Perhaps more important than anything, those who come to the town to shop and visit relatives, who probably outnumber the football supporters by four or five to one, know that they can come in peace and quiet.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: No, I have given way enough.
  Those people come with the absolute assurance that, because the football crowd has been controlled by our system, they can come to the town and enjoy the sort of Saturday afternoon that the majority of the country would wish for them.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: No, I will not, because of the time.
  I am proud to represent a constituency that has been the leader in correcting a terrible problem that has afflicted this country and has brought football into disrepute.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not ready to give way at this time.
  Mr. Carlisle: I will not give way on the basis that many hon. Members on both sides wish to make a contribution. I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is keen on the subject and may wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, a little later.
  We have seen such a change in our town in the past three years that we are bound to say to our hon. Friends and those hon. Members who listen from the Opposition,

  867
  "Why not try our system?" People say to me, "But yours is a 'no away supporters' scheme." Our scheme is exactly the same as that envisaged in the Bill. One has to be a member to come to our ground. If, however, the hon. Member for West Derby wished to watch the Luton versus Liverpool game at Kenilworth road, he would be entitled at the start of the season, for a cost of £1, to apply for membership and, provided that he is a good and upstanding citizen, which I know him to be, there would be no reason to refuse him membership. His problem would be that, because our scheme has been so popular, we have a waiting list.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall reluctantly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wareing: I am much obliged, because the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me. On 21 January this year I attended Luton Town football ground to see Everton. On that occasion, between 2.20 and 2.25 pm., I stood at a turnstile watching people use their membership cards to gain entry. Forty people entered in five minutes; 10 of them had great difficulty with their cards, and four entered with the help of the card of the person standing behind them.
  Mr. Carlisle: I have heard the hon. Gentleman say that before and I am grateful for the information. New technology is now available which was conveniently forgotten by the hon. Member for Copeland who has seen the demonstrations, and I hope—I stress "hope", as the Bill is full of hope—that it will correct the problem. Luton pioneered the scheme and I am sure that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield has the opportunity to speak, he will enlarge on what I have said.
  In June 1986 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited representatives of the Football Association to come to No. 10 to discuss the problem of football hooliganism. I do not like to use that phrase, but it is convenient today. The former secretary of the Football Association, Mr. Ted Croker, told my right hon. Friend to "take your tanks off my lawn" when she suggested that the Government, together with the Football Association, the Football League and others, might try to do something about the terrible problem inflicted on the game.
  The remarkable thing about the opposition to the Bill from both sides of the House is that it fails to recognise that that is the intention of the legislation. It is unique for legislation to be passed for one specific sport. The Bill is an attempt—at this stage it may be nothing more than that —to take the problem away from football. Where that problem goes is, of course, the problem—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but if I was in football I do not believe that I would reject something from a Government who said that they would try to take the problem away from me as they believe that it is also partly their problem.
  The Bill is an attempt, and nothing more, to try to correct a problem. It may or may not work, but many of us hope that it will. We cannot ignore the problem. The hon. Member for Copeland may quote figures to show that the number of arrests is going down. We may argue that closed-circuit television and segregation have helped to deal with the problem. I do not deny that matters have improved, but there is still no corrective treatment. There
  868
  is no way in which to distinguish between those who go to a game to enjoy it and the tiny minority who want to wreck it. The tragedy of all legislation is that it is framed for the minority, not for the majority.
  Mr. Alan Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: No, I will not.
  The hon. Member for West Derby has spoken about the practicalities of the proposed scheme. Many hon. Members have taken the trouble to see what different systems are available, be it a smart card, a voucher system or whatever. The new technology will not suffer the same problems as those outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
  We believe that every match should be an all-ticket game. There is nothing wrong with that and I do not believe that that represents an erosion of civil liberties. If a man wants to go to a game once or three times a season, what is wrong with asking him to make some small sacrifice by going along to his local post office or football club to buy a ticket to enable him to go to that game or games for up to five years? The card would not limit his entry to one ground; he would be permitted entry to any of the 92 grounds in the Football League. That is why the proposed scheme runs parallel with the Luton scheme.
  When the Luton scheme was thought out, we always envisaged that it would be part of a total membership scheme. On that basis, the good guys will buy tickets and the bad guys will fall foul of the law, once established.We want to support those who are well-behaved. We ask them to make a small sacrifice by purchasing a ticket, probably once every five years, for a minimal cost. It would be extraordinary if such people said they would have nothing to do with it because it would erode their civil liberties. People may ask why they should buy a ticket, but hon. Members know that if they wish to attend any major sporting event, be it at Twickenham or Lords, where I have been for the past few days, one must buy a ticket to gain entry to the ground. I do not consider that the purchase of that ticket represents an erosion of my civil liberties. All that we are trying to do is to correct the existing problem.
  I hope that the Bill will receive the full support of my hon. Friends. Originally I was against a compulsory membership scheme. I did not like the thought that one had to buy a ticket and that one must be identified. But we cannot go on as we are. The events after Hillsborough are crucial, as they suggest that some elements in the football crowd could not care tuppence about the game and are intent on wrecking it.
  The Bill tries to correct what has been going wrong. It will act as a deterrent. It will ensure that those who go to football grounds do so with the intention of watching the match and of behaving, or they will lose their cards. The Bill will enable the police and the stewards to monitor and to filter fans who are going to matches when they arrive at railway stations, bus stations and on the roads leading up to the grounds. That would have helped at Hillsborough. People will have to have not only a ticket, as at Hillsborough, but a membership card.
  The Bill must act as a deterrent, but it will not deter the genuine football supporter who wants to ensure the well-being of the game. I count myself in that category and that is why I support the Bill.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: What are the alternatives to the Government's Bill? What is the answer to the problem? Nobody denies that a problem exists. Following Hillsborough the Government set up an inquiry under Lord Justice Taylor. That inquiry was given wider powers of examination than those given to Popplewell. The Government set up that inquiry so that a report could be made. They stopped the progress of their Bill in the House of Lords and gave it a breathing space. Therefore, why on earth are the Government going ahead now before we have that report before us?
  We accept that a problem exists and it is right that, given the expertise and experience in this House, it should be discussed here. However, we should have Lord Justice Taylor's report before us. Surely we should know what he has to say, or are the Government afraid that he will come up with some proposals that run counter to their own? Surely that is what the Secretary of State apparently fears.
  I am a football supporter. I have played and watched soccer all my life and, when I have the time to do so, I watch Manchester United. I have studied the record of that particular club and it is worth repeating it to the House tonight. Manchester United is among the best supported football clubs in Britain. Its average home gate is more than 40,000. In 1987–88 it attracted about 750,000 spectators and there were 38 arrests.
  Mr. David Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Manchester United has a 50 per cent. membership scheme and that it was the one club that followed the Government's directive three years ago.
  Mr. Orme: Yes, it has a membership scheme of which I am in favour, but I am not in favour of backing it up with the identity card nonsense. It is nonsense because it would not work.
  There are genuine football supporters and football supporters' clubs. Those people deal with this problem on the ground week in, week out; they oppose violence and want it to be eradicated. They are in the front line of this battle and may be in a membership scheme involving 50 per cent. of spectators. I would welcome a 100 per cent. membership scheme. I am talking about a club which has 40,000 spectators per home match. In 1984–85 there were 124 arrests, so in the past three or four years there has been a reduction of about 50 per cent. in the number of arrests.
  Mr. David Evans rose—
  Mr. Orme: No I shall not give way again.
  The club has worked hard to reduce the levels of violence at Old Trafford and spent a huge amount of time and money on creating an environment which is both safe and comfortable for spectators. The family stand is a positive step against violence, and youth groups and other organisations are always welcomed. The club has one of the best safety records in Europe. It has the most up-to-date equipment and a willingness to co-operate with the authorities in an effort to deal with the area's relatively small hooliganism problem. It has closed circuit television and various other facilities.
  I have seen the club in operation. I have been on the popular side and in the stand, and I have seen the police surveillance system. Do we want to transfer existing problems from inside to outside the grounds? Do we want to create a problem when spectators arrive late, the system
  870
  breaks down and people are anxious to get in? Those are the sort of problems related to a sport which is watched by millions of people every week.
  There has been an increase in violence but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, there has been an increase in violence at other sports. That has occurred in boxing and, particularly, at horse racing. That is a classic example of the media closing ranks and not revealing the problems in those sports in the same way as they have revealed them at football matches.
  What about the problems which exist in county towns? What about the yuppie influence and the lager louts? Many of the areas in which these problems occur are miles away from football grounds and are never in any way connected with football. As has been said, the increasing violent crime in Britain—recent Home Office figures show that there has been an 11 per cent. increase—is not to be found in football grounds or connected with football, in which there has been a reduction in violence in recent years.
  The Minister has said that football will foot the bill for the scheme. The financial implications of the scheme are catastrophic. The Arthur Young study forecast that the scheme would cost about £70 million to implement over the first five years. The projected 20 per cent. loss in gate revenue will result in a £34 million loss in the first year alone.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, there is a very real concern about clubs in the third and fourth divisions. Many clubs will go to the wall because they will be unable to finance the scheme or obtain support to do so. Therefore, the scheme will have a detrimental effect on our national sport.
  Improved stands within the grounds are needed, and I acknowledge that football clubs have not done enough in the past. More money must be spent and we must bring together the people within the game and those who have to administer it, such as the police and local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said that this should not be a party matter and we should try to resolve the problem on an all-party basis. However, the Government have made no attempt to do so. While they wait for Lord Justice Taylor's report, the Government should call together the football clubs, supporters, the police, local authorities and the Opposition and suggest that they all examine a way of dealing with the problem. We should analyse the problem without sweeping anything under the carpet and, at the same time—[HON. MEMBERS:"Talk."] No, we should not just talk but should come forward with proposals. We should consider what Lord Justice Taylor says because the Secretary of State's proposals will not succeed. They will drive people away from the game and those who create problems at football matches will feel that they have scored a victory and will exploit the position.
  We should set up a body which could be the start of an implementation of a statutory body which would contain the interests of the managers, players, supporters, police, transport officials and local authorities. It should be given teeth and powers to intervene to call to account clubs and other authorities. It should have the correct power to act when appropriate and should be based on Lord Justice Taylor's report, when it is completed. Why do we not put such proposals to Lord Justice Taylor? We should also tell the Government that this enabling Bill will not resolve the problems as they say it will.

  871
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has clearly shown this afternoon, the identity card scheme is riddled with contradictions and has no basic support. The Bill is a wholly inappropriate way of dealing with the problems associated with football and should be scrapped or, at the very least, delayed until we have digested Lord Justice Taylor's report.
  5.58 pm
  Sir Neil Macfarlane: I shall not detain the House too long or follow too closely the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). I listened closely to the speeches from the Front Bench spokesmen and I shall listen even more closely to the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport when he winds up the debate. He will have to catch up on many of the points raised in the debate, because there were a number of crucial pointers and factors which should be carried along with momentum.
  I have not fully made up my mind about the Bill and shall be open to persuasion during the next few hours. It is most important that we consider the manner of the problem of the past 20 years or so. I must make it perfectly clear that I. like the right hon. Member for Salford, East, have always been an enthusiastic supporter of a membership scheme. It has been well chronicled elsewhere that, a few years ago, I had one or two differences of opinion with some former colleagues about the efficacy of this way of approaching the problem. However, I shall not digress.
  I had always hoped, in the numerous meetings that I attended with many of my colleagues four or five years ago, that the football authorities would encourage a membership scheme. The right hon. Member for Salford, East referred to Manchester United; I can confirm that earlier this year I saw an effective range of card schemes in operation at Carrow road, Norwich City's ground, when my own famous Sutton United played there earlier in the year. I could not help feeling that if all the 92 clubs in the League, and others, had followed that model and the model proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—who has chaired Luton Town football club so successfully for so many years—we should not be where we are now.
  In September 1985 the Football League set up a working party to study the question of membership cards, largely in the wake of the inquiry by Mr. Justice Popplewell—who, incidentally, brushed aside in his interim report the fact that he was advocating a national identity card system, because such a system was, he said, likely to prove impractical at the turnstyles.
  Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only club that embraced the Popplewell report—which, as he may know, recommended home fans only—was Luton Town?
  Sir Neil Macfarlane: I do not want a clash of minds or personalities with my hon. Friend—we go back a long way —but we are talking about a wholly different dimension of the problems of numbers and techology. In principle, however, I agree with him.
  The Football League working party recommended that all clubs should have a membership scheme, the basic principles of which should be common to all of them. Some of those principles may well have been implemented;
  872
  in some instances, however, the desirability of such a scheme may have been ignored. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) underlined the problems of the failure of the football authorities to do very much: if they have done much, they have kept very quite about it in recent years.
  It is depressing to note that—having written to all 92 clubs in the Football League inviting those interested in the very difficult problems of football to let him have their views on every, or any one subject—Mr. Justice Popplewell noted in the report:
  "I have rather sadly to record that over 50 out of the 92 league clubs did not even take the trouble to acknowledge receipt of my letter".
  I was closely involved with the Popplewell inquiry, along with my hon. Friends in the Home Office and other Departments, and I found it staggering that only 50 clubs out of 92 took the trouble to reply. It makes me wonder what the world of football is doing, or what it is perceived to be doing by those who have loved football for 30 or 40 years. I want to try to find out what hon. Members think that the football world has done to try to enhance its reputation, and to restore its rightful place in the life of our nation.
  Why have so many thousands of people stopped going to League matches? I used to go in the early 1950s when I was living in Essex, in outer north-east London. Those games were attended by more than 40 million people, but since then the numbers have gone down and down. I know that we are now a nation of participators, and that there are alternative activities in which people can indulge. The fact remains, however, that they have stopped going to matches—although in recent years there has been a slight increase, which I welcome.
  Why has the improvement of stadiums been given such low priority by and large throughout the 92 clubs? What about the poor old football fan and the facilities that he or she has had to suffer? Why has so little money been spent, other than by the Football Trust? What effect has the easy availability of alchohol had on some spectators' behaviour, and why do people consider that going to a football match poses a risk to their well being?
  Doubtless many factors led to the decline in spectator attendance at football matches, but the fact of that decline is beyond argument: all the evidence shows that fewer and fewer people are attending.
  I find myself in difficulties over the proposals in the Bill, taking them against the backcloth of the tragedy at Hillsborough. I fear that not enough research has been conducted by the police, the Department of the Environment or the Football Association. Hillsborough graphically illustrated Oliver Popplewell's reservations about the practicality of an identity card system at the turnstiles, and, I understand, is the reason why the police dislike many of the Bill's proposals. Their worst fear has always been the excessive accumulation of spectators at the point of entry.
  I am also concerned at the rush to proceed with the legislation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can allay my concern. I should have thought that even Lord Justice Taylor's interim report would have presented a golden opportunity for us to latch on to: it might well have provided the golden research which I think that we need, and which I hope we shall be able to implement. I believe that many involved in football would wish the Government to wait until the report is to hand. I also fully

  873
  accept the points made in the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—quoted by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—about the need for action, although I am not entirely happy about his interpretation of future timing. The wording of the letter was skilful, especially the penultimate paragraph.
  I am profoundly unhappy that we are proceeding to Third Reading before Parliament has had a chance to review the Taylor report. On the other hand, we have now sat for the better part of 10 years with nothing being done. We face a dilemma: we are up against a timetable.The World Cup takes place next year, and clearly an important dimension of necessary provision is in the Bill. We cannot tolerate the gratuituous violence that football, more than any other sport, seems to encourage. We are all acquainted with the catalogue of violence caused by our people on both sides of the Channel—and sometimes on the Channel —over the past 20 years or so. When he was Minister for Sport, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) had to apologise to the head of the French Government in 1974 in the Parc des Princes. He knows exactly what went on; he knows the problem.
  Above all, I believe that over the past 10 years we have failed, not only at home but abroad, to secure prosecutions and convictions. Far too many people have got away with it, time and again. We have seen it happen in London, Cambridge, Leeds and elsewhere. In effect, this is a failure of our law and order, and that is what I find so depressing.
  I shall wait with interest to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about the problem. Clearly we cannot continue as we have for the past decade or so. Urgent action is needed. Even after Hillsborough, violence has taken place inside the ground. Everyone is sick and tired of it. The country expects us to do something, and I hope that my hon. Friend will answer many of our questions when he winds up the debate.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I find myself substantially in agreement with much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane), who speaks with the authority of a previous Minister for Sport. The reasonableness of his approach was self-evident.
  After hearing the Secretary of State trying to justify the Bill, I find myself driven to the conclusion that it is shoddy in its conception, inept in its timing, and wholly lacking in merit. Before I deal with that in more detail, let me say to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle)—whose sincerity I recognize—that anyone with any interest in football must be concerned about the way in which it is stained with hooliganism and violence. Concern about the problem, however, does not justify the embracing of measures that are likely to be ineffective, and there is a real risk of raising expectations based on part I of the Bill which are unlikely to be justified. It has already been said in the debate that this should not be a party political issue. I fear that the Government are making it such by their determination to press ahead at this stage.
  Those of us who oppose part I do not do so out of any complacency about the problem that faces football, nor are we here as uncritical defenders of the Football League
  874
  or the Football Association. Certain criticisms can be made of both these bodies, but equally a proposal as flawed as this one should not obtain the support of the House.
  Three conclusions may be reached by Lord Justice Taylor. First, he may say that the football membership scheme in part I would have prevented or ameliorated some of the events of Hillsborough. If he said that, many of us opposed to the Bill now would find it persuasive. Secondly, he may say that the football membership scheme, as proposed, would have no effect. If that happened, we should have to consider what is the proper attitude to take, after seeing the report. However, if he says that, after careful review of the evidence and careful consideration of what has been said to him, it is his belief that a national membership scheme would have aggravated the problems at Hillsborough, what justification could there be for the Government proceeding in the teeth of that conclusion, resulting from an impartial examination of the circumstances? In what conceivable circumstances would the Government reject the impartial review of someone who was chosen because he was thought to be entirely suitable to bring the necessary intellectual objectivity to what happened at Hillsborough and make the kind of recommendations that the Government would regard as valid?
  Mr. James Couchman: The converse of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said is that, if Lord Justice Taylor recommends that a national membership scheme is just what is needed, he should then endorse such a scheme.
  Mr. Campbell: I did my best to say just that. Perhaps I did not express myself in sufficiently trenchant terms, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will accept that if that is Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation it will be extremely persuasive. It will persuade me and 1 will recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends should support such a scheme.
  That issue was not properly addressed in the Secretary of State's speech. In a sense, as other speeches have demonstrated, that lies at the heart of our debate. A public inquiry by a respected judge is still to report on issues that are directly germane to what we are considering today. Notwithstanding that, the Government still intend to proceed apace with this legislation.
  It is not unreasonable to describe such a course of action as a Gadarene rush to judgment. Sensitivity has hardly been the hallmark of this Government, and on this occasion they have excelled themselves. The people of Liverpool are still awaiting Lord Justice Taylor's report. Some of them are still nursing their grief and the Government's decision to press ahead after what some of us regard as far too short a period is a demonstration of insensitivity that many of these people will find difficult to understand. The Government may win the vote this evening, although, as we have heard, many have reservations about the Bill. I wonder what prospects the Government would have of winning that vote if they were to take off the Whip and allow hon. Members to vote according to their consciences. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The convention of the House is that hon. Members do not pass between the hon. Member addressing the House and the Chair.
  Mr. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is a close friend of mine, and I am sure that his movement was no reflection either on me or on the strength of my argument.
  There is some legitimate concern about the nature of the powers that would be given to the Secretary of State were the Bill to be enacted. There is a divergence between what Ministers say and the powers conferred on them by the Bill. The whole process of the scheme lies under the direct control of the Secretary of State and not of Parliament. Under clause 1(2), the Secretary of State will designate matches. He may need a statutory instrument to alter that designation, but that is subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. Furthermore, such a statutory instrument would not be capable of amendment. Once annulled, it would be a simple matter to bring forward another. Clause 3(2) provides that the Secretary of State is to designate the football membership authority. Therefore, it will be his creature. He will be responsible for its constitution and its powers. Its very existence will be at his pleasure. If he wishes to withdraw his designation of the Football Membership Authority, he can do so under clause 3(3) without any statutory instrument.
  We do not yet know everything that the scheme will contain. Clause 5(2) says what the scheme must contain, but clause 5(3) says what it may contain. There are mandatory provisions and permissive provisions, but these are not exclusive, and this uncertainty causes much concern about the nature of the powers that the Bill would confer on the Secretary of State. The scheme as finally approved may contain a whole raft of provisions that are not included in clause 5(2) or clause 5(3).
  The alleged purpose of this legislation is to improve behaviour at football matches and in the surrounding areas. One is entitled to ask where is the evidence that it will do just that. Evidence is necessary when one embarks on a restriction of what would otherwise be a lawful activity. When one imposes on a huge majority of law-abiding citizens a restriction in their freedom because of the abhorrent and aberrant behaviour of a small number of people, such a restriction should be justified by clear and unequivocal evidence that what is proposed will provide the required solution.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The evidence of Luton is there for all to see. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there has been one arrest in three years and there is peace and quiet in the town and in and around the ground. That is the one pilot scheme with a 100 per cent. system that has been put into effect, and it has been extremely successful.
  Mr. Campbell: Yes, but the Luton scheme is not the scheme in part I, a point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. If the Luton scheme were exactly on all fours with part I, some of us might be more impressed by the scheme than we are. We cannot ignore the fact that the numbers of people attending Luton football matches have not grown recently, while it is acknowledged that elsewhere there has been a growth in attendence.
  Mr. David Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year, because the team is now in the first division, the attendance at Luton Town increased by 21 per cent.? That increase was the fourth highest in the division.
  Mr. Campbell: A long run in the cup tends to have that effect, but, in any event, I should have been much more impressed by the figures if we had those for the past five years.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The House should be accurately informed. The attendance before the Luton experiment averaged 11,000 per match. The average is now 9,000 per match, having risen in the past year from 8,000. If the same attendance figures applied to every other ground, foot ball would be bankrupt.
  Mr. Campbell: Both the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) are capable of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall leave them to their 15-round contest.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that hon. Members cannot have it both ways: they cannot make both interventions and speeches in a debate in which a very large number of hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Campbell: The need to show evidence as to why the scheme is justified is made all the more acute by the fact that the football authorities have taken steps to deal with disorder at football matches. Reference has already been made to the use of closed-circuit television, to the segregation of supporters, to the encouragement of families to spectate and to closer integration with the community. We must ask ourselves whether the scheme in the Bill can have any material effect to improve behaviour. I rather fancy that better stadiums, better facilities, all-seated stadia and a recognition that football fans are entitled to a proper standard when they visit football matches are more likely to be persuasive of good behaviour. In that regard, the activities of the Football Trust are to be commended. Some of us have open minds about the idea of a football levy board.
  It seems to me that the most effective deterrent against criminal behaviour at football matches and elsewhere is the belief that one is likely to be apprehended. Resources and efforts to that end should now be pressed instead of pressing a proposal which is misconceived, has no merit and which appears to have very considerable disadvantages for football. The proposals also have substantial potential costs for clubs. How are third and fourth division clubs to meet those expenses? If we consider their balance sheets, it is a miracle that some of them can keep their doors open. The proposal will discourage casual spectators. The truth is that unfashionable football clubs will be put substantially at risk.
  The Government have been disingenous in the use of statistical information. We have been told on many occasions that there were 6,147 arrests last year. However, we have not been given accurate information about how many convictions followed those arrests. So far we have not yet reached the stage in the United Kingdom when arrests equal convictions. We have not heard how many of those arrests related to events inside football grounds and how many outside. We know that some of the arrests relate to pickpocketing, drugs offences and car thefts. Those are thoroughly undesirable, but it is difficult to justify the view that they are football-related crimes.
  The Government had an opportunity arising from the tragic events at Hillsborough for mature reflection and reconsideration. They had an opportunity to consider an

  877
  external and impartial judgment on their proposals through Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry. By their precipitate desire to proceed with this measure, the Government have rejected that opportunity, and the House in turn should reject the Bill.
  6.22 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I grew up in soccer territory in the Rossendale valley. Within five or six miles of where I lived there were Blackburn Rovers, Bolton, Bury and even Accrington Stanley in those days. It was not until I joined the Royal Navy during the second world war that I ever saw a rugger ball. I thought that the equipment in the Royal Navy must be worse than that in the Haslingden grammar school because the ball was such a funny shape. I stood amazed.
  From the beginning I have been imbued with the football culture. The one thing that I despair about—although despair may be too strong a word—is the fact that as a boy I could travel on the tram and then on the bus with a set of people from the little village in which I lived to watch Blackburn Rovers without any worry to my parents or anyone else. We went to see matches, the hymns were sung, people behaved and there was no obscene chanting. It was part of a culture that I respected and it helped to make me, no matter what values I hold now.
  Mr. David Martin: As with rugby today.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, but they still do not play rugby in the Rossendale valley. There is one team now, so there has been a decline in the valley. It is called Bacup and Rawtenstall grammar school old boys.
  I believe that we are discussing a non-party matter. We are considering order and discipline. We are not considering free enterprise or Socialism. There is a breakdown of law and order in adolescent behaviour which at the moment is revealing itself more in football than anything else. However, like water in the bowels of a ship, it will move from one side to the other. If the troublemakers leave football, they will go somewhere else, until we solve the adolescent problems in society.
  This Bill dealt with symptoms, not causes. Even if it is successful, we will still be left with a massive problem and there is no sign of it going away. In recent years Tory and Labour Governments have suffered from legislative hyperactivity. When anything happens, there must be another Bill. We spend our time day after day here discussing not first principles, but Bills to clear up what we got wrong in Bills last year. Almost every Department has one of these. Perhaps we should spend six months in this place without debating any Bills and we could discuss what we should really be here for. That may come as a shock and some hon. Members may disappear because they cannot decide what to do.
  We are facing a major breakdown of law and order in this country which, as I have said, has little to do with Socialism or free enterprise. It is caused by the disappearance of community ties which once held people together. Although Edmund Burke was never a member of the Tory party, he called certain groups of people "little platoons". Unless people believe that they belong to little platoons, they will create their own at war with society.
  878
  The family is breaking down and we no longer see three generations together. There is no trouble at rugby league where three generations of family watch the game. However, once adolescents and peer groups get together, there is trouble. We are separating the old people into sheltered accommodation so another generation is being isolated. The second generation must move 20 or 200 miles away to gain economic prosperity. There is nothing wrong with that, but it makes it difficult for the children and the three-generation family breaks down.
  The churches are relatively empty and the local government reorganisations of 1964 and 1972—which I opposed at the time and still oppose—put people into units to which they did not want to belong and in which they had no history. In most cases we do not even know where those places are now.
  There is a breakdown in security and behaviour in many of our homes, schools, and in large areas of our towns. A rootless adolescent generation has grown up and it is almost ungovernable. It accepts no standards apart from its own immediate egoistic satisfaction. That is basically the problem.
  A survey carried out in 1988 by the National Union of Teachers, of which I used to be a district committee member in my trade union days, showed that one in three teachers expected a major disruption in the school year at some stage. Half the teachers surveyed said that there was frequent indiscipline in their schools. A National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers survey in 1986 showed that 4 per cent. of teachers had been physically attacked in the previous six months and 25 per cent. had been threatened with physical attack. Worst of all, the National Association of Head Teachers' survey of nursery schools showed that one in five schools for three and four-year-olds was out of control. If we cannot control children at the age of three or four, how can we control them when they are adolescents?
  All that assumes that the children go to school. A survey of a well-run Labour borough—this applies to other boroughs; I am not making any political points here because there is a deep sickness which both Labour and Conservative must deal with—showed that in three big comprehensive schools the attendance of 15 to 16-year-old boys was 47 per cent., 48 per cent. and 52 per cent. That means that half the 15 to 16-year-old boys did not attend school that year or they did so on a rota system. They would come in on alternate days while another boy worked on the market. If we cannot get children into school, how can we get them to behave? If they are living on the fringes of society, at war with society, getting mixed up with all sorts of things outside, they will be undisciplined and there is no solution to that.
  These pupils will be uncontrollable in adolescence. No matter whether we have plastic, wooden or golden football identity cards, it will make no difference to those adolescents because they have got away with it for years and they will get away with it again. They are at war with our values in society. The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 caused untold harm by not making young people liable for their actions, particularly when we consider how young people grow up more quickly these days.
  School breakdown, family breakdown and schools giving pupils little or no faith in past or present-day society, with little knowledge of our history and literature,

  879
  mean that we have prepared what we called during the second world war a Molotov cocktail for adolescents, which will blow up under us.
  The Education Reform Act 1988, which I supported, is an attempt to introduce some sense and control. I understand that the national curriculum will be retained whichever party is in control in Parliament in the future. But in addition, we have television, videos and magazines glorifying brutality. Those magazines can be picked up in all the newspaper shops. There are no restraints. Self-fulfilment becomes self-gratification. Self-expression becomes self-absorption and we reap the dastardly flowers of a permissive age gone mad.
  All that applies to 10 to 20-year-olds, from whom the violence comes. The average age of the male criminal today is 14 years and seven months. Violence is happening not just at our football matches, but in society generally. If we have football identity cards, are we to have cards for those who riot outside pubs? The licensed victuallers have sent out 500,000 applications for cards to prove that people who drink are of the age of 18. Are we then to have a card for those who visit public houses? There will soon be more cards than there are bankers' cards.
  On new year's eve last year 128 people were arrested in Trafalgar square. Are we to have cards to admit people into Trafalgar square on new year's eve? More were arrested on that occasion than at most football matches. At Pilton pop festival in Somerset 106 people were arrested recently. Are we to have pop festival cards? Will all the cards be different colours—if enough colours exist?
  Only this weekend two policemen were hurt and 13 youths were arrested after a one-hour running battle in Andover in Hampshire. According to newspaper reports 11 "tanked up" youths were arrested at Blandford in Dorset last week. Are we to have cards for "tanked up" youths as well?
  I support compulsory identity cards. Some hon. Members would not go along with me on that. However, I am trying to carry people with me, so if I lose some on the way I shall try to rope them in again later. I know that the wild libertarians on the Conservative Benches do not support compulsory identity cards. I am glad that we have Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) who makes me look like a moderate. Long may he remain here. I am a middle-ground man compared with him. I must introduce him to my wife. Such a card should carry a photograph, fingerprints, blood group, a section to say whether the bearer wants to leave his kidneys as a donor and a national insurance number. If freedom of information means that we know what the Government are doing, it should also mean that the Government should know what the individual is doing. It should work both ways in our society.
  I wonder whether the Bill is necessary and whether it will work. According to my figures, there was one arrest for every 5,000 attending a first division match last year, and one arrest for every 3,233 attending all division matches. Last year, 25 times as many people were arrested in London for offences against the person committed well away from football grounds as for offences committed in or near the grounds. More than 75 per cent. of the 92 teams had fewer than five arrests last year, yet they will all be landed with the scheme. If ever there was a case of burning villages in Cyprus, this is it. If one person misbehaved, the lot had to be destroyed and everybody
  880
  was lined up and shot. I thought that we had passed that stage, given the respect for the individual that we are supposed to have now.
  As for turnstiles, I should like those who wrote the Bill to travel on the underground with me. We would have to travel for only two hours before one broke down. They are a form of all-in wrestling. They are certainly good for muscle development. Turnstiles do not work on the Underground, so why should they work at the football grounds? As hon. Members have already said, if they break down, people will riot and move in.
  If the cards do not carry the owner's photograph, many people who set out for the game will not arrive there. A mile away from the match they will be locked into the nearest cupboard—I trust that they will live through the experience—and somebody else will go to the match with their card. However, it will be a clever machine that can read a photograph. We do not yet have such a machine on the Underground, but I look forward to the day that we do.
  The four tribes that make up these islands have always been difficult to discipline. We talk about them being law-abiding, but only those who have not read history can believe that. They are law-abiding only when the law has been enforced from above. Let me give just one illustration of English youth, without referring to the Irish, Scots or Welsh. Remember the 6,000 London apprentices whom Taine reminded us formed the garrison of Calais and tyrannised the countryside for miles around. When they succumbed to superior numbers they died to a man, fighting savagely to the last. That is why the English are such brilliant infantry. We have the only Army in the world which prefers the bayonet to the bullet. Those who say that the British are law-abiding do not know what they are about.
  Look at the early industrial revolution. Those of us from Lancashire and the north know what happened in its early years. The situation is complicated by the new industrial revolution. I agree with the Government's economic policy. I might lose any friends that I have on the Opposition Benches by saying so. There is a heavy price to pay for our new economic prosperity. That price is being uprooted from one's community. Fathers are away from their children. Just like the industrial revolution, it will impose a great penalty on adoloscents growing up.
  I would support a Bill that returned caning to schools so that we could have order in our schools; heavier punishment for hooligans; enforced rather than the voluntary attendance at school that exists in many local authorities; identity cards for all; that said that three generations should meet at least once a week—perhaps, for the Jewish, on a Friday night—so that grandparents could recognise their grandchildren, and vice versa.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: At a seance.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I do not mind where they meet. They can even meet at a football match and watch Luton play. However, we must bring them together at least once a week.
  Such a Bill would shut any school that did not have a 95 per cent. attendance rate, and change the management immediately. If I catch Mr. Speaker's eye in the debate on Friday on policing in London, I may also be able to put forward my thoughts on some form of local national service which would be a cross between dad's army and an

  881
  Outward Bound school. Unless we organise people, they will organise themselves. That is what is happening. People are at war with us.
  Let me return to what I said at the beginning on legislative hyperactivity—the greatest disease in Britain at the moment—and the need to debate the major problems of our society. We need to debate why crime is so high in our society. It should not be so high. We should debate why 250,000 people are unemployed in London despite there being plenty of jobs in my area; why there is such a huge number of family breakdowns; why there is such a dependence on drugs and drinking among people growing up; why many parts of London are so seedy; and why we have so many dropouts. These are not problems of capitalism or Socialism. They are signs of a breakdown not just among adolescents, but in the unity of our society. We will not solve those problems by throwing accusations across the Floor of the House.
  On 2 July it will be the 500th anniversary of the birth of Cranmer, whose Book of Common Prayer is one of the finest pieces of the English language. I am not suggesting that by returning to religion everyone will learn to behave. I am not saying that an agnostic or an atheist cannot behave. But we have lost a means of establishing standards.
  The Bill deals with symptoms, not causes. The symptoms are a sign that there is something seriously wrong with the way in which we in Britain are bringing up our adolescents. We need more debates on such matters in the Chamber rather than on the continual legislation which exhausts those who debate it throughout the night. In that way, we may start objective thinking again, which would be a good thing.
  6.38 pm
  Ms. Kate Hoey: I am very pleased to make my maiden speech in a debate on a subject about which not only I but millions of people throughout the country feel passionately. I begin by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members and the staff of the House for their kindness in welcoming me as a new Member of Parliament. I have been offered everything from tours of the House and rundowns of right hon. and hon. Members to avoid, to advice on rules to obey and not to obey. I have also been inundated with offers to pair.
  I have reached the conclusion that there are some drawbacks in being a new Member of Parliament. Perhaps I may misquote Oscar Wilde, who in the circumstances in which I find myself might have said, "A lady without a desk may be considered unfortunate but a lady without a desk, a telephone or a chair to call her own may be called careless." I do not wish to appear to be a person who is the victim either of misfortune or of carelessness, because I want to be earnest, but at the moment I have nothing to call my own in this House. Nevertheless, I shall not dwell on that but will move on to speak about happier matters.
  My predecessor, Stuart Holland, worked conscientiously for all his constituents. His case-load was huge and he was held in great regard by the people of Vauxhall. I am sure that the House wishes him every success in his new responsibilities in Europe. I thank him for the support that he gave me over the past few weeks.
  882
  I am also honoured to succeed another hon. Member who was well known to the House, George Strauss, who spent so many years here. If there is one thing of which I am certain, it is that there is no way that I could spend the number of years in this House that he did, because to do so I would have to reach a very, very old age.
  I am fortunate that there are in my constituency many of London's famous landmarks. They include Lambeth palace, the south bank centre, St. Thomas's hospital and the Oval cricket ground. I was most disappointed that the Government missed an opportunity to provide a community sports centre at the Oval, and I only hope that in the next few weeks it will bring better news of England's cricketers in the final Test.
  On a more serious note, I remind the House that every night in my constituency, and within a mile of this Chamber, between 1,000 and 2,000 men and women sleep out in cardboard city on the south bank. Many of them are young people without any hope of ever having a roof over their heads. Most feel totally alienated from politicians and from everything that we do in this House. The population of my constituency comprises a disproportionate number of young people aged between 16 and 24, and it is those very young people whom the Bill's provisions will directly affect. The Government cannot provide them with homes, the Government cannot provide them with jobs, and now the Government want to alienate them even further.
  Most right hon. and hon. Members probably remember their first visit to a football match. I can vividly. I recall being taken by my father to Windsor park in Belfast, where I unfolded my stool and happily watched the match from the terraces. Existing supporters are very much the vital link in the marketing of football, for they create the customers of the future. Sponsorship and the income that derives from it can never replace supporters and the income from them.
  We are all aware that football has attached to it an element that we would all like to see removed, and that hooligans in football colours have vandalised trains and stations. However, a vicious circle has been created whereby the precautionary measures taken by British Rail, civil and transport police and the clubs feed the negative image of soccer fans so that they are all treated, carte blanche, as potential hooligans, and are herded and hounded in an unnecessarily provocative way. When fans are marched through the streets and forced on to already scruffy and vandalised special trains, it breeds a resentment that can, sadly, manifest itself in more unsocial behaviour.
  Conservative Members must be continually reminded that the overwhelming majority of men, women and children who attend football matches are peaceful, law-abiding supporters, yet the Bill treats them all as potential hooligans. What angers me most about the Football Spectators Bill is that the only relevant people who were not consulted were the spectators themselves. Where were the supporters' organisations on the working party? They did not serve on it, and they were not consulted. Why is there no place for the supporters' organisations on the Football Membership Authority?
  The Football Supporters Association, of which I am proud to be a founder member, produced excellently researched evidence. Part II of the Bill contains a proposal to prevent convicted hooligans from travelling abroad when English teams or clubs are playing there by making

  883
  them report to attendance centres. That was urged by the FSA a number of years ago. Why not direct a similar effort at the home-based problem and leave the rest of the supporters alone? Why does no one want to listen to those who most want to see football thrive—its supporters?
  Let us make supporters real members of their clubs, with all the privileges as well as responsibilities that membership traditionally confers—especially the right to be properly represented. Why is the Minister for Sport not pushing through a genuine membership scheme? Does anyone really believe that the FMA, made up as it will be of members of the Football League and of the Football Association, will ever force clubs to adopt genuine membership? The Government failed dismally to exploit the opportunity with which they were presented.
  The Minister for Sport cannot possibly believe that compulsory identity cards will solve the problem of football hooliganism. They will create a nightmare of bureaucracy that will do nothing to stop the hooligan element but much to prevent the genuine football lover from attending matches. If a person's ID card is taken away from him, he will simply borrow one from another member of his family. If he cannot do that, the genuine hooligan will go out and mug a 10-year-old on his way to a match. Ticket touting will be replaced by ID card touting. Stan Flashmans of the ID card will be springing up all over the country.
  It is sad that after the Hillsborough tragedy the Minister for Sport did not have the courage to take on the Prime Minister, because everyone in football, from board chairmen and players to the authorities and spectators, realise that it is not the Minister for Sport who is pushing through the Bill but the Prime Minister.
  Football supporters are the greatest asset that the professional game has, but it has taken the football authorities a long time to acknowledge that. Recently a quarter of a million people signed their opposition to the Bill, and at last there is co-operation between the FA, clubs and supporters. In Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends will build on that co-operation to ensure that, whatever may be the outcome, football's relationship with its supporters will never be the same.
  There is still time for the Government to think again. I was encouraged to hear the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane) say that he has not yet made up his mind about the Bill. If the Minister for Sport is not convinced by his hon. Friend's opinion or by me, perhaps I will be able to convince his predecessor. We should build on the opportunity created by the spirit that came out of Hillsborough, which we all felt. There are so many good examples of football clubs working to involve their supporters. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) mentioned the hooligan problem at Millwall. I remind him that this year Millwall won the award for being the club that has done most to solve the problem of hooliganism.
  I believe that sport in its wider context is crucial to the future of our young people. I hope to play my part in its development in this House. Above all, it is to the people of Vauxhall that I pledge my time in the House in working to represent them, and I hope to continue to do that for a number of years.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester:It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and to be the first to congratulate her on the quality of her maiden speech. As I live in her constituency, I take a great interest in her activities. I make a public offer to pair with her. I have never succeeded in finding a pair, even though I have been a Member of Parliament for 15 years.
  The hon. Lady's involvement with Arsenal football club makes her well qualified to comment on our national game and to take part in the debate in the informed, concerned and lucid way that she demonstrated in her maiden speech. She has also demonstrated the energy that is necessary to achieve a seat, a telephone and a desk, the raw materials that would enable her to perform her task well. I am confident that she will make her mark. I am also delighted to say that I agree with the broad thrust of her speech, especially her recognition of the value of football supporters in our national game.
  I approach the debate with considerable sadness. For the whole of my life I have been a keen football supporter. I am also a great supporter of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to be in disagreement with him and the Government over the Football Spectators Bill. We all recognise that there is a problem but many of us find it amazing, following Hillsborough and all that has been said, that this should be regarded as a party political issue. Concern about football hooliganism ought to unite both sides of the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment insists that Parliament must take a decision tonight. Many of us know that all sorts of things—the European election results, loyalty to party, which the Secretary of State has referred to in a letter, a three-line Whip and considerable persuasion—have brought that about. It leads me to believe that it is not the quality of the argument that will prevail. The fact is that the Government want the Bill, willy-nilly. We shall force through a Bill for a national scheme in a relatively short time, despite the reservations of many of those who are affected, including Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members who know something about football.
  I find it difficult to understand why we need to pass the Bill at this time. The argument is that, if the Bill is not passed now, 12 months will be lost. We are already committed to debating Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions, although we have not had an assurance that they will be taken into account. That is a grave weakness in what has been said so far by Ministers. There is little prospect of those conclusions being published until the New Year. We have been told that we shall be able to debate them in the New Year. We should base our views on the conclusions and on the work that we can do between then and now, not on what we think at this moment.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose integrity I respect, has also assured me that he will not introduce or approve any scheme until he is satisfied that it is workable. I should like to know the basis on which he will decide that a scheme is workable. What tests and what criteria will there be? The very professional Arthur Young report includes all sorts of bar charts as to what must and must not be done. It came to the conclusion that, even if the Bill had been passed within the original time scale, the

  885
  scheme could not be implemented before 1991–92. What, therefore, is the reason for the inordinate hurry to pass the Bill at this time, with all this pressure?
  I object in principle to the Bill. I question the Government's purpose. They say that it is not to deal with hooliganism but to separate hooliganism from football. I am a great supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) who has talked about the problems of hooliganism. The general public are not concerned simply about hooliganism connected with football; they are concerned about hooliganism, wherever it takes place. I regard the Bill as social engineering. We are trying to break away the working-class football hooligan from football so that it is a better game for those of us who are not broken away from it. That is a very grave legislative principle.
  Football is a national game and a national activity, just as going to the theatre or watching cricket and rugby are national activities. At Saturday lunchtime during the winter, people make a choice about what they would like to do. That happens in families. It also happens in my surgery. I might say to a councillor who has sat with me all through the morning surgery, "Would you like to go and watch a football match this afternoon?" About 5 million out of the 18·5 million who attend football matches go on a casual basis, and about 25 per cent. of those who attend football matches go to only four matches a year.
  People have the right to make a spontaneous decision to take part in a lawful activity. It will be a grave attack on that right if their names have to be registered on a central computer and if they have to carry an identity card simply to attend a football match. To do that, just to isolate over 1,089 people who have committed football-related offences, needs to be argued with greater force than it has been so far.
  I support a national ID scheme. It would bring great benefits in terms of both international security, fraud and other matters. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regards it as anathema to the British people. One of my colleagues could not understand why football supporters feel even more strongly, simply because they will be required to carry an identity card, for no other reason than to go to football matches. However, it causes grave offence to many of my constituents. They feel that it means that they are such a risk to others that they will have to carry an identity card, on top of their season ticket and their membership ticket for their club. It is a grave infringement of people's liberty.
  A great deal has been said about the number of police who are required to attend football matches. I define what we are trying to do in part I of the Bill as the fruit machine approach or the needle in the haystack approach. The reason for such complicated access through many turnstiles on a Saturday afternoon by means of an identity card is because, suddenly, one of the many thousand turnstiles will flash red, since one of the 1,089 people who has been accused of a football-related offence has tried to cheat. I wonder how many police will be required to man every turnstile at every football match, in every division, in case there is a flashing red light? It is the needle in the haystack, the fruit machine, the chance approach.
  If people do not want to be dissociated from football and do not intend to practise their hooliganism elsewhere,
  886
  they will play the game of beating the system. Therefore 500,000 people will have to watch those going through the turnstiles. There will be endless nil returns every week. however, the system will have to be operated in case one of the 1,089 people tries to cheat and to get into the ground against the rules.
  That is a tremendous overreaction to a relatively simple problem to solve. Having said that, I appreciate the need to provide a constructive alternative, and there has been a shortage of those in the debate. In seeking such alternatives, it is necessary to spend more time in the short term considering carefully the way forward.
  Other hon. Members have spoken of the way in which people will be convicted and will not be able to travel to games abroad. In part II of the Bill we deal with the exclusion of people who have committed a football-related offence. We assume, in that part of the Bill, that they had been charged with some offence, and there is an assumption that people who are hooligans in this country wish to be hooligans overseas. I suspect that that is not a genuine assumption to make. For example, I recall that many of those who offended us all in West Germany went there wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan, "England's invasion of Germany 1988." That had nothing to do with football. Nor did it mean that they had been hooligans in this country. That aside, since 1987, since exclusion orders were introduced, there have been 1,889 such orders. Considering that 18·5 million people attend football matches each year, that is a tiny number of exclusion orders.
  It would make more sense to have attendance orders, not exclusion orders. Let us focus on those who cause the problems rather than on the 999·97 in 1,000 who do not. I propose that we examine the Bill carefully, abolish part I and amend part II so that anyone who has committed a football-related offence would be required to attend on the Saturday when there is a match.
  If I were a chief constable, I would rather be responsible for looking after the 1,889 attending a police station than search through 500,000 people—on the fruit machine principle—in case a red light flickered and they were trying to get in. That would be a more sensible way of targeting on those who cause the problem rather than on the vast majority who do not.
  Reference has been made to inconsistency. I shall not rub that in. There is an inconsistency in relation to, say, a dog registration where a dog is required to be registered only once in its lifetime. That scheme was regarded as costly, complicated and bureaucratic. The scheme proposed for football fans would mean people registering every week. That would prove more costly and complicated and even more bureaucratic.
  It is also a mistake to think that other options have not been considered. The Dutch and Germans, for example, have a problem of football hooliganism. They have approached it on a more sensible basis, by targeting on clubs where offences are committed—six out of 34 clubs —and requiring them to implement an away members' scheme.
  I have in my pocket the card which members are required to carry. At least, I had the card in my pocket and I proposed to display it to the House, but I seem to have mislaid it. That is one of the problems with the football scheme as proposed in the Bill; if one cannot find the card,

  887
  one cannot get in. I have now found the card in my pocket, and as I hold it up, hon. Members can see what it looks like.
  In other words, another country with similar problems is adopting a more selective and sensible approach. It does not require all the 34 clubs—in our case it would be 92 clubs—to go through this enormously complicated and bureaucratic procedure. It targets on those clubs where there is a problem, and we could easily do the same.
  Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even with such a reduced scheme, during a recent Netherlands-West Germany international game, alleged supporters of those clubs, through contempt for a membership scheme of any kind, did not apply for membership cards, were therefore unable to get tickets for the international and instead of going near the ground, waged a running battle with police through the streets of the city while the game was being played?
  Mr. Lester: I am trying to demonstrate that we could take one of several different approaches, instead of running away with the idea that we must do something in a hurry because we have a problem, saying, "We are doing something. We are taking this action. Therefore you should vote for it." In my view, it is not the only answer. There are other constructive ways to approach the problem and I am putting some of them forward as best I can.
  There is a great deal of research going on in this country which I believe shows, for example, that 52 per cent. of arrests—bearing in mind that we are talking about arrests and not charges—occur at 21 per cent. of grounds. The idea that we must lump all 92 clubs together in one scheme, when the problems affect a much smaller number of clubs, offends my principles, and I should have thought that that offended the principles of many of my hon. Friends.
  We must also consider the political consequences, an issue that people might like to wish away. I judge from the community where I live and where I have lived all my life, that the party that I support and represent is not entirely popular. It has been said that the message we are trying to put over is not being presented properly. I get the feeling that the problem is not the way in which the message is being put across but the fact that the message is being well understood, and the Bill epitomises much of what people are beginning to dislike about my party.
  It has been pointed out that football supporters have not been involved in the discussion of the scheme. Indeed, Conservative Members have not been involved in the scheme's evolution. There have been no policy discussions other than a rather scrappy working party report.
  Despite that, we seem to be certain that we have the answer, and that is why, the Government say, they are going ahead with the scheme. They are going ahead whoever objects, be they football supporters, the industry or the police. "We shall impose it," they say. That arrogance—of saying "We know best," whatever the subject—is starting to get reaction from our traditional supporters.
  I warn my hon. Friends, especially those who represent marginal seats—I have two good hon. Friends in Nottingham in marginal seats; we also have two good football clubs there—that we must think carefully about what is proposed and the effect that it will have on marginals. People do not like their liberties being
  888
  challenged. They do not like schemes being imposed on them against their better judgment. In other words, we should think carefully about what we are doing before we proceed further.
  I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House believe in the rule of law. If we impose a law on people who do not understand it and who resent it, we challenge the rule of law. Remember, there appear to be constructive alternatives to what is being proposed. To impose fines and create criminal offences in the way proposed in the Bill will, I fear, defeat, or at least challenge, the rule of law.
  Bearing that in mind, I have a last plea to make to the Government. I have been involved with several measures by way of the special Standing Committee procedure. For hon. Members who are not aware of that procedure, it means that the Standing Committee for the first three sessions—I would be happy if, in this case, it could be clone in a week—turns itself into a special Standing Committee. On the basis of the legislation, the members of that Committeee, chaired by the Chairman of the relevant Committee, hear evidence from all sources on the impact of the legislation in question. That has a salutary effect on legislators, for they are in a position to hear and challenge the view of those most affected and who wish to give evidence.
  To cool the temperature and make better legislation than we have before us, but in particular to show that we are interested in the views of those concerned and are not trying to impose a measure on them against their will, we should support the principle of adopting the special Standing Committee procedure in this case.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now into the 10-minute time zone. I hope that speakers will not feel obliged to take the whole of their 10 minutes.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: With the exception of the contribution of the Secretary of State, we have heard some excellent speeches this afternoon. But none was better than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey), who I am glad to welcome to our deliberations. I lived for 16 years in the constituency that she represents and I am aware of some of the problems with which she must contend. She made an admirable speech, a pearl among maiden speeches, and it is refreshing to have a woman colleague taking part in a debate on a subject such as football and contributing with such expertise and knowledge of the subject. If she is selected to be a member of the Standing Committee, she will be a great asset to the deliberations.
  We are witnessing the Government attempting to use the King Herod principle. Throughout 2,000 years of history it has been proved that King Herod-type legislation does not work. Under such legislation, the whole community is punished to catch the 1 per cent. of people who are causing the problem. Invariably, such legislation fails. It failed to impose prohibition in America in the 1920s and 1930s and it failed when the Labour party tried to introduce a prices and incomes policy to govern everybody's pay rises. Such legislations usually ends in tears, and that will be the fate of this Bill, under which 99

  889
  per cent. of innocent spectators will be punished in an effort to catch the fewer than 1 per cent. of the guilty who will indulge in crime and vandalism wherever they go.
  I was at Hillsborough two months ago and witnessed the disaster. Although booze was a factor, the membership card system would only have made the problems worse. It would have meant people queueing for longer to get into the ground, it would have been more difficult to gain admission and the riots would have occurred earlier.
  Many hon. Members have received an excellent brief from the Football League committee pointing out that, at the Arsenal-Liverpool match a few months ago, when 51,000 people were trying to get into the ground, the membership card system would have meant an additional 37 minutes queueing, on the assumption that it takes four seconds to produce a card to get through the turnstile. That would have caused more panic, more annoyance, more problems and more riots.
  Hillsborough proved how easy it was to bribe the man at the turnstile. In many instances, he takes £10 to allow people to climb over the turnstile and not go through the existing apparatus. As I understand it—at least, it is what the Minister said on television—the Minister is proposing a simple card that will be pressed flat against a disc, which will light up if the card is genuine. If the light does not appear, a steward and a policeman will have to apprehend that person and throw him out. Grounds such as Manchester United and Hillsborough have about 80 turnstiles, so that will mean 80 stewards and 80 policemen.
  I assure the House that the fans will just do what we did when I was in the Royal Air Force. If we did not have train tickets, when we arrived at the station four of us would line up and the first person would give the ticket collector a used ticket and then run. Those behind would say to the ticket collector, "Don't worry mate, we'll catch him," and we went through the barrier as well. It was all timed to coincide with the arrival of the train, and away we all went. The same will happen with membership cards. The guy who does not have one obviously knows that he does not have one and the guys behind him probably do not have one either. They will either pay or not pay according to how they feel at the time. There could be 51,000 people trying to get into the ground at 7 o'clock on a dark, wet, January night for a mid-week cup tie replay, and the computer will probably be frozen because it has been standing unused all week. It will be chaos.
  It was wrong of the Secretary of State to suggest that the Opposition were trying to make political capital out of the problems and were supporting hooliganism. He should not have suggested that we would not support sensible measures; we would. If he agreed to adapt the scheme so that it applied only to away supporters, I would vote for it because it would work. We should seriously consider that possibility when we reach the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman should understand that every team has away supporters, who would not object to carrying identity cards. They are proud to be identified with their clubs. It should be a voluntary membership scheme, and priority should be given to those voluntary members. They could have certain concessions—for example, season ticket holders could have 10 per cent. knocked off the price
  890
  of their tickets. I am sure that in those circumstances many supporters would voluntarily become members of the scheme.
  Under such a scheme, away supporters could be segregated at the home ground. I am sure that they would accept the need to park in specific areas. They could be given maps showing how to reach the ground. A voluntary scheme would solve 98 per cent. of the problems because every ground would be required to designate an area for scheme members. I am not sugesting anything similar to the Luton scheme where away supporters are banned. That is an infringement of civil liberties and it stops me watching Sheffield Wednesday playing at Luton, as it also stops thousands of people who should never be excluded from matches.
  I am certainly not a football hooligan. Why should Luton Town have the right to tell me that I cannot go there to watch my team playing? That is not fair; there is nothing clever about that. Perhaps the club now has fewer problems, but it is denying football supporters their basic right to watch their team—and I am one of them. That is not right. I do not wish to be personal, but the chairman of Luton Town—the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—is sitting on the Conservative Benches. He should not have the right to tell me that I cannot go to the Luton ground to watch Sheffield Wednesday. He is exceeding his powers—
  Mr. David Evans rose—
  Mr. Ashton: I cannot give way, as I am running out of time.
  No one has mentioned the cost of the scheme to third and fourth division clubs. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister continually throw out the suggestion that there is plenty of money in football because of the transfer fees. It is not that they do not understand the system, it is that they deliberately refuse to accept that the transfer money goes round in a circle within the game. It is not like money spent on bricks and mortar, on stands or on seating, which is money gone for ever. One club buys a player from another and so the money goes round and perhaps dwindles from Liverpool paying £1 million to Hartlepool, for which £20,000 would be a large sum, as my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) knows because he is a director of Hartlepool. Let the Government tell Hartlepool supporters that their club will be put out of action, and watch their reaction.
  One of my local football clubs is being put out of action because the ground is being sold over its head to provide a site for a supermarket. There is a gut feeling among supporters of the small clubs. I am a shareholder in Sheffield Wednesday and we are surrouned by clubs such as Mansfield, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Leeds and a host more. Every one of those clubs has the right to exist, but the Bill will knock them sideways because they cannot afford to lose their 20 per cent. casual support.
  I did a Central Television interview with the chief culprits of the problems in Germany. They were proud of what they had done. They were not football supporters; they openly admitted that not one of them had ever been to a match. Indeed, they could not afford to go to the match because they had travelled overnight, boozing all the way on £20 spending money. They were not interested in watching football, just in fighting world war 3. I am as keen as anyone to stop those people causing trouble, but the Bill will not do that.

  891
  Last week I was part of a Select Committee trip to Washington to study the problem of drugs. We saw 12-year-old kids being arrested and put into handcuffs for selling crack. We visited a huge place in Washington which reminded me of "Oliver Twist". Those kids were being organised to sell drugs, whereas Fagin taught his to steal handkerchiefs. It was a step back to 100 years ago. Those kids have no other outlet.
  Football is the opium of our people, and we must not kid ourselves about that. It releases an enormous amount of tension, energy and aggression among teenagers, which used to be dissipated by national service, by carrying bricks on a hod up a ladder or by working in a rolling mill or a coal mine. Those means to release tension no longer exist, so football is a wonderful safety valve. Countries such as America, which do not have that safety valve, instead have drug pushers on the corners peddling crack at $5 a time to give some euphoria, some release or some high kick that our teenagers get from going to football matches and cheering their teams when they have the ecstasy of seeing them score goals or win the cup.
  If we curtail that activity and deter supporters from attending football matches, we shall simply build up the social problems. It is no coincidence that a great deal of lager lout violence occurs in towns that do not hold football matches, such as Aylesbury, Stroud and Amersham. They have affluent lager louts. They do not have football teams—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Ashton: I must conclude, as I have been called to order. I hope that some of the points that I have made will hit home. I also hope that I will be chosen to serve on the Committee, because I am sure that this Bill is not the way to solve the problems.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. David Evans: I shall not take up time answering some of the unfair comments and criticisms that have been made about Luton Town football club, but I will point out that Luton Town is a privately owned club and that we choose whom we like to have in it.
  The issue that we are discussing today is not narrow and parochial. It has to be seen in the context of Britain's international standing. The problem addressed by the Bill is crucial. The Bill constitutes a serious attempt to deal with the problem. I contend that the problem is too important to permit delay.
  Football is the traditional national game of the country. It used to be a matter of national pride. Each Saturday, thousands of spectators, integrated, would pack the terraces. Fathers were accompanied by their children and there was little trouble. When there was overcrowding or over-enthusiasm, spectators did as directed by police officers. Hon. Members may remember the famous occasion of the single officer on a white horse who served as a potent symbol of the good order and humour that characterised sport at that time.
  Today, unfortunately, the game is a matter not of national pride but of national shame. Football hooliganism on the terraces and on the streets is seen overseas as part of the English disease. It has led to the fortification of our football stadiums and the banning of English clubs from European competition, and it has contributed to the
  892
  general perception abroad of the British as a nation of thugs, exemplified by the hooligan on the terrace and the lager lout in the bar of the foreign holiday resort.
  The disease can no longer be ignored. Much of the problem arises from a lack of discipline. When there is no self-discipline, it has to be imposed, ideally by the family, but ultimately by society itself. Imposing discipline by law is the least preferable method, but when other methods have failed, as they surely have, we must resort to it. Hence the Bill.
  The demise of our national game, on and off the field, is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed, the game has been in steady decline for almost the entire post-war period. I suggest, however, that 1966, the year when England last won the World Cup, marked a watershed in the recent history of the game. Since then, attendances have fallen by over one third, from 34·5 million a season to about 20 million. There has also been a sharp decline in the number of professional footballers in the game.
  It was about that time that sponsorship became a significant feature of the game. Winning became all-important if clubs were to attract much-coveted sponsors. Freedom of contract brought higher salaries but fewer players. Certain teams began to interpret the rules of the game in a way that had never been envisaged. The professional foul, time wasting, the questioning of decisions and other forms of cheating became the accepted norm. Combined with the use of the offside tactic and the increasing exodus of our best players to foreign clubs, the game became much less interesting to watch.
  The lack of sportsmanship and the increased hostility among players on the pitch soon became a feature of behaviour on the terraces. The so-called fans began to chant obscenities and to fight among each other on the terraces, and, whenever possible, on the pitch. Some found themselves segregated and later penned in by fences. The result is that today football matches are played in an almost warlike atmosphere. Fans are herded to grounds with the help of dogs and horses. They are frog-marched. Then they are caged in like animals and watched over by video surveillance. It takes 5,000 police officers, at a cost of about £300,000 per-Saturday, to control their activities.
  Not surprisingly, a significant proportion of the decent, law-abiding, football-going public has abandoned the game. The position is not getting any better, as some would have us believe. In the 1987–88 season, there were no fewer than 6,147 arrests at football grounds, an increase of II per cent. on the previous season. In April of this year, just a week after the Hillsborough tragedy, 94 were arrested at Chelsea and 24 at West Ham. The last Saturday of the season witnessed trouble up and down the country, including a pitch invasion by Birmingham fans at Crystal Palace that put 16 people in hospital. Not by any means for the first time, the England-Scotland game was marred by the antics of the mindless minority, with 150 of them being arrested.
  What then have those responsible for the game, the football administrators, done to try to stem the steady flow of deteriorating standards of the national game? The answer is, not a lot. The game is run by hooligans for hooligans. Not only have the administrators failed to come up with any effective solution, but they have constantly discredited constructive suggestions put forward by the Government.
  Just a few years ago, for example, the Government asked football to put its own house in order by introducing

  893
  a 50 per cent. voluntary membership scheme. Only one big club, Manchester United, made a serious attempt to introduce such a scheme; within weeks it had a voluntary membership of some 40,000. Most clubs chose to ignore the Government. Because of the incompetence of the Football Association and the self-interest of the twits in the management of the Football League—it has had three presidents in the last year, which shows the contribution that it can make—the Government's request went almost completely unheeded. The reaction of the football authorities fulfilled in no way the Government's intentions in respect of the scheme.
  It is primarily because of the ineptness and lack of effective leadership by the football authorities that the Government have found it necessary to introduce the Bill. As for the clubs themselves, they have been happy to spend millions on transfer fees and exorbitant fees, but they plead poverty when it comes to spending money on improving safety and facilities at their grounds.
  The Bill is essential to the very survival of the game. A comprehensive, computerised national membership scheme, drawn up and implemented by the football membership authority, will discourage the yobbo from attending matches. Those that attend and continue to indulge their anti-social behaviour will find that they wait a very long time—five years—before they can attend another match. The benefits of the scheme may not become apparent overnight, but I believe that in time we will rid ourselves of the scourge of hooliganism and entice back the millions of football-loving families.
  The members-only scheme that we introduced at Luton Town football club in 1986 is often used as a yardstick against which to measure the Government's proposals. However, it needs to be remembered that ours is a members-only scheme for Luton supporters; under the Government's proposals, all fans will belong to a national scheme. That makes strict comparisons difficult. Nevertheless, contrary to some of the wild and inaccurate reporting, the scheme at Luton provides some useful pointers.
  In the 1985–86 season, the last season before the scheme was introduced, there were 104 arrests, four of them for stabbing offences. During the subsequent three seasons, the police at Luton have had to make just one arrest. Those encouraging statistics have not been achieved at the expense of the club's finances or support. The scheme was closed last December with 20,000 members. A waiting list now applies. The average attendance last season of just under 10,000 per match represents an increase of 21 per cent., the fourth highest increase in the first division. The club is in a healthy financial state, thanks in part to additional sponsorship and to the fact that 28 companies have prepaid for the construction of executive boxes. Those companies and our sponsors have made it clear that they are happy and indeed keen to be associated with a club free of hooliganism.
  Despite the success at Luton and the obvious benefits inherent in the Government's proposals, there are many who oppose the Bill. They claim that it encroaches on our civil liberties, that it will force small clubs out of business, that it is unworkable in practice and that it fails to address the problem of trouble outside the ground.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Evans: It will only be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I have to implement the rule to which the House agreed.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Eric. S. Heffer: Nobody can say that there has been no hooliganism and that there has not been or is not a problem. There is. However, some Conservative Members have failed to recognise the problems with which we must deal. Let me quote an example of hooliganism. Until the tragedy at Heysel, the Liverpool team travelled around, playing football in just about every large city on the continent. When the team went to Rome, a group of Liverpool supporters were set upon by some supporters, and at least two of my constituents were stabbed. The Italian authorities were extremely helpful in ensuring that they were properly looked after and helped to get them back to our country. The Liverpool people got tremendous support throughout the continent. The one great blot was the Heysel stadium tragedy. There is no simple answer to what happened at Heysel.
  What happened at Hillsborough was not the result of hooliganism. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who said that fans had burst through the gates, was not telling the truth. Everybody knows that, rightly or wrongly, a policeman gave instructions for the gate to be opened. I said at the time that I did not argue with the decision. There are several views about it, but there was no hooliganism. There was a great tragedy, just as there was a tragedy at Heysel.
  I should like to point out what Liverpool supporters say about the Bill. On Friday 7 April, I presented a petition to the House. It was signed by 26,411 supporters from Liverpool—the Liverpool football supporters. I am not talking about supporters of the club that I support, Everton. Their petition reads:
  "That we condemn the proposed legislation to force football supporters to carry identification cards, and we believe that a system of identity cards will have little impact on the problem of football-related violence, will hinder football's attempt to attract a new generation of supporters and will lead to the eventual demise of the game as a spectator sport."—[Official Report, 7 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 471.]
  That is absolutely right. They enthusiastically gave me that petition on the night that Liverpool played Derby County. It was an evening match at which 40,000 people were present.
  My old friend Lord Sefton of Garston—we were great mates in the Liverpool trades council and Labour party, before he took a slightly wrong path and went to the House of Lords—made an excellent speech in which he said that he had written to the chief constable of Liverpool requesting some figures relating to how many people were injured or arrested at matches at Liverpool and Everton in one year. The chief constable said that there was a total attendance of 1,812,000 people at the two football grounds in one season. He gave figures relating to crimes committed two hours before the game, during the game and after the game, as laid down in the Bill. At Everton there were four cases of theft from the person and 15 woundings—not a happy scene. At Liverpool there were 10 thefts and no woundings. The figures included thefts from motor cars and so on. Out of the 1,812,000 people

  895
  who had gone to those matches, about 30 people were arrested, and most of the offences took place outside the pitch.
  Ministers often give us figures relating to arrests and so on. We are told that there were 6,147 arrests during the 1987–88 season, but we are not told that those arrests represent 0·03 per cent. of the 18 million people who attend games throughout the season. I invite all hon. Members to read the excellent brief from the Football League and the Football Association.
  There have been some excellent speeches in the House today. One or two were made by Conservative Members —those who support our opposition to the Bill. We heard an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and, in particular, an excellent speech by my new hon. Friend the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey). I hope that she makes many more such speeches. I say that as somebody who was not happy about the way in which she was picked, but she is here and she has made an excellent speech. I am sure that she will make a good contribution to our proceedings.
  It is interesting that, apart from one or two hon. Members who go to football matches and, for some reason, get a bit crackpot about it, other Conservative Members who attend football matches are opposed to the Bill. The overwhelming majority of people who go to football matches and even those who do not are opposed to the Bill. Let us deal with hooliganism and other problems, but let us deal with them in a different way from that which has been suggested. I appeal to Conservative Members to be bold and to be like myself and others have been over the years when we have disagreed with our Governments. I ask them to go into the Lobby and vote according to their consciences and, if their consciences say say no, vote no. If enough of them do that, we will defeat the Bill tonight.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I declare an outside interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation,. In contributing to the debate, I should like to express the most recent considered views of the Police Federation as well as those of my constituents. Hon. Members who have been here for some time will know that the position I occupy has been occupied by several distinguished hon. Members, and it provides an opportunity for the Police Federation's view to be made known.
  The extent of football violence and of violence associated with the game of football has caused considerable concern during the past few years to all hon. Members and to many members of the public for reasons of which we are all well aware. Such events have generated widespread agreement about the need for some sort of action. However, there is much less agreement about the sort of action that is necessary.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has suggested to his colleagues that there is agreement by the Police Federation and the Football Association on the principle of a membership scheme. That is true, but I must inform the House that the Police Federation would prefer a 100 per cent. home-supporters-only scheme, which is not proposed in the Bill. As I understand it, the Football Association argues for an away club membership scheme, which is not proposed in the Bill either. Such a scheme was referred to in a fine speech by the hon. Member for
  896
  Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), to whom I always listen with great attention. Neither the Police Federation nor the Football Association is in favour of my right hon. Friend's precise proposals, although they have both expressed their preference for a different type of national membership scheme.
  The prime concern of the Police Federation is the injury and loss of life suffered by football supporters at matches during the past few years. Naturally, the federation is also concerned about the real difficulties that police officers have to face when policing the often large crowds of supporters who arrive late at football grounds and who are anxious to gain admission quickly. Sometimes those supporters do not have tickets. Sometimes they are excitable and may well have been drinking on their way to the match. Nevertheless, the federation has serious reservations about the type of national membership scheme that may be proposed by the Football Membership Authority. It is not convinced that, when enacted, the Bill will stop hooliganism outside football grounds, although it may well make a contribution towards achieving that end.
  The federation has carefully considered the position in recent days as a responsible staff federation. It would much prefer a 100 per cent. home supporters scheme, such as is operated at Luton, but it recognises that that may be difficult to achieve, especially because many fans regularly support clubs that are many hundreds of miles from their home town and yet regard that team as their home club. The overriding consideration of the federation is to support action that will stop the spiralling violence and hooliganism that is connected with the game of football. For that reason above all, the federation is prepared to accept that there should be a membership scheme.
  I should prefer any scheme brought forward to be approved by affirmative resolution of this House so that we would all have a chance to debate and approve it. However, I realise that technical difficulties may be associated with, for example, the question of hybridity because some clubs will be treated differently from others. I am glad that, at the very least, after Lord Justice Taylor has reported, the House will have two opportunities to debate both the constitution of the FMA before it is set up, and the final scheme that is submitted to the Secretary of State for approval, subject to the agreement of the House on his approval.
  Hon. Members will therefore have two opportunities, if they so wish, to vote against either the constitution of the FMA and to defeat it, or to vote against the proposed membership scheme. Every hon. Member who was present on the night when the Shops Bill failed, will know that even in a House in which the Government have a large majority, such measures can be defeated. If the Bill were to fail on either of those counts, both the membership scheme and the Bill would probably be dropped. It is now clear that if the House does not approve the constitution of the FMA or my right hon. Friend's approval of the scheme, the measure will not go ahead. That was made clear in my right hon. Friend's speech this afternoon.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport will give a firm undertaking to consult the Police Federation on the scheme to be recommended by the FMA if the Bill is passed. I hope that he will give that assurance this evening. I stress the need for my right hon. and hon. Friends to agree to consult the Police Federation as well as the chief constables. My right hon. Friend knows that the federation is a staff association that was set up by

  897
  an Act of Parliament 70 years ago. So, it has a special place in the scheme of things. That is the basis for its request to be consulted. In my view, it could make a practical input that will help to make whatever scheme may be recommended more acceptable and more workable.
  The federation also considers that the scheme outlined in the Bill should be administered by an independent statutory authority rather than by an authority formed by the Football Association and the Football League. It takes that view because it considers that in the past those bodies have not exercised sufficient influence to ensure that the money from admissions has been used to improve football grounds and to provide proper facilities for supporters. If, however, the FMA is to be constituted as proposed in the Bill, the federation would like it to be headed by an independent chairman who should be a national figure, widely acceptable to both the football world and the police. I suggest that there should be a commissioner of football and that the chairman of the FMA should be known as that commissioner. He should have specific responsibility for ensuring the safety of football grounds, in addition to being the independent head of the FMA. That would be a useful move forward.
  The federation wishes to make another proposal—that the FMA should have the power to recommend to the Secretary of State that there should be a ban on away supporters at certain grounds for an appropriate period, should that prove necessary. Furthermore, the federation believes that a good opportunity now exists to exclude convicted child molesters and pickpockets from any membership scheme that may be approved.
  My constituents who have written to me about the Bill have expressed their concern about the introduction of identity cards for attendance at football matches. They will be relieved to know that this is an enabling Bill— [Interruption.]—yes, and that I, as their representative, will have two further opportunities, if I so wish, to vote against either the FMA or the scheme that it proposes. I give notice to the House that I shall exercise that privilege if I judge it right to do so.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport replies to the debate, I should be grateful if he would state whether the Government will agree to formal consultation with the Police Federation when the scheme is produced by the FMA and before it is approved by my right hon. Friend. I should also be grateful if he would comment on the proposal that there should be an independent chairman of the FMA, perhaps styled the "commissioner of football" as I have suggested.
  Mr. Meale rose—
  Mr. Shersby: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, but I am up against the time constraints.
  If my hon. Friend gives me those assurances tonight, I shall give him this assurance—I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I shall reserve my position and that of the federation with regard either to the constitution of the FMA or to any scheme that it may recommend for approval to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I should like to add my voice to those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) on an excellent maiden speech. Those of us who know her know of her love for sport and are not surprised that she made such a speech. We know that she is a great champion of football and of all sports and we look forward to hearing from her in the future. Some hon. Members may not know that my hon. Friend was once a high-jumper for Northern Ireland. On the basis of her speech tonight, she is well on the way to becoming a parliamentary high-flyer. I think that she was a little unfair on the Minister for Sport in asking him to take on the Prime Minister; no one else on the Government Benches would dare.
  This is a sad day for association football and for those millions who follow it. It is a sad day, too, for the Government, but most of all it is a sad day for the House. Almost certainly, if we had had a free vote tonight, a majority of hon. Members would vote against the legislation. Instead of attempting to enact the Football Spectators Bill, which is irrelevant to the real problems that the game faces, the Government should be listening to those who care about, love and understand the game. As has already been said, the real tragedy, following the sad loss of life at Hillsborough, is that we—
  Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pendry: I am pushed for time, but for the Secretary of State I will give way.
  Mr. Ridley: Is there a free vote among Opposition Members? Certain Labour Members would dearly like to vote for the Bill. We all know who they are, and so does the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Pendry: That is another of the Secretary of State's red herrings. Of course, one or two of my hon. Friends were doubtful until they heard the informed voices of the rest of us. We are all united.
  I was about to say that the House and the football authorities are missing out on a great opportunity, following the disaster at Hillsborough, to sort out the myriad of problems that affect our game. Why are we discussing this legislation before the Taylor report, either interim or final? The report is crucial because the inquiry's remit is the safety of crowd control, which is bound to impinge on the relevance of ID cards. We still do not know when Lord Justice Taylor will report, either in the interim or finally. Why, therefore, did the Minister for Sport assure the House, in a written answer:
  "The timetable for the Football Spectators Bill will allow the House, in considering the Bill, to take account of relevant recommendations from Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster."—[Official Report, 24 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 415.]
  Why does not the Secretary of State come clean? The Government are determined to railroad this legislation through. There is no way that we can amend it at any stage —and he knows that. I am sure that the country is in no doubt as to the Government's intentions. It is the Prime Minister's baby. She wants the Bill through, and that lot over there will in the main support it.
  Lord Justice Taylor will certainly not report next week when we go into Committee. The Government should not legislate on an interim report—there are dangers in that course—but should wait for the final one. Legislation

  899
  should not be based on the interim report, because the Popplewell inquiry, following the Bradford tragedy, clearly showed that interim reports can be dangerous. In his interim report, Lord Justice Popplewell said:
  "Urgent consideration should be given to introducing a membership system in England and Wales so as to exclude visiting fans."
  Although that was his interim report, it is the one that is often thought of as the pioneer of this legislation. However, in his final report in January 1986—six months into the football season—Lord Justice Popplewell, amended it to
  "a partial membership scheme which still allows casuals to enter the ground."
  That is a gross distortion of the Government's claim that the ID card scheme is built on the recommendations of the Popplewell report—the interim report, perhaps; but the final report, certainly not.
  The Minister for Sport and the Secretary of State have got it completely wrong. It would be morally wrong, and dangerous, for the Government to put pressure on Lord Justice Taylor to report early to fit in with the compressed legislative timetable, rather than to report accurately.
  Football is now in an impossible position. The more the game tries to clear itself and make it attractive and safe, the more the Government attack it. The Bill was originally conceived in another place. It has 22 clauses—Catch 22. The ultimate relevance of the Bill is that it can destroy so-called football hooliganism but, as seems likely, football will be destroyed in the process. It is Catch 22 indeed.
  The legislation is bad. As chairman of the all-party football committee, I have received hundreds of letters —as no doubt other hon. Members have—but I want to quote just one, written to me on 3 March. It says:
  "Dear Mr. Pendry,
  As a life long supporter of Blackpool FC and football generally, I am very concerned about the Government's plans to introduce a national football membership scheme … More seriously, I feel that football can only be harmed by such an intervention. I have taken up the issue with my local MPs both in Fleetwood and Hull but obviously the Conservative MPs have toed the party line in their replies."
  He concludes by saying:
  "I would also be grateful if you could provide me with any information which supports the case against the scheme. I look forward to hearing from you.
  N. Hodgson. (On behalf of Hull University Conservative and Unionist Association)."
  If the Tories' own party members are up in arms, as they are, the Bill will have a rough passage. Following the Euro-elections, many Labour candidates with football grounds in or near their constituencies cannot wait for the next general election.
  We have heard about the Home Office's belief that fewer police will be needed if the legislation goes through.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Rubbish.
  Mr. Pendry: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is rubbish. I shall just mention one fact, which I believe has already been mentioned. There are more than 1,800 turnstiles in the 92 league clubs. If the proposed scheme goes through, there will be at least one policeman, if not more, at the end of every turnstile on the wrong side of the ground. It means that extra police officers will be needed to police queues. That must clearly be thought through.
  We heard today from my pair, who represent, the Police Federation, that the Police Federation has changed its mind. I believe that it has changed its mind only since the
  900
  hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) became its parliamentary adviser. As I have heard that there is an hon. Member who is very close to the Opposition who wishes to have a pair, I shall reflect on my position.
  Mr. Meale: Does not my hon. Friend find it strange that a Member of Parliament who has taken on this new position should be promoting or supporting legislation while the organisation which he represents does not argue for a similar system to combat violence in other sports, such as horse racing, where there have been 17,000 incidents—three times the number for football—or Henley, where stabbings have occurred, or rowing, in which the Minister for Sport participates?
  Mr. Pendry: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—[Laughter.] I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will have compassion on me for that.
  ID cards will punish the majority of the 99·99 per cent. of those who have nothing to do with hooliganism. We all know that similar problems exist on Benidorm's beach, in the home counties or in our city centres. Those same hooligans are attaching themselves to football. The legislation will not stop the fights at Euston station. There will be no closed-circuit cameras positioned there. We need tough and planned sentencing of convicted criminals. The law is already in place—we have the Public Order Act 1986 —but it is not being used. If exclusion orders were imposed on those who cause trouble, preferably with a rider to make criminals sign on on Saturday afternoons, hooliganism could be divorced from football.
  I quote from Hansard:
  "An exclusion order scheme … will enable the courts to ban convicted hooligans from attending football matches. The purpose of this scheme is to exclude the troublemakers, and especially the ringleaders who instigate much of the violence."—[Official Report, 13 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 799.]
  Those are not my words but the words of the Home Secretary. Why is that legislation not being used? Why do fewer than one in six of those supposedly arrested for football-related incidents receive exclusion orders? Why, two and a half years into the scheme, is it being dumped in favour of the ID scheme? The Bill shows that the Government are out of touch with our national game. With the exception of those hon. Members who regularly attend games—they are being gagged tonight, but some brave ones will come through the Lobby—Conservative Members do not understand the problems facing football.
  I cite the problems of a small club like Colchester United. In 1986–87, its average gate was 2,740. In 1987–88 it introduced a 100 per cent. membership scheme. When it introduced the Luton-type scheme, its gate dropped enormously. Even though it was heading for promotion at Christmas, it had to sell players, and the club slumped to ninth. The scheme was abandoned midway through that season, but the average gate for the season was just 1,754 —36 per cent. down on the previous year. This season, even though Colchester has been fighting for its life, having abandoned the scheme, its gate rose by 65 per cent. Its gate is up to 2,893. That is what will happen to many clubs similar to Colchester if this legislation is passed.
  The Dutch FA listened to the Dutch Government and the Dutch Government listened to it—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Mr. Pendry: I am sure that in Committee—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am a hard woman.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I join other hon. Members in adding my welcome to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and my congratulations on her excellent maiden speech. It was a pleasure to be in the Chamber to listen to her speech, and I am sure that we shall hear much more from her in the future, not least on the subject of football in which she has obvious expertise.
  I offer a somewhat guarded welcome to the Bill because I imagine that it is hardly likely that many will have a real enthusiasm for it. I cannot say that I believe that the Bill is desirable, but I appreciate that it is most necessary.
  Some reference has already been made to the emotion that regards football as our national game. As I come from Wales, I shall not claim that football is my national game. Those who know Wales will appreciate that rugby is far more likely to be our national game. If I was honest I would say that it is our religion rather than our national game.
  Only a few weeks ago in Arms Park, the spiritual home of international rugby, an important soccer match was played. It was an all-seated football match, which appeared to be carried off successfully and which stood up well to comparison with other football matches. That example could help us to contemplate the ideal to which we are all striving. Another example of that ideal is American football matches. In the United States, American football is not just a game but an entertainment. As far as I am aware, that game is regarded as extremely safe for all the family to attend.
  Surely that is the way in which all sports should be going. They should be much more of a family entertainment. Ideally, there should be good parking provision so as not to cause a nuisance to anyone else, and even space for picnics and barbecues. Football should be played in seated stadiums where spectators and fans could enjoy services, including the sale of alcoholic drink, during the game and the entertainment. I appreciate that that proposition would not be encouraged now, but in the future it could be. That is the ideal to which we should strive as we have not reached that ideal now.
  At the moment many of us would be afraid to take our younger children to most of our professional football clubs. We do not regard such clubs as the venues of traditional family entertainment. Those grounds are preceived to be home to large tribal warfare, inside and outside the ground. People perceive that major action is necessary to deal with the problem. I know that the opponents of the Bill argue that the numbers involved in such trouble are small and that it is only public perception that the problem is major.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) tried to quote figures to show that the number arrested at football matches was small and decreasing in comparison with the total number attending. I noticed, however, that he did not respond to a pertinent intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who sought to point out that there is already close supervision by the police and the stewards and closed-circuit television, but that the current number of arrests are still being made.
  902
  We must not underestimate or ignore the public perception of the problem. I do not agree with the claim that the problem is not major. The public perceive it as a problem and we must not ignore their concern.
  Mr. John P. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman perceive the problem among Welsh clubs. If so, would he care to name the Welsh league clubs where that problem prevails?
  Mr. Jones: I am afraid that I must tell my new colleague from south Wales that I do not believe that the Welsh clubs are innocent. I am sorry to admit that Cardiff City football club does not have the highest reputation and it must aim for a much higher standard of behaviour among its fans. The problem is not peculiar to English clubs.
  The problem is not new. About 15 years ago I remember trying to organise a function in Cardiff. I tried to encourage people to go into the centre of Cardiff one Saturday evening. When it came out that Manchester United was playing in Cardiff that day, the overwhelming consensus was that Cardiff would not be the appropriate place for the function to be held. That was the attitude 15 years ago and it has not changed now; in fact, it is perceived that the problem is just as bad or much worse now.
  We must respond to the public's perception of the problem. If we asked the public whether they thought that the problem was getting worse, the answer would be yes. If we asked whether they thought that action should be taken, the answer would be yes. The Bill is currently the best way forward. The overwhelming public opinion is that there is no case for doing nothing about the problem, but that appears to be the attitude conveyed by the Opposition.
  Although I said that this Bill does not relate to the national game of Wales, there are two Welsh aspects to it. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) might have been trying to prompt the question about Welsh clubs being excluded from the Bill's provisions. I do not believe that that is a practical suggestion. For that to happen the three Welsh clubs would have to be eliminated from the Football League and from the Football Association cup. Almost everyone in Wales would regard that as undesirable.
  The second Welsh aspect relates to one of the foremost, if not the first, advocates of a national membership scheme, the former Member of Parliament for Cardiff, West, Mr. Stefan Terlezki. He was tireless in lobbying for such a membership card scheme. He had good experience on which to base his case, as he had previously been the chairman of Cardiff City and therefore had first-hand experience of the problems encountered inside and outside that ground. Cardiff City football ground, Ninian Park, was also in the constituency of Stefan Terlezki. He knew better than anyone the apprehension felt by residents near that football club when they knew that an important football match, or, in many cases, any football match, was being played.
  The residents of Canton and Leckwith, which are close to Ninian Park, or those of Grangetown and Riverside, which are further afield, see the litter in their streets as a result of football matches. They see indiscriminate parking which adds to the existing congestion and traffic problems. They see take-away meals, half consumed, being deposited on the streets or in their gardens. They see vomit and worse

  903
  being deposited on their streets and in their gardens. They suffer vandalism to their gardens and houses and, especially, they suffer intimidation at any of their attempts to remonstrate with those who cause the problems. "Terrorised" is not too strong a word to describe how many residents feel who live close to football grounds, be they in Cardiff or in other cities and towns. That feeling, above all others, is justification for making progress with the problem.
  However much we abhor the scenes on the pitches or terraces, however great our anxiety to stop violence and the suffering caused by it, our determination should be, above all, to protect the innocent. Who are more innocent than the people who live close to football grounds? Consider what they must put up with.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what is contained in the Bill that will help those people living close to football grounds? For the life of me I cannot see what it is, and I would be interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say.
  Mr. Jones: I must disagree with my hon. Friend, as I believe that the Bill strives to do the all-important thing —to break the link between violence and football. That violence is not football's responsibility, but it is its problem.
  Football is the focal point for the hooligans that presently associate with it. Any convicted hooligan, however, would have no incentive to travel to a football ground as he would be denied admission and therefore the focal point of his violence would be removed. Violence is the prime cause of the problem for residents around football grounds. I believe that it is one of the prime reasons why we should make progress with the Bill, and I hope that we shall give it a Second Reading tonight.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I shall make a brief contribution.
  Tonight some have argued that nothing can be done about the problem, while others have argued that something can be done. The argument has rolled back and forth, but we all agree that there is a problem in the sporting world and we all want a solution to it. I have never yet come across a situation, however, in which, while discussions are going on and the evidence is being taken, the decision is being made. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), in a brave speech, put his finger on it when he spoke about the arrogance of deciding before one knows and the danger of making a decision before all the evidence is collected.
  The Hillsborough tragedy was awful. Mr. Justice Taylor's inquiry is sifting the evidence with great care. We are told that when he reports we will be given two opportunities to discuss the matter. Sadly, that statement misleads the House. The first opportunity that we shall be given will be when the Football Membership Authority is set up, which will be done by the Secretary of State. We shall know little about the membership authority until we are told. The decision will have been made. Whatever Mr. Justice Taylor has to say, the membership scheme will already exist and the decision will have been taken. What arrogance—the Government allow us to discuss the matter and consider the evidence after the decision has been taken.
  904
  We have been told that we shall be given a second opportunity to discuss the membership scheme when the Secretary of State has approved the Football Membership Authority's decision on the scheme. When all the decisions have been taken, we shall be told that we can consider Mr. Justice Taylor's report, but the decision will have been taken. What arrogance. How small are we now and how tiny is our judgment. Why do not the Government have the courage and wisdom to say, "We shall listen to the arguments and evaluate the evidence."
  The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we should have a special Standing Committee. That would be a second best suggestion. The best suggestion would be to put the Bill on the back burner until we have the evidence. However, if we cannot persuade the House to do that tonight, perhaps we can persuade hon. Members to have a special Standing Committee which could at least call for the evidence and hear the arguments. At least then the decisions taken by the Committee would be in the knowledge of all the available evidence, not on the grounds of dogma, arrogance and pride which dictate that the Bill must go through.
  Many years ago when I was a young lawyer I was told to remember one great maxim: one is not always right. I tender that piece of advice to the Minister tonight. What is being suggested is a bit like asking the jury to call in the verdict before being allowed to hear the evidence. The problem we face is as simple as that, and I hope that the House will show more sense than has been shown so far in the debate by some Conservative Members.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I strongly support the Bill, not only as someone who recognises the fear, crime and damage to the national reputation which is too often focused on our football grounds, is totally unacceptable and cannot be merely shrugged off as a manifestation of violence in society, but as someone who is passionate about the game. I still play a bit and have watched professional football at least twice a week for 25 years. A member of my family had the honour, some may say the misfortune, to be chairman of a first division football club for 20 years.
  I am convinced that anyone with any imagination will see the Bill as an opportunity to make football the great national spectator sport which it once was. That something is rotten in the state of football must be obvious to everybody who is not a purblind member of the league management committee. Last year alone, arrests in the football league increased by 11 per cent. to 6,000, and that figure was doubled by the amount of ejections for bad behaviour at football grounds, which amounted to another 6,000.
  It takes 5,000 policemen, who could be performing more constructive tasks, to police football matches every weekend of the season. This is at a time when the majority of league clubs are technically near insolvency and shored up only by their asset values and the activites of property developers who wish to develop their grounds. This at a time when the concentration in the Football League in the top five clubs is becoming greater than ever, as witnessed by the fiasco when the chairman of one first division football club tried to bargain with both ITV and the BBC

  905
  at the same time during the recent television negotiations. The standards of behaviour on the pitch reflect the falling standards of behaviour on the terraces.
  The Football Trust figures show that in 1970–71 there were 37 sendings off and 906 cautions, and by 1987 there were 215 sendings off and 4,037 cautions. These problems demand immediate action, and are compounded by the apparent acceptance of violence as an integral part of football shown in the statements of breathtaking complacency made by the chairman of first division football clubs, such as Ken Bates of Chelsea. In a letter to his supporters on 4 January this year he said:
  "We must be careful that our rational feelings are not carried away by reaction to media comment. At our match with Middlesborough last season we had 53 arrests within the ground and this was described as a riot".
  Surprise, surprise!—How should the media describe it, as some sort of teddy bears' picnic? A certain divine retribution was shown, and that complacency was exposed when, the Saturday after the Hillsborough tragedy, there were no less than 94 arrests at Stamford Bridge, the home of Chelsea football club.
  That is not to say that the Football League's problems are ignored. We have heard about the initiatives including the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the public order act on the statutory front. We have heard that, to a certain extent, clubs have taken initiatives in closed-circuit television, partial membership schemes, segregation and in some inconsistent efforts to improve player behaviour.
  However, violence continues to increase. Only a few weeks ago, my old club, Birmingham City, and Crystal Palace were involved in appalling pitched battles following a football match. We still see spectators running amok in town centres. By December, there were no less than 300 incidents last season alone involving British football fans on public transport. There is some evidence, as adduced by the Football Trust, that the pattern of arrests per match is spreading from the first and second divisions right across the Football League.
  The result of all this is that the game which was the gentleman's game of Matt Busby, Johnny Haynes, Gil Merrick and Trevor Brooking now too often reflects, in the 10 men behind the ball, the zonal marking and the 135 per cent. effort on the pitch, the sort of hard, talentless attitudes seen off it.
  It does not take an enormous effort of imagination, for which football administrators are rarely noted, to see that the Bill provides an opportunity to break out of that cycle. The membership scheme will provide an opportunity to raise the image, appeal and dignity of the game and gradually exclude those elements who organise and are involved in violence, and who drag the name of football through the mud. As a result, we could attract back to the game the 12 million fans who have been lost during the past 20 years.
  It is significant that a poll conducted by the Mail on Sunday between 21 and 23 November last year showed that 61 per cent. of people said that they would regularly watch a football match on television, but 48 per cent. never went to a football match. However, 80 per cent. of that 48 per cent. had been to a football match during the past four or five years. Of those polled, 56 per cent. thought that a
  906
  membership scheme was a good idea, which indicates their loyalty to the game and the fact that they are hungry for a lead to protect the sport and ensure its revival.
  Any scheme which leads to the revival of football will not be without difficulties. Of course clubs are worried about the decline in casual support. However, support for Luton recovered quickly in one season, following the introduction of a membership scheme. We have already heard that Manchester United managed on a voluntary basis to recruit no less than 40,000 members to its membership scheme during the past two or three years.
  If we consider the problems of entry, only a minority of clubs are faced with 650 to 1,000 fans entering per minute, and smart cards will accommodate those numbers. It should not be beyond the wit of the larger clubs to have the necessary stewarding to deal with such numbers. Equally, it should not be beyond the wit of many clubs to provide sufficient pre-match entertainment so that more than 40 per cent. of fans—the number quoted by Manchester United—get into the grounds up to 10 minutes before kick-off.
  As for the costs, although the Arthur Young study group talked about ridiculous figures of between £33 million and £36 million net, its projections of profit per supporter over five years were ridiculously low, at about £2 per member. It made no projection for the increased support that I believe the membership scheme will bring in the long term. It is very significant that, of the 90 companies that originally showed an interest, at least five or six are now prepared to proceed with such a scheme on a totally free basis for football clubs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] I think that that will be borne out later in debate.
  Of course there will be practical difficulties, but they can be overcome. As for the principle, the Government are right to insist that the problem must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, and equally right to lay down a framework for implementaton of the scheme. The rewards will be great. Not only will cities, towns and suburbs which have too often been shuttered and fearful on match days no longer be a focus for the violence for which football has provided too many opportunities, but—equally important—our national game will be saved as a spectator sport for fathers and sons and for young and old alike. It will be made respectable. Entertainment, not blind confrontation, will be encouraged, and the Bill will do much to restore our national sporting reputation.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. John P. Smith: Not only is the Bill unacceptable to the people of this country; not only is it typical of an attitude which, especially over the past six to nine months, has cost the Government dear in votes—not least in my election to the Vale of Glamorgan seat; it is typical of legislation that shows the Government to be out of touch with the attitudes and views of the people.
  The Bill is particularly insulting to the people of Wales. There is, in fact, no reason for it to apply to them, as Welsh league teams do not suffer from the problems that we have seen in England. As the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) pointed out, this is a particularly English disease.
  Mr. Couchman: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman does not wish Welsh clubs to play English

  907
  clubs in the leagues that they share? He is suggesting that Welsh club supporters should be able to arrive without identity cards to watch league games in England—that there should be differentiation between the two sets of supporters. That is an odd suggestion.
  Mr. Smith: It highlights the problems in the Bill. Not only will it not work—not only will it penalise the vast majority of decent football spectators, such as my family—but it will penalise Welsh football clubs, which do not share the problem.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who drew attention to the sad plight of Cardiff and the problems associated with violence there. The situation in Cardiff has improved dramatically over the past decade. Of more concern to those living in the vicinity of Cardiff City's ground, Ninian park, are the crimes of violence committed on the streets after dark, which have made many women and elderly people afraid to go out at night. That is what frightens people in the area, especially since the present Government came to power—much more than isolated problems of violence at football matches.
  I share with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North a love of our country's national sport, rugby, but I also love soccer. I enjoy taking my two boys to matches, accompanying my nine-year-old but allowing my teenage son to go alone, in the knowledge that there will be no trouble and that they will come away from a good day's entertainment with no risk of violence. On the day of a major rugby international in Cardiff, however, the city is almost a war zone. Does the Minister mean to extend the identity card system to include our much-loved national sport? According to Conservative arguments, there is a greater case for applying the system to rugby in Wales than there is for applying it to soccer. We were not banned from Europe after the Heysel stadium disaster.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Gentleman has almost invited me to respond. I challenge him to produce any statistics concerning arrests or other information from the police to suggest that international rugby matches in Cardiff have generated the same problem as soccer matches. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me that we should warn people in advance that if a problem developed with rugby matches we should need to take appropriate action.
  Mr. Smith: Let me draw the attention of the House to the statement made by the director of our local football club, David Sylvester. Although the club is not in the league, he—as a lay person—is committed to the great sport of soccer. He said that there is a problem; and that the reputation of soccer as a whole has been affected by isolated offences perpetrated by a few people. He also said what every sensible person in the country is saying: that an identity card system would be utter nonsense.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: After the Hillsborough disaster, in which many of the large number of Liverpool supporters whom I represent were injured and two were killed, I thought that there was hope for the game of football: that it would be shaken into reality, that behaviour would improve and that we would see change.
  908
  When the Government decided to suspend consideration of the Bill, I imagined that we would see a new dawn; but we have seen anything but a new dawn.
  Four weeks later, on the day of the game between Crystal Palace and Birmingham City, 300 people were arrested at football matches, 16 of them at that game, where the pitch was invaded and one person was stabbed. The message was clear: nothing had been learnt by football supporters since Hillsborough.
  We have a duty to look at the history of football over the past few years, and to establish what has been achieved and what we can do to improve standards of behaviour. I have been a football supporter since the age of about eight, when I started to go regularly with my father to see Manchester United play. I have been to semi-finals, European cup semi-finals and European cup finals at Old Trafford, and since that young age I have seen the standard of football spectators' behaviour deteriorate continuously.
  Before I was elected I earned my living in the courts, and defended football supporters day by day. Many came back to my office to be represented time and again. The situation needed to be taken in hand. It got to the stage where I could trace the grounds at which a client's local team played by looking at his record of court appearances. That sort of thing must stop.
  By 13 May, four weeks after Hillsborough, the minority of football supporters had learnt nothing. I agree that they are a minority, but we cannot operate the law on the basis that because only a minority cause the trouble, we should do nothing about it. That would result in anarchy. Although these people are in a minority, thousands of them get into trouble at football matches. We must take action that will allow football matches to be enjoyed by the majority so that it becomes a family sport, free from fear and violence. The Bill sets out to achieve that.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that the scheme is without precedent in Europe. It is, but it is without precedent in Europe that one country—England—is banned from competition in Europe because of the behaviour of its supporters. A problem without precedent needs serious and tenacious measures to deal with it, and the Bill does that.
  I do not regard a national membership scheme as a breach of civil liberty. Nobody has the right to go everywhere. Nobody can go into private premises, which is what a football ground is, as of right. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who is the chairman of Luton, said that he and his directors reserve the right to deny entry to their grounds. Football authorities generally should do the same but they cannot because, under the powers of the courts and the law as it stands, the mechanism is not there. The Bill will allow them to do that through banning orders.
  It has been said that the Bill will not deal with the problem outside the grounds. However, Luton Town does not have trouble outside the grounds. There has been only one arrest there recently. There is no trouble because people know that if they turn up at Luton Town without a ticket, they will not get into the grounds. Therefore, they do not turn up. I accept that the Hillsborough situation was different, and we can deal with that when we have Lord Justice Taylor's report, which will make recommendations about the problem of ticket touts. However, if

  909
  fans know that they will not get into grounds without tickets, they will not travel long distances to get to such grounds.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: I would normally, but many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Football is a business, and the Government have told those who are making money out of it that they should put their house in order. The football authorities achieved a certain amount, but they have not achieved enough. If they had achieved more, the events of 13 May at Crystal Palace would not have occurred. Three hundred fans would not have been arrested around the country on that date. Therefore, the Government must step in to lay the foundations of a scheme to sort out the problem.
  I know that there is a lot of strong feeling about it, but this is an enabling Bill, and the public must realise that. This is not the end of the matter. We have two further chances to consider the details. Before we next debate the matter, we shall probably have in our hands a report from Lord Justice Taylor. I know of people who died at Hillsborough and we owe them detailed consideration of that report before we take the next step. However, if we do not take the opportunity to put this enabling Bill on the statute book, it would be two years before we could introduce such a scheme, if we decided in those two further debates that that was the appropriate way to deal with the matter. The football authorities have not put their house in order, so we must do it for them. Therefore, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government and voting in favour of the Bill.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: I start by declaring an interest as a Crystal Palace supporter. I had better do that because, under the provisions of the Bill, if I give the wrong allegiance when I apply for an ID card, I shall be committing a criminal offence. That shows the bureaucracy of the scheme. Both Crystal Palace and Charlton Athletic play on the same ground, but if people are forced to choose allegiances, those who will be put off are those who support football rather than supporting a particular team. There can be no doubt that most football fans want to see an end to pitch invasions and violence. They want to see a game, to see good football. The chants of "Off, off, off" that come from ordinary supporters when there is bad behaviour at a ground proves that point.
  I object to the Bill on principle. Being a football supporter does not make me a member of a feral species. I do not need to be licensed like a wild animal. I do not want my name being put on a computer and I do not want to opt for a team preference. When I go to the north of England on holiday, I want to go to see Manchester United. Because I am a registered Crystal Palace supporter, I do not want to be forced, when I go to Old Trafford, to go to the Millwall end rather than to the Manchester United end.
  My main objection to the Bill is on the grounds of practice. The House of Commons has an ID scheme for all staff, including research assistants. The Minister for Sport knows one or two things about this. If our ID scheme
  910
  cannot keep out undesirable people, how will a scheme that is supposed to operate for 20 million people, rather than a few hundred research assistants, keep the hooligans off the terraces? People will make false applications for membership. There will be a good deal of crime as people will be robbed of their membership cards so that others can get into the ground. There will be many other practical difficulties.
  We shall do terrible damage to the game, and I can illustrate the truth of that statement by applying it to my local team. On 19 November last year, Crystal Palace stood ninth in the league. In the 16th game, it won by four goals to two against Leicester, and the attendance was 8,843. By 3 December, the team had dropped to 13th, when it drew 0:0 against Manchester City, although the attendance was rather better at 12,444. By 17 December, when the team drew 0:0 against Leeds, it was 14th in the league and there was an attendance of 9,847.
  I am reminded of a colleague of mine, a former hon. Member for Vauxhall—not the present incumbent my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) whose speech I commend, but the former Member, Mr. George Strauss, who saw me going down to the constituency night after night during the municipal elections which I am afraid we lost heavily. He said to me, "You know the mistake you made, John? You peaked too early." Crystal Palace did not peak too early. It was 14th with an attendance of 9,800.
  Crystal Palace suddenly had a run of wins. By the time it reached the second leg of the play-off against Swindon Town, which Palace won 2:0, the crowd had risen to 23,000. At the final match of the play-offs, when Palace played Blackburn and miraculously won one of the most exciting football matches that I have seen in my life, there was a capacity crowd of 30,000. That is what the scheme will kill.
  The Bill will kill that great surge of support for football teams which do well in the league or the cup. In some cases attendances swell far in excess of the usual 8,000 or 9,000. That is the problem with Luton Town. Any examination of the attendances at Luton Town will confirm that.
  The identity card scheme will act as a massive disincentive to supporters who swell into a ground when a team is doing well. That is part of the magic of football. A team doing badly during the season and then having a good run in the cup will suddenly have a surge in attendance and people who do not support the team all the time will go to watch it play. That is the great thing about football. That is what the Bill will kill. This Bill will not prevent people being killed at football matches: it will kill football.
  I want to consider what happened at Selhurst park when Crystal Palace played Birmingham City. None of us wants to tolerate the kind of behaviour shown by Birmingham City fans on that occasion. It arose from frustration because Birmingham City had just been relegated. If Crystal Palace had won that game, it might have been promoted if Manchester City had lost against Bury.
  Hundreds of fans invaded the pitch at Selhurst park, but nothing in the proposed scheme could have prevented that. If the proposed scheme is to work, that game would not simply have been delayed for 15 minutes or so; it would have been delayed for hours or abandoned so that the fans who had invaded the pitch could be arrested to ensure that they lost their membership cards. The cause of

  911
  that pitch invasion was due to too much alcohol and a certain amount of frustration about the relegation of Birmingham City. However, it also occurred because the barriers had been taken down, quite sensibly and prudently, immediately after the Hillsborough disaster.
  One of the problems in our football grounds is that there are V-shaped, or funnel-shaped, enclosures for away fans. There is the same problem of crush in those enclosures as that which occurs in the bay of Bengal when the wind comes up. Because of the V-shaped nature of the enclosure, a surge can take place, resulting in death and injuries. That is a problem of crowd organisation and it will not be solved by this Bill.
  The problem with the Bill is that it is devised in the main by the greatest hooligan and vandal of them all. It has been devised by that woman who incidentally is not having much support in playing in an away match in Madrid. The Prime Minister is the political vandal who is now becoming a football vandal. I hope that the House will express its true view about the Bill. I am sure that there must be massive reservations among Conservative Members and I hope that the Bill can be defeated. We all want to defeat football hooliganism and violence. This Bill is not the way to do that. If there is ever a huge surge in a crowd at a cup final or at a major league match and people cannot get into the game as the computer has broken down because the scheme cannot work physically, those who have introduced this Bill may have many lives and injuries on their hands.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: In his autobiography "Arsenal from the Heart", Bob Wall, the former Arsenal secretary, devoted a whole chapter to the problems of football hooliganism. That book was published more than 20 years ago. The hooligans of the 1960s are now the parents of the hooligans of the 1980s. Problems of hooliganism and yobbish behaviour are endemic in our society. The tragedy about this debate is that we are being asked to vote on a Bill which holds out a utopian solution for the ills of football, but we cannot reflect on Lord Justice Taylor's report into the worst tragedy in the history of football.
  I must declare an interest. I am a lifelong football enthusiast, having been associated with York City football club of which I am now president, and I am also a very keen follower of Arsenal football club. It would not be inopportune of me now to congratulate Arsenal on winning the first division championship. I mention that because 10 million people watched that final exciting televised match at Anfield which showed the reasons why so many of us are so enthusiastic about our exciting game of football.
  Following two football teams can lead to divided loyalties, such as when York City beat Arsenal 1:0 in the FA cup four or five years ago. Emotions and loyalties are also strained by the Bill. The Government have come in for a great deal of criticism over this measure, much of it unjustified. The Bill is not born out of malice for football, it is born out of malice for football hooligans and those mindless yobs who besmirch the name of their country, their town, their city or the club that they purport to represent.
  My argument with the Government is not about whether more action may be needed. It is about whether
  912
  this is the right measure. I do not believe that it is, and I regret to say that I cannot support it in the Lobby tonight. I am opposed to the principle of what almost everyone associated with football as well as the police have rejected and criticised—the requirement that every fan may enter a soccer ground only by means of an identity card which in effect is nothing more than an electronic key. That is not club membership: it is a gross violation of the dignity and freedom of the law-abiding individual which would not be tolerated by the public in any other part of society. That is a recipe for yet more disasters outside football stadiums on match days. The tragic irony is that every fan at Leppings lane, Hillsborough, would have been a member of the proposed membership scheme.
  The recent events at Crystal Palace and Bristol on the last day of the soccer season serve as a reminder of the worst features of soccer violence which the Bill is trying to resolve. Those events reinforce the view of the police that away supporters are most often at the centre of violent incidents. Unless the problem caused by away fans can be resolved, football will ultimately face the unenviable choice of an enforced 100 per cent. membership scheme, which the Government have in mind, or a ban on away fans.
  I believe that the full membership scheme for away supporters only, which was originally suggested by the House of Commons all-party football committee and which was recently endorsed and embraced by the FA secretary Graham Kelly in his working paper, offers a realistic and practical alternative. There is little difficulty in segregating fans on match days. That is already a regular feature of match policing and it is helped in no small measure by the determination of young travelling fans to join their pals and occupy the terraces allocated to away supporters. Many clubs achieve that through their travel clubs whereby only members of that travel club can gain tickets and therefore access to those terraces.
  If those terraces were designated for away clubs only, we could achieve the desired objectives of discouraging misbehaviour and the easy identification of any troublemakers. Most matches in the lower divisions—between third and fouth division clubs which face the prospect of going out of business if the Bill is enacted—attract a relatively small number of away supporters. If by accepting a membership scheme for them we can avoid the more damaging consequences of a 100 per cent. scheme for everyone else, such a proposal would be a worth while addition to the current soccer scene.
  For home supporters, clubs should promote meaningful membership of the kind originally envisaged by Lord Justice Popplewell. "Members only" turnstiles could facilitate discounts to home supporters and allow police and stewards, as now, to concentrate supervision on the remaining turnstiles to ensure that young hooligans following the away team or belonging to another club do not infiltrate home supporters to cause trouble. Regular fans could be encouraged to become members by providing benefits, not an electronic key for entry. Casual fans and visitors could still attend matches without difficulty. The Government have already accepted in the other place that arrangements will have to be made for non-members.
  When I put those proposals to the 48 chairmen of the third and fourth division clubs at their annual general meeting two weeks ago, they unanimously agreed to support them. That shows that some elements of the

  913
  football world can speak with one voice and respond favourably to the fact that more needs to be done to deal with the hooligan element associated with football.
  Understandably, the first and second division clubs, facing larger crowds, have not yet endorsed them and can see some difficulties. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will be able to say that the Government are still willing to consider how the football membership scheme should be drawn up, perhaps to embrace such proposals so that we can avoid the damaging consequences of yet more trouble outside football grounds which seems likely to result from the scheme, and to protect the interests of particularly the smaller clubs.
  Let there be no glib solutions to the control of large crowds. The terrors of what can occur provide every justification for the harshest punishment of the minority who cause the trouble, without which neither football nor society will ever be rid of the yob element.
  The Bill is a lost opportunity. The public are rightly asking: why stop at football? Violent and drunken behaviour is seen all round us, not only in our cities, but in our towns and, I regret, even in our villages. We need a charter for hooligans wherever and whenever it occurs. The Government have embodied a workable solution in part II by requiring convicted hooligans to report to attendance centres. But why stop at international matches? Why not extend that principle to domestic matches, too?
  In his letter to colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment implied that the reason why the right of exclusion orders under the Public Order Act 1986 had not stamped out hooliganism is that, if one club bans hooligans from its ground, they can travel to another club to cause trouble. The Government's solution is to police them out with these electronic keys, but what is to stop hooligans causing trouble outside or somewhere else? What is to prevent the 18-year-old thug who has been banned from football from robbing a younger fan of his card to gain admission to that match? That is what happens now with all-ticket games. What is to stop multiple card applications? There is only one certain way in which to stop the hooligan causing trouble, and that is by policing him out of society and making him go somewhere else. Those are matters we shall no doubt wish to debate further in Committee.
  The enactment of penal legislation in Parliament can never guarantee universal success in coercing elements of society into behaving in a particular way. If it could, we would not have drunk drivers, drug addicts or a host of others whose personal behaviour the majority find unacceptable. The core proposal in part I will not end all hooligan behaviour inside and outside football grounds. Measures already taken, for which the Government deserve credit, should be built upon, not by restricting the freedom of law-abiding fans, but by imposing proper harsh restrictions and punishments on those who cause the trouble.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) on her fine speech. In a recent newspaper article, she said that she wished to be the first woman Minister for Sport. After the recent European election results, she may
  914
  get her wish sooner than she thinks. I also pay tribute to the law-abiding football supporters in Britain, and, specifically, in my constituency of Leicester, East.
  The Bill represents the most sustained attack on the game of football by any Government in our history. The hooligan who is currently playing away in Madrid—to borrow an image from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)—has achieved something unique. She has united the football clubs and the national supporters groups as they seek to reclaim the game not from the hooligans but from the Government. I and many other hon. Members have had numerous letters from supporters representing a cross-section of our constituencies opposing the scheme.
  I have to declare an interest as the president of two local football clubs—Hillcroft football club in Netherhall, and Thurnby Lodge football club in the Thurnby Lodge estate. I had the pleasure of meeting both those clubs at the end of last week and they both urged me to voice their opposition here and, on their behalf, the opposition of millions of other football supporters to the Bill.
  The Bill will do nothing to improve the game's image. It will do nothing to improve the safety of football grounds. It will do nothing to improve the ability of football spectators to enjoy the game. It will do nothing to increase the number of spectators at games. It will do nothing to end the violence that has afflicted society over the past decade.
  Last Friday, the Home Secretary came to Leicester and I and others presented him with a petition of some 10,000 signatures from pensioners and others who were desperate as the result of the high level of crime in Leicestershire. It is wrong that the Goverment should be obsessed merely by the small incidence of football hooliganism. Lawlessness has increased enormously over the past decade.
  The Bill will increase the risk of violence outside grounds. It will decrease the number of football supporters and it will cause the decline and closure of many clubs. So much could be done by the Government and the Minister for Sport to improve the image of football and to ensure that football becomes a truly recreational facility. They could remove the current restrictions on local authorities, such as my own in Leicester, enabling them to enhance a partnership with private football clubs. The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Carlisle) said that his was a private club and that he could decide who entered it.
  My local authority would be keen to assist local football clubs to develop recreational facilities, but they need the spending power that the Government do not allow them. I recently visited my local football club, Leicester City, and I commend its scheme to the House. That is a voluntary, not a compulsory scheme, with a current membership of 61 per cent. That club has a good relationship with its supporters and with supporters of visiting teams. It also has a good relationship with the police. When I visited, I went into the police control box and I know, in contrast to what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), the paid consultant for the Police Federation, said, that the police in Leicester would be opposed to a compulsory scheme.
  Recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) visited Leicester City football club and was given a tremendous reception by the supporters. We went on to the pitch and presented him with a certificate for his many years of service to sport, along with a compulsory identity card. The reaction of the

  915
  football supporters showed that they were completely against the scheme. Recently, in a football magazine, the secretary of Leicester City football club, Alan Bennett, said:
  "we do not believe such a scheme will help the problem that we all face of bad behaviour, and it would be suicidal for soccer to voluntarily introduce a scheme which we believe is unlikely to work and certainly is likely to reduce our attendances drastically."
  Alan Bennett, a man of considerable experience, described it as suicidal.
  I now refer to the civil liberties implication of the scheme. It is a back-door attempt by the Government to impose a compulsory identity scheme on every citizen of the country. Those who disagree must look at the Government's record and the restrictive legislation on civil liberties that has poured out of the Home Office. I refer to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986 and other such pieces of legislation. If the Government impose a compulsory membership scheme on football supporters, it will be imposed on other sports and on all citizens. We will have the absurd scenario of citizens' cards being removed because those citizens have behaved in a particular way. We will all bitterly oppose that.
  I echo the sentiments that have been expressed by many hon. and right hon. Members who urge the Government to wait for the outcome of the Taylor inquiry. Ministers should wait, because that inquiry will contain a great deal of information that will be of direct benefit to the House when considering what needs to be done. The Government are hell-bent on a strategy that will increase disorder, not decrease it. They want to destroy the game of football, and this horrible measure is their means of doing it. The verdict of sporting history will be harsh.
  9 pm
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) wishes to start his speech fairly soon, so I shall be brief. He and I have one thing in common in this debate: we are the two hon. Members who have two league football grounds in our constituencies. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). There are three hon. Members with that considerable honour. However, the two football grounds that I have the great honour to have in my constituency—Fulham and Chelsea—exemplify some of the problems from which football has suffered in recent years. As has been said, over the past 20 years, attendance at football games has dropped from about 34 million to about 21 million. That is a drop of about 40 per cent., which is a problem from which football suffers in a way that is hard to explain. Undoubtedly the problem does not arise from a single source.
  Without question, violence plays a serious role in the problems in which football clubs find themselves. Clubs have done a great deal to tackle the problems. They have taken considerable measures inside their grounds, and some clubs—Fulham is one—now claim not to have any problems with their own fans. However, Fulham and Chelsea in particular have problems with away fans who travel to watch grames and are outside their control. They cause problems inside the grounds and even more difficult problems outside the grounds. Problems outside the grounds have not been successfully tackled, even though there has been massive policing at many football matches. Local residents have suffered considerably, particularly
  916
  near urban football grounds where there is little parking and where it has proved extremely difficult to get fans into the grounds. Local residents have suffered violence, vandalism, racial abuse and sexual harassment. All the problems are associated with crowds getting out of control, and they have led to the difficulties in which football now finds itself. The Bill addresses those problems.
  The Bill is far from anti-football. In many ways, it will be the saviour of football. It will enable football to return to the family sport and the violence-free experience I hat families can enjoy. It will allow football to be as popular as it was immediately after the war. The police have been tackling problems associated with violence. That in itself has caused considerable problems. The cost of policing football matches is astronomical and only partly offset by the clubs. The three clubs within the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham pay less than 20 per cent. of the costs incurred by the police in providing residents with the type of protection from fans that they need. That hides most of the problems.
  It has been rightly said that, if one wishes to commit a crime, one picks an area in which a home football match is going on. One is able to get away, as there are no police on the streets. One knows full well where they are likely to be. Residents have suffered badly.
  I believe that the scheme will iron out many of the problems by ensuring that those who attend football matches are identified as committed football supporters. It will keep out those people who are known troublemakers—those who are known to the courts and also those who are known to the clubs. They will be identified as they try to go through the gates and they will be kept out, whether or not there is a court order against them.
  One of the most important aspects of the Bill that has not figured largely in the debate is the licensing of grounds. The Secretary of State will be able to impose conditions that will enable football clubs to treat their fans like human beings. Fans are treated like animals far too often. If people are treated like animals, either they stay away or a small minority start to behave like animals. It is unreasonable of any club nowadays to expect tans to stand. Even if some fans claim that they derive a kind of macho enjoyment from standing to watch a match, stadiums ought to provide seating throughout the ground. Fans should not be forced to suffer for their football.
  There are positive aspects to the membership scheme for clubs. The problem that faces Fulham football club best exemplifies them. Its average gate for each home match is about 4,000. The club admits that it is losing about £500,000 a year. The losses are made up by rich benefactors. However, it is unreasonable to expect a league club to survive indefinitely if it makes losses of that size. The club also faces enormous problems over its ground, which, for a variety of historical reasons, was sold.
  If one assumes that the 4,000 gate does not consist only of regular supporters, those who actually support Fulham on a half-regular basis will number between 12,000 and 15,000. If most of those people joined the membership scheme, Fulham football club would be able to identify 12,000 or even 15,000 people who claim to be Fulham football club supporters. The scheme would enable them to appeal for money to their real supporters, whom at the moment they do not know. It would also enable the club to market many of the things that a modern football fan might wish to have. For example, if only 4,000 out of

  917
  12,000 to 15,000 supporters have seen a match, the other 8,000 or 11,000 might like to buy a video recording of the match. That could be done quite cheaply. Fans would be able to see a match that otherwise they would not have seen because it was not shown on television.
  The scheme will provide small clubs with the opportunity to get themselves out of their financial plight. It would identify their supporters and rally their support. It would enable clubs to become part of the entertainment industry, which is what football really is. The details of the scheme need to be worked out. Success or failure will depend on whether the scheme is able to tackle violence outside the ground. Many of my constituents say that they do not care if the fans kill themselves inside the ground, as long as they behave themselves outside the ground. If the scheme manages to sort out the problem of violence outside the ground, it will be widely supported and will lead to the regeneration of league football.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: We have had a fascinating debate. Not the least of our delights has been the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey). She is an international sportswoman in her own right and gave an international performance for us all today. She spoke with feeling, particularly about supporters' rights, and asked why they have not been consulted by the Minister for Sport and why he continues to insult them, with all their collective wisdom, by not having them on his working party.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howell: In just a minute. Keep calm.
  The Minister will not have them on his working party. They will not be allowed to serve on the Football Membership Authority. The Minister is not prepared to listen to their collective wisdom. That is one of the reasons why the Government are getting into such difficulties over the scheme.
  Mr. Moynihan: So far, so bad. Will the right hon. Gentleman now inform the House correctly, first that I consulted the football supporters on two occasions, and secondly that there is no decision about who should constitute the FMA? I think it eminently sensible to consider whether supporters' representatives should be considered in due course as possible members of the Football Membership Authority.
  Mr. Howell: The Minister wants 20 minutes in which to reply to the debate. Perhaps I may take some injury time to deal with his intervention. I am patron of the National Association of Football Supporters Clubs and I have been in close touch with the Football Supporters Association. They both tell me—
  Mr. Moynihan: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Mr. Howell: I wish you would listen for a moment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am listening.
  Mr. Howell: You always listen, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for that slip of the tongue. In any event, you would never be the sort of Minister who would sit on the Front Bench interrupting almost before the Opposition spokesman has begun his comments.
  The supporters' association tell me that they went to see the Minister, that he did not stop talking from the moment they got into his office and that he did not listen to anything they had to say. That is the trouble with the hon. Gentleman. He does not listen. He just talks, and that is one of the troubles to which the football people draw our attention. They say that the Government will not listen. "They talk at us all the time," they say. Nobody would object if they talked sense, but they keep talking nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who precipitated this crisis in my speech, put her finger exactly on the point when she said that the football supporters' association have a good deal to say.
  The only justification for the measure I could find in the remarks of the Secretary of State was that we must deal with football because of violence in society. The Government describe it as football hooliganism. I confess that I do not believe there is any such thing as football hooliganism. There is criminality in society and there is violence—
  Mr. Ridley: Whitewash.
  Mr. Howell: I will come to the question of whitewash, the word that the Secretary of State shouts at me from a sedentary position.
  This is the promise that the Conservatives made in 1979, the rule of law with which they said they would deal:
  "The most disturbing threat to our freedom and security is the growing disrespect for the rule of law. In government as in opposition, Labour have undermined it. Yet respect for the rule of law if the basis of a free and civilised society. We will restore it".
  That having been the promise, let us look at the facts so that we can put the matter in perspective.
  The number of crimes of violence against the person in 1979, when that promise was made, was 94,960. In 1988, the last recorded figures available, the number was 158,248. There has been an increase in violence under the Conservatives of 67 per cent. The Government should be dealing with that today. That is where their priorities should lie. They issued figures last week showing that the number of crimes of violence in the first quarter of this year went up by a further 11 per cent.
  There has been nothing like an increase of that magnitude in violence on football grounds or in football, as despicable as any violence is on football grounds. That is why the Government have chosen football violence, so-called, for this measure. They have totally failed to deal with violence in society and they want a scapegoat. The scapegoat is football, and that is why we have the Bill today.
  The Secretary of State asked for examples of what we should be doing. We should be having a more intelligent policy to deal with violence as it exists in football. That should be done by targeting the place where the violence is likely to occur, not by having a blanket restriction on civil liberties applying to everybody who is likely to go to a football match.
  The Minister might like to comment on some figures that I obtained from the Sir Norman Chester centre for football research at the university of Leicester. They are as

  919
  available to the Government as they are to me. About 52 per cent. of arrests occur at 21 per cent. of the grounds; 35 per cent. of the grounds are responsible for 8 per cent. of arrests; 26 clubs have less than one arrest per match. yet all the fans, all the civilised supporters going to the grounds, will be subject to a massive restriction on their civil liberties even though the problems can be targeted and should be dealt with by the Government. Last year, seven clubs had fewer than 10 arrests during the whole season. We need an intelligent approach to the problem. Although 10 grounds had more than 2,000 arrests, 82 clubs had only two arrests. To produce a blanket solution to such a disparate problem is a monumental abuse of government and of civil liberty.
  We all know that the problems stem from a small number of fixtures that produce a large proportion of arrests. If the Government concentrated on them we would support that sort of policing. It would be sensible to deal with the criminals where they are active—and as I said, it is criminality rather than hooliganism. As the hon. Member for York—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ryedale."] Of course, I meant the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who represents York City. He said that it would make more sense to apply the principle of part II of the Bill—which has a little merit—to part I by identifying people and making them appear at attendance centres. However, that solution does not find favour with the Government.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Howell: I am sorry, but there are many points to which I wish to reply.
  Mr. Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Howell: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman promises to be very brief.
  Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Labour party would support certain measures for certain games on the basis that they could be picked out as potential troublemakers. I have some sympathy with that view. The right hon. Gentleman must also understand, however, that unsolicited violence does occur at games, such as at Selhurst park earlier this month and during the opening game at Scarborough two years ago. How can he say that there should be one rule for some games but not for all of them?
  Mr. Howell: I have a great deal of experience of dealing with these matters. As the Minister knows, a great deal of intelligence about games where there is likely to be trouble comes in from the police, and that intelligence should be used. It is certainly not being used very well at the moment.
  I presided over a committee that represented all football interests, such as the coach operators, the railways and the police, but it has never been mentioned since the day that I went out of office. One of the problems is that the Government know it all; they can do it all on their own. That is certainly not the way to solve the problems.
  There are two problems of great importance about which not a word was said by the Secretary of State in that most lamentable speech that he inflicted on the House—civil liberties and the practicality of the scheme. We know why we did not hear a word about those from the Secretary of State—because no man or woman living in this country has ever seen the Secretary of State at a
  920
  football match. We would all be interested if we ever saw the Secretary of State at a sporting event. He has never been to a football match. That is why he is the repository of all wisdom on the subject that he wishes to inflict upon us.
  Millions of football supporters are decent people who have never been in trouble in their life; 99·9 per cent. of all the people who go to football matches are peaceful, law-abiding citizens. The Government and the Secretary of State propose that those law-abiding citizens shall be registered, photographed, computerised and processed. That is Conservatism today. Those who believe in civil liberty and the value of freedom reject that entirely. Of course, those innocent citizens will not be allowed to take a member of their family to a football match without that person being registered.
  Mr. Couchman rose—
  Mr. Howell: I am sorry, but I am not giving way.
  One interesting fact that emerges from the university of Leicester is that the largest crowds occur at holiday time because fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters visit their families and they all go together to a match as a family. That should be encouraged, but it will be actively discouraged by the Bill.
  The Bill will outlaw neutrality in football. It will impose segregation for ever. That is outrageous. We should be moving away from segregation back to the days when people living next to each other who supported rival teams could sit next to each other to enjoy the sporting encounter. That will never happen under the Bill. That traditional sporting joy of the British people is being killed.
  I move to the practical objections, on which we have not heard one word from the Minister. If the scheme is imposed, it will aggravate the very problem that it is supposed to deal with at the turnstiles.
  Mr. Moynihan: No.
  Mr. Howell: The Minister says no. Those of us who were at Hillsborough, and every sensible, intelligent person, know what will happen. The Minister arrived at Hillsborough by helicopter at midnight. Had he been there earlier he would have known what would have happened if the turnstile operators, beleaguered as they were that day, had been required to take cards and process them through a computer, as well as taking money. The problem would have been aggravated.
  Under the procedure that is proposed we cannot amend the orders that will come before us; we will have to take them or leave them. It is inconceivable that Lord Justice Taylor will tell us that the membership scheme could have assisted at Hillsborough.
  Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
  Mr. Howell: No, I am not giving way.
  Mr.Couchman rose—
  Mr. Howell: I will not give way. I am dealing with the situation that is facing Lord Justice Taylor. He has been put in an impossible position by the Government. The Secretary of State is forcing through his scheme and putting Lord Justice Taylor in an impossible situation, which is a most undignified state of affairs. That is something of which we must take account. We all know—
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There will possibly be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make his point in the debate on the instruction.
  Mr. Howell: Peat Marwick's investigations showed an estimated 25 per cent. loss of gate, representing some 700,000 spectators—which is an outrageous imposition.
  Mr. Moynihan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howell: The Minister will have an opportunity to prove that his knowledge of accountancy is superior to that of Peat Marwick, and we shall listen with great interest.
  For the past six months the Minister for Sport has been telling us that football can make a profit out of the legislation because clubs will be able to sell their mailing lists to cover their costs. There has not been one word about that from the Secretary of State. Why is that? It is because not one of the firms that expressed interest can operate a scheme free of charge to the Football League. Not one. They all know that they cannot profitably operate a mailing list. One reason why they cannot do so is because the Minister has had to agree, under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984, that members can put a cross in a square if they do not want their names and addresses passed on to a mailing company. The football authorities, football supporters and certainly the Opposition will advise every supporter to exercise that right. There is no reason why supporters should be flooded with advertising about double glazing or second hand cars—apparently all that is okay by the Government, although not in respect of the poll tax.
  The Bill has many other deficiencies.
  Mr. Ridley: If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I would pack it in.
  Mr. Howell: The Secretary of State packed in football 50 years ago. He has never been seen at a football ground since. I wish that he would not make insulting remarks after his own speech earlier today.
  Mr. Ridley: Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's flannel so far, I think he is saying that there is a general increase in violence and that football should be allowed to keep its share of it—because he is not prepared to do anything about it and has no ideas. The right hon. Gentleman's complacency is revolting to those of us who really care.
  Mr. Howell: I accepted the challenge by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to say what should be done. I have said what should be done. Violence should be identified and targeted and then dealt with. I do not want to waste any more time on puerile interventions.
  I turn to a matter of equal importance. We are in favour of the principle enshrined in part II of the Bill but we are concerned about its application. As I said earlier, unless the Minister can tell the House tonight that arrangements are being made with other European Ministers not only to apprehend troublemakers but to bring them to justice in the European courts, which has not happened so far, he will have no names to feed into his computer when he comes to implement part II. [Interruption.] The Minister may say that that is absolute nonsense but I shall give him two examples.
  Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that if we do not have such arrangements with overseas countries, we would not be able to ban anybody under part II. He is totally wrong because, as he knows, anyone convicted of a football hooligan offence by the courts in this country, with appropriate action being taken by the court, will be banned under part II from going to overseas matches for either two or five years.
  Mr. Howell: I am obliged to the Minister, but he will now tell the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".] I am not withdrawing because I am going to justify it. The Minister will now tell the House why, in these circumstances, not one of the 300 people arrested in West Germany has ever been dealt with in courts in this country. Perhaps he will also tell the House why he has not done anything about the members of the National Front who went with the England team to Albania and to Iceland and behaved disgracefully. I am informed—[Interruption.] this is all part of part II—I am informed by representatives of the Football Association and of Leicester university that there was the most appalling behaviour. Those people arrived in those countries appallingly dressed and assaulted other supporters. They gave the Nazi salute during the British national anthem and then left the ground before the match had started. That is the essence of the matter, but the Minister has nothing whatsoever to say about it and no proposals whatsoever for dealing with it. It is a scandal. He should join us in denouncing it and say that he will take action.
  I turn now to the Football Membership Authority itself. It is ridiculous that a Football Membership Authority is to be appointed and accepted by the Secretary of State without any opportunity for the House to discuss it. I agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale that it is wrong that the Bill as drafted does not provide for any consultation about membership with the supporters, or even with the police.
  The Football Membership Authority will be a figleaf organisation, provided by the Government to give them a figleaf of respectability. It will have no powers apart from those which the Secretary of State decides that it shall have. It will make no decisions except those of which the Secretary of State approves. It is not a free-standing organisation. It cannot take its own decisions. It cannot determine its own policy. It will be bound hand and foot at absolutely every turn. It must register and computerise. It cannot exempt other categories of supporters.
  We know that guests, disabled people and children accompanied by adults will be exempted, but the FMA has already been told that even if it wants to, it cannot exempt old-age pensioners and women. There are hardly any examples of old-age pensioners or women acting as football hooligans. The whole thing is ludicrous, yet a great attack is being made on the civil liberties of a mass of people, including old age pensioners and women.
  Perhaps the most ludicrous of all the proposals is that dealing with overseas visitors. Those who want to attend football matches will be allowed to do so on the production of their passports. Where will the gates be located at our football grounds such as Wembley at which passports can be produced? Stealing passports is one of the most lucrative businesses in our society, but the Government's proposals will encourage it.
  The Government have totally rejected all the proposals and objections that have been made. In my judgment, the

  923
  scheme cannot possibly work. It will create aggravation at the turnstiles and deep resentment throughout the country. I say to my friends in football that, if they have any sense, they will have nothing to do with the scheme. We all know that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. The Government are mad. There is no need for the football authorities to prove that lunacy is infectious. They should therefore have nothing to do with the scheme.
  To show how irrelevant the scheme is, I shall cite the recent remarks of Judge Dennis Clark in Liverpool, who was dealing with people who had committed offences away from football grounds.
  Mr. Roger King: The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  Mr. Howell: No, it is not; I have another five minutes.
  Judge Clark noted that most of the violence described in the cases before him took place away from soccer grounds and so could not have been prevented by the Government's identification card scheme, which he described as futile and cosmetic.
  The judge was absolutely right on all counts. People who vote for the scheme today will vote for a scheme which certainly is futile and cosmetic.
  We must spend a few minutes on all-seater stadiums, but, Mr. Speaker, due to your ruling, we may be able to return to it. All-seater stadiums are the new panacea. We all want to work towards all-seater stadiums, but I have a relevant question to which the Secretary of State has not yet addressed himself. Do the Government intend to make it a criminal offence to stand up? Unless we have an answer to that question, we will not know whether we can enforce all-seater stadiums. The Minister has obviously not contemplated that question, but I must tell him that at many grounds this year I have seen people who have been allocated seats—at Manchester city and Leeds especially—refusing to sit down. We must not believe that an all-seater stadium is a panacea, because it is not. We must know how we can force people to sit down in such stadiums.
  I have already objected strongly to the proposal that we should approve the scheme by orders. It is a monstrous proposition to Parliament. Most of us in the House have never heard of an order being defeated, as that rarely happens. The orders are to be brought before us after we have Lord Justice Taylor's report. We then either have to accept them or the Government have to withdraw them. The reality is that no Government will withdraw an order and admit that they have made a monumental misjudgment of such an important situation.
  We hope that the House will vote for the special procedure resolution, which will at least give us the opportunity to have witnesses called and to hear what they have to say, because the views of such witnesses were silent in the Minister's statement.
  This is a Bill conceived by the prejudice of the Prime Minister—a reservoir of prejudice so deep that no man can plumb it. It is a Bill that owes its intellectual content to the Minister for Sport about whom no more need be said. It is a Bill about law and order throughout the realm, yet the Home Secretary has not taken part in the debate. It is a Bill that removes the rights of citizens.
  The Bill will not work. I cannot understand why the Government want to accept responsibility for it. The
  924
  Government are saying that the Bill is the answer to all the football problems. The very first time that there are problems, as there will be when the Bill is on the statute book, the Government will have to accept full responsibility for them.
  The Bill cannot be brought into effect until 1990–91—that is its timetable. That year will be an exciting one in which to bring in the Bill. If the House forces the Bill on the country today, 1991 will be the year when football constituencies and others will show their contempt for the Government. They will restore to themselves the dignity and the civil rights that have long been theirs.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Before I comment on the points that have been made during this debate I would like to say how much I share the sympathy which hon. Members have expressed for those affected by the Hillsborough disaster. My visit to the stadium following the tragedy will remain with me as an occasion of great sadness. It was correct in every sense to pause for a decent period to mark our respect for those who died and who were injured and to have allowed time to consider additional measures to ensure that such an event never happens again.
  This has been a productive and interesting debate, not least because of the contribution from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey). I congratulate her on an outstanding maiden speech. I listened carefully to what she said and I am glad that I can meet her at least on the principal point that she raised with regard to supporters. I agree with the hon. Lady that supporters must be "real members", to use her phrase, of their clubs. There is a major onus on football clubs to respond in that manner. I would like to see the European initiative of bringing them on to the boards of football clubs followed much more closely in this country. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) began his speech I said that I thought that it was important for us to consider carefully the case for supporters or for a supporters' organisation representative to be represented on the Football Membership Authority.
  We heard a predictably long-winded speech from the right hon. Member for Small Heath. It was long on criticism of our plan to tackle football hooliganism and precious short of ideas and constructive proposals. He made six or seven points, all of them inaccurate. First he talked about the appalling behaviour of our fans in Germany and Iceland and asked why those fans were not dealt with at home. Under the present law such hooligans have committed no offence known to our courts. Under the provisions of the Bill, however, hooligans convicted of corresponding offences abroad can be subject to restriction orders and prevented from attending designated matches outside England and Wales. I am sure that, when the right hon. Gentleman reads the Bill he will welcome that move forward.
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Moynihan: No, I shall not give way. I have less than 20 minutes in which to respond. I purposely kept to 20

  925
  minutes in the expectation that the right hon. Member for Small Heath would do likewise so that other hon. Members could make their contribution to this debate.
  The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about people being required to hand over cards to turnstile operators so that they could look at them. That is totally unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the technology is available to ensure that individual members do not have to hand over cards to turnstile operators. Therefore, there need be no additional delay at the turnstile if the appropriate technology is chosen.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the "national membership association". The right hon. Gentleman could go right through the Bill without finding a mention of any national membership association. I am well aware of what he was talking about but if he was referring to the Football Membership Authority he should also be aware that there are provisions within the membership scheme that can be deployed to allow the FMA to tackle incitement to violence, racial abuse at grounds and any incident that brings the game into disrepute which does not lead to action by the courts.
  Those various abject and abhorrent practices can be handled under the discretionary powers of the Football Membership Authority, which can ban individual members for two years, and there is also an appeal mechanism therein. For the first time, many of the incidents at grounds which rightly cause anger and annoyance among law-abiding citizens or—I emphasise this—any similar incident away from grounds which brings the game into disrepute, can lead the Football Membership Authority to use its discretionary powers to ban those people from becoming members of the football membership scheme and thus from attending matches for two years. The right hon. Member for Small Heath should take a little time to look at that important provision, which he should welcome.
  I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman advocated that members of the national membership scheme who join through their clubs should place a cross in the box to show that they do not wish to receive correspondence. Of the 92 clubs in Britain, 90 have partial membership schemes. Those clubs appreciate the opportunity to communicate with members so that they can keep them in touch with what is happening and inform them, not only about the success of the club but about sponsorship deals. Many such deals are associated with the cards. For example, British Rail sponsorship is associated with Reading football club's card.
  The clubs appreciate being able to keep their supporters informed, because their members benefit when the club is financed by the sponsors. Yet here, the right hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box and tells clubs to stop communicating with their supporters and to put a cross in the box. That is an appalling derogation of his responsibility.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I said nothing of the sort. I said that I would advise supporters to put a cross so that they would not receive an avalanche of unwanted mail. It is an entirely different matter for the football club of which they are members. Obviously, the supporters want to hear from their football club but do not want their club to disclose their names and addresses.
  Mr. Moynihan: That is yet another fascinating revelation: there is a distinction in Labour party thinking between the members of a football scheme or club and the supporters of a club. It was very much our thinking that they were one and the same group of people. We thought that if clubs had an opportunity to encourage as many members as possible, they would want to find as many supporters as possible to watch their games.
  The six points made by the right hon. Gentleman were all, regrettably, inaccurate. It has been made crystal clear to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that even with the most advanced technology available and with no commercial opportunities whatsoever, the cost would be £3·30 per annum if the card was to last three years, and possibly less if the FMA decided that it should last for four or five years.
  We consider that to be a small price to pay for individual football supporters to be able to go to and from clubs safely. If the commercial opportunities are developed, it is possible that the card will not cost the football clubs anything but, in practice, will be an income stream to them. That is an important consideration which should motivate clubs to ensure that as many members as possible come to their ground.
  The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was thought-provoking and relevant, particularly to the wider debate of the problems of adolescent law and order. We have a duty to tackle the problems of law and order wherever they exist in society. That was the background for much of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Education Reform Act 1988 to which my right hon. Friend referred. However, no one would deny that there is a major problem of disorder, violence and hooliganism associated with football which must be tackled. The best way forward is to put deterrents in place, which is precisely what we intend to do by divorcing once and for all true football supporters—the vast majority of supporters—from the hooligans.
  I cannot accept the claim by the right hon. Gentleman that there was a problem in only a limited number of grounds. The very first day of last season saw problems with the newest club in the fourth division—Scarborough—and, regrettably, only three weeks after a glowing recommendation of Aldershot's record in a BBC television documentary, there was trouble there.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Moynihan: No.
  We must take action to tackle hooliganism wherever it may occur, and I regret to say that there is no guarantee that it is not equally likely to occur at Hartlepool, Chelsea, Aldershot or Scarborough.
  Mr. Barron rose—
  Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman has not been present throughout the debate. Some of my hon. Friends have been, and I think that it is important that I should respond to what they have said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made some pertinent comments about the view of the Police Federation, whose view he put very clearly. I welcome the federation's responsible approach to our proposals, and I am happy to give an assurance that, along with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the

  927
  federation will be consulted about the scheme. My officials and I discussed the proposals with the federation at an early stage, and I am also happy to repeat the Government's agreement to the concept of an independent chairman for the FMA. Other hon. Members have raised the same point, and we may return to it in Committee.
  Hon. Members have raised the important issue of the displacement of violence. I refer them to the 100 per cent. home-only scheme that operated extremely successfully at Luton. I also refer them to the view of the Bedfordshire police:
  "To suggest that football hooligans have been forced out of the ground and are now committing violent offences within the community is totally without foundation. The groups of hooligans who used to attend home matches are well known to the police, and had they been responsible for an increase in local violence this would have been quickly recognised and appropriate action taken."
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) wrongly said that none of the police had come down in support of the concept of the scheme. Not only has it been made clear today that the Police Federation has expressed a strong preference for a home-only membership scheme, under which all away team supporters would be banned; but the federation wishes to impose a much more radical new measure than that proposed by the Government. There was no evidence in the hon. Gentleman's speech that he wanted to pursue any new measure.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so late in his speech. I accept what he has said about the police, but the fact is that none of the police organisations supports the proposals in the Bill.
  Mr. Moynihan: That was a timely intervention—for I am about to quote from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales. The association has written:
  "I am pleased to inform you that this Association is broadly in agreement with the Summary of Conclusions".
  All last summer was spent in consideration of a proposal which had the agreement of the working party members—the FA, the Football League and police representatives—and which formed the nucleus of the Bill. The hon. Member for Copeland would have difficulty finding a distinction between those proposals and the present ones—and the superintendents agreed with the main proposals. His was, in fact, a very untimely intervention.
  Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will recall that earlier I rather inadvisedly and unwisely called the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) a liar. I withdrew that and said that he had been inaccurate to say that 600 people had been arrested at Ascot over three days. I have taken the trouble to ring the assistant chief constable of the Thames Valley Police, Mr. Dunn, who told me that over the four days of Royal Ascot, 32 people were arrested.
  Mr. Speaker: We are debating football.
  Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend has spoken for himself. If the hon. Member for Copeland wishes to withdraw, I shall give way.
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not wish to withdraw. If the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) had been listening instead of bellowing abuse, as he was continuously, he would have heard that I said "last year".
  Mr. Speaker: The two hon. Members are about equal.
  Mr. Moynihan: It is clear that the Jockey Club has made a dramatic improvement.
  The hon. Member for Copeland also made comparisons about crime statistics. I find it surprising that he comes to the Dispatch Box to make such false and fatuous comparisons between apples and cheese. The crimes committed outside the grounds are different from those committed inside. After all, no driving or speeding offences are committed inside the grounds. The most relevant and comprehensive comparison would be between the number of arrests against equivalent numbers of police hours. I doubt whether there would be any disagreement about making that comparison, and I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees. The comparison of the number of arrests against the equivalent number of police hours is six of notifiable offences in society and 130 at football matches. That appalling number of incidents is permitted despite 5,000 police being on duty—police whom my constituents, and I hope every other hon. Members' constituents, would prefer to be downtown tackling crime.
  It is vital that the House recognises that the most significant step in recent weeks is the decision by the Government, accepted by the other place, that there should be two debates after Lord Justice Taylor has reported. It is vital that the House recognises, before it votes, that after Royal Assent for the Bill, no action will be taken on the membership scheme, or even on the establishment of the Football Membership Authority, until the Government come back to the House and every hon. Member has had the opportunity to consider Lord Justice Taylor's report. Then the House will have the opportunity to vote. Furthermore, once the scheme is prepared, the House will have another opportunity to look at it and decide whether it wishes to give approval to the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to implement that scheme.
  All this will happen after Lord Justice Taylor's final report, whenever it is published. It would be wrong and inappropriate to take action on the details of the scheme or the composition of the Football Membership Authority until we have his final report. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed understandable concerns. I hope that as they decide how to vote, they will reflect that they will have the opportunity to look in detail at that report and to consider all its implications before the FMA is set up or the scheme approved.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 252.

  Division No.263]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Baldry, Tony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Allason, Rupert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amess, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Amos, Alan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  929

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grist, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ground, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, William

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

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  Burns, Simon

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

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heddle, John

  Cash, William

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  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, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howard, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Conway, Derek

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David

  Irving, Charles

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

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jackson, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evennett, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Fallon, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Farr, Sir John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Favell, Tony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lang, Ian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lightbown, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lord, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  French, Douglas

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gardiner, George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maclean, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Gow, Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mans, Keith

  930

  Maples, John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Marland, Paul

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Shersby, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mellor, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Speed, Keith

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Speller, Tony

  Mills, Iain

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Squire, Robin

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Moate, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Steen, Anthony

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mudd, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Sumberg, David

  Needham, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thorne, Neil

  Paice, James

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Tracey, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trippier, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Portillo, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Viggers, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Raffan, Keith

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walden, George

  Redwood, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Renton, Tim

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Riddick, Graham

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wheeler, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rost, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wood, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashton, Joe

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Alton, David

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Anderson, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Battle, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Beggs, Roy

  931

  Beith, A. J.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bell, Stuart

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

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

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benyon, W.

  Gould, Bryan

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Blair, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Blunkett, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boyes, Roland

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hardy, Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Henderson, Doug

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cartwright, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Irvine, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cox, Tom

  Kilfedder, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cryer, Bob

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cummings, John

  Knox, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lamond, James

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Darling, Alistair

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Doran, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Douglas, Dick

  McCartney, Ian

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McFall, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Eadie, Alexander

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McWilliam, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maxton, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Galbraith. Sam

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Galloway, George

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  George, Bruce

  Morley, Elliott

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  932

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monkds E)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mullin, Chris

  Snape, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  Nellist, Dave

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, William

  Stott, Roger

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Gavin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Straw, Jack

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Patchett, Terry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pawsey, James

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Pendry, Tom

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Turner, Dennis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prescott, John

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wall, Pat

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wallace, James

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Joan

  Randall, Stuart

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Redmond, Martin

  Watts, John

  Reid, Dr John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Richardson, Jo

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Whitney, Ray

  Robertson, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wilkinson, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Short, Clare

  Sillars, Jim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

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

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made—[Dr. Cunningham]—and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee:—
  The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 326.

  Division No. 264]

  [10 14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Buckley, George J.

  Allen, Graham

  Caborn, Richard

  Alton, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife ME)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cartwright, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clay, Bob

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Beggs, Roy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beith, A. J.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

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

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cox, Tom

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crowther, Stan

  Blair, Tony

  Cryer, Bob

  Blunkett, David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Darling, Alistair

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  933

  Davis, Terry (B ham Hodge H'l)

  McFall, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Doran, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Douglas, Dick

  McWilliam, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Madden, Max

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Marek, Dr John

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Meacher, Michael

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Fisher, Mark

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Flannery, Martin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Flynn, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foulkes, George

  Morley, Elliott

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Galloway, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Nellist, Dave

  George, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Brien, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Patchett, Terry

  Gould, Bryan

  Pendry, Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Prescott, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hardy, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Radice, Giles

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Randall, Stuart

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Redmond, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Home Robertson, John

  Robertson, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ingram, Adam

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Janner, Greville

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kilfedder, James

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Snape, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lambie, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lamond, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lead bitter, Ted

  Stott, Roger

  Leighton, Ron

  Strang, Gavin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Livsey, Richard

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Vaz, Keith

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  McCartney, Ian

  Wall, Pat

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Wallace, James

  934

  Walley, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Worthington, Tony

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

  Wilson, Brian

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cran, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Alexander, Richard

  Curry, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Q. (Stamfd & Spald'g)

  Allason, Rupert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ashby, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Atkinson, David

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Farr, Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Favell, Tony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Forman, Nigel

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Boswell, Tim

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  French, Douglas

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fry, Peter

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gale, Roger

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gardiner, George

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

  Gorst, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gow, Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Ground, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Chris

  Hague, William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cash, William

  Hannam, John

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayes, Jerry

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

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Heddle, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Conway, Derek

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hill, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holt, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  935

  Howard, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

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

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Mates, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Mellor, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Mills, Iain

  Irvine, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Irving, Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Jack, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Jackson, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Janman, Tim

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Jessel, Toby

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Key, Robert

  Neale, Gerrard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Needham, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Neubert, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Lang, Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Paice, James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Lightbown, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Lilley, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lord, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Powell, William (Corby)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Price, Sir David

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Raffan, Keith

  Maclean, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Rathbone, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Redwood, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Renton, Tim

  Madel, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Riddick, Graham

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Maples, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Marland, Paul

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  936

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Thorne, Neil

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Thurnham, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tredinnick, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Trippier, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sims, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Speller, Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Squire, Robin

  Ward, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Sumberg, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill accordingly committed to a Standing Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Ridley relating to the Football Spectators Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until One o'clock, or for three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Football Spectators Bill [Lords]
10.27 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Football Spectators Bill [Lords] that it have power to make provision in the Bill relating to any aspect of the safety of spectators at designated football matches.
This motion was tabled at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I have already explained its meaning and purpose and the use to which the Government might seek to put it by moving an amendment in Committee. I do not think that I need to add anything to what I said earlier.
10.28 pm
Mr. Denis Howell: I do not wish to detain the House, but I think that the Secretary of State should give us a little more explanation of his motion because it might cause considerable problems to the Committee. I have already referred to all-seater stadiums, which is a desirable aim towards which we hope to move.
The purpose of the Government's proposal is to allow us to amend the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, although that is not the legislation that we will be discussing. It raises questions about the powers of local authorities, the rights of football grounds and the cost of implementing any of the schemes. Can the Secretary of State assure us that all those matters can be debated in Committee under his proposal? If so, we shall be satisfied.
We do not wish to resist anything that will improve the safety of grounds and, wherever possible, we shall support the Government. Nevertheless, there are questions of cost and convenience for the football authorities and the local authorities, and we need to be satisfied on those matters before approving the motion.
10.29 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am pleased that at least the Government have decided that it will be possible to introduce measures through the Bill which will enable the whole question of safety at football grounds to be properly considered. This precipitate legislation still needs major amendment if there is a real desire to do something about safety at football grounds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) referred to what had happened in relation to violence at football grounds in Holland. They set up an advisory board to consider not just hooliganism but safety and crowd control. I hope that the Government will listen to what other people have to say. It is a forlorn hope because, as we know, the Government never make mistakes. So they will decide what to do and they will not listen to anybody else.
I appeal to reasonable hon. Members on the Government Benches to support any move for which we press to try to ensure that the Government consult the people who know about football stadiums. I mean the football authorities, the police and, most of all, the people who tend to be ignored time and again by Government Members—the football supporters' associations. We want real safety. We want conditions in which Hillsboroughs do
938
not occur again. The people of Liverpool are extremely concerned that all that we will get is sympathy but no real action.
We should consider the experience of other countries. In Germany after the second world war, when they had the advantage of being able to build from scratch, the great stadiums were not built in urban areas, where so many of our grounds are. That is why we have problems on the streets outside grounds, why there is annoyance to people in their residences and why, incidentally, if the scheme is forced on us, we may have Luton copied everywhere else.
At one time the Anglican Church was regarded as the Tory party at prayer, but now Luton Town football club is taking on the pose of the Tory party at play. When I attended that ground on 21 January, in the directors' room there were no fewer than four Tory Members, including two members of the Cabinet, the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). Obviously they are impressed with the position at Luton.
Of course, safety does not extend outside the ground. During the 1987–88 football season there were no fewer than 262 cases of criminal damage in Luton town centre and 13 assaults on the police. Luton is not a Tory paradise; it is not a place of peace and tranquillity, no matter what people say.
Mr. John Carlisle: As the hon. Gentleman has spoken of my constituency as a place of peace and tranquillity, which it is, will he give the House the figures of arrests in the town for the previous year and the figures for the year before the membership scheme was introduced?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) will not be tempted to do that. He must confine his remarks to the instruction on the Order Paper.
Mr. Wareing: I will not be dragged along that road, Mr. Speaker.
If we are serious about safety in our football grounds, the Committee will have to consider the provision of more football grounds. When cup semi-finals and other large matches are being played, it should be possible for the Football Association and the Football League to use stadiums such as Wembley. We need four or five more such stadiums, but that requires public finance. It cannot be done by private finance. Football grounds in West Germany and Holland are provided by municipalities.
The Secretary of State should think about getting the people who know to advise him and about setting up an advisory body upon which football organisations, football supporters and the police will be represented. There should be an attempt to examine the structure of existing football grounds.
If identity cards are to be shown at every match in the country—each year, hundreds of matches are played at the 92 Football League grounds, at Wembley and at other stadiums—it will be necessary to examine turnstiles and access to grounds. Many football stands are built on main roads. For example, the Kop end of Liverpool football ground abuts the main road. Liverpool football club has solved most of the problem by ensuring that only season ticket holders and people with special discretionary match-day tickets go through the turnstiles. If identity cards are introduced, there will have to be structural

939
changes at Liverpool football ground to accommodate people going through the turnstiles. The Government must be able to give financial assistance to football clubs.
We must also consider Tottenham Hotspur football club. A high street is adjacent to that ground. There must be major structural changes to ensure safety in that ground, and even to deal with the problem of showing identity cards.
The Committee will examine not only overall safety, the problems that we have had in the past and the problem at Hillsborough and other grounds, but the increased danger as a result of large crowds, very often on Wednesday or Tuesday nights, queueing in our main streets to get into football grounds. Safety will be imperilled by the Bill, and that is yet another reason it should be the priority in Committee.
10.38 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: One thing that unites hon. Members is that none of us wishes to see a repeat of the Hillsborough, Bradford or Heysel tragedies. We should do everything possible to secure safety in our football grounds. Whatever our views may have been in the previous debate, we all welcome the safety instruction that was given to the Committee.
Having due regard to the Secretary of State's record in ensuring that certain matters are fulfilled, I hope that he will assure hon. Members that we are to have a proper opportunity to discuss important safety aspects when the proposals come forward. I hope that he will assure us that there will be full consultation with football clubs, spectators, local authorities and the police who have to implement the proposals. The Government have set themselves a tight timetable. If they want to deal properly with the problem, it is important that they do not push legislation through hastily. Legislation in haste can be bad legislation. The Government should ensure that they get things right.
To some extent, the Taylor inquiry was predetermined because it had to issue an interim report. Many people are afraid that inquiries have to rush their investigations to meet the Government's requirement that they publish an interim report. As was said in the previous debate, the Popplewell final report differed considerably from the interim report.
All of us—Government, Opposition, police, local authorities, football club management and spectators—have a responsibility to ensure that our football grounds are safe. I hope that the Secretary of State will give an assurance that he will take account of the fears of many people that a membership scheme will cause safety problems at gates—but we cannot go into that debate now.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not push us towards having all-seating stadiums. We should not necessarily accept that that is the only way to solve the problem. I do not accept that standing stadiums cannot be made safe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said on a similar point, there are often safety problems outside the grounds—at Underground stations and on the roads. I hope that the Secretary of State will make a commitment to provide from public funds the resources necessary to ensure that spectators outside grounds are safe, just as we are trying to ensure that spectators inside grounds are safe.
10.42 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: A number of aspects of the motion worry me greatly. It is outrageous that the Secretary of State has moved such a motion at this time. We have just spent hours talking about the fact that we will have two more opportunities to debate the safety issue. Why, therefore, is the right hon. Gentleman trying to impose this on the Committee? Even on the Government's tight time scale, it will take until 1991, or thereabouts, before the requirements are made law.
Who will pay for the extra safety requirements that will be imposed? We have heard that computerisation of membership details will cost individual clubs £50,000-plus. The Minister outlined ways in which some of that money could be raised, but what happens if it is not raised? Imposition of £50,000 in the first year on a club such as Mansfield, which I represent, would have disastrous effects. It cannot afford to lose that amount. As it is, it is struggling to get by week by week through the season.
Will the Government give a commitment to put extra resources into the clubs? I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on that matter. In fact, there will be greater financial imposition on the clubs on top of that £50,000. In my area a local newspaper and British Coal have sponsored our local club, Mansfield Town. They, with the help of the Football Ground Improvements Trust, have enabled us to open one side of the ground. That has made the ground safe, and will encourage families to attend and greater support for the club. Such clubs cannot afford to spend more money.
I do not know how far the Secretary of State will take note, but I want to mention to him the police charges for extra security, which must go with safety at football grounds. Already many third and fourth division clubs have faced severe problems because of the extra police charges imposed in recent years.
We want some answers before the motion is approved. It is no good the House willy-nilly approving such a clause, sending it to Committee, the Committee endorsing it, and it then becoming part of the Bill without a proper debate. We need to be told that more money will be guaranteed for the clubs in the lower divisions to ensure that they can comply with the security and safety requirements that will be imposed by this measure.
10.47 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: Now we have passed the Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill, we are in something of a mess, and we should not be tacking on to the end of it considerations about safety. The Bill itself has strong safety implications. We are also awaiting the report of the Taylor inquiry. The Committee, therefore, will be placed in an awkward position when it considers the Bill. We will be facing great difficulties unless the Bill is considered at great length in Committee, so that the Taylor report can be taken into account and its recommendations used to shape the amendments, which could provide for identification cards in special areas or membership schemes in connection with safety provisions.
We have put the cart before the horse with a vengeance. It is horrific that safety matters should be considered as a secondary item and that in some way they must find their way into the identity card proposals that we have just been discussing. It is too big an issue to be dealt with as an

941
afterthought. What may be needed in Committee is a fundamental rethink, to which the Taylor report would be relevant. It would help to put some shape into the Bill. Perhaps, as was said on Second Reading, part II will emerge as the part of the Bill that controls the entire operation of the provisions for football clubs.
10.48 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I want to make one substantive point relating to safety. The bottom line of the legislation is what happens on a wet Wednesday night in the middle of December outside a football ground, when 50,000 people are trying to gain entry, perhaps in the space of little more than one hour. If the Government cannot answer that question, they should abandon the legislation. I believe that such legislation can be put forward only by people who are profoundly ignorant of the real circumstances outside football grounds in such conditions.
Just before Christmas I met a woman at a lunch, who was the No. 10 representative of the working party which came up with these proposals. She had never been to a football match in her life and was proud to admit it. That is the basis of knowledge represented in the entire measure.
I see the same mentality, from largely the same Conservative Members, as that which rammed the poll tax through Parliament. They knew very little of what they were doing, but they were prepared to nod through legislation on the basis of an ideological obsession. The same mentality has been displayed tonight.
In all earnestness, the Secretary of State is playing with human life tonight. If 50,000 people are trying to get into a football ground in the conditions that I have described and the apparatus breaks down, there will be major problems. We have been told that, in such circumstances, the gates would probably be opened. That might suffice, although the example of Hillsborough is not encouraging. What is even more dangerous than such a breakdown is the rumour that that apparatus has broken down. Imagine that tens of thousands of people are trying to get into the ground and are pressing forward to do so when the word goes round, as rumours always spreads in crowds, that the apparatus has broken down. The ensuing pressures could create mayhem at the football ground. The Secretary of State is taking the responsibility for such action by pushing through this nonsense tonight.
To put this instruction before the House at this stage adds insult to injury to Lord Justice Taylor and his investigation. By pushing it through the House, the Secretary of State recognises that safety considerations must be taken into account. If that is so, safety considerations should be incorporated in legislation, but what possible sense or consistency is there in pressing ahead with that legislation while Lord Justice Taylor is still taking evidence? It would be better to wait until he has taken evidence and reported before introducing legislation that reflects his recommendations and takes into account ground safety. Such legislation would be based on public need and good rather than on the ridiculous obsession with an ID card scheme. That scheme will not solve any of
942
the problems, but it will add to the problems experienced in the cities outside the football grounds as well as, arguably, those inside them.
The instruction adds insult to injury and it cures nothing. The Bill is a disaster and the human life put at risk by its implications will be the personal responsibility of the Secretary of State.
10.51 pm
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was discussing the contents of the Bill, but I must confine myself to the instruction to the Committee. However, he made one relevant point. We are expressly moving this instruction to the Committee so that any recommendations that Lord Justice Taylor may eventually make can be taken on board and implemented quickly as a result of the Bill. That is the main point of asking the Committee to consider safety.
Under the Safety of Sports Ground Act 1975, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the power to make directives that apply to local authorities, as the licensing authorities for football grounds, concerning changes that might have to be made because of new safety requirements, possibly to do with turnstiles, perimeter fences or, certainly, all-seater stadiums. I was glad to hear what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) had to say about such stadiums and we hope to make some progress on that subject. That could be the subject of a directive.
All those powers are already in place under statute and all that we seek to do is to move an amendment in Committee that will give us the power to ensure that we can monitor the performance of local authorities in insisting on common standards in all football grounds. At the same time it will ensure that my right hon. Friend has the power, although I am sure that it will not be necessary, to enforce any decision that he makes about something that is currently absent.
Mr. Meale rose—
Mr. Ridley: I shall give way in a moment.
Apart from the existing powers, all that we seek to do is to ensure that these powers are sufficient to enforce anything that Lord Justice Taylor may require through the present system. There is nothing draconian about them.
The hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) seemed to believe that we were talking about the money resolution and were concerned that this resolution made it possible to pay money towards improvements on grounds for safety reasons. We are debating not the money resolution, but the instruction. Neither the money resolution nor the Bill contains powers for the Government to make any financial provision towards the cost of improvements to safety on grounds. This debate cannot cover the points which they made.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Football Spectators Bill [Lords] that it have power to make provision in the Bill relating to any aspect of the safety of spectators at designated football matches.

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football Spectators Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the
944
payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

ESTIMATES
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [20th June] of the Liaison Committee—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Colin Wallace (Manslaughter Conviction)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
10.55 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I rise to raise an issue which has been the subject of a recent book by the journalist Paul Foot: the framing for murder of Colin Wallace, a former employee in the security services of Northern Ireland. In his book, Paul Foot decisively proves that Wallace was framed for a crime which he did not commit in order to ensure that there was no exposure of Wallace's knowledge of the seditious activities of members of the security services.
I am not alone in believing this explanation. Wallace's case has gathered support across the political spectrum, within the media, and from past and serving members of the security services.
The story begins in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s when a separate information unit within the Army information service was set up. Wallace, a central figure in this unit, was required to engage in secret black propaganda disinformation activities. This was a co-ordinated operation to discredit and smear elected politicians using psychological warfare, forgeries, hoax bombings, and the buggery of young boys in the Kincora boys' home for blackmail purposes. Details of these activities were published in "The Pencourt File" and later Peter Wright's "Spycatcher" and David Leigh's "The Wilson Plot".
Wallace's knowledge was political dynamite, and when he began to question these activities, those in power clearly felt that he had to be gagged. He knew too much and had to be discredited. Conviction for murder would clearly achieve that purpose.
Referring to the high-level meetings which took place in the Ministry of Defence, Clive Ponting said in The Sunday Times, 17 May:
"By 1983 the case(s) of Wallace (and Holroyd) had been a long-running internal problem and a great effort had gone into contingency action if and when Holroyd got the story into the Press. The task was to try to ensure (their) stories were contained."
On 25 June 1987, on Channel 4 News, Ponting was quoted as follows:
"There was never any suspicion that Wallace was making these stories up or that it was totally unfounded and very easy to rubbish. It was very much a matter that, OK the story was being contained at the moment because he was in jail, but that in a few years' time he would be back out again and could be expected to start making the allegations again and then that would be a serious problem."
That is the background to Wallace's conviction. He did not kill Mr. Jonathan Lewis and an honest investigation would have discovered this. It would have proved beyond doubt that members of the security services compromised senior politicians and perverted our judicial system.
From 1983 to 1987 Wallace was in correspondence with the Home Office and his local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). On three occasions, Wallace petitioned the Home Office over the inadequate Sussex police force investigation and the disturbing conduct of the police during his trial.
When Wallace appealed to the Court of Appeal, one of the three judges that rejected his appeal was Mr. Justice Stocker, who had worked with Wallace on the Widgery inquiry into bloody Sunday. Wallace knew that the
946
Secretary of State could intervene only if there was new evidence which had not already been aired. Therefore, on 21 August 1983, his petition detailed: the failure to interview and take further statements from key witnesses with new information; new evidence questioning the time of death; new evidence concerning the use of a car important to the case and irregular police conduct in communicating with jurors.
Wallace listed 30 features of the forensic, medical and other evidence that conflicted with the prosecution case. In his petition of 15 March 1983, he submitted conclusive forensic information challenging crucial evidence on blood groupings, alcohol content, the time of death and the injuries inflicted on Lewis. He demonstrated that the police had omitted important information from the statements by the deceased's wife, Mrs. Jane Lewis, and had concealed details that were important to the defence, and suggested other factors that explained the death of Jonathan Lewis. In addition, he asked why police officers had told potential witnesses that he had kidnapped a child when they knew that that was completely untrue.
After Wallace had waited for over a year for a reply to his petitions, on 17 August 1984 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State wrote to Lord Avebury stating that there were no grounds for action to be taken on the conviction. Responding to that, Wallace petitioned the Home Secretary again on 27 August 1984, demolishing point by point the reply to the Under-Secretary. In a letter to the hon. Member for Arundel on 1 September 1984, Wallace claimed:
"the numerous independent people who have examined all the papers relating to my case appear to agree that the evidence presented just does not fit the Prosecution's case and that there are glaring inconsistencies in many parts. It is, therefore, a little odd that the Home Office should show such apparent indifference to the matter—unless there are political reasons for doing so."
Wallace also requested that the Secretary of State arrange a separate investigation of the links between the case and the investigation into the Kincora boys' home. The Minister replied that the Sussex police had found no links between the two; yet no police officer or other official had contacted him or his solicitor to discover what information should have been investigated.
Following the naming of Wallace in the House as a key witness in the Kincora affair, the then chief constable of the Sussex police, Sir George Terry, was appointed with general oversight of the RUC investigation into Kincora. The Sussex officer in charge of the Wallace murder inquiry, Detective Superintendent Harrison, was then appointed to head the new Sussex police team. Harrison was later promoted.
On 18 October 1988 and 16 January this year I wrote to the current chief constable of Sussex, Mr. Birch, about discrepancies and irregularities in the Wallace investigation. They involved press conferences given by police officers during the trial concerning Wallace's activities in Ireland; interviews between journalists and jurors during the trial; statements written by two Sussex officers which contained identical sections; and the failure to follow up important new evidence capable of proving Wallace's innocence.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Terry, may I ask whether he recollects the occasion on 22 June when, during Northern Ireland

947
questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said in a supplementary on my main question:
"Only the conclusions of the Terry report were published—not the evidence. When will the public be allowed to judge whether the conclusions follow from the evidence?"
The Minister of State replied to that very civil question with a non sequitur:
"I regard that a serious slur on Sir George Terry."— [Official Report, 22 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 482.]
It was not a slur on Sir George Terry; it was a perfectly civil and proper inquiry.
Mr. Livingstone: The problem with so much of the case, as it has developed, has been our inability to get a straight answer out of Government representatives or from the members of the security forces who have been involved in the investigations. We are constantly told that the matter has been investigated in the past, but no one has ever produced any details of those investigations.
Chief Constable Birch claimed that the issues had been raised through a variety of legal and political channels but that no information had come to light in respect of any of the matters raised, and refused to assist me further. In a reply on 24 February this year, I stated that I was unable to find any record of their being raised before. I then asked 10 specific questions about the case. After I had waited for more than three months, the assistant chief constable replied on 9 June:
"the circumstances surrounding Mr. Wallace's conviction had been exhaustively examined on a number of occasions, and I do not propose to carry out any further enquiries into the matter."
Chief Constable Birch's office has refused to answer my questions, because if it does it will be further incriminated in the cover-up. Unusually, the Sussex police consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions before replying to my letter.
The role of the Sussex police can only be described as disgraceful. The evidence suggests collusion between the security services implicated in the Kincora affair and the Sussex police. Responding to a letter written on 22 January 1988 by the Under-Secretary, Wallace claimed that it was full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings, and suggested that the Under-Secretary had not read the relevant correspondence, nor carried out inquiries as he had claimed. In reply to a specific forensic point about the diatoms in Mr. Lewis's body, which challenged police evidence over the location of the death, the Minister said that Mr. Wallace's solicitors would have to prove this. But how? The Metropolitan police forensic laboratory continually refused to make the material available to Wallace's solicitors.
In addition, Wallace asked why photographs of him in an SAS uniform and posing beside captured weapons were made available at the trial. Was it to create the impression that he had connections with paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland?
It was also incorrect for the Under-Secretary of State to claim that any irregularities in the conduct of police officers had already been considered by the courts. I challenge the Minister to say tonight when these matters were considered by any court. They had been raised in petitions to the Home Secretary as far back as 1983 by Wallace, but not one of those concerns has been dealt with. It was because the Home Office failed to investigate these issues that Wallace wrote to the Police Complaints Authority and the Sussex chief constable. The Sussex
948
police refused to accept the complaints or to enter into any correspondence with him, and the Police Complaints Authority said that it could not deal with the issues because it had arisen before the authority came into being. Wallace was led a merry dance between one official body and another, constantly being fobbed off as he attempted to pursue the case.
More recently, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office assured the House, when challenged on the content of the Foot book, that all the allegations concerning the conduct of persons had been "fully investigated" over a long period. What investigation? Who was involved? Who was interviewed? When did it begin and end? These are the same questions I have put to the Prime Minister and other Government Ministers. In reply, the House is constantly assured that all evidence concerning the allegations have been fully investigated and that there is not a shred of evidence to support them.
The Prime Minister, in a letter on 23 June 1988, stated that Mr. Wallace had failed to take the opportunity to contribute to these investigations. How can this be equated with the fact that Wallace sent a detailed dossier to the Prime Minister in November 1984, although not a single person approached him about the contents? On 10 August 1988 I asked the Prime Minister the precise nature of these "careful investigations". Once again I got no reply.
Named individuals have gone on record in the Foot book supporting Wallace's allegations. The book names Mike Taylor, who accompanied Wallace in placing hoax bombs, also Chris Whitehead and Wendy Austin, who substantiate these allegations. Those are three named individuals. Will they now be interviewed? Why have they never been interviewed before?
The Government's determination not to answer these questions proves that there was never any determined effort to establish the truth. Had the Sussex police properly and thoroughly investigated the death of Mr. Lewis they would have established that Wallace had nothing whatever to do with his death.
The Home Office has recently stated that it is in the process of seeing whether Paul Foot's book contains any evidence that might call into question the safety of the conviction of Colin Wallace. From experience, I have no confidence in their ability to do this.
What is the motive for such a cover-up? The answer can only be to protect the reputation of Airey Neave. For four years he was the shadow Cabinet spokesperson on Ireland, adviser to the then Leader of the Opposition on the intelligence services and head of her private office—the filter between her and the rest of the world. In reality he was the second most important person in the Tory party during that period of the Prime Minister's leadership of the Opposition. There was another side to Airey Neave that neither the public nor even most of his parliamentary colleagues knew about. He kept in close touch with the MI5 dissidents who were involved in treasonable activities.
After Colin Wallace left his job in Army headquarters in Northern Ireland, he was approached by Neave. Although he had never met Neave before, Neave obviously knew that Wallace had been an agent of MI5 and that he had been involved in the disinformation and propaganda campaigns against both the IRA and the Labour Government.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I do not know how the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can associate himself with this.
Mr. Livingstone: Neave's proposal to Wallace was simple: continue the same work but do it directly for Neave. Wallace agreed and over the following months prepared background papers and speeches for Airey Neave which dealt with the growing strength of the British Left and its alleged links with the IRA and the Soviet Union. Those were taken up in a series of speeches which were widely reported. Proof of Neave's involvement with Wallace lies in the fact that Wallace has retained the correspondence in Airey Neave's handwriting and that is in our possession to produce—[Interruption.]
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister has said that I should stop my hon. Friend. On the contrary, I have seen the letters. I knew the late Airey Neave very well and these questions must be answered. Part of the trouble is that Ministers have never faced up to the fact that these questions must be answered.
Mr. Livingstone: When questioned about this on the Floor of the House, the Leader of the House was unable to explain how Airey Neave would have known that Wallace was working for MI5 or how he had been so well informed about the nature of Wallace's work. The Prime Minister simply refuses to answer those questions.
When all the evidence and witnesses are assembled, the full-scale conspiracy aimed at the heart of our democracy is truly shocking. Taken together, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that during the 1970s a substantial and powerful minority of the British establishment was involved in activities which in any other country would be called treason. Airey Neave knew of the treason: how much he knew is a secret that he took to the grave. From his contacts with Peter Wright and Colin Wallace, we can presume that he was most probably quite well aware of what was happening. Neave alone was in a position to change the course of events, and Peter Wright was not. Neave was in a position to choose, promote and organise the election of the present Prime Minister as leader of the Tory party.
Is that the reason why the Prime Minister blocks every attempt to inquire into the Wallace frame-up and the dirty war? Is that why such a vast effort was expended to try to prevent the publication of "Spycatcher"? Is that why all the questions in Parliament are met with evasive and stonewalling answers? There is no reason why the Government should try to cover up scandals that took place during the time of a Labour Government unless it is to protect the reputation of old and faithful supporters.
A full independent inquiry into the Wallace frame-up would inevitably lead to the question of how much did Airey Neave know and what was his role in those events. Once that question is asked, it inevitably leads to another. As I have said, Airey Neave was the Prime Minister's closest friend and adviser. As head of her private office, he decided who saw her, and as her unofficial security adviser he personally introduced her to the world of MI5 and MI6.
Are we to believe that in all that time he never once indicated to her, even in the barest or most general outline, the treason in which he was involved? If the answer to that question is no, then did she not once ever suspect that the
950
man who ran her private office and stood like a praetorian guard at her door was involved in some very unparliamentary activities?
11.12 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I have the honour to represent the constituency of Oxford, West and Abingdon. Abingdon was the constituency represented by the late Airey Neave whose memory and whose record as an hon. Member of this House we have just heard subjected to the vilest attack imaginable. I have never in the decade during which I have been a Member of this place heard such a monstrous attack, and on a man who died within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), without any evidence at all, accused the late Airey Neave of involvement in treason.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Livingstone rose—
Mr. Patten: Under no circumstances will I give way. I thought that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had some grip on reality. I thought that he would have tried to intervene to persuade his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East to cease his vile attacks on an honourable man who was murdered by IRA terrorists—IRA terrorists whom the hon. Member for Brent, East never condemns and whose activities I suppose he supports. Those are the activities of the hon. Member for Brent, East.
To launch an attack on Airey Neave in that way has lowered the standards of debate in this House to unparalleled depths. Over the years, the hon. Member for Brent, East will reflect, if he ever reflects on anything, on the appalling things that he has said tonight and learn to regret them.
The hon. Member of Linlithgow, whom I have held in great respect over the past 10 years, will also learn to regret joining in the attack on the memory of Airey Neave. I have to call both hon. Members honourable Gentlemen, but representing the people of Abingdon as well as Her Majesty's Government, I have to say that what has been said in the Chamber tonight will be deeply, persistently and permanently resented by those who still mourn a great patriot and a great servant of the House, whose coat of arms remains at the end of the Chamber, illuminated as a permanent memorial to a man who gave his blood so that freedom in this place could be maintained.
The hon. Member for Brent, East is an honourable Gentleman within the terms of the House. I have had to listen to what he has had to say, but in the two years that I have been in the Home Office I have been struck by the extraordinary care with which on every occasion allegations and suggestions of a miscarriage of justice are treated by officials within the Home Office. Those papers go through many hands, and the tradition of the exhaustive and exhausting examination of all allegations goes back to the days when Home Office officials had to prepare the papers that went to the Home Secretary of the day faced with the decision of whether to proceed with the capital sentence. That tradition is still there in the Home Office and the meticulous care that is given to all cases is a remarkable tribute to those who advise Home Office Ministers on such cases.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Patten: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman under any circumstances. He has besmirched his reputation by his support for the attack on Airey Neave.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Patten: I shall certainly not give way. The hon. Gentleman did not intervene, so he has equally associated himself with that vile attack on Airey Neave. I cannot believe what I have seen and heard tonight in the Chamber.
It is important to begin with the facts of the case. They are that, on 20 March 1981, at Lewes Crown court, Mr. Colin Wallace was convicted of manslaughter after having been indicted for murder, and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. He applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence on 12 February 1982. His application was refused by the full Court of Appeal. At the time of the offence, Mr. Wallace was employed by the Arun district council as its information and liaison officer, and his assistant was Jane Lewis, the wife of the victim, Mr. Jonathan Lewis.
The prosecution alleged that Mr. Wallace and Mrs. Lewis had been having an affair while they were working on the preparation for a BBC television programme in the series "It's a Knockout" held at Arundel in July 1980 and that Mr. Lewis had been suspicious of their association.
The prosecution stated that the two men met on 5 August. Mr. Lewis was rendered unconscious, placed in the boot of Mr. Wallace's motor car and dumped in the River Arun, where he died from drowning. In his defence, Mr. Wallace admitted that there was a meeting but maintained that the two men had parted on good terms. The case rested largely on the circumstantial evidence, although it included some scientific evidence on tests on spots and splashes of blood found in the boot of the car on that sad occasion.
Since 1983, a number of representations have been made claiming that Mr. Wallace is innocent of the offence of manslaughter. The House may find it helpful if I outline the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to cases such as that of Mr. Wallace. Constitutionally, the duty of administering justice in individual cases is placed on the courts. The Home Secretary has certain advisory and statutory powers to intervene in a criminal case, and from time to time he does so. He may use, for example, the powers conferred on him by section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to refer a case tried on indictment to the Court of Appeal. The Home Office, in the person of the Home Secretary, does that from time to time.
My right hon. Friend must take every care to ensure that he does not exercise those powers in any way that might tend to usurp the functions of the court. In practice, that means that he can consider intervening only if significant new evidence or another consideration of substance comes to light that has already been aired in the courts. That is the basic and fundamental principle. It must be new evidence or a new matter of substance that appears to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.
Under no circumstances can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State review the decisions of the courts on the basis of facts or arguments that they have already
952
considered, or seek in any way to act as a further court of appeal. That would amount to political interference in the proper work of the courts.
Mr. Wallace's claims of innocence were carefully considered on a number of occasions in the past and found to consist of arguments about matters that have already been considered in the courts. Therefore, they have not been seen by us as evidence of a kind that might justify my right hon. Friend's intervention. In those circumstances no grounds have been found on which to justify any interference with Mr. Wallace's conviction.
In tonight's debate we heard of a book by Mr. Paul Foot entitled "Who Framed Colin Wallace?"—a number of copies of which we have secured within the Home Office.
Mr. Dalyell: Has the Minister read it?
Mr. Patten: As I explained to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 14 June, we are carefully considering the material contained in Mr. Foot's book. When I say carefully, I mean very carefully. When that process is completed, we shall decide whether any action is called for in respect of Mr. Wallace's conviction. I must emphasise that every case in which a miscarriage of justice is alleged is given the most careful and detailed consideration.
All sorts of allegations have been made about evidence in Mr. Foot's book concerning the Kincora boys' home and the alleged conduct of the security forces. Such allegations are certainly not new. Following Mr. Wallace's conviction for manslaughter in 1981, he turned his attention to the investigation in 1982 by Sir George Terry. Mr. Wallace alleged that both the Army and the intelligence services knew of the homosexual activities at Kincora long before the matter became public and that, rather than reporting those activities, they sought to use that information for their own ends.
All I can do, and all I shall do, is repeat the statement made by ministerial colleagues on numerous occasions, as recently as during Northern Ireland questions on 22 June. All the allegations raised by Mr. Wallace about the conduct of the security forces in Northern Ireland have been fully and carefully investigated not only by the Royal Ulster Constabulary but by Sir George Terry and Judge Hughes, in 1984. No evidence was discovered as a result of those investigations to substantiate any of the allegations of criminal activity.
It must be said also that Mr. Wallace was given every opportunity to give evidence during those inquiries. However, despite assurances being given to him that he would not be prosecuted for any breach of the Official Secrets Act in respect of any information that he communicated concerning those matters, Mr. Wallace refused to do so. And despite every obstacle being removed from his path, he consistently refused to substantiate any part of his allegations. It is very important that the House realises that.
All the points made in tonight's debate will of course be taken into account, because an allegation of a miscarriage of justice is an extremely serious matter, and the Home Office takes such cases extremely seriously. What a tragedy that a debate on a serious issue, an allegation that there has been a miscarriage of justice, should have been so distorted and blackened by a bizarre, absurd and ridiculous attack on the memory—the hon. Member for Brent, East is smirking. He cares nothing about any decent human

953
values. All he has done, supported by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, is to attack the memory of a brave colleague who gave his life so that freedom in this country and the freedom that we enjoy in this Chamber might continue to be enjoyed in the face of an IRA threat which, as far as I can see, the hon. Member for Brent, East supports. The hon. Gentleman has lowered himself not only in the eyes of this House but also in the eyes of all British people by
954
his dreadful, dreadful allegations during the debate. Nothing will ever take away the smear on his reputation which he has planted there.
All hon Members agree that Airey Neave gave his life for our freedom.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Patten: That is something—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, 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 twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Road Safety
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution he expects the proposals in "Road Users and the Law" to make towards his target for reducing casualties in his policy document, "Road Safety: The Next Steps."

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1987 we set the target of reducing casualties by one third by the year 2000. That means a reduction of some 100,000 deaths and injuries. Our priority must be the deaths and serious injuries.

  In 1988 we made good progress towards this. Deaths decreased by 2 per cent. compared with 1987, and were 10 per cent. down compared to the baseline of our target. Serious injuries were down by 1 per cent. compared with 1987, - 15 per cent. compared with the target baseline. This represents good progress, particularly as traffic volumes continue to rise.

  Publication of the North report, and the White Paper "The Road User and the Law", (Cm. 576) has helped considerably to increase the awareness of the need for action to cut road casualties, and to give such action much higher priority. The proposals in the White Paper are an important part of the Government's overall package of measures which, by changing public attitudes, improving enforcement and adopting improved road engineering techniques are together designed to achieve the target.

  Road Traffic Law
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on any progress made in implementing some of the non-legislative recommendations of the road traffic law review which he accepted.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The White Paper "The Road User and the Law" sets out the Government's proposals for taking forward the non-legislative recommendations accepted from the road traffic law review.

  We have received many positive and helpful comments from interested organisations. We will now be discussing with them how best to take forward, jointly, the non-legislative aspects of the White Paper. We shall also be adding a number of projects to our research programme to follow up those aspects of the North report which require further research.

  Rail Freight (Barnes Bridge)
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the average weekly amount of rail freight transported over Barnes bridge and its average journey length; and what assessment has been made of the equivalent number of average road freight vehicle miles this represents.
  378
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not known to the Department.

  Roads (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has given for road building and improvement in Liverpool; and if he will list the Liverpool city council plans it was allocated for, for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no trunk roads in Liverpool. We support expenditure on the city council's more important roads through the transport supplementary grant system. The information requested is:

  Year

  Amount of TSG given (£ million) (including minor works)

  1985–86

  12·083

  1986–87

  2·702

  1987–88

  2·267

  1988–89

  1·235

  1989–90

  1·762

  1 (to Merseyside County Council).

  Major Schemes accepted for TSG 1985–1990

  Years TSG allocated

  Liverpool Inner Ring Road

  1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88

  Garston Bypass

  1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88

  Access to Lime Street Station

  1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88

  Great George Street

  1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88

  Everton Valley Improvement

  1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about road building and upgrading plans in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have recently received representations about the Park road relief road from the chairman of the Merseyside development corporation and the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) wrote to me about motorway communications on Merseyside and in Liverpool.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EAGGF (Commitment Appropriations)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement explaining the procedures under which one quarter of all EAGGF commitment appropriations were made available to the Commission in January of recent years when provisional twelfths applied.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: In 1980, 1985, 1987 and 1988, when provisional twelfths have applied, one quarter of all EAGGF commitment appropriations have been made available to the Commission, on its request, in accordance with article 204 of the Rome treaty and article 8 of the financial regulation. The Commission has used these commitments to meet EAGGF payments, which tend to fall disproportionately in the early part of the year.

THE ARTS

  Disabled People
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many and what percentage of persons employed in his Department are registered as disabled.

  Mr. Luce
  None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the carbon dioxide emissions recorded for 1987 and 1988 related to public sector energy use, broken down into(a) central Government offices, by individual Departments of State, (b) local government, (c) health authorities and (d) other public sector bodies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Estimates of carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom have been published in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics, Number 11", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Emissions due to fossil fuel use in the public sector are included in the source category "Commercial/Public Service": in 1987 these amounted to 32 million tonnes of CO2, which was 5 per cent. of the total United Kingdom annual emissions. Data for 1988 are currently being prepared. It would involve disproportionate cost to provide emission estimates in the categories requested.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific proposals his Department has put forward for consideration and enactment, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane, since the seminar on the greenhouse effect held by the Prime Minister on 26 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: At the first meeting of parties to the Montreal protocol, held in Helsinki in May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the full support of the United Kingdom to the European Community's call for a reduction in the production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons by 85 per cent. as soon as possible with a view to phasing them out by the end of the century.

  At the Council of EC Environment Ministers, held in Luxembourg 9–10 June, my noble Friend the Minister of State for Housing, the Environment and Countryside, successfully pressed for the Commission to report back to Council on measures that can be taken to combat carbon dioxide emission from cars.

  Ivory
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the payment of compensation for firms whose business will be destroyed by a ban on trade in new ivory.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not normal practice to pay compensation to firms whose trade is adversely affected by import restrictions imposed for the purposes of conserving endangered species.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been issued to community charge registration officers concerning the obtaining of addresses from telecommunications operators.

  Mr. Gummer
  Community charge practice note No. 3, published in August last year, gave guidance to registration officers on those bodies from whom they have power to require information. These do not include telecommunications operators.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any rivers in South Yorkshire are known to be polluted by the use of tributyl tin by boat owners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The main freshwater rivers affected have been those carrying large numbers of pleasure craft, which were treated with tributyl tin antifouling paints before the Government banned their sale and supply in 1987. The rivers of South Yorkshire do not fall into this category and so have not been monitored.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many companies have deemed consent to discharge into the River Mersey.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: I understand from the North West water authority that 27 companies currently have deemed consents under the terms of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to discharge effluent into the River Mersey.

  The number of extant deemed consents is being progressively reduced as they are reviewed by the North West water authority and either revoked or replaced by a positively determined consent. Following privatisation, the National Rivers Authority will take responsibility for this work.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name the establishment on Merseyside that is exempt from the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Mr. Howard
  [Holding answer 26 June 1987]: There are no establishments exempt from the provision of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 other than those which are subject to Crown immunity. In such cases, it is the general policy of the Government that the standards of pollution control applied should, wherever possible, be no lower than that for other establishments.

  Rainfall
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the most recent figures and those for five and 10 years ago on the levels of acidification in rainfall(a) in Doncaster, (b) the three counties of Yorkshire and Humberside and (c) nationally.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The data requested are provided only for 1988 in the table. Prior to 1986 no data are available for the region and there are insufficient to calculate a representative United Kingdom average. The Doncaster value has been interpolated from nearby rural stations which may not be representative of an urban area.
  381

  Annual mean precipitation weighted acidity in rainfall in u eq H+/litre

  Data region

  u eq H+/litre

  pH

  United Kingdom

  25

  4·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  58

  4·2

  Doncaster

  73

  4·1

  Grants (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants have been, or are due to be made by the Rural Development Commission, for the county of South Yorkshire during 1989–90; and if he will list them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the 1989 rural development programme for South Yorkshire the Rural Development Commission has agreed in principle to support six projects:

  Rural Development Area Project Officer

  Sports hall extension

  Church Street/Bridge Street infrastructure link

  Resource centre

  Market extension

  Workspace

  Bids for other specific projects will also be considered as they arise. Formal approval and timing of projects will depend on the availability of resources and consideration of detailed applications. The commission also offers grants within the rural development area for the conversion of redundant buildings.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which public relations firms his Department has employed and at what cost, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ridley
  Apart from the special circumstances of privatisation work, the consistent practice of successive Governments has been to avoid the use of public relations firms or other firms outside Government for public relations work.

  Since July 1988 my Department, jointly with the Water Authorities Association, has employed Dewe Rogerson Ltd. as marketing and public relations advisers in connection with the forthcoming privatisation of the water authorities. I am unable to reveal the costs of its work for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Dioxin
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the findings of an investigation commissioned by his Department into the extent and effects of dioxin contamination.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 22 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) [at columns 202–3], when I announced publication of pollution paper No. 27, entitled "Dioxins in the Environment". A copy is in the Library.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the report of his Department's working party on housing co-operatives.

  Mr. Trippier
  I welcome the report of the committee which has carried out the review of housing co-operatives 382
  in England and which has been published today. The committee has responded positively to its terms of reference and confirmed that co-ops and other tenant control arrangements are popular with tenants, are effective, and are able to justify the grant support which has already been provided for them.

  The committee recommends several important measures to increase the involvement of tenants in the management of their homes, and extra support for tenants' groups to help them form housing co-operatives and the other types of tenant control considered in the review.

  I am delighted to accept the committee's recommendations and to endorse its view that an expansion of co-operatives and other tenant-led initiatives is now needed. This mirrors the Government's belief that real choices must be available for tenants.

  This expansion must be accompanied by further work, linked to research recently carried out and soon to be published by the Department, to refine our understanding of the value for money that tenant-led management can offer and to monitor progress. In the meantime, I am happy to announce that:
  we will provide a significant build-up for additional support for the promotion and development of new housing co-operatives and alternative forms of tenant control in the local authority stock;
  my Department will urgently discuss with interested bodies training opportunities for both tenants and development workers and ways of improving them;
  we will make £2 million available in 1990/91 to provide start-up support for new tenant initiatives and the promotion of new co-operatives in the housing association stock;
  a new promotional unit will be set up at the Housing Corporation to increase opportunities for participation among housing association tenants;
  we will ensure effective monitoring arrangements are established to ensure progress is made with tenant involvement using these newly increased resources;
  we will discuss with interested parties possible ways of improving the coverage of sources of advice and assistance for tenants by secondary co-operatives and other local organisations;
  we will invite local authorities to discuss proposals for the decentralisation of a major part of whole of their stock to local management organisations. We intend to develop a small number of pilot projects to test cost-effectiveness and service delivery.

  Copies of the report have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Domestic Property (Compensation)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish regulations to deal with the basis of compensation payable under part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is hoped that consultations with the relevant bodies will take place towards the end of the year and that proposals will be laid before Parliament thereafter.

  Brodsworth Hall, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the future of Brodsworth hall, near Doncaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his agreement on 5 April to English
  383
  Heritage opening negotiations with the National Heritage Memorial Fund and with the owners of Brodsworth hall on the acquisition of the hall and its contents. No representations have been received since then.

  Bradford West End Scheme
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions when his officials had discussions with the developer for the Bradford "west end" scheme for a city grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Members of the Department's team of professional appraisers and other officials have had a number of discussions on the proposals for "west end". For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not our practice to comment on individual city grant proposals.

  Water Supplies
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of private drinking water supplies in England and Wales and the number of people served by those supplies.

  Mr. Howard
  Local authorities collect and hold information on private supplies in their respective areas. Precise information is not held centrally. However, we estimate that there are 80,000 to 100,000 private supplies in the country serving approximately 1 per cent. of the population.

  North West Water Authority (Contracts)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on (i) the length and nature of the contracts given by North West water authority to(a) Mr. Archie Ramsay and (b) Miss Dora McCabe and (ii) their current responsibilities.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 23 June 1989]: Mr. Ramsay has been appointed by the Secretary of State as an executive member of North West water authority on terms similar to those in his original contract with the authority. His present salary is £65,000. Miss McCabe's appointment as an officer remains a matter for the authority. They continue to fill the posts of financial director and corporate affairs manager respectively.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for development on set-aside land have been submitted since the scheme was launched.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 June, at column 68–9.

  Blood Sports
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice has been given by his Department to the Nature Conservancy Council regarding the pursuance of blood sports on land purchased by conservancy bodies with grant-aid.
  384
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: Traditional country rights and uses should be interfered with only where they are in conflict with conservation interests.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  "A Few Scientific Statements on Racial Difference"
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the British Voice publication, "A Few Scientific Statements on Racial Difference," which has been circulated through the post to residents of south-east London, urging prosecution of those responsible for its distribution under section 5a of the Public Order Act; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has received representations from Greenwich borough council about the publication. The Director of Public Prosecutions has been asked to request the police to make inquiries concerning its publication and distribution. Section 5a of the Public Order Act 1936 has been repealed and replaced by part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on his proposals for the reform of the Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following publication of the White Paper (Cm. 555) and our working papers a large number of responses have been received. These responses, which include a number of generally positive and constructive comments, will be considered before final decisions are taken on the implementation of our proposals for improving the NHS in Scotland.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was spent in 1988–89 and in the first quarter of 1989–90 on management consultants brought in from outside the National Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  £192,336 was spent centrally in 1988–89 and £36,595 in the first quarter of 1989–90.

  Consultancy Fees
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the amount spent on consultancy fees in the year 1988–89 and the first quarter of 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information available from the annual accounts of health boards relates to the total of fees paid to management consultants, to legal firms (other than for legal expenses connected with compensation claims) and to work study consultants. The amounts for each health board for 1988–89 are shown in the table.

  Health Board

  1988–89

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  68,429

  Ayrshire and Arran

  32,084

  Borders

  15,562

  385

  Health Board

  1988–89

  £

  Dumfries and Galloway

  61,258

  Fife

  61,810

  Forth Valley

  67,789

  Grampian

  42,576

  Greater Glasgow

  257,258

  Highland

  106,072

  Lanarkshire

  26,570

  Lothian

  172,797

  Orkney

  17,499

  Shetland

  5,405

  Tayside

  14,738

  Western Isles

  28,534

  Total

  978,381

  Information relating to the current financial year is not yet available centrally.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1980 the number of emergency call-outs by the Scottish ambulance service both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the 1980 figure.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of emergency calls

  Percentage of 1980 total

  1980

  129,201

  100·0

  1981

  131,219

  101·6

  1982

  132,672

  102·7

  1983

  138,229

  107·0

  1984

  146,302

  113·2

  1985

  145,383

  112·5

  1986

  154,018

  119·2

  1987

  161,822

  125·2

  1988

  165,956

  128·4

WALES

  Sewage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of Welsh Water's proposals for investment in sewage treatment works in Rhymney valley necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant European directive; and if he will indicate in respect of each works the projected time scale for completion.

  Mr. Grist
  There is no European directive concerning the performance of sewage treatment works. However, Welsh Water is engaged upon a programme of improvements to provide for full compliance with discharge consent conditions at poorly performing works.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the precise location of each of the applications for derogation of sewage discharges in Wales advertised by his Department on 21 June; and if he will also list all other derogations currently in force in a similar way.

  Mr. Grist
  No applications for derogation of sewage discharges in Wales have been advertised by the Department.

  Details of the Welsh Water applications for time-limited variations of consent conditions, including the
  386
  national grid reference of the location of discharge, were advertised by the authority in the London Gazette and Western Mail on 21 June. A copy of the applications may be inspected at the regional rivers division of Welsh Water, St. Mellons, Cardiff.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state for each sewage discharge derogation site currently approved in Wales or currently under consideration by his Department(a) whether he has approved a programme of works to improve the effluent at each specific site, (b) when each programme of work is due to start and finish and (c) to what level each programme of works is designed to improve the effluent at that point of discharge.

  Mr. Grist
  All Welsh Water sewage treatment works for which applications for time-limited consents have been received are included in a programme of capital improvements designed to ensure future compliance. Details of the consent parameters applied for are included in the detailed applications which are available for inspection at the regional rivers division of Welsh Water at St. Mellons, Cardiff.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what justification for a request for derogation in respect of a sewage discharge has been given to him by Welsh Water in each case where a derogation is in force in Wales or is currently under consideration by his Department.

  Mr. Grist
  In making an application for a time-limited variation to an existing discharge consent, Welsh Water must satisfactorily define its plans for investment to improve the performance of the works.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring arrangements he has made in respect of each of the derogations of sewage in force in Wales; and what arrangements he will make for each of those currently under consideration by his Department.

  Mr. Grist
  There are no derogations of sewage treatment works consent conditions currently in force in the Principality. The water authority is currently responsible for monitoring all its own discharges; subject to enactment of the Water Bill, the National Rivers Authority will assume this duty.

  River Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd of 21 June, if he will list the nature and results in terms of judgments and fines, of prosecutions brought against polluters of south Wales rivers over the past 10 years;

  (2) pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd of 21 June, if he will list the recorded incidents of pollution of the rivers and streams of south Wales over the past 10 years, on a year-by-year basis, including specific dates, locations, effects and, where known, polluters.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Welsh water authority.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for
  387
  Pontypridd of 21 June, how the Government intend to enable the National Rivers Authority to prosecute polluters of Welsh rivers, including those companies which release raw sewage into those rivers, after the privatisation of the water authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  Under the provisions of the Water Bill the National Rivers Authority will have the power to institute criminal proceedings. How it uses that power will be a matter for the authority.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd of 21 June, whether the Government intend to allow the Welsh water authority to continue to discharge raw sewage into Welsh rivers after the privatisation of that company.

  Mr. Grist
  The consenting of Welsh Water discharges after privatisation will be matter for the National Rivers Authority, subject to enactment of the Water Bill.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for monitoring by his Department or on behalf of his Department of derogations of water supplies granted by him under article 9 of the EC drinking water directives 80/778/EEC.

  Mr. Grist
  Monitoring of the quality of all drinking water supplies within Welsh Water's area is carried out by that authority and regular reports are submitted to the Department.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there has been any modernisation of Britain's nuclear depth bomb capability since 1980; and if there are any plans in existence or under consideration to modernise this capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There has been no modernisation of Britain's nuclear depth bomb capability since 1980. As part of the studies related to modernising United Kingdom tactical nuclear weapons capability, consideration is being given to the replacement of the full spectrum of United Kingdom tactical nuclear weapons, including sea-based systems. However, no decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any increase or decrease in Britain's stockpile of nuclear depth charges since 1980; and whether there is any current consideration of increasing the numbers held.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For security reasons it is not our policy to comment on the size of the nuclear stockpile. However, it is the policy of the British Government to maintain the stockpile at the minimum level possible to provide a credible, effective deterrent.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any modernisation of Royal Navy helicopters capable of delivering nuclear depth bombs since 1980; and whether there is any current consideration of modernisation of these helicopters.
  388
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Nuclear depth bombs would be deployed from Royal Navy ASW helicopters. These helicopters have been modernised in various ways since 1980, and will continue to be modernised as required. Work carried out to date has not been directly related to the helicopters' nuclear weapon delivery capabilities.

  Trident Programme
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish in the Official Report a list of those parliamentary constituencies which will benefit from contracts as a result of the Trident programme, detailing for each constituency the name of the contractor and the value and general nature of the contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Ordnance Factory plc
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he makes of the value which would have been put on the Royal Ordnance factory, Blackburn, when the Royal Ordnance Factory plc was sold to British Aerospace if full account had been taken of the factors listed in the recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our surveyors took full account of all the significant factors relevant to the existing use and alternative use valuations of each site as at the date of the valuation. There are no additional factors mentioned in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report which would have affected the valuations made.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what value was put on the Royal Ordnance factory, Blackburn, when the Royal Ordnance Factory plc was sold to British Aerospace.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As with all the sites owned by Royal Ordnance plc, ROF Blackburn was valued on both an existing use and an alternative use basis, as at 31 December 1985. These valuations were £4,400,000 and £400,000 respectively. Only the higher, existing use, valuations were made available to prospective purchasers of Royal Ordnance.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) the potential development value of the site of the Royal Ordnance factory Blackburn, and (b) the proximity of the site to the extension of the M65 motorway to the M6 were included in the value placed upon the factory when Royal Ordnance Factory plc was sold to British Aerospace.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All the significant circumstances relevant to the alternative use valuation of ROF Blackburn as at the date of the valuation were taken into account.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any new proposals to assist preservation of the Brazilian rain forests.
  389
  Mr. Chris Patten
  An Overseas Development Administration environmental mission, led by my chief forestry officer and including the director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, visited Brazil last month to identify proposals for a new programme of environmental assistance to the Brazilian Government, particularly in rain forest conservation. This mission was very successful and has come back with a number of specific proposals for technical co-operation projects in sustainable forest management, genetic resource exploration and conservation, and environmental monitoring which we hope can be finalised within the next few months. I shall make the details available as soon as they are settled. During my own visit to Brazil next week I hope to be able to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian Government to establish the framework for this new environmental programme. I also hope to visit Amazonia and talk to some of the Brazilian bodies actively involved in trying to protect the rain forest.

ENERGY

  Uranium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quantities of depleted uranium owned by(a) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, (b) United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and (c) foreign customers are currently stored at Sellafield, Chapelcross and Dounreay sites, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Stocks of civil depleted uranium held under safeguards and resulting from the reprocessing of civil magnox fuel or the operation of enrichment plants by British Nuclear Fuels plc are held at a number of sites. The total quantities are:

  Uranium tonnes

  Sellafield

  100

  Chapelcross

  5,000

  Dounreay

  50

  A further 18,400 tonnes u of such material are held at Capenhurst and 6,200 tonnes u at Springfields.

  Some 20 per cent. of the stocks held at BNFL sites are owned by BNFL and some 5 per cent. by its overseas customers. The BNFL stocks include some 50 tonnes u owned by the authority. Almost all the material held at Dounreay is owned by the UKAEA.

  Electricity Disconnections
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the number of domestic customer disconnections in 1979 and for the latest date in(a) Wales and (b) each electricity board in England and Wales, and the percentage change in each case.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on 9 December 1988, at column 377, setting out the total figures for disconnections in each of the years 1979–1980 to 1987–88. The number of disconnections in England and Wales in 1988–89 was 75,230.

  Detailed figures for disconnections in each area board are a matter for the electricity supply industry and I have asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member with the requested information.

  Berkeley Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, following the removal of fuel at Berkeley nuclear power station, the cores will be vented by atmospheric air throughout the period before final dismantling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Efficiency Campaign
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what targets he has set for the initial 12 months of his public sector energy efficiency campaign launched in January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Details of the campaign are still under consideration.

  Office of Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the office of electricity regulation staff is to be restricted entirely to personnel from the Department of Energy, and the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Hinkley C (Inquiry)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when a witness from his Department is next expected to appear at the Hinkley C nuclear public inquiry; how many support officials will accompany the witness; on what topic he will give evidence; and whether the witness will be permitted to answer questions on the merits of Government policy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department's official witness will return to the inquiry, at the inspector's request, on 20 July to give further evidence on the progress of the Electricity Bill and any other developments in Government policy relevant to the inquiry since the date of his previous appearance. He will be supported by other officials from the Department as necessary. As I told the hon. Member on 27 October 1988, at column 318, it is not customary for an official representative of a Government Department to answer questions as to the merits of Government policy and I continue to see no reason for the Department's witness to do so.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which public relations firms his Department has employed and at what cost, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Apart from the special circumstances of privatisation work, the consistent practice of successive Governments has been to avoid the use of public relations firms or other companies outside Government for public relations work.

  My Department has used the following companies in connection with privatisation:

  Charles Barker in 1982 for Britoil

  Streets Financial in 1983 for Enterprise Oil

  391

  Dewe Rogerson in 1985 for British Gas.

  In addition, I appointed Lowe Bell Communications in 1988, jointly with the area boards, and Valin Pollen International in 1989, jointly with the CEGB, to draw up marketing strategies for the offers for sale of the electricity distribution companies and generating companies respectively.

  The amounts paid are commercially confidential.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of the United Kingdom's participation in efforts to secure a peaceful and democratic future for Cambodia.

  Mr. Eggar
  Both through bilateral contacts and through multilateral action in the United Nations' Security Council, and in the run-up to the Paris international conference in August, we are playing our full part in the search for a peaceful and durable settlement to the conflict in Cambodia.

  China
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he has had discussions with the ambassador of the People's Republic of China, with regard to the recent troubles in China and their implications for United Kingdom students in China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on 16 June, at column 560.

  Turks and Caicos Government
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ministers in the Turks and Caicos Government have been convicted of drug offences or corruption since 1984.

  Mr. Eggar
  Three Turks and Caicos Ministers were convicted on drugs charges in the United States of America in 1985.

  There have been no further convictions since we suspended ministerial government in the Turks and Caicos Islands in 1986. A new constitution came into effect with the return of ministerial government in March 1988.

  Western European Union
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the availability of Western European Union documents to hon. Members in view of the process of reactivation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Given the limitations imposed by the fact that most documents produced by the Council of the Western European Union are classified, I am satisfied with their availability to hon. Members. Documents produced by the Assembly of the Western European Union are distributed to all Members of the British delegation to the Assembly, who have not so far asked that they be made more widely available.

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the United Kingdom's co-signatories to the Antarctic treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Antarctic treaty consultative parties met in Paris in May in preparation for the XV Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in October. A full agenda for the ATCM was provisionally adopted. Items for discussion will include comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment, marine pollution, promotion of international scientific co-operation, Antarctic tourism, charting of Antarctic waters, and air safety.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with Sir Peter Walters, chairman of BP about their mining operation in the Brazilian rain forest.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 26 June, at column 287. My officials are in contact with BP on this issue.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to stop(a) BP and (b) other British companies contributing to the destruction of rain forests around the world.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be visiting Brazil including the Amazon region from 4–9 July. During his visit he will be discussing with Brazilian Ministers and officials our efforts to identify effective ways of helping them with a wide range of environmental problems including rainforest conservation. He will also be meeting representatives of British companies operating in Brazil with whom he hopes to discuss their role in environmental protection.

  The hon. Member will he aware of recent media reports alleging involvement by United Kingdom companies in rain forest destruction. We are studying these, but I understand that the companies, including BP, claim that these press reports contain important errors of fact, and that they themselves operate significant environmental protection programmes in their projects in Brazil.

  More generally, Britain is a leading supporter of the tropical forestry action plan and the International Tropical Timber Organisation which aim to help countries conserve their forests and manage them sustainably.

  Universal Postal Union
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his officials will attend the congress of the Universal Postal Union in Washington DC in the current year; and what percentage of these would normally be employed in Her Britannic Majesty's embassy at Washington DC.

  Mr. Eggar
  The British delegation will consist largely of officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Post Office. It is anticipated that there will be one
  393
  representative from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. As this is a major international conference taking place in Washington, we expect that there will be some involvement on the part of embassy staff, depending on requirements as they arise.

  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 and the use of torture in the last five years in China.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made a number of representations about human rights to the Chinese authorities over the last 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 how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights and the use of torture in the last five years in Brazil.

  Mr. Eggar
  In November 1988 I discussed allegations in Amnesty International's report entitled "Brazil, Authorized Violence in Rural Areas" with the then Brazilian Justice Minister. I refer to the answer given on this subject by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ms. Walley) on 21 April 1989, at columns 313–14.

  We have not otherwise made any representations to the Brazilians on human rights since democracy was restored in 1985.

  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 and the use of torture in the last five years in the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out the powers which are available to member states if they consider that the Commission has presented directives which are outside the competence of the Commission and the Community, or if the directive is presented on the basis of majority voting without good reasons; and if he will list the occasions on which Her Majesty's Government have made use of these powers.

  Mr. Eggar
  Proposals requiring unanimity may be defeated by a single vote against. Those requiring a qualified majority may be defeated by a blocking minority of 23 votes, or amended by unanimity. In addition, member states may challenge measures, after adoption, in the European Court of Justice. The United Kingdom has challenged the Council in the court over treaty base issues for hormone growth producers in animals (1986); minimum standards for battery hens (1986); youth training (1988) and COMETT II (1989).

  EC Social Charter
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the United Kingdoms Government's intention to accept in the 394
  future any of the articles of the Council of Europe's social charter which currently rejects articles 2(1), 4(3), 7(1), 7(4), 7(7), 8(2), 12(2), 12(3) and 12(4).

  Mr. Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the present time the Government have no plans to accept articles 2(1), 4(3), 7(1), 7(4), 7(7), 8(2), 12(2), 12(3) and 12(4) of the Council of Europe's European social charter. However, the situation is kept under review.

  Programmes and Schemes (Finance)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report all those programmes or schemes for research, development, co-operation or exchange of information on associated activity for which financial provision is made within the current budget of the European Economic Community, listed under the relevant Department of the United Kingdom Government with official title, or where allocated, an acronym, and showing for each project the date of its inception, the authorisation and amounts of funding and the principal participants or beneficiaries within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 6 June 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Community's 1987–91 framework programme for research and development covers several areas of R and D. The Cabinet Office is responsible for overall co-ordination of the United Kingdom's interests in the framework programme, while individual Departments are responsible for United Kingdom interest in specific sub-programmes. I represent Her Majesty's Government at meetings of the Community Council of Ministers (Research) at which the implementation of the framework programme is agreed. A wide range of research co-operation, exchanges of information and associated activity also takes place outside the framework programme. The information requested is therefore not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A breakdown of R and D programmes within the framework programme is as follows. Of the programmes listed, seven (radiation protection, FLAIR, MAST, DOSES, MONITOR, VALUE and an extension to EUROTRA) were adopted at the most recent Research Council on 20 June. The Council also adopted common positions on a further four programmes (which will probably be formally adopted before the end of the yeas):
  —STEP (science and technology for environmental protection) and EPOCH (European programme on climatology and natural hazards) are two programmes intended to improve the scientific base of environmental policy. Over a period of four years STEP will receive funding of 75 million ecu (£50 million) and EPOCH 40 million ecu (£27 million).
  —BRIDGE (biotechnology research for innovation, development and growth in Europe) will receive Community funding of 100 million ecu (£67 million) over four years
  —The research and technological development programme in the field of raw materials and recycling will receive Community funding of 45 million ecu (£30 million) over three years.

  The Research Council also adopted a resolution reaffirming its support for the COST framework for European collaboration in R and D involving both EC and non-EC countries, and held a preliminary policy debate on the mid-term review of the 1987–91 framework programme.
  395

  Name of Programme

  United Kingdom lead Department

  Duration of programme

  Authorisation

  Community Funding

  Medical and Health Research

  Department of Health

  1987–1991

  Council Decision 17 November 1987

  65 million ecu (£43 million)

  Radiation Protection

  Department of Health

  1990–1991

  Council Decision 20 June 1989

  21·2 million ecu (£14 million)

  ESPRIT II (European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in Information Technologies)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1987–1992

  Council Decision 11 April 1988

  1,600 million ecu (£1,067 million)

  RACE (Research and Development in Advanced Communications technologies in Europe)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1987–1992

  Council Decision 14 December 1987

  550 million ecu (£367 million)

  DELTA (Development of European Learning through Technological Advance)

  Department of Employment

  1988–1990

  Council Decision 29 June 1988

  20 million ecu (£13 million)

  DRIVE (Dedicated Road Infrastructure for Vehicle safety in Europe)

  Department of Transport

  1988–1991

  Council Decision 29 June 1988

  60 million ecu (£40 Million)

  AIM (Advanced Informatics in Medicine in Europe)

  Department of Health

  1988–1990

  Council Decision 4 November 1988

  20 million ecu (£13 million)

  BRITE/EURAM (Basic Research in Industrial Technology/Advanced Materials)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1989–1992

  Council Decision 15 December 1988

  499 million ecu (£333 million)

  BCR (Community Bureau of Reference)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1988–1992

  Council Decision 29 June 1988

  59·2 million ecu (£39·5 million)

  ECLAIR (European Collaborative Linkage of Agriculture and Industry through Research)

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1988–1993

  Council Decision 23 February 1989

  80 million ecu (£53 million)

  FLAIR (Food linked agro–industrial research)

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1989–1993

  Council Decision 20 June 1989

  25 million ecu (£17 Million)

  Controlled Thermonuclear fusion —JET and general programme

  Department of Energy

  1988–1992

  Council Decision 25 July 1988

  735 million ecu (£490 million)

  Joint Research Centre's programme of activities for 1988–1991 (covering Quality of Life, modernisation of industrial sectors and energy)

  Cabinet Office

  1988–1991

  Council Decisions 29 October 1988

  700 million ecu (£467 million)

  JOULE (Joint Opportunities for Unconventional or Long–Term Energy supply)

  Department of Energy

  1989–1992

  Council Decision 15 December 1987

  122 million ecu (£81 million)

  Science and Technology for Development

  Overseas Development Administration

  1987–1991

  Council Decision 14 December 1987

  80 million ecu (£53 million)

  Fisheries programme

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1988–1992

  Council Decision 19 December 1987

  30 million ecu (£20 million)

  SCIENCE (Co–operation and exchanges between scientists and laboratories)

  Department of Education and Science

  1988–1992

  Council Decision 29 June 1988

  167 million ecu (£111 million)

  SPES (Stimulation Plan for Economic Science)

  Department of Education and Science

  1989–1992

  Council Decision 17 November 1988

  6 million ecu (£4 million)

  Large Scale Scientific Facilities (Community support plan to facilitate access to large–scale scientific facilities of European interest)

  Department of Education and Science

  1988–1992

  Council Decision 14 March 1989

  30 million ecu (£20 million)

  MONITOR (strategic analysis, forcasting and evaluation in science and technology)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1988–1992

  Council Decision 20 June 1989

  22 million ecu (£15 million)

  Extension to EUROTRA (machine translation system)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1989–1990

  Council Decision 20 June 1989

  7 million ecu (£4·6 million)

  DOSES (Development of Statistical Expert systems)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1989–1992

  Council Decision 20 June 1989

  4 million ecu (£2·6 million)

  VALUE (dissemination and utilisation of S & T results)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1989–1992

  Council Decision 20 June 1989

  38 million ecu (£25 million)

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Road Traffic Law Review
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research projects have been initiated by his Department in line with the recommendations in the road traffic law review which he accepted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office is undertaking a study of how traffic policing resources are organised and targeted. We hope to undertake a research project on the level of driving while disqualified later this year or early next year.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which public relations firms his Department has employed and at what cost, for each year since 1979.
  396
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  "The Satanic Verses"
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that members of the Iranian embassy are not involved in financing or assisting in any way organised violence connected with the campaign centred on the book "The Satanic Verses"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Iran closed its embassy in London and withdrew all its diplomats on 28 February 1989 at the Government's request, following the threats issued by the Iranian leadership to the lives of Mr. Salmon Rushdie and his publishers. The Government have made it plain that the promotion of organised violence in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated, and all necessary measures will continue to be taken against it.
  397
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire police on the rioting during and following a meeting organised by the Council of Mosques in Bradford on Saturday 17 June, and in particular whether any Iranian students were involved on an organised basis in the disruption, and the level of policing available from the start of the meeting at 11 am, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of West Yorkshire police that around 3,000 Moslems, including, it is believed, a small number of Iranian students, took part in the demonstration. The organisers and stewards co-operated fully with the police and the meeting itself was conducted in an orderly manner. After the meeting some 200 youths ran through the centre of Bradford jostling bystanders and causing some damage to cars and other property. A small number of police officers and members of the public were hurt. At the meeting there were initially six officers present with larger numbers in reserve nearby. During the disturbances lasting around 90 minutes some 200 police officers were deployed.

  Blasphemy
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce legislation to repeal the law relating to blasphemy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to change the law on blasphemy.

  Cocaine
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many samples of freebase cocaine or crack have been submitted to the forensic science laboratories and the laboratory of the Government chemist in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1986, 1987 and 1988 there were zero, five and 15 samples confirmed as crack submitted to these laboratories. A further 12 samples have been confirmed as crack in the first five months of this year. In addition over the same three-year period five, seven and 13 samples had features of crack with a further 10 identified this year.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what in each of the last three years for which figures are available, have been the number of deaths in which cocaine in any form has been a cause or contributory factor.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office collects information on the deaths by overdose of drug misusers. The number of such deaths in which cocaine in any form was recorded as a cause or contributory factor in the three years to 31 December 1987, the latest for which figures are available, is given in the following table:

  Number

  1985

  1

  1986

  7

  1987

  9

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will place a document in the 398
  Library listing by name all the medical and scientific authorities on whom he relies for his statements about the harmful effects of crack, the smokeable, base-form of cocaine.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  "Drug Misuse—a basic briefing" prepared by the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependency includes, among the harmful effects of cocaine, the following: misusers may develop a strong psychological dependence; misuse can lead to an extreme state of agitation, anxiety, paranoia and perhaps hallucination; continued misuse may cause a state of mind similar to paranoid psychosis; although rare, excessive doses can cause death from respiratory or heart failure. It also states that smoking cocaine is a more potent method of administration than "snorting" and that the effects are felt more immediately. I am placing a copy of the booklet in the Library.

  Cocaine smoked in the form of crack is a recent phenomenon, but experience from the United States suggests that because crack acts more rapidly it poses a much greater risk of addiction. The ministerial group on the misuse of drugs has instituted a review of the available medical and scientific literature on the effects of crack.

  EC Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to establish from the European Commission whether the directive on the harmonisation of conditions of residence, as proposed in the Community "Charter for Fundamental Social Rights" Com. 89–248-final, will fall to be presented to the Council on the basis of majority voting.

  Mr. Renton
  The voting arrangements for a particular proposal depend on the substance of the proposal and on the specific article(s) of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, appropriate to this. Until a draft proposal is agreed by the Commission it is not possible to know on which article the Commission will be basing its proposals.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached his decisions on the recommendations contained in the report of the Police Complaints Authority "Triennial Review 1985–1988.

  Mr. Hurd
  Yes. I announced on 14 November 1988 that a consultation document on the recommendations was being sent to the police representative bodies, the local authority associations, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Complaints Authority. The document was also being made available to anyone else on request. I have given further consideration to the recommendations in the light of the comments received.

  I have decided to accept 11 of the authority's recommendations in whole or in part.

  Of these 11 recommendations, three have been or will be dealt with by administrative action by my Department as follows:

  I intend that recommendation (4) should be met by making available to the authority information which chief officers currently supply to Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of constabulary.
  399
  I have accepted the following recommendations which will be implemented by amendments to regulations. I have asked my officials to bring forward the necessary amendments as quickly as possible.
  (3) that "complaint … about the conduct" should be enlarged to embrace all such matters arising out of or in the course of the incident complained of as the authority may determine by investigation or otherwise (paragraph 1.8);
  (4) that chief officers be under an obligation to provide us with such information on the informal resolution procedure as we may reasonably require to enable us to fulfil the mandate of section 97(4) (paragraph 1.14);
  (7) that the police authority be required to deal with complaints against senior officers through a small disciplinary sub-committee, enjoined to a proper judicial approach to the task (paragraph 1.26).
  (5) That the words "or informally resolved" should be added to those conditions necessary for dispensation under regulation 3 on the ground that the complaint is repetitious (paragraph 1.17);
  (15) that the authority be given an equivalent discretionary power and propose that it be done by way of amendment of the Police (Anonymous, Repetitious Etc. Complaints) Regulations 1985, to include words such as "or vexatious, oppressive, or an abuse of the complaints system" in the description of complaints for which we can grant a dispensation from investigation (paragraph 2.29);
  (16) that there should be a time limit of 12 months from the date of the incident, or the latest incident, giving rise to the complaint within which to bring it to notice. There should be the usual safeguard to enable us to exercise discretion to extend the time limit where good reason for delay is shown and no injustice is likely to be caused (paragraph 2.30).

  It will not be possible to give direct effect to the third of these recommendations by regulation. But I intend to bring forward amendments to regulations which will achieve the purpose sought by the authority.

  I have also accepted five recommendations for action at the next legislative opportunity.
  (9) That the language of sections 90 and 92 be amended to make it clear beyond doubt what is intended (paragraph 1.41);
  (10) that the Act be amended to enable the authority to give its reasons for preferring charges at the stage of recommendations, when the chief officer must he consulted (paragraph 1.42);
  (11) that an alternative composition of a disciplinary tribunal should be considered (paragraph 1.45);
  (13a) that section 98 be restructured so as to provide: that the authority has discretion to publish such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the outcome of investigations, without derogation from the principle of confidentiality between the authority, complainants and those who provide information (paragraph 2.11);
  (17) that the authority be granted a discretion to dispense with supervision in cases where it is satisfied on proper evidence that the injury sustained is minor, notwithstanding the definition in section 87(4), whether this is apparent from the start or becomes so only in the course of the investigation (paragraph 2.31).

  The purpose of the first two of these recommendations will be achieved by administrative action pending legislation.

  I propose to review the case for the following two recommendations when next contemplating legislation on the complaints procedures.
  (1) That there should be a definition of complaint in the Act which distinguishes between categories of complaint (paragraph 1.5);
  400
  (6) that the authority should be able to satisfy itself in suitable cases that a complaint has been withdrawn by an entirely voluntary and well-informed consent (paragraph 1.17).

  I have asked my officials to hold further discussions with the Police Complaints Authority and the police on two recommendations before I come to a final decision:
  (12) That steps be taken, perhaps by regulation, to lay down a time scale within which the various procedures necessary to bring about a disciplinary hearing are to be completed (paragraph 1.47);
  (13b) that section 98 be restructured so as to provide: that chief officers be restricted in the use of their copy of a report of a supervised investigation, to the purpose for which they receive their copy under the Act and that they publish no part of it (paragraph 2.11).

  I have decided not to accept four of the authority's recommendations:
  (2) That the last word about recording or de-recording a complaint should be with the independent authority rather than with the police (paragraph 1.6)
  (8) that the powers described in section 88 of the Act should be extended to the authority in those cases where it appears to them that by reason of their gravity or exceptional circumstances the investigations should be supervised even if there is no complaint (paragraph 1.34);
  (14) that we ought to have the right to exercise the power to require the production of documents in our own name, which right is at present in doubt (paragraph 2.15);
  (18) that all incidents in the course of which a firearm is discharged, whether accidentally or deliberately, should be mandatorily referable to us. This would enable there to be an independent presence at the examination of the circumstances surrounding those incidents which understandably give rise to public anxiety (paragraph 2.33).

  Finally, I have noted the authority's comment that the question of a lower level of summary disciplinary hearings is worthy of further discussion (paragraph 3.20).

  I have been heartened by the positive response to the consultation document on the authority's recommendations and I am satisfied that the action I have outlined above will further enhance the operation of the procedures for dealing with complaints against the police.

  Summer Time
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the consultation document on summer time arrangements is to be published.

  Mr. Hurd
  A Green Paper entitled 'Summer Time—A Consultation Document', Cm. 722, is published by HMSO today. The document seeks views on three options for future summer time arrangements with a closing date for responses of 29 September 1989.

  Fixed Penalties
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to review the operation of the extended fixed penalty system introduced on 1 October 1986 under the provisions of part III of the Transport Act 1982, now part III of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  A working group comprising representatives of the Home Office, Department of Transport, the police service and the courts was formed early in 1988 to review the operation of the extended penalty system. I have received its report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
  401
  The report concludes that the new procedures are broadly meeting their objectives which were:

  (i) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of road traffic law enforcement;

  (ii) to improve police-public relations in road traffic encounters;

  (iii) to reduce the burden of prosecution for the police, the Crown prosecution service and the courts; and

  (iv) to improve the level of compliance as compared with the previous fixed penalty system.

  The working group has, however, identified a number of areas where some "fine tuning" is required.

  While the extension of the fixed penalty system to a far wider range of less serious road traffic offences has produced a substantial drop in the number of court proceedings, there has been a significant increase in the numbers of fixed penalty notices issued. This has placed a considerable burden on the courts and the police in registering and enforcing unpaid fixed penalties.

  The new arrangements whereby unpaid fixed penalties are enhanced by 50 per cent. and registered and enforced as fines has led to some improvement in early payment rates, particularly in London where, under the previous system, the problem of unpaid fixed penalties was most acute. However, there is still scope for improvement and the working group has identified a number of administrative measures to reduce the number of cases reaching the fine enforcement stage and, for those which do, to ensure that fine recovery is achieved as effectively and efficiently as possible.

  The working group recommends that the fixed penalty levels should be increased. The levels were set in 1986 at £12 for non-endorsable offences and £24 for endorsable offences. The report recommends that these should be increased to £15 and £30 respectively with effect from 1 January 1990. As required by section 88 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, I shall be consulting representative organisations about these proposed increases. I shall also be seeking views about those of the working group's other recommendations which would involve primary legislation.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received the report of the war crimes inquiry; and whether he intends to publish it.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have received the inquiry's report. I am examining it, first with a view to publication subject to the need to avoid prejudicing the position of individuals or any proceedings which might take place.

EMPLOYMENT

  Jobcentres and Benefit Offices
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of pilot schemes for integration between jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 10 May, at column 441.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the changes in the planned figures for his Department's expenditure for 1989–90 and subsequent years in Cm. 607 from the plans for those years in Cm. 288; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Cope
  The plans for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 in Cm. 607 show a decrease of £232 million and £340 million respectively from the plans in Cm. 288. This was mainly because the rapid growth in the economy and fall in unemployment allowed a decrease in planned expenditure on employment and training programmes.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the reasons for any differences between the 1988–89 public expenditure plans for his Department published in Cm. 288 and the latest 1988–89 estimated outturn; and how much of any increase is attributable to use of the Reserve.

  Mr. Cope
  The estimated outturn for 1988–89 is 22 per cent. lower than the 1988–89 public expenditure plans published in Cm. 288. This is due mainly to training volumes being lower than planned for adult and youth training because of the rapid growth of the economy and decrease in unemployment.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new commitments have been undertaken which will involve spending by his Department after 1991–92 since the publication of Cm. 288.

  Mr. Cope
  Since the publication of Cm. 288 the Department has entered into the following new commitments which will involve spending in the years after 1991–92: Employment training, business growth training, training and enterprise councils, compacts, enterprise in higher education and Seville expo 92. In addition, as announced in the Official Report, 27 October 1988, column 318, from 1 April 1990 the Health and Safety Commission will take over the Department of Energy's responsibility for contracting research programmes related to the safety of established thermal nuclear power stations.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the guidelines for programmes under the European social fund for the next three years will be available to local authorities.

  Mr. Cope
  The European Commission published its guidelines concerning European social fund intervention in respect of action against long-term unemployment and occupational integration of young people in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 24 February 1989. My Department circulated these guidelines, the new European social fund regulations and its own guidance to all past fund applicants and representatives of the local authority associations on 11 April 1989. My Department also circulated to them on 21 June 1989 its own guidance on how to complete the European Commission's form for operational programmes, "Application For Assistance From The European Social Fund".

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of unfilled vacancies and the unemployment figure in Doncaster and Mexborough, for April of each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  The following is the available information, which is also in the Library. The table shows the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres covering the area most closely corresponding to the Doncaster travel-to-work area, together with the number of unemployed claimants in the Doncaster travel-to-work area, for April of each year from 1984 to 1989. Unemployment figures are affected by changes in the coverage of the count. Corresponding figures for 1979 to 1983 are not available.

  Unemployment and unfilled vacancies in Doncaster travel-to-work area for April 1984 to 1989

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Number of unfilled vacancies

  1984

  18,555

  1156

  1985

  19,575

  1128

  1986

  21,897

  178

  1987

  20,692

  352

  1988

  17,491

  382

  1989

  13,327

  462

  1 Number of unfilled vacancies given are for the month of March as April data are not available.

  Training
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the training schemes sponsored by his Department, the total numbers targeted for those schemes, the actual numbers attending, the costs, and the payments made to trainees in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures for total numbers targeted and payments made to trainees can be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  The following table shows the numbers of people in Great Britain who started on an adult or youth training scheme, sponsored by the Training Agency (formerly Training Commission, formerly Manpower Services Commission), for each year from 1984–85 to 1988–89 and the cost.

  F/Y ended March

  Adult Training (000's)

  Cost £ million

  YTS (000's)

  Cost £ million

  1985

  183

  265·2

  397

  780·7

  1986

  328

  261·9

  406

  809·8

  1987

  534

  302·8

  420

  861·0

  1988

  619

  341·5

  398

  991·0

  11989

  640

  626·3

  397

  993·8

  1 Starts for 1988–89 are subject to revision and costs figures have not been audited.

  Skilled Labour
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what response he has made to the Confederation of British Industry industrial trends survey suggesting a shortage of skilled labour;

  (2) what response he has made to the survey published by the Institute of Directors suggesting nearly half the companies questioned said it had become more difficult to recruit skilled employees.
  404
  Mr. Cope
  I am aware of the results of these surveys. The Government are continuing to encourage employers to define and tackle their own skill needs particularly through the introduction of training and enterprise councils and business growth training. The Government are also helping young people and the unemployed to learn new skills through YTS and employment training.

  EC Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to establish from the European Commission whether the directives on a minimum wage, on trade union rights, on employee participation and on holiday entitlement and rest period for part time workers as proposed in the "Community charter for fundamental social rights" Com. 89–248-final, will fall to be presented to the Council on the basis of majority voting.

  Mr. Cope
  The voting arrangements for a particular proposal depend on the substance of the proposal and on the specific article(s) of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, appropriate to this. Until a draft proposal is agreed by the Commission it is not possible to know on which article the Commission will be basing its proposals.

  Council for Social Aid, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much public money from the Training Agency has been given to the Council for Social Aid, Manchester, and on what dates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: Money advanced by the Training Agency to the Council for Social Aid was in accordance with the terms of the council's contract with the Training Agency. The precise terms of this contract are confidential to the parties involved.

  Health and Safety (Sunderland)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the companies in Sunderland recently served with enforcement notices by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 26 June 1989] Information on enforcement notices is not published except in the minority of cases where notices have implications for the safety of the public and details of these are available at the Health and Safety Executive's local area offices.

PRIME MINISTER

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to meet Mencap and other organisations representing the disabled to discuss the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and its implementation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans to do so. the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Heavy Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the use of heavy commercial vehicles.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the use of heavy commercial vehicles.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received about a dozen such representations this year. They have concerned a variety of subjects, such as general environmental and safety issues, accidents involving dangerous goods, improved facilities for lorry drivers, and the possibility of transferring freight from road on to rail.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the people of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received many representations about Hong Kong following the recent appalling events in China. My right hon. Friend met Dame Lydia Dunn, Senior Member of the Executive Council and Mr. Allan Lee, Senior Member of the Legislative Council on 23 June. She listend to their concerns and reaffirmed the Government's determination to work for a secure and prosperous future for Hong Kong, as provided for in the Sino-British joint declaration.

  Whales
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in the light of the recommendations made at the 41st annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission which took place in San Diego, California, from 12 June to 16 June 1989, Her Majesty's Government will recommend to the European Commission that concerted action be taken against those nations which continue to slaughter whales and which claim that they need to acquire dead whales for research purposes.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Community does not have any competence on whaling matters. Those member states with an interest in whaling are already members of the International Whaling Commission and we consult them in that relevant forum. At its recent annual meeting the IWC adopted resolutions which were jointly sponsored by the United Kingdom, calling upon Japan, Norway and Iceland to reconsider their whaling research plans.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the disadvantage of economic and monetary union in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Malpas, Newport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she is planning to visit the Malpas area of Newport, Gwent.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present no plans to do so.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has had any recent representations from the British Medical Association.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a copy of a letter which I understand has been sent to all right hon. and hon. Members.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding higher education.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister receives many representations on education matters, including the Government's policies for higher education, which have helped secure a 27 per cent. increase in student numbers over the last decade.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received many representations about unleaded petrol.

  The Government have taken many steps to promote unleaded petrol. We played a major role in securing agreement in 1985 for the future introduction of unleaded petrol within the European Community. The unleaded petrol directive requires that member states should ensure the availability and balanced distribution of the fuel by October of this year. Regulations have been adopted which will require all new cars on sale in the United Kingdom to run on the fuel by October of next year.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has progressively increased the duty differential in favour of unleaded petrol over a three-year period and this has resulted in the fuel being now on sale about 10p a gallon cheaper at the pumps than 4-star leaded petrol. A successful Government-funded advertising campaign was shown on television during April to motivate motorists to have their cars adjusted and to use the fuel. Numerous other initiatives have been implemented with considerable assistance offered by the private sector. The Motability lead-free campaign has been very successful in obtaining support from major companies to promote the fuel.

  The success of these measures can now be seen in the rapid uptake of the fuel, which is now accounting for over 19 per cent. of the market. Unleaded petrol is readily available; at least 50 per cent. of petrol stations now stock it.

  Mr. Lech Walesa
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the election results in Poland on 4 June, she will now extend an official invitation to visit the United Kingdom to Mr. Lech Walesa.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Mr. Walesa already has an official invitation to visit the United Kingdom. We hope he will take it up as soon as possible. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw another Solidarity leader, Professor Geremek, when he was in London last week at our invitation.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall),Official Report, 6 June, column 15, she will make a further statement on the postal monopoly and competition.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 6 June, at column 15.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Prime Minister what action will she take in order to stop the destruction of the rain forests in the Brazilian national park by BP; and if she will take steps to oblige BP to reforest the 250,000 acres it has destroyed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be visiting Brazil, including the Amazon, from 4–9 July. During his visit he will be discussing with Brazilian Ministers and officials our efforts to identify effective ways of helping them with a wide range of environmental problems including rain forest conservation. He will also be meeting representatives of British companies operating in Brazil, with whom he hopes to discuss their role in environmental protection.

  The hon. Member will be aware of recent media reports alleging involvement by United Kingdom companies in rain forest destruction. We are studying these, but I understand that the companies, including BP, claim that these press reports contain important errors of fact.

  More generally, Britain is a leading supporter of the tropical forestry action plan and the International Tropical Timber Organisation, which aim to help countries conserve their forests and manage them sustainably.

  EC Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she intends to sign the Community "Charter for Fundamental Social Rights", Com. 89–248-final, at the Madrid meeting of the European Council.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement in due course.

  Engagements
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the European Council in Madrid.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which public relations firms his Department has employed, and at what cost, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Apart from the special circumstances of privatisation work, the consistent practice of successive Governments has been to avoid the use of public relations or other firms for public relations work. The following firms were retained to advise on privatisations:

  Charles Barker Lyons, 1981

  Dewe Rogerson, 1984 and 1988

  Streets Financial, 1985

  Valin Pollen, 1986

  Details of such contracts, including their cost, are commercially confidential.

  Television Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total cost of the television advertising campaign on the enterprise initiative; and what is the cost expressed in terms of expenditure for each successful application received.

  Mr. Forth
  Expenditure on television advertising for the Enterprise Initiative since January 1988 has been about £13 million. Up to 2 June 1989, over 26,500 firms had successfully applied for assisted EI consultancies. It is not appropriate, however, to express one in terms of the other since the advertising has been concerned with the Enterprise Initiative as a whole and not just the six EI consultancy initiatives.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is the total employment in the steel industry for every year since 1959 in the United Kingdom;
  409
  (2) what is the total steel production in million tonnes for every year since 1959 in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  Steel Production and Employment in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Crude steel (million tonnes)

  Employment (thousands, end year)

  1959

  20·5

  n.a.

  1960

  24·7

  n.a.

  1961

  22·4

  n.a.

  1962

  20·8

  n.a.

  1963

  22·9

  n.a.

  1964

  26·6

  n.a.

  1965

  27·4

  n.a.

  1966

  24·7

  n.a.

  1967

  24·3

  n.a.

  1968

  26·3

  n.a.

  1969

  26·8

  n.a.

  1970

  28·3

  n.a.

  1971

  24·2

  n.a.

  1972

  25·3

  n.a.

  1973

  26·6

  198·5

  1974

  22·3

  196·9

  1975

  20·1

  184·4

  1976

  22·3

  182·3

  1977

  20·4

  178·9

  1978

  20·3

  165·4

  1979

  21·5

  156·6

  1980

  11·3

  112·1

  1981

  15·6

  88·2

  1982

  13·7

  74·5

  1983

  15·0

  63·7

  1984

  15·1

  61·9

  1985

  15·7

  59·0

  1986

  14·7

  55·9

  1987

  17·4

  54·9

  1988

  19·0

  55·1

  Employment on European Coal and Steel Community Treaty activities, only.

  Source: Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  n.a.: not available.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he has received a copy of the Post Office's reply to the couriers' complaint to the European Commission about anti-competitive postal practices; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will discuss with the European Commission the complaint by the courier services about remail;

  (3) what discussions his Department has had with the European Commission about the formal complaint made by private courier services about anti-competitive practices by postal administrations; and if he will raise the matter in future discussions.

  Mr. Forth
  The question of the couriers' complaint is a matter between the European Commission and the postal administrations concerned, in our case the Post Office. I have not received a copy.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received the CEPT working party's proposal for a European postal monopoly; and if he will make a statement.
  410
  Mr. Forth
  No. As far as I am aware, no such proposal exists although many postal administrations have argued that they need some form of monopoly to support the cost of their social obligations.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report (a) all overseas visits made in 1988 and 1989 by officials in his Department in connection with the ITU, CEPT and UPU, (b) the cost of each visit, (c) the length of each visit, (d) the purpose of each visit and (e) the number and duration of visits which are planned in the current financial year.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not readily available and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer the Post Office letter post service to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what discussions he has had with officials in New Zealand regarding their intention to liberalise the postal monopoly.

  (2) what discussions he has had with postal officials in Gibraltar regarding their intention to integrate the private sector into public postal services.

  (3) what discussions he has had with the European Commission about European postal services from 1993.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has received from Post Office Counters Ltd. for future private investment.

  Mr. Forth
  Details of such plans would be commercially confidential.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has received from Post Office Parcels Ltd. for private investment in the parcels network.

  Mr. Forth
  Details of such plans would be commercially confidential.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he will take to ensure freepost election communications are not delayed by industrial action.

  Mr. Forth
  Post Office industrial relations are the responsibility of the board. However, I understand that the Post Office discusses arrangements for the delivery of election communications both nationally and locally in advance, to minimise the possibility of disputes when such deliveries are pending.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost to the British Overseas Trade Board of the recent report it commissioned from the Institute of Logistics and Distribution Management; and what were its terms of reference.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Department agreed to pay for the cost of preparation of this report up to £54,000.

  The terms of reference were for a study of the United Kingdom express goods services markets for destinations in mainland Europe, North America and the far east.
  411
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will discuss the options for change in the letter monopoly with the Association of International Courier and Express Services.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans for such a meeting.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when his Department will meet interested parties to discuss the report prepared for the British Overseas Trade Board on the market for express goods services between the United Kingdom and Europe, North America and the far east.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has discussed the report with the Association of International Courier and Express Services, and is ready to meet other interested parties who may wish to present views.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when his Department will next meet the Institute of Logistics and Distribution Management, and what issues he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department is keeping in contact with the institute on how it is seeking to encourage United Kingdom industry to respond further to the growing opportunities in the express freight market demonstrated in the recent report on the subject prepared by the institute.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether all non-monopoly services are wholly independent of the Post Office's letter service.

  Mr. Forth
  While the Post Office businesses are financially independent, they are not operationally independent but charge at commercial rates for services to each other. Letters costing over £1, and so outside the monopoly limit, are not carried separately from letters below £1.

  Post Office Board
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what increase in remuneration was awarded to each member of the Post Office board on 1 April.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about board members' remuneration is published in the Post Office's annual accounts for the year in question.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now opted for grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has so far approved proposals for grant-maintained status from 19 schools. A further 24 have published proposals, or voted to do so, and he will determine these on their merits in due course.

  Special Educational Provision
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiatives are planned by his Department to improve special educational provision in secondary schools.
  412
  Mr. Butcher
  Special educational provision in secondary schools is primarily a responsibility of LEAs. The introduction of the national curriculum is a major initiative which will enable LEAs and schools to improve educational provision for all children, not least those who require special educational provision. The in-service training of teachers in ordinary schools with a designated responsibility for pupils with special educational needs is a national priority area in the Department's local education authority training grants scheme.

  Postgraduate Students
  Sir William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of United Kingdom students enrolled in postgraduate studies in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers of home students enrolled in postgraduate studies in United Kingdom public institutions are as follows (thousands).

  Number (Thousands)

  1979–80

  81·5

  1980–81

  84·8

  1981–82

  85·0

  1982–83

  84·6

  1983–84

  87·1

  1984–85

  91·0

  1985–86

  90·7

  1986–87

  100·2

  1987–88

  103·7

  These figures exclude the Open University (1,300 in 1986–87).

  School Governors
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has of the extent to which places for parents' representatives on school governing bodies are being filled by parents who are teachers employed at other schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a survey of a sample of school governing bodies, and their membership. One of the questions concerns the occupational background of governors.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that appropriate training is available to school governors in the light of their increased responsibilities under local management schemes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Local education authorities have a duty to make any necessary training available to school governors. The Government are paying education support grant on nearly £5 million of local authority expenditure on school governor training in England this year. Government funds have supported the production of national training materials on the local management of schools. We are discussing with LEAs and others the scope for further national initiatives.

  First Aid and Fire Safety
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to establish the existence of effective fire safety and first aid arrangements in schools and colleges; and with what result.

  Mr. Butcher
  Responsibility for fire safety and first aid arrangements in maintained schools and colleges rests with the local education authorities.

  Guidance on fire safety is contained in the Department's "Building Bulletin No. 7", and in September 1987 the Department issued a note of guidance on arrangements for first aid provision in schools and colleges to all authorities.

  University Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the recent pay agreement between the management and staff sides in the universities.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Government have today accepted proposals put forward by the university employers and staff sides for salary increases for non-clinical academic staff in 1989–90. I am pleased that these provide for greater flexibility and differentiation in the salaries of lecturers and professors to take account of merit and market conditions. The Government have agreed that an extra £37 million should be made available for university staff pay this year, with corresponding sums in future years.

  The universities have also provided evidence of satisfactory progress with the appraisal of their staff. I have accordingly authorised the Universities Funding Council to release to universities the £67 million which was conditional on the production of that evidence.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers (Re-entrants)
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby 13 April,Official Report, columns 629–30, he will publish a similar table for the year ended March 1987 showing (a) re-entrants to maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools by sector, (b) re-entrants to maintained secondary schools by graduate status and degree subjects and (c) re-entrants to maintained secondary schools by sex and age.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: Figures for the year ending March, 1987 (and also revised figures for 1986) of qualified teachers re-entering full-time service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England are as follows:

  Year ending 1986

  1987

  Re-entrants to maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools by sector

  Re-entrants to nursery and primary schools number

  8,150

  8,650

  414

  Year ending 1986

  1987

  as a percentage of all entrants to these schools

  64

  62

  Re-entrants to secondary schools number

  6,880

  6,770

  as a percentage of all entrants to these schools

  49

  48

  Re-entrants to nursery, primary and secondary schools number

  15,030

  15,420

  as a percentage of all entrants to these schools

  56

  55

  Re-entrants to maintained secondary schools by graduate status and degree subject

  Graduate re-entrants

  3,680

  3,600

  Of which, number whose degree subject is:

  Mathematics

  240

  230

  Physics

  110

  90

  Other Sciences

  520

  550

  Geography

  210

  200

  Economics and other social

  sciences

  280

  290

  English

  550

  550

  History

  280

  280

  Modern languages

  430

  420

  Other subjects

  1,060

  990

  Non-graduate re-entrants

  3,210

  3,170

  Re-entrants to maintained secondary schools by sex and age

  Men re-entrants

  1,430

  1,510

  Of which, number aged:

  less than 30

  300

  240

  30–34

  340

  350

  35–39

  310

  350

  40–44

  190

  250

  45–49

  140

  150

  50 or over

  150

  160

  Women re-entrants

  5,460

  5,260

  Of which, number aged:

  less than 30

  670

  520

  30–34

  1,180

  1,040

  35–39

  1,860

  1,710

  40–44

  1,020

  1,110

  45–49

  430

  550

  50 or over

  300

  320

  Teachers
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England left full-time service in the maintained sector at or beyond normal retirement age in the year to March 1987;

  (2) if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby of 27 April, Official Report, columns 619–20, he will publish a similar table for the year ended March 1987 showing an analysis by age and sex of leavers below normal retirement age;

  (3) if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby, 13 April, Official Report, columns 630–32, he will publish a similar table for the year ended March 1987 showing full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools leaving full-time service before normal retirement age; and if he will estimate the number of teachers retiring early in that year.
  415
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: Figures for the year ending March 1987 (and also revised and corrected figures for 1984–86) of full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England leaving full-time service in the maintained sector are as follows:

  Year ending March

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  All leavers aged 60 or over

  1,900

  1,800

  1,630

  1,310

  All leavers aged under 60

  13,750

  15,070

  15,750

  14,490

  Men leavers under 60 of which, number aged:

  4,810

  5,520

  6,080

  5,550

  less than 30

  1,060

  1,060

  1,200

  1,060

  30–34

  820

  900

  940

  900

  35–39

  590

  730

  890

  870

  40–44

  330

  440

  480

  480

  45–49

  340

  360

  370

  380

  50–54

  600

  780

  860

  780

  55–59

  1,070

  1,250

  1,340

  1,080

  Women leavers under 60 of which, number aged:

  8,950

  9,550

  9,680

  8,940

  less than 30

  3,140

  3,070

  2,700

  2,370

  30–34

  2,110

  2,200

  2,210

  2,110

  35–39

  1,050

  1,210

  1,410

  1,330

  40–44

  600

  680

  810

  850

  45–49

  430

  520

  590

  590

  50–54

  690

  810

  900

  820

  55–59

  930

  1,060

  1,060

  870

  Graduate leavers under 60 of which, number whose degree subject is:

  8,050

  9,050

  9,620

  9,110

  Mathematics

  630

  650

  750

  640

  Physics

  260

  290

  310

  260

  Other sciences

  1,250

  1,450

  1,460

  1,330

  Geography

  480

  580

  550

  550

  Economics and other social sciences

  670

  760

  750

  690

  English

  1,160

  1,270

  1,230

  1,060

  History

  610

  690

  690

  600

  Modern languages

  1,050

  1,170

  1,150

  970

  Other subjects

  1,930

  2,210

  2,720

  3,030

  Non-graduate leavers under 60

  5,710

  6,020

  6,140

  5,370

  The figures for leavers under 60 in the years ending March 1986 and 1987 include about 3,800 and 3,100 early retirements respectively.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many families in receipt of family credit also receive a local authority rent rebate and a rate rebate;

  (2) how many families in receipt of family credit also receive a local authority rate rebate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provisional information suggests that in May 1988, 62,000 families receiving some form of housing benefit were also receiving family credit. Further information is not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the families receiving family credit are estimated to be entitled to(a) a rent rebate and (b) a rate rebate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information from the 1985–86 family expenditure survey (FES), updated to 1988–89, suggests 416
  that of the families receiving family credit 7·4 per cent. would be entitled to a rent rebate or rent allowance only; 17·6 per cent. to a rate rebate only; and 5 per cent. to both a rent rebate-allowance and rate rebate.

  Departmental Agencies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how his Department's agencies will improve service to the public.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Department of Social Security agencies will improve service to his social security customers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The establishment of agency status for Social Security operations will enable us to carry forward and strengthen our existing strategy for improving service to the public.

  In particular agencies will ensure:
  delegation of decision-making to the lowest possible level giving a quicker, more sensitive response to local needs; clear objectives for the quality of service to be achieved, expressed as performance targets, and;
  effective performance measurement to ensure that those targets are met.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to undertake a full review of the regulations concerning the payment of mobility allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall look at mobility allowance, in common with other benefits for people with disabilities, in the light of the findings of the OPCS surveys of disability.

  Children
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in the Don Valley constituency are dependent upon(a) income support and (b) family income supplement or family credit for the latest year he has figures (i) in total, and (ii) as a percentage of all children in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Availability for Work
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list(a) the number of claimants of all supplementary benefits, (b) the number of claimants of supplementary pensions, (c) the number of claimants of supplementary allowances and (d) the numbers of claimants of supplementary benefits required to be available for work, in respect of his Department's local offices in Doncaster, and the Mexborough area, for April of each year from 1979 to 1989;

  (2) if he will list (a) the total number of claimants receiving income support, (b) claimants of income support receiving pensioner premiums and (c) the number of claimants of income support required to be available for work, in respect of his Department's local offices in Doncaster, and the Mexborough area, for April of each year from 1979 to 1989;

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:
  417

  Number of claimants receiving supplementary benefit income support by statistical category

  Local office

  1May 1979

  May 1980

  May 1981

  May 1982

  May 1983

  May 1984

  May 1985

  May 1986

  May 1987

  May 1988

  2May 1989

  E

  1,631

  1,647

  2,758

  4,020

  4,914

  4,989

  5,298

  5,328

  5,181

  4,002

  3,765

  Doncaster East

  A

  1,449

  1,383

  1,582

  1,903

  2,212

  2,910

  3,111

  3,270

  3,629

  3,013

  3,210

  ILO

  P

  2,686

  2,683

  2,744

  2,751

  2,889

  2,889

  2,899

  2,904

  3,059

  3,131

  3,143

  Total

  5,766

  5,713

  7,084

  8,674

  10,015

  10,788

  11,308

  11,502

  11,869

  10,146

  10,118

  E

  1,652

  1,942

  3,560

  5,127

  6,131

  6,501

  6,672

  7,061

  6,676

  5,249

  4,734

  Doncaster West

  A

  1,964

  2,007

  2,157

  2,630

  2,900

  3,607

  3,920

  3,961

  4,621

  4,153

  4,209

  ILO

  P

  3,531

  3,536

  3,528

  3,876

  3,600

  3,760

  3,551

  3,495

  3,644

  3,516

  3,452

  Total

  7,147

  7,485

  9,245

  11,633

  12,631

  13,868

  14,143

  14,517

  14,941

  12,918

  12,395

  E

  1,036

  1,225

  1,958

  2,856

  3,344

  3,416

  3,695

  3,905

  3,488

  3,067

  3,054

  Wath-on-Dearne

  A

  1,236

  1,186

  1,365

  1,495

  1,771

  2,228

  2,392

  2,476

  2,595

  2,355

  2,618

  AO

  P

  1,904

  1,864

  1,878

  1,990

  2,079

  2,052

  2,016

  1,983

  2,000

  1,844

  1,815

  Total

  4,176

  4,275

  5,201

  6,341

  7,194

  7,696

  8,103

  8,364

  8,083

  7,266

  7,487

  1 E = claimants required to be available for work.

  A = claimants not required to register for work.

  P = pensioners.

  2 1989 data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action; this will include a number of cases where benefit payments have ceased but other action is continuing.

  Late Claims
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give(a) the number of claims for income support where entitlement has been recognised but the claim has been disallowed on the grounds of late submission, (b) the total value of these claims, (c) the number of such claims appealed against with the number successful and (e) the cost of dealing with these claims and appeals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Benefits
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of recipients of supplementary benefit or supplementary pension or income support for each year from 1969 to the present.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Supplementary Benefit

  All claimants

  Supplementary pensioners1

  Other claimants

  November 1969

  2,688,000

  1,875,000

  813,000

  November 1970

  2,738,000

  1,902,000

  836,000

  November 1971

  2,909,000

  1,919,000

  990,000

  November 1972

  2,911,000

  1,909,000

  1,002,000

  November 1973

  2,675,000

  1,844,000

  831,000

  November 1974

  2,680,000

  1,807,000

  872,000

  December 1975

  2,793,000

  1,679,000

  1,113,000

  December 1976

  2,960,000

  1,687,000

  1,274,000

  November 1977

  2,991,000

  1,738,000

  1,253,000

  November 1978

  2,932,000

  1,738,000

  1,195,000

  November 1979

  2,855,000

  1,723,000

  1,132,000

  December 1980

  3,118,000

  1,694,000

  1,423,000

  December 1981

  3,723,000

  1,738,000

  1,895,000

  December 1982

  4,267,000

  1,781,000

  2,486,000

  December 1983

  4,350,000

  1,651,000

  2,699,000

  December 1984

  4,609,000

  1,683,000

  2,926,000

  February 1986

  4,938,000

  1,717,000

  3,221,000

  May 1987

  4,896,000

  1,727,000

  3,169,000

  418

  Income Support

  All claimants

  Pensioners2

  Other claimants

  May 1988

  34,352,000

  31,719,000

  32,632,000

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries.

  1 Claimants over pension age (65 for men, 60 for women).

  2 Claimant, or any partner, aged 60 or over.

  3 Latest available estimates.

  There was no Annual Statistical Enquiry in 1985: the one due in December that year was deferred until February 1986.

  EC Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will seek to establish from the European Commission whether the directives on a Euro-pension for the elderly and for a minimum entitlement for unemployment benefit, as proposed in. the Community "Charter for Fundamental Social Rights" 89–248-final, will fall to be presented to the Council on the basis of majority voting.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The voting procedure for Commission proposals depends on the articles of the treaty of Rome on which they are based. The articles which cover social security require unanimity.

HEALTH

  Cochlear Implants
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure that cochlear implants are readily provided by the National Health Service for those profoundly deaf patients who could benefit from them.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provision of cochlear implants is a matter for health authorities in the light of their assessment of local needs and priorities. This is an important new development and I have asked officials to review the
  419
  position to see whether some form of additional help from the centre would be possible. Given the complexity of the funding issues involved, no early decision will be possible.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future provision of resources for teaching and training of doctors under the proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In the White Paper we emphasised the Government's continuing commitment to maintaining the quality of medical education. We recognised that hospitals in which teaching and research take place incur higher costs as a result, and said that we had decided to accept that the service increment for teaching—(SIFT)—should be enhanced. More recently, I announced in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on 6 June that we have agreed to improve means for the distribution of SIFT. We have also stressed the importance we continue to attach to the postgraduate training of doctors, and our intention is that hospitals should not be placed at an unfair disadvantage or advantage in the distribution of resources by undertaking such training.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the intended effects of the increased capitation element in the new general practitioners' contract for patient care.

  Mr. Mellor
  By increasing the proportion of general practitioners' income which comes from capitation payments we will be encouraging greater competition in the family doctor service. This will ensure a better service for patients by giving GPs a greater incentive to provide the best possible range and quality of service to all patients.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how patient care will be affected by the proposals to allow large general practitioner practices to hold their own budgets.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications for patient care of the proposals for general practitioners' practices to operate their own budgets.

  Mr. Mellor
  The introduction of practice budgets, in common with our other proposals for the National Health Service, will lead to even higher standards of service and better quality of care for patients. General practitioners who choose to have budgets will for the first time hold the purse-strings to finance the treatment of their patients which falls within the scope of the budget. This will mean that hospitals will become more responsive to the needs of GPs and their patients. Practice budget holders will also be able to transfer funds between the different elements of the budget which will provide them with greater flexibility in meeting the individual needs of their patients. Greater freedom in managing their own budgets will enhance the clinical freedom of the doctors involved.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" on medical audit will affect patient care.
  420
  Mr. Mellor
  The objectives of developing a comprehensive system of medical audit as proposed in the White Paper is to enhance the overall quality of care given to patients in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the intended effects of the changes in composition of the family practitioner committees proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on 23 May 1989, at columns 482–83.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests for information he has now received from hospitals inquiring about the possibility of obtaining self-governing status.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  People or groups interested in self-governing status have been advised to direct inquiries in the first instance to their regional health authority. RHAs have so far notified my Department of a total of 179 expressions of interest, including a number of units which feature more than one hospital.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposals to allow hospitals to become self-governing National Health Service hospitals will affect patient care.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will explain the effects of the proposals to allow hospitals to become self-governing.

  Mr. Mellor
  Self-governing hospitals will remain firmly within the NHS and there will be safeguards to ensure that essential local services continue to be provided locally. But they will have far more freedom to take their own decisions on the matters which affect them most without detailed supervision from above. This will give patients more choice, produce a better quality service and encourage other hospitals to do even better in order to compete.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the benefits for patient care of the indicative drug budgets proposed in the National Health Service White Paper.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much account has been taken under the proposals for prescribing budgets of the needs of patients in receipt of drugs on a long-term basis.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how patient care will be affected by the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients", for indicative drug budgets.

  Mr. Mellor
  Indicative prescribing budgets will provide a further incentive to general practitioners to examine their prescribing patterns critically and in particular to avoid excessive and unncessary prescribing. This is very much in the best interests of patients and more economical prescribing will release money for other forms of patient care in the NHS,. We have made it clear that the amount allocated to a practice for its indicative prescribing budget will take into account the presence on the practice's list of
  421
  patients, such as the elderly or chronically sick, who need drugs on a longer-term basis. All patients will always get the drugs they need.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of consultants' contract hours he expects to be devoted to administrative work as a result of the proposals in the White Paper on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are not making any estimate of the time consultants will spend in administrative work, but we expect—and would wish to see—consultants taking an increasing management role, as "Working for Patients" makes clear, through the devolution of managerial responsibility, the extension of resource management, and the establishment of self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the proposals contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients", relating to medical audits.

  Mr. Mellor
  The proposal to develop a comprehensive system of medical audit in the NHS has been widely welcomed and the medical profession supports the concept of audit and consider it a central part of the doctor's obligation to his patient.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any expressions of interest from general practitioners' practices about operating their own practice budgets.

  Mr. Mellor
  Although we have not yet asked GPs to register formally their interest in becoming budget holders, we are encouraged by the level of interest from eligible practices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the proposals in the National Health Service White Paper will have on the distance that patients will have to travel for treatment.

  Mr. Mellor
  Surveys suggest that many people are willing to travel for better and quicker treatment. In setting contracts for services district health authorities will take full account of the wishes of patients and there will be no question of patients being expected to travel unreasonable distances.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the conditions which have to be fulfilled before the authorities in a National Health Service hospital apply to be self governing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The main criteria were set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" and working paper (1) "Self-governing Hospitals". Further details are given in the document "Self Governing Hospitals: An Initial Guide" published last week and copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the additional £40 million to assist with the implementation of the National Health Service reforms will be allocated.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give further details of the recently announced extra £40 million for the implementation of the health service reforms.
  422
  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friends to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 26 June, at columns 315–16.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the latest date of the promotion and information relating to his White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am introducing into the NHS a system of regular direct communications with the staff which I believe is necessary for any large organisation and certainly for one which employs over 1 million people. It is misleading to compare this with public advertising or political promotion campaigns of the kind being conducted by the BMA and other interest groups. The cost of the communications exercise to inform the staff and management of the NHS about the White Paper proposals is approximately £1·25 million.

  Estimated expenditure on the next stage of information for NHS staff about self-governing hospitals will be some £750,000.

  The only expenditure on material aimed at the public included in these sums is the cost of:

  (a) a leaflet for the public on the White Paper proposals, costing £117,000;

  (b) a further leaflet to be made available to the general public on request in the local areas of units which have expressed an interest in becoming self governing, costing £13,000.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to privatise self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how patients' choice will be affected by the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the implications for patient choice of the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Mellor
  A fundamental aim of the White Paper proposals is to make the Health Service more responsive to the needs of patients. We will stimulate better services to patients by encouraging suitable hospitals to apply for self-governing status, by delegating responsibility to local level and by allowing money for patients' treatment to cross administrative borders. GPs will be able to improve the service they offer their patients by applying for their own budgets. Patients will be able to choose their GPs on the basis of the services they offer. We intend to raise the performance of all hospitals and GPs to that of the best. The reformed Health Service will offer a better quality of service and better value for money.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received in respect of his proposals to cash-limit general practitioners' budgets.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his consultations to date on the White Paper "Working for Patients".
  423
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Consultations are continuing and have been useful. In particular, I have held many meetings with members of the medical profession and have established that, despite some remaining important disagreements, there is a substantial area of agreement.

  There is almost universal agreement with the aims of the White Paper to produce a better NHS for patients giving medical treatment free at the point of delivery regardless of means and financed largely as now out of general taxation.

  I also judge that the great majority of doctors accept the need for a framework of quality control, in the form of medical audit; the distribution of resources in a way which ensures that "money follows the patient"; and improved systems of financial management using modern information technology. The BMA has told me in meetings that it accepts these three proposals but it has fundamental disagreements with the details of our proposed reforms to implement them. Unfortunately, it and the great majority of doctors have no alternative proposals of their own. The BMA has been discouraging its members from putting constructive alternative proposals to me.

  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" will affect general practitioners' freedom to refer patients for treatment.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The new arrangements will enable general practitioners to play a more direct part in deciding which hospitals will provide services for their patients. GP practice budget holders will be able to refer patients to hospitals which provide the best care and shortest waiting times irrespective of administrative boundaries. Those practitioners who do not hold budgets will be consulted extensively before DHAs place contracts with hospitals based on GPs' wishes and there will be provision for GPs to make extra-contractual referrals.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how patients will be affected by the proposals in the White Paper," Working for Patients"; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the intended effects on patient care of the proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  Our proposals will produce a better quality of care for all NHS patients, including elderly and chronically sick people. We intend to bring all services up to the standard of the very best and to make certain that taxpayers' money is used to best effect from the patient's point of view. The proposals reflect our strong commitment to the principles on which the NHS was founded and will ensure that it is more than ready to face the rapidly changing and rising demands upon it as medical science progresses and the average age of the population rises.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to(a) sponsor adequate research and (b) undertake pilot projects to an adequate level on the likely effects of the White Paper proposals on the effectiveness of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  Many of our proposals are evolutionary in nature and we will learn from the experience gained. We 424
  are quite satisfied that the NHS needs reform on the lines proposed to improve its management and to improve the service to patients.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes that self-governing hospitals will be required to retain core services.

  Mr. Mellor
  Before self-governing status is granted to a hospital the initial arrangements for provision of core services will have to be approved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Thereafter self-governing hospitals will be expected to continue to provide these services subject to review at the request of either the hospital or the DHA concerned or, in the event of disagreement, the Secretary of State's further approval.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current situation with regard to the new contract for general practitioners.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On the 4 May I reached agreement with the negotiators of the General Medical Services Committee on all the major outstanding issues in the new contract. The negotiators undertook to commend this agreement to the annual conference of local medical committee representatives on 21 June. This conference voted to reject the agreement reached by the negotiators, and there will be a ballot of all GPs in the country.

  I am disappointed that the conference has rejected the contract which its own leadership commended to it. The contract negotiations were long and hard—over 100 hours of discussion spread over more than a year. The resulting agreement was hard fought and I made a number of important concessions which I would not have made but for my desire to reach an agreement if possible. Both sides agreed on the need for a new contract which rewarded good performance. I believe this contract does meet that need and I see no sensible basis upon which negotiations could be reopened. My task is to raise the quality of primary health care within the NHS and, in order to pursue that, I aim to have in place by 1990 a contract which rewards doctors who provide the highest standards of care for their patients and encourages the rest to match the performance of the best.

  Recent research by York university's centre for health economics has demonstrated the wide range of quality of service to patients provided in different parts of the country under the old contract. I shall be laying regulations before Parliament later this year to bring a new contract into effect by 1990.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give an estimate of what percentage of a district health authority's budget would be for contractual referrals for hospital care and what percentage would be for extra-contractual referrals under his White Paper.

  Mr. Mellor
  District health authorities will make provision, within their budgets, for the possibility of referrals which were not foreseen when they placed their contracts. The size of this contingency fund will be a matter for them. However, in deciding the pattern of contracts DHAs will be required to take account of the views of all local GPs and place contracts to secure the referral patterns which local GPs wish to see in place unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. In this way the need for a contingency fund will be minimised.
  425
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners budget holders practices he intends to approve to begin operating in 1991.

  Mr. Mellor
  Applications to participate in the practice budget scheme will be made to, and approved by, regional health authorities. It is too early to estimate the likely numbers which will be in operation from 1 April 1991, but there have been an encouraging number of preliminary inquiries.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of his White Paper "Working for Patients", especially relating to self-governing hospitals, on supra-regional services including poisons units.

  Mr. Mellor
  The NHS review White Paper has stated that"some central funding will he necessary for the development of supra-regional services".

  A working party is currently considering the implications of this for these services. The NHS management executive will discuss with regional health authorities the detailed application to specialist services of the new funding arrangements proposed. It is, however, too early to say how individual units will be affected.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, under his plans for capital valuation of self-governing hospitals, he will offset the cost of any backlog on building or equipment maintenance against the capital valuation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The valuation of the property occupied by self-governing hospitals will he on the basis of open market value for existing use. This valuation takes account of the age and condition of the buildings.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanism and estimate of cost exists for separating the cost of treatment from research and training in order that self-governing teaching hospitals have the necessary information to operate effectively.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have developed a method for estimating the excess service costs arising from teaching and research at hospitals where at least 5 per cent. of student teaching is undertaken. This is used in the calculation of the service increment for teaching (SIFT). Regions and districts as appropriate to local circumstances will contract with hospitals (including self-governing hospitals) to provide service facilities for teaching in return for SIFT payments.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he plans to introduce a system of cross charging for accident and emergency work under his proposals for self-governing hospitals where a hospital is situated near a major travel point or in a major commuter area;

  (2) whether, in those inner-city areas where patients are more likely to use accident and emergency services rather than a general practitioner, he has any plans either to allow a hospital to curtail such services or to cross charge a general practitioner or family practitioner committee for costs incurred.

  Mr. Mellor
  All hospitals which provide accident and emergency treatment will do so under a block contract 426
  with the health authority in whose district they are located. District health authorities will be responsible for securing sufficient accident and emergency services in their district irrespective of the place of residence for all patients who are present. There is no intention that family practitioner committees or GPs should be charged.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will postpone his plans to introduce general practitioners' budgets if all hospitals are not operating the necessary management and accounting systems needed to work out the nature of various contracts by April 1991.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are quite sure that district health authorities and GP practice budget holders will be able to manage the contractual process by April 1991.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the capital valuation of a self-governing hospital or unit is to be based on a value for present use or on the current market value of the site.

  Mr. Freeman
  The valuation of the property occupied by self-governing hospitals will be on the basis of open market value for existing use.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, if a hospital offers an integrated hospital and community midwifery service, he will ensure that the service continues if the hospital has opted out.

  Mr. Mellor
  Self-governing hospitals will not opt out but will remain fully within the NHS. The NHS will continue to provide integrated hospital and community services.

  Where maternity services are designated by a district health authority as "core services" my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will approve the initial arrangements for provision of such services on establishment of a self-governing hospital. The detailed arrangements will be set out in contracts between the hospital and health authority. Subsequent changes in provision will have to be either by agreement between the district health authority and self-governing hospital or have my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's approval.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether comprehensive care services will be provided at all self-governing hospitals;

  (2) whether emergency and outpatient facilities will be provided at all self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: We are prepared to consider all hospitals and a variety of other units as potentially eligible for self-governing status. Comprehensive core services or particular services need not necessarily be provided by each one.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I last met the British Medical Association on 14 June and it confirmed that it shared the aims of the Government to create a better National Health Service, as set out in the foreword to the White Paper.
  427
  The BMA also confirmed that it agrees on the desirability of introducing better financial control, and quality control in the form of medical audit in the service. It also agreed on the need to make money follow the patient, and to make patient service the prime objective of the service.

  It did not, however, agree with some of the major proposals in the White Paper such as self-governing hospitals, about which many people in the NHS have expressed interest. These proposals are crucial to delivering the better service which both I and the BMA want. It did not put forward any new proposals of its own to achieve those aims. It did agree to further discussions.

  I intend to reform the NHS to make it more able to provide an improved service to patients. I made it clear to the BMA that I would welcome a constructive contribution from it to that process of reform whenever it felt able to make one.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what matters were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the British Medical Association.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association representatives to discuss the Health Service review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of the British Medical Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the representatives of the British Medical Association; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) today.

  Head Inspections
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on head inspections in schools by health authority nursing staff.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the control of headlice infection among pupils rests with the individual health authorities through the school health service. It is for them to determine the policy for dealing with this problem in the light of local circumstances.

  Food (Health Risks)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to reduce or eliminate the risks to health in the food chain.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have introduced a range of measures designed to reduce the risk of food contamination and, with industry, are continuing to consider what further action is necessary.

  Both primary and secondary legislation are under review. We recently announced the intention to consult on changes in the food hygiene regulations, and the Government are presently considering the results of consultation on a wide-ranging review of the Food Act.
  428
  The Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has commenced work under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Richmond.

  Meanwhile we shall continue to act promptly to contain outbreaks of food poisoning which occur, and I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made on 13 June, at columns 703–9.

  Student Midwives
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will review the grading structure for qualified nurses who became student midwives prior to 1 April 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We will be responding shortly to the Social Services Committee's report on midwives' regrading, which raises this issue.

  Capital Programmes (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average annual expenditure on capital programmes in the area covered by the Yorkshire regional health authority between 1979 and 1989; what was the equivalent annual figure for the years between 1974 and 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following are figures derived from the annual accounts of the health authorities comprising the Yorkshire region:

  Average annual total capital expenditure

  Period

  £000 (Cash)

  1974–75 to 1978–79 (5 years)

  22,837

  1979–80 to 1987–881 (9 years)

  54,508

  1 Latest year available.

  The average figure for the later period represents an increase in real terms (measured at 1987–88 prices) of almost 10 per cent. on that for the earlier period.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to prevent coronary heart disease.

  Mr. Mellor
  Together with the Health Education Authority, the Department launched the "Look After Your Heart" campaign in April 1987 as an ongoing initiative to combat the high level of coronary heart disease. This initiative aims to increase awareness about the risk of heart disease and how it may be avoided, and to provide practical help to people in making the necessary changes to their lifestyle. It is doing this through publicity campaigns and special promotions, provision of detailed advice about smoking, nutrition and exercise, and funding of local initiatives. It has developed a very successful workplace element. These activities are currently being expanded, and other areas of work, such as with primary health care and in schools, are being developed.

  Much other work is also going on. The Government are taking specific action to discourage smoking, which is a key factor in causing heart disease, and excessive consumption of alcohol. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee has been asked to look at the cost-effectiveness

  429
  of cholesterol screening in relation to the prevention of coronary heart disease. Under changes to general practitioners' terms of service, they will be required to offer patients regular check-ups, including measurement of blood pressure. We believe that this important development will provide an opportunity for GPs to give personal advice to patients, particularly those most at risk of heart disease, about steps they can take to lessen this risk.

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the quality of food served in hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is health authorities' responsibility to determine the standard and quality of food to meet the needs of patients and staff in their hospitals.

  Hospitals (Harrow)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from all sources concerning the possible transfer to self-governing status of the Northwich Park hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital in the Harrow district health authority area.

  Mr. Mellor
  Expressions of interest in self-governing status have been received from both Northwick Park hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations on the latter. Should this interest, in either case, proceed to an application, I can assure my hon. Friend that all the main interests—including staff and the local community—will have an opportunity to express their views when detailed proposals have been worked out.

  GPs (Patient Time)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the average amount of time per week that general practitioners now spend seeing patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is taken from the general medical practitioners workload survey carried out in 1985–86 by the Health Departments and the British Medical Association. it shows that in an average working week GPs spend 26 hours seeing patients. This comprises 18 hours in surgery, six hours in home visits and two hours in clinics.

  NHS Policy Board
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of the recently announced National Health Service policy board.

  Mr. Mellor
  The role of the NHS policy board is to advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the formulation of policy for and the strategic oversight of the NHS. It sets objectives for the NHS management executive and monitors their achievement.

  Consultants
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional posts for consultants he estimates will be created over the next three years.
  430
  Mr. Mellor
  We estimate that about 1,000 new medical and dental consultant posts will be created in England between 1989 and 1992, including the 100 posts announced in "Working for Patients".

  Cancer Screening
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the number of medical screening units and future demand for screening.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have established two programmes to screen women regularly for cervical and breast cancers. Most of the cervical smears performed each year are taken by general practitioners. Breast cancer screening is organised by regional health authorities and is carried out in specifically equipped centres.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), on 14 June, at columns 429–30 for information about those breast screening centres in England which are operational and to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), on 19 June, at column 35, for information about screening in health care.

  Information on screening in the other parts of the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has issued guidelines to National Health Service hospitals on(a) the information they provide on breast cancer screening and (b) levying charges for breast cancer screening.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Health Education Authority has produced a leaflet which can accompany a woman's invitation letter to explain what happens at a breast screening centre. Additional material has been produced to inform staff involved in health education and primary care about the screening programme. A general information leaflet on breast screening is also due to be published shortly. The guidance to health authorities concerning the provision of breast cancer screening referred to in the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health gave to the hon. Member on 21 February, at columns 606–7, drew attention to the role the Health Education Authority would play in supporting health authorities' education programmes for women.

  Guidance issued to health authorities in March on income generation HN(89)9 states that the Department should be consulted where proposals for income generation clearly involve national policy,
  "for example breast and cervical cancer screening".

  Community Care
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to announce his Department's plans for the provision of community care in response to "An Agenda for Action".

  Mr. Mellor
  We have been giving very thorough consideration to all the available options for the future organisation and management of community care, taking
  431
  account of the many representations and views we have received. We hope to be able to announce our proposals shortly.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government spent in 1988–89 on measures designed to help reduce the length of hospital waiting lists.

  Mr. Mellor
  We allocated £30 million from the central waiting list fund in 1988–89 as part of the Government's drive to reduce hospital waiting lists and times. This money enabled over 117,000 additional in-patients and day cases and over 92,000 extra out-patients to be treated from the waiting lists.

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold a ballot of all staff at the Queen's medical centre, Nottingham on opting out.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Self governing trusts will not opt out but will remain fully within the NHS.

  If an application is made for QMC Nottingham to become self-governing, Trent regional health authority will ensure that all those with an interest have the opportunity of expressing their views but a ballot will not be required. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider any responses alongside the application.

  Medical Scientists
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that the salaries of medical scientists employed within the National Health Service are sufficient to ensure that there are no critical shortages of such staff.

  Mr. Mellor
  The pay of non-medical scientists is a matter for negotiation between the management side of the Scientific and Professional Staff Council and the staff side representing scientists employed in the NHS. Negotiations are continuing on the staff side pay claim for 1989/90. The pay of medically qualified staff is decided after taking into account recommendations of the doctors and dentists review body.

  Blood Shortages
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to correct the shortage of blood available for transfusion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 23 June, at column 278.

  Patients (Statistics)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of patients per general practitioner at the current date; and what was the figure in 1979.
  432
  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

  England—Average list size

  Number

  1 October 1979

  2,286

  1 October 1987

  12,020

  1 Latest available figure.

  "Perinatal, Neonatal and Infant Mortality"
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will be responding to the Social Services Select Committee report "Perinatal, Neonatal and Infant Mortality".

  Mr. Mellor
  Very soon.

  Nurses
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals have been submitted in regard to salary grading by members of the nursing profession; and what are the numbers that have yet to be determined.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) where nurse education is organised across more than one hospital, what are the implications for such education where one hospital opts out;

  (2) whether the budget for nurse education currently with the district health authority will devolve to a hospital which opts out which is currently operating or partly operating a school of nursing.

  Mr. Mellor
  There will be a further working paper on education and training next month which will address these issues.

  Northern Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has discussed the future of Middlesbrough and South Cleveland hospitals with the Northern regional health authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what agreements have been entered into with the planning authorities for the development of sites at Poole and South Cleveland hospitals in the event of their sale to the private sector; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what discussions have taken place between the Northern regional health authority and the Teesside development corporation concerning the replacement of the Middlesbrough general and South Cleveland hospitals by a new medical complex on Teesside; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what funding he will make available for the construction of a new medical centre on Teesside; over what period of time; when any final decision will be made and by whom; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority concerning the creation of a private health company to run any new medical complex on Teesside; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority concerning the siting of a new medical complex to be built on a site presently containing chemical storage tanks; what feasibility studies in relation to safety have been carried out; by whom and when; and if he will make a statement;
  433
  (7) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority concerning the transfer of capital allocations presently earmarked for health schemes in South Tees to a new medical complex on Teesside; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority for the creation of a private health care sector within any new medical complex on Teesside; and if he will make a statement;

  (9) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority for the closure of North Riding infirmary and the transfer of its facilities to a new medical complex on Teesside; and if he will make a statement;

  (10) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority concerning alternative funding arrangements in respect of the plant and equipment in any new medical facility on Teesside; and if he will make a statement;

  (11) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority concerning a joint development between the regional health authority and college of Durham university concerning a new medical complex on Teesside; and if he will make a statement;

  (12) what reports he has received from the Northern regional health authority concerning the involvement of management consultants, Richard Ellis Venture Consultants Ltd. and Peat Marwick McLintock in the proposed new scheme for a medical complex on Teesside, and the cost at which the management consultants have been retained, and who is paying; and if he will make a statement;

  (13) what representations he has received from the Northern regional health authority concerning a proposed new medical complex on Teesside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The hon. Member is aware that Northern regional health authority is considering the possibility of a new NHS medical complex in Teeside. The proposal is at an early stage of consideration and its feasibility is currently being appraised. The outcome will be considered in conjunction with the results of a strategic review of the provision of hospital services in South Tees, which is nearing completion. Specialist advice has been commissioned by the Northern RHA from two firms of management consultants, whose fees will be payable by the RHA. No formal proposals have yet been submitted to the Department, but officials are being kept informed as the exercise progresses. Any firm plans that may result from the studies would be aimed at providing a modern, high quality hospital service within the NHS. Such a development would involve rationalisation of existing services, resulting in a significant improvement in the quality of care available locally. The proposals would not envisage the closure of existing modern facilities at South Cleveland hospital. Northern RHA is known to be in touch with the various interested parties, including Teeside development corporation and relevant local authorities, but details of such contacts are not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to seek any additional information from the chairman of Northern regional health authority.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the present National Health Service capital allocations for South Tees; for what they are earmarked; and if he will make a statement.
  434
  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally. Allocation of resources to South Tees health authority is the responsibility of Northern regional health authority and the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman for the information.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority for the sale of land at Poole and south Cleveland hospitals;

  (2) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority to sell sites that the Northern region considers to be surplus to requirements, including land at Middlesbrough maternity hospital, south Cleveland and Poole hospitals; what approvals are required for such sales; when approval is likely to be forthcoming; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what proposals he has received from the Northern regional health authority concerning estate rationalisation within the South Tees area health authority; how many surplus sites are proposed to be sold; what is proposed to happen to the funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received no proposals from Northern regional health authority. Once NHS sites are declared surplus to requirements by health authorities they may be disposed of in accordance with the procedures set out in the NHS handbook on land transactions and the proceeds retained locally.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the last new facilities were opened at south Cleveland hospital; by whom; and what reasons have been advanced by the Northern regional health authority to have these closed and removed to a new medical complex on Teesside.

  Mr. Freeman
  The new maternity unit was officially opened by HRH The Princess of Wales on 6 October 1988. We are not aware of there being any intention to close or transfer this facility.

  Health Care (Purchase)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will explain the intended effects of the proposals to allow health authorities to purchase health care from hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  All National Health Service hospitals, whether run by health authorities or self-governing, will be free to offer their services to different health authorities and to the private sector. Consequently, a health authority will be better able to discharge its duty by using its available funds to secure a comprehensive service, including emergency services, to obtain the best service it can whether from its own hospitals, from another authority's hospitals, from NHS hospital trusts or from the private sector.

  NHS Policy Board
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reply he has sent to the Royal College of Nursing in response to its complaint that the chief nursing officer has been excluded from membership of the National Health Service policy board.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 14 June my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met the Royal College of
  435
  Nursing to discuss this issue and a copy of the statement made after that meeting is in the Library. The fact that Mrs. Poole has not been appointed to the board has in no way altered her position and authority as the Government's chief nursing officer, nor does it imply that the Government no longer have a high regard for the nursing profession.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he supplied to opticians as to his Department's definition of a near relative of glaucoma sufferers in his criteria for free eye tests.
  436
  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: A free sight test is available to all people aged 40 or over who are either the parent, brother, sister or child of a diagnosed glaucoma patient. Information on eligibility was circulated to opticians through a family practitioner notice in March 1989. Poster SB54 and leaflet G11, which are currently being distributed, also draw attention to the special entitlement of this group of people.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Census Questions
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to whether the inclusion of more questions in the census than previously has reduced the numbers responding.

  Mr. Needham
  None. The census is compulsory by law, and everyone is obliged to respond to it. However, the census is based on the principle that it should be generally acceptable to the public, and limited in its overall demands.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of respondents to the census of 1961, 1971 and 1981 did not answer the question concerning religion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Percentage

  1961

  1·9

  1971

  9·4

  1981

  18·5

  A question on religion has traditionally been included in Northern Ireland censuses for answer on a voluntary basis. The Government propose to retain a religion question on the same basis in the 1991 census.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what purpose is intended in including in the census questions on educational qualifications; and what use will be made of the answers to these questions.

  Mr. Needham
  The information derived from these questions will be used, together with information from other questions, to show the number of people with higher qualifications in different industries and occupations. Regional variations in the proportions of people with higher qualifications will be used in planning education and training. It will also show the reserves of qualified people among, for example, housewives and the out of work, including those not currently seeking work.

  Census
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to inform the public in advance of the census.

  Mr. Needham
  In due course, the census office will arrange publicity to explain the purpose of the census, convey assurances of confidentiality and deal with other aspects of public concern. The office will also arrange the distribution of appropriate leaflets and posters to libraries and other public places, issue an explanatory leaflet about the census and set up a telephone service to deal with inquiries from the public.

  Northern Ireland since 4 September 1985

  Name of body and Member's names

  Salary

  Expenses

  Method of appointment

  Queen's University Senate

  F. A. Mackle OBE (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nominees suggested by CAU and QUB

  J. J. Sheil (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Miss A. E. A. Lambe (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the imminence of the summer holiday period, he will extend the period for the submission of objections to the proposed Strangford lough (part III) area of special scientific interest beyond the present proposed date of 22 August.

  Mr. Needham
  Notification of the declaration of Strangford lough (part III) area of special scientific interest was issued on 21 April 1989. As required by article 24 of the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 the notification stated the period within which representations and objections could be made. It is not possible under the provisions of the order to extend the period beyond 22 August since this was the closing date stipulated in the notification.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the largest area of special scientific interest by area identified so far in Northern Ireland; and how many landowners there are within this area of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Needham
  The largest area of special scientific interest (ASSI) so far declared is Strangford lough (parts I, II and III) with a total area of 4,108 hectares. There are some 300 landowners and occupiers.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Ringhaddy avenue, Bowtown road, Newtownards was given planning approval as a cul-de-sac; whether the existing right-of-way through the steel fence at Ringhaddy avenue conforms with the planning approval; and what proposals he has to provide access from the Abbots road estates to Newtownards town centre consistent with existing approvals under the roads and planning legislation.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 June 1989]: Ringhaddy avenue was determined and constructed as a cul-de-sac. Following representations from a resident, a pedestrian link was provided through the steel fence. Planning approval was not necessary.

  The Department of Environment for Northern Ireland currently has no plans to provide access from the Abbots road estate to Newtownards town centre.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will list all appointments of chairmen and members of public and non-governmental bodies made by him since he took up office, together with the names of those appointed, the salaries and expenses paid to them and the method by which their appointment was made.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: The information requested is set out in the table:
  439

  Name of body and Member's names

  Salary

  Expenses

  Method of appointment

  Rev. J. Dunlop (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  C. T. Hurst OBE (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Planning Appeals Commission

  Brian Alexander Moore Banks (Professional Commissioner)

  £19,810

  Nil

  Recommendations submit to Secretary of State arising from a nationwide recruitment competition.

  John Allen OBE (Deputy Chief Commissioner) (part-time)

  £123 for each appeal

  Travel and subsistence payable at Civil Service rates

  Recommendations made to the Secretary of State from list supplied by CAU

  £123 for each report

  Mrs. Colette Quigley (Commissioner) (part-time)

  £98 for each appeal

  £98 for each report

  Ronald H. A. Blackburn (Commissioner) (part-time)

  £98 for each appeal

  £98 for each report

  Noel Baxter (Commissioner) (part-time)

  £98 for each appeal

  £98 for each report

  Norman Drummond (Commissioner)

  £98 for each appeal

  £98 for each report

  Mrs. I. Marie Campbell (Commissioner)

  £98 for each appeal

  £98 for each report

  Mrs. J. Hennessy (known as Ms. J. O'Dempsey) (Commissioner)

  £98 for each appeal

  £98 for each report

  Technology Board for Northern Ireland

  D. V. McCaughan (Chairman)

  Nil

  Expenses paid at normal Civil Service rates. To date £3,405

  Letter of Appointment from Secretary of State

  Council for Professions Allied to Medicine

  C. Dallat (Member)

  Nil

  A matter for the Council

  Recommended by the Minister responsible DHSS

  Health and Personal Social Services Tribunal Medicine Practitioners

  Dr. J. D. Boyd MB BCh MRCGP (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nominations are sought from relevant professional organisations and appointments made from the nominees

  Dr. R. M. Shearer MB Bch MD (Deputy)

  Nil

  Nil

  Health and Personal Social Services Tribunal Dental Practitioners

  Mr. M. O'Farrell LDS (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nominations are sought from relevant professional organisations and appointments made from the nominees

  Mr. H. Morrow OBE BOS (Deputy)

  Nil

  £393·08

  Health and Personal Social Services Tribunal Ophthalmic Medical Practitioners

  Dr. E. A. McWilliams MB BCH DO (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nominations are sought from relevant professional organisations and appointments made from the nominees

  Dr. C. Flynn MB (Deputy)

  Nil

  Nil

  Health and Personal Social Services Tribunal Ophthalmic Opticians

  Dr. Anderson FBOA (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nominations are sought from relevant professional organisations and appointments made from the nominees

  Mr. S. J. Barbour BSC, FBCD (Deputy)

  Nil

  Nil

  Health and Personal Social Services Tribunal Pharmacists

  R. G. Dillon MPSNI (Member)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nominations are sought from relevant professional organisations and appointments made from the nominees

  J. Chambers BSc MPSNI (Deputy)

  Nil

  Nil

  Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland

  The Hon. Mr. Justice Carswell (Chairman)

  Nil

  Travelling and accommodation expenses are paid at normal Civil Service rate

  Appointments were made by Secretary of State from nominations received from the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, the Executive Committee of the Inns of the Court of Northern Ireland, the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the QUB

  His Hon. Judge Gibson QC (Member)

  Nil

  Patrick Coghlin QC (Member)

  Honorarium of £2,000 per annum

  J. B. Garrett (Member)

  Honorarium of £2,000 per annum

  Ms. Siobhan Grant (Member)

  Honorarium of £2,000 per annum

  Professor Desmond Greer (Member)

  Honorarium of £2,000 per annum

  Patrick Markey QC (Member)

  Honorarium of £2,000 per annum

  John Meehan (Member)

  Honorarium of £2,000 per annum

  440 441

  Name of body and Member's names

  Salary

  Expenses

  Method of appointment

  Board of the International Fund for Ireland

  Mr. C. E. B. Brett (Chairman)

  £2,000

  Travelling and accommodation expenses are paid at normal Civl Service rate

  Appointments to the board are made jointly by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments

  Sir E. Bell

  £1,000

  Sir G. Booth

  £1,000

  Mr. M. Canavan

  £1,000

  Mr. J. Craig

  £1,000

  Mr. G. Dempsey

  £1,000

  Mr. J. Doherty

  £1,000

  Dr. A. McGuckian

  £1,000

  Mr. N. McCann

  £1,000

  Northern Ireland Economic Council Professor C. M. Campbell (Chairman)

  £12,745

  Actual cost basis

  Following consultation with Northern Ireland Permanent Secretaries, Head of Northern Ireland Civil Service making recommendation to Secretary of State

  N.W. Shaw

  £2,560

  Nil

  Dr. V. Furness OBE

  £2,560

  Nil

  J. Stanley

  £2,560

  Nil

  Professor Sue Birley

  £2,560

  Actual cost basis

  J. McCusker

  £2,560

  Nil

  Nominated by NIC/ICTU

  R. Jeary

  £2,560

  Nil

  M. Dummigan

  £2,560

  Nil

  R. Gibson

  £2,560

  Nil

  Nominated by CBI/NICC

  W. McCourt

  £2,560

  Nil

  A. MacLaughlin

  £2,560

  Nil

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland The names of Authority members are not disclosed for security reasons

  Chairman £22,950 Vice-Chairman honorarium £11,475 Members honorarium £3,000

  Attendance allowance of £9·12 for meetings of not more than 4 hours or £18·25 for meetings of more than 4 hours. Travel and subsistence expenses are paid at Civil Service rates

  The present Secretary of State has appointed the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and 18 members. Membership is determined by the Secretary of State after consultation with local authorities, the legal profession, trade unions, and other interested groups, including voluntary organisations

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints

  James Grew (Chairman)

  £16,405

  Travel and subsistence expenses are paid at Civil Service rates

  Appointments made by Secretary of State after an assessment of the qualifications and experience of those who have indicated an interest in public service against the requirements of the positions available

  Lady Carswell (Deputy Chairman)

  £11,110

  Brian Garrett (Deputy Chairman)

  £5,555

  James Gardner (Member)

  £4,625

  Mrs. Denise Kennedy (Member)

  £4,625

  Mr. Kevin Murnaghan (Member)

  £4,625

  Brian Reid (Member)

  £4,625

  Mrs. Brenda Sheil (Member)

  £4,625

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  James Grew (Chairman)

  £7,605

  Up to 4 hours including travelling time, £17·47. Over 4 hours including travelling time, £34·98

  Appointments are made by the Secretary of State from nominations received through the CAU.

  Thomas Millar (Chairman)

  £7,605

  John V. Simpson (Chairman)

  £7,605

  Thomas Millar (Deputy Chairman)

  Nil

  The present Secretary of State has appointed the Chairman, Deputy Chairmen and 27 members

  Edward Barry (Deputy Chairman)

  Nil

  Lawrence J. McArdle (Deputy Chairman)

  Nil

  Mr. B. Brotherston (Member)

  Nil

  Up to 4 hours inclusive of travelling time £13·10. Over 4 hours including travelling time £26·23.

  Mr. R. Clarke (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. E. M. Donnelly (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. H. Taggart (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. M. Glass (Member)

  Nil

  For all members: travel expenses range from 17·6p per mile to 21·3p per mile depending on size of vehicle. Subsistence rates are £4-£12 according to length of absence. Overnight subsistence within United Kingdom (excluding London and the Republic of Ireland) £50·50. London rate is £57·60

  Mr. R. E. Carroll (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. H. M. Cunningham (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. T. Greeves (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. F. Wheeler (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. J. A. Hayes (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. L. A. McArdle (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. J. Douglas (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. J. P. Graham (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. C. Cunningham (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. O. Gibson (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. R. Gregg (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. D. J. H. McGuinness (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. M. J. Curran (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. B. B. McIvor (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. T. D. Banford (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. J. H. Baird (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. J. Beveridge (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. E. A. Ferguson (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. E. Rainey (Member)

  Nil

  Ms. M. F. Skillington (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. Aidan P. McNamee (Member)

  Nil

  442 443

  Name of body and Member's names

  Salary

  Expenses

  Method of appointment

  Mr. M. J. Mclvor (Member)

  Nil

  Rathgael and Whiteabbey Training Schools Management Board

  Mr. M. G. Brown (Chairman)

  £100 per annum

  Travel expenses paid at various rates depending on length of journey and size of car—from 18–8p to 52–8p per mile.

  The present board was appointed from nominations received from various interested bodies. The new board to take office from 1 August 1989 will be comprised of persons nominated from the CAU and a number of persons re-appointed from the present Board.

  Rev. H. D. McMorran (Deputy Chairman)

  Nil

  Mr. G. S. Shaw (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. J. Donaghy (Member)

  Nil

  Rev. M. Elizabeth Hewittan (Member)

  Nil

  Chairman of sub-committees may claim necessary telephone expenses, which amount to not more than £2 per person per month.

  Mr. L. Shanks (Member)

  Nil

  The present Secretary of State has appointed the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and 13 members

  Mr. G. J. Ginn (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. M. J. Mclvor JP (Member)

  Nil

  Lady M. A. Porter (Member)

  Nil

  Mrs. A. E. Cullen (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. W. Keown (Member)

  Nil

  Mrs. M. Sandford DL JP (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. P. Patrick (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. S. M. Hamilton (Member)

  Nil

  Mr. R. Doran (Member)

  Nil

  Boards of Visitors and Visiting Committees

  Nil

  Travelling expenses are paid. Details not readily available

  Appointments are made after nominations are received from various public groups and bodies which are representative of the community as a whole.

  Names are not disclosed for security reasons

  Fifty appointments have been made by the present Secretary of State

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  Mr. James O'Hara (Chairman)

  £6,216

  Travel and subsistence expenses are paid at Civil Service rates

  The present Secretary of State has made 17 appointments and re-appointments in accordance with section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973

  Sir Oliver Napier (Chairman)

  £6,216

  Mr. P. Girvan QC (Member)

  Daily attendance fee of £7200

  Professor T. Hadden (Member)

  Professor J. Darby (Member)

  Mrs. D. Field (Member)

  Mrs. J. McCrum (Member)

  Mr. A. H. MacLaughlin (Member)

  Dr. J. C. McCrudden (Member)

  Mr. R. A. Ferris (Member)

  Mr. T. Carlin (Member)

  Mrs. J. Brett (Member)

  Mr. T. H. Kernohan (Member)

  Mr. D. Stevens (Member)

  Dr. P. J. Cosgrove (Member)

  Sister Genevieve O'Farrell (Member)

  Mrs. D. Tennis (Member)

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland

  No appointments to the Commission have been made by the present Secretary of State

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current estimates of greenhouse gas emissions, such as nitrous oxide, methane and carbon dioxide, from the agricultural sector in the United Kingdom; and what are his proposals to reduce these emissions.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Agriculture both produces and consumes carbon dioxide, and net emissions are likely to be small. Annual emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture are very tentatively and approximately estimated at 1–4 million tonnes and 0–06 million tonnes (as N) respectively.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific proposals his Department has put forward for consideration and 444
  enactment, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as nitrous oxide, methane and carbon dioxide, since the seminar on the greenhouse effect held by the Prime Minister on 26 April.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department participates in the work of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change, and we have drawn its attention to a number of schemes in the United Kingdom which encourage farmers to protect the environment, and which help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  Food Irradiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to have a period of public consultation on his proposals to lift the ban on food irradiation and on his report of a working policy on the introduction of food irradiation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  445
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There will be full public consultation when detailed proposals are put forward.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make arrangements to label all food which has been irradiated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Council of the European Communities agreed on 14 June to amend the food labelling directive to provide for specific indication on the label of foodstuffs that have been irradiated. This requirement will be implemented into United Kingdom food labelling legislation in due course.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the micro-organisms which are not destroyed by food irradiation.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Populations of all micro-organisms in food are reduced to a greater or lesser extent by food irradiation. The process has been shown to be effective in dealing with vegetative micro-organisms such as salmonella, camphylobacter and listeria, but is not effective in the reduction of micro-organisms that produce spores—in particular clostridium botulinum.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries in which food irradiation is approved, giving the nature of the approval and details of the type of food covered for each country.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The list is as follows:

  WORLD TAKE-UP OF FOOD IRRADIATION BY COUNTRY WITH FOODS FOR WHICH IRRADIATION APPROVED
  P = Provisional C = Conditional U = Unconditional

  EC

  Belgium

  Potatoes (P)

  Strawberries (P)

  Onions (P)

  Garlic (P)

  Shallots (P)

  Black, White Pepper (P)

  Paprika Powder (P)

  Arabic Gum (P)

  Spices (P)

  (Semi)-Dried Vegetables (P)

  Denmark

  Spices (U)

  Herbs (U)

  France

  Potatoes (P)

  Onions (P)

  Garlic (P)

  Shallots (P)

  Spices (U)

  Aromatic Substances (U)

  Gum Arabic (U)

  Muesli-like Cereal (U)

  Dehydrated Vegetables (U)

  Mechanically Deboned Poultry Meat (U)

  Dried Fruits (U)

  Dried Vegetables (U)

  Germany (Dem. Rep)

  Onions (U)

  Enzyme Solutions (U)

  446

  Spices (P)

  Italy

  Potatoes (U)

  Onions (U)

  Garlic (U)

  The Netherlands

  Mushrooms (U)

  Potatoes (U)

  Chicken (U)

  Spices (P)

  Onions (U)

  Frozen Frog Legs (P)

  Rice and Ground Products (P)

  Rye Bread (P)

  Frozen Shrimp (P)

  Malt (P)

  Boiled and Cooled Shrimp (P)

  Frozen Fish (P)

  Egg Powder (P)

  Dry Blood Protein (P)

  Dehydrated Vegetables (P)

  Spain

  Potatoes (U)

  Onions (U)

  REST OF EUROPE

  Finland

  Dry and Dehydrated Herbs and Spices (U)

  All Foods for Patients requiring a Sterile Diet (U)

  Hungary

  Onions (U)

  Sour Cherries Canned(C)

  Black Pepper (C)

  Spices (U) and (C)

  Norway

  Spices (U)

  Poland

  Potatoes (P)

  Onions (P)

  Yugoslavia

  Cereals (U)

  Legumes (U)

  Onions (U)

  Garlic (U)

  Potatoes (U)

  Dehydrated Fruits and Vegetables (U)

  Dried Mushrooms (U)

  Egg Powder (U)

  Herbal Teas, Tea Extracts (U)

  Fresh Poultry (U)

  Spices (U)

  NORTH AMERICA

  United States

  Wheat and Wheat Flour (U)

  White Potatoes (U)

  Spices and Dry Vegetable Seasonings (38 Commodities) (U)

  Dry or Dehydrated Enzyme Preparations (Including Immobilised Enzyme Preparations) (U)

  Pork Carcases or Fresh Non-Heat Processed Cuts of Pork Carcases (U)

  Fresh Foods (U)

  Food (U)

  Dry or Dehydrated Aromatic Vegetable Substances (U)

  Canada

  Potatoes (U)

  Onions (U)

  Wheat Flour, Wholewheat (U)

  Spices and Certain Dry Vegetable Seasonings (U)

  Onion Powder (U)

  447
  ELSEWHERE

  Argentina

  Strawberries (U)

  Potatoes (U)

  Onions (U)

  Garlic (U)

  Cocoa Powder (U)

  Spinach (U)

  Bangladesh

  Chicken (U)

  Papaya (U)

  Potatoes (U)

  Wheat and Ground Wheat Products (U)

  Fish (U)

  Onions (U)

  Frog Legs (P)

  Shrimp (P)

  Mangoes (U)

  Pulses (U)

  Spices (U)

  Rice (U)

  Brazil

  Rice (U)

  Potatoes (U)

  Onions (U)

  Beans (U)

  Maize (U)

  Wheat (U)

  Wheat Flour (U)

  Spices (13 different products) (U)

  Papaya(U)

  Strawberries (U)

  Fish and Fish Products (Fillets, Salted, Smoked, Dried, Dehydrated) (U)

  Poultry (U)

  Chile

  Potatoes (U)

  Papaya(U)

  Wheat and Ground Wheat Products (U)

  Strawberries (U)

  Chicken (U)

  Onions (U)

  Rice (U)

  Teleost Fish and Fish Products (U)

  Cocoa Beans (U)

  Dates (U)

  Mangoes (U)

  Pulses (U)

  Spices and Condiments (U)

  China

  Potatoes (U)

  Onions (U)

  Garlic (U)

  Peanuts (U)

  Grain (U)

  Mushrooms (U)

  Sausage (U)

  Apples (U)

  Cuba

  Potatoes

  Onions

  India

  Potatoes (U)

  Onions (U)

  Indonesia

  Dried Spices (U)

  Tuber and Root Crops (Potatoes, Shallots, Garlic and Rhizomes) (U)

  Cereals (U)

  448
  Israel

  Potatoes (U)

  Onions (U)

  Poultry and Poultry Sections (U)

  Onions (U)

  Garlic (U)

  Shallots (U)

  Spices (36 different products) (U)

  Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (U)

  Grains, Cereals, Pulses, Cocoa and Coffee Beans, Nuts, Edible Seeds (U)

  Mushrooms and Strawberries (A)

  Spices and Condiments, Dehydrated and Dried Vegetables, Edible Herbs

  Poultry Feeds

  Japan

  Potatoes (U)

  New Zealand

  Herbs and Spices (P)

  Philippines

  Potatoes (P)

  Onions (P)

  Garlic (P)

  Republic of Korea

  Potatoes (C)

  Onions (C)

  Garlic (C)

  Chestnuts (C)

  Fresh and Dried Mushrooms (C)

  Garlic Powder (C)

  South Africa

  Potatoes (U)

  Dried Bananas (P)

  Avocados (P)

  Onions(U)

  Garlic (U)

  Chicken (U)

  Papaya (U)

  Mango (U)

  Strawberries (U)

  Bananas(U)

  Litchis (U)

  Pickled Mango (Achar) (U)

  Frozen Fruit Juices (U)

  Green Beans (U)

  Tomatoes (U)

  Brinjals (U)

  Soya Pickle Products (U)

  Ginger (U)

  Vegetable Paste (U)

  Bananas (Dried) (U)

  Almonds (U)

  Cheese Powder (U)

  Yeast Powder (U)

  Herbal Tea (U)

  Various Spices (U)

  Various Dehydrated Vegetables (U)

  Thailand

  Potatoes, Onions, Garlic (U)

  Dates (U)

  Mangoes, Papaya (U)

  Wheat, Rice, Pulses (U)

  Cocoa Beans (U)

  Fish and Fishery Products (U)

  Stawberries (U)

  Nam (U)

  Moor Yor (U)

  Sausage (U)

  Frozen Shrimps (U)

  Chicken (U)

  Spices and Condiments, Dehydrated (U)

  Onions and Onion Powder (U)

  449
  USSR

  Potatoes (U)

  Grain (U)

  Dried Fruits (U)

  Dry Food Concentrates Buckwheat Mush, Gruel, Rice Pudding

  Onions (U)

  Uruguay

  Potatoes (U)

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research sponsored by his Department into alternatives to pesticides for pest control.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The following research projects on alternatives to pesticides for pest control are currently being carried out for and by my Department.

  Integrated control of pests on outdoor crops
  The use of natural enemies, chemical and cultural methods to control aphid pests in cereals.

  Biology and ecology of pests, pathogens and beneficial organisms

  (a) The development of new methods of insect management using non-polluting chemicals affecting behaviour.

  (b) The development of methods using natural predators and pesticides in integrated control systems for pests of arable crops.

  (c) To determine the effects of straw incorporation and cultivation techniques on populations of pest aphids and beneficial insects, and to assess the implications for future pesticide usage.

  Control of diseases in cereals
  To develop methods, involving biological control, agrochemi-cals, host resistance and husbandry practices to minimise the harmful effects of takeall.

  Development of oats and diseases resistant cereals
  To evaluate new sources of disease resistance and to incorporate new resistant germplasm into high yielding winter and spring oat varieties.

  Disease and pest management in agro-ecosystems har-monised with the environment

  (a) To rationalise the development of resistant varieties by understanding the mechanisms underlying genetic host resistance, its specificity with regard to pathogen variation, its relationship with non-host resistance and the corresponding implications for its durability.

  (b) To identify and conserve genetically resistant germplasm of currently important crops and minor alternative crops. Characterisation and determination of the durability of such resistances and their deployment in disease management systems using reduced pesticide inputs.

  (c) To develop an holistic approach to the deployment of genetic resistance in the field with special reference to grassland cereal farming and farm forestry in de-intensified systems.

  (d) To integrate the use of natural biocides, particularly Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, genetic resistance and systemic pesticides in the management of crop pests and diseases.

  The improvement of dry peas
  To define an optimum model for composition of storage compounds in a pea seed by understanding genetic variation and storage product accumulation in embryos, to improve the quality of peas for use as food and feed, and to improve disease resistance in the pea crop.
  450
  Pests of non-cereal crops
  To develop methods for the containment of soil, dwelling nematodes by the integrated use of crop rotations, reliable resistant cultivars and efficiently-used, safely-formulated nematicides, thereby delaying selection of virulent nematode pathotypes and minimising cost and risks to operatives and the environment. Particular attention is paid to potato cyst nematodes and to other nematodes of forage and grain legumes. Problems of nematode attack in oilseed rape and other alternative crops such as sunflower and lupin are being investigated. Studies on the nature of host tolerance to nematode attack and the complex interactions between nematode host races and culture resistance are contributing to the development of integrated control measures.
  8. Bird damage assessment and development of control techniques.
  9. The biology of storage arthropods and development of physical and biological control strategies.
  10. Laboratory and field evaluation of novel methods of pest control.
  11. Control of storage pests using modified atmospheres.
  12. Cereals: soil-borne fungal diseases.
  13. Control of specific weeds and headland weed control.
  14. Alternative cropping systems. Includes work on milling wheat production under organic farming systems.
  15. Novel methods of pest control.

  Field Vegetable Breeding
  Genetic improvement of lettuce. Work to find new sources of genetic resistance to downy mildew, lettuce root aphid and important viral diseases.
  Genetics of host resistance to disease and development of resistant breeding material for important fungal and viral diseases.

  Field Vegetable Pests
  Resistance of vegetables to insect pests, including biochemical methods of screening plant material for resistance, and pest-host plant interactions.

  Field Vegetable Diseases
  Biology, resistance and control of diseases of composites, crucifers and legumes. Methods of control through resistance, including durability of single gene resistance.
  Screening for resistance to cucumber mosaic virus in marrow.

  Field Vegetable Weeds
  Development of novel programmes for weed control in vegetable crops, including cultural and other techniques for controlling weeds with less reliance on herbicides.

  Top Fruit Breeding
  To breed and select apple, pear, cherry, plum scion varieties and rootstocks which, amongst other attributes, are resistant to pests and diseases.

  Top Fruit Protection
  In vitro techniques for selection for resistance to fireblight.
  In vitro techniques for testing for resistance to bacterial canker in cherry.
  Biology, ecology and control of apple and pear pests, including regulation of spider mite in apples by predatory mites, regulation of P. pyncola on pears by predators.

  Soft Fruit Breeding
  Breeding and selection of strawberries and raspberries which, amongst other attributes, are resistant to pests and diseases.

  Soft Fruit Protection
  To elucidate the biology of wilt disease of strawberries and to improve control through biological means; select and exploit plant resistance for wilt control.

  451
  To study the biology, ecology and pest/damage relationships for several pest species, together with the development of control strategies.

  Hop Production and Protection
  Evaluation of wilt resistance in breeding material of hops.
  Control of damson-hop aphids by introducing or encouraging the migration to hop gardens of natural predators.
  Study of factors affecting the sexual activity and migration of damson-hop aphids to identify weak points in its life cycle.
  Evaluation of biological agents for controlling the two-spotted spite mite.

  Glasshouse Crop Pests
  Biological control of major glasshouse pests (whitefly and red spider mite), secondary pests (especially aphids and thrips) and newly-established non-indigenous pests.

  Glasshouse Crop Diseases
  Integrated control of bacterial and fungal pathogens, utilising biological agents.

  Evaluation of biological and other novel methods for pest control in greenhouse crops
  Improvement in efficiency of Bacillus thuringiensis for arthropod pest control.
  Use of fungi for control of arthropod pests.
  Use of insect viruses for control of phytophagous pests.
  The diagnosis of pathogens in invertebrate pest populations.
  Use of insect parasite nematodes for pest control of glasshouse and mushroom pests.

  Mushroom Protection
  Novel control methods for mushroom pests, including behaviour-modifying chemicals, antagonists, repellants, and insect-parasite nematodes.
  Biological control of bacterial blotch disease.

  Hardy Ornamental Nursery Stock-Protection
  Control of disease in the propagation of container-grown nursery stock, including biological control.

  Bulb Breeding
  Use of induced mutations and conventional methods to breed disease resistant Narcissus cultivars.

  Bulb Protection
  Control of fungal diseases of ornamental bulbs and corms, including screening for genetic resistance and biological control methods.

  32. Development of integrated control methods for Western Flower Thrips.

  33. Control of Narcissus basal rot by antagonists.

  Influence of pests and diseases on grassland agriculture, and their control by biological means

  (a) To develop non-polluting methods of controlling pests and diseases in newly-sown grassland with emphasis on legumes.

  (b) To determine the magnitude of losses of grassland legumes to pests and diseases and, thereby, the potential for application of biocontrol methods to grassland.

  (c) To determine the potential of endophytic fungi in ryegrass as a means of biocontrol of grassland pests.

  Diseases and pests of forage grasses and legumes

  (a) Host: nematode relationships in forage grasses.

  (b) Host: nematode relationships in forage legumes.

  (c) Host: fungus relationships in forage grasses.

  (d) Host: fungus relationships in forage legumes.

  (e) Host: virus relationships in graminaceous and legume species. Mechanisms of host resistance.

  452

  (f) Identification of genetically resistant germ plasm in grasses and forage legumes.

  (g) Relationships between endophytic fungi and their grass hosts.

  Exploit genetic variability in forage grasses

  (a) Develop selection criteria and produce new gene combinations in perennial ryegrass.

  (b) Enhancement of new germplasm created by hybridising Italian and perennial ryegrass and development of new gene combinations in Italian ryegrass.

  (c) Develop and evaluate ryegrass/fescue hybrids with new potentials for coping with climatic change.

  Develop techniques and exploit genetic variation to improve legumes
  Exploit genetic variation to improve yield, reliability of yield persistency and seed yield in white clover.

  Field boundaries: biological components influencing invertebrate predator overwintering

  (a) To create overwintering habitats on farmland which favour the development of high numbers of polyphagous predators by modifying existing boundaries and by creating new ones.

  (b) To monitor the accumulation of predators in autumn and winter in these new habitats together with their dispersal, distribution and predation rate in the crop in spring and summer.

  (c) to convert the date into 'packaged' advice which could be made available via Videotex methods with ADAS co-operation.

  Exploitation of predatory beetles and parasitic wasps resident in field margins, hedgerows and shelter belts around grassland
  To enhance the number and variety of predators and parasitic invertebrates present by increasing the size, stability and diversity of the flora in hedgerows, field margins and shelter belts around grassland and to investigate ways of how this may best be achieved.

  Epidemiology and inter-relationships between clover viruses of pasture crops and field boundary ecosystems
  To determine the field host range and interactions of the major viruses and their vectors that infect white clover, relating this to the ecology of hosts in field boundaries and in grassland crops. To identify for development resistant genotypes in white clover and related species and genera.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements exist to ensure the competence of farm workers to apply pesticides; how these requirements differ according to the pesticide in use; and what are the different categories of such pesticides.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  All people using pesticides have to be competent in their usage. Employees, and the self-employed, must have had adequate instruction and guidance in safe and efficient use. Additionally, people may not use certain pesticides unsupervised unless they hold an appropriate certificate of competence, or are working on their own or their employer's land, or are exempted by age. The arrangements are set out in the Ministers' consent to use pesticides (C(i)) published in the Gazettes on 20 January 1989 and in "Reference Book 500 (Pesticides 1989)".

  The pesticides attracting certification as a result of consent C(i) are each identified in "Reference Book 500". In brief, these are the pesticides approved for professional cultivation of crops and management of weeds. Certification thus extends beyond farm workers, but does

  453
  not cover all their activities. Pesticides approved for use as, for instance, rodenticides, or for the protection of stored products do not attract certification.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to improve his Department's methods of responding to any public concerns on particular pesticide use or residues.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department responds promptly to all new information on pesticide safety. It also provides the public with information on the government's very extensive controls on pesticides and pesticide residues, and on the widescale monitoring of residues in food and the environment which it undertakes.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those written parliamentary questions answered by his Department which had been tabled during the previous day's sitting during the last 12 months indicating the hon. Member asking each such question.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information is not readily available within the Department but the hon. Member may he able to obtain some information from House of Commons records.

  Tripe
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he had plans to extend the ban on bovine offals for human consumption to include tripe;

  (2) whether he has any evidence that tripe carries the infective agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The potential for tripe to carry the BSE agent is currently being studied. A decision on whether to ban its use for human consumption will be taken when the results of this study and the views of interested parties are known and have been evaluated.

  Product Licences
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any information on the commercial sale and use of products for use in treating animals or fish which have not been granted a product licence.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information on the commercial sale and use of veterinary medicinal products is not required for the purposes of the Medicines Act 1968 and is not collected by my Department.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the future of the European Community sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Discussions on the EC Commission's proposals for a revised sheepmeat regime took place at the Agriculture Council on 19 and 20 June. Major differences of view persist amongst member states and the Council will return to this matter at a subsequent meeting.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of Compassion in World Farming to discuss animal welfare.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I last met Compassion in World Farming on 3 April and my officials last met them on 21 June.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make an announcement about the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 14 June at column 411.

  Coastal Defence Works
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those authorities which have made representations to him about coastal defence and repair works during the last year.

  Mr. Ryder
  There is continuing correspondence with various authorities on matters relating to coastal defences. During 1988–89 the following authorities made comrnents on policy or submitted proposals for coast protection or sea defence work:

  Allerdale District Council

  Alnwick District Council

  Arun District Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Brighton Borough Council

  Canterbury City Council

  Carrick District Council

  Castle Morpeth District Council

  Chichester District Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  Cleethorpes Borough Council

  Dover District Council

  Easington District Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  East Yorkshire Borough Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  Holderness Borough Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Lancaster City Council

  Langbaurgh Borough Council

  Lewes District Council

  New Forest District Council

  North Cornwall District Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  Penwith District Council

  Poole Borough Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Rother District Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Shepway District Council

  South Hams District Council

  South Lakeland District Council

  South Wight District Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  Sunderland Borough Council

  Swale Borough Council

  Tendering District Council

  455

  Thanet District Council

  Torridge District Council

  Wansbeck District Council

  Waveney District Council

  West Dorset District Council

  West Somerset District Council

  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

  Wirral Borough Council

  Worthing Borough Council

  Wyre Borough Council

  Mappleton Parish Council

  Anglian Water Authority

  Southern Water Authority

  Aldeburgh Town Council

  Orford and Gedgrave Parish Council

  Mablethorpe and Sutton Town Council

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review British participation in the Common Agricultural Policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The treaty establishing the European Economic Community provides specifically for a common agricultural policy (CAP). The Government's policy is to participate fully in negotiations on the CAP, pressing for reform to continue, in order to increase market-orientation, control expenditure and bring supply into better balance with demand. Substantial progress has been made in this direction, though more remains to be done.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish of 16 March,Official Report, column 346, if he can now estimate how many miles of hedgerow were re-layed in the 1988–89 winter in the United Kingdom with grant-in-aid assistance.

  Mr. Ryder
  Figures for the full 1988–89 winter period are not yet available. In the period October-December 1988, grants were paid in the United Kingdom under the agriculture improvement scheme for the planting and laying of some 260 miles of hedgerows.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the review of the demand for veterinary surgeons to be completed.
  456
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have asked for the report to be prepared by the end of this year.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which public relations firms his Department has employed and at what cost, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is not my Department's policy to employ public relations firms.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many complaints about food poisoning he has dealt with in the past year; and what steps he is taking as a result.

  Mr. Ryder
  Incidents of food poisoning are generally handled by local authorities in the first instance, and the oversight of epidemiological information is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I receive a number of representations on related matters. In the last 12 months I have, for example, introduced a comprehensive set of measures to deal with salmonella in eggs, and set in hand research on a wide range of related issues, including the susceptibility of listeria to temperatures applied in storage or cooking.

  With my right hon. and learned Friend I have also issued a food hygiene leaflet entitled "Food Safety A Guide From Her Majesty's Government", and set up a committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Mark Richmond, to make recommendations on the microbiological safety of food.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters he has received expressing opposition to the limiting of availability of unpasteurised milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 13 June at column 353.

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

Iraq and the Kurds
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the persecution by the Iraqi Government of its Kurdish minority may amount to genocide, as defined in the relevant United Nations convention; and, if so, what action they will take under the provisions of that convention.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, on the evidence we have, we do not believe that the alleged actions of the Iraqi authorities towards the Kurds, about which we have forcefully expressed our concern, constitute genocide as defined under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Does he agree that the definition of "genocide" in the convention is extremely wide? It is the killing,
"with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,"—
I emphasise the words "in whole or in part"—
"a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
Does he agree that under Article 8 of the convention Britain, as a contracting party, is able to,
"call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter … as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide"?
Apart from anything else, does not the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in Halabja constitute the killing in whole or in part of the Kurdish people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to those facts, but it is a fact also that the crime of genocide comprises two elements: the intent to destroy and one or more of the acts as listed in the convention, which the noble Lord has partially quoted from. Under the convention, conspiracy to commit genocide is punishable as well as the act itself. Of course we condemn Iraq's human rights record, but the evidence we possess does not back up genocide under the UN convention, however much the noble Lord may think it does.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, do the Government take the view that genocide actually has to be committed before action is taken under the convention, when acts which appear to any intelligent observer to be acts preparatory to genocide have already been committed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I understand it, genocide has to comprise those two parts to which I
576
have referred: first of all the intent and then one or more of the acts which are listed under the convention.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in addition to the grim facts described by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, can the noble Lord confirm reports that 100,000 Kurds have recently been deported from their home city of Qala Diza? What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Iraqi Government about that? Secondly, in the light of these monstrous actions by the Iraqi Government, which Her Majesty's Government have from time to time condemned both in this House and outside, how can the noble Lord justify a British presence at the Iraqi arms fair last month, which in my view is quite indefensible?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, there has certainly been considerable press reporting of the forcible removal of Iraqi Kurds from Qala Diza and also from Rania. The Iraqis have denied any mass relocation, but they have admitted to what they call some "local resettlement" in north-east Iraq on security and anti-smuggling, as well as humanitarian, grounds. As I said in answer to a Question some weeks ago, we have urged the Iraqis to allow British diplomats and journalists to visit the area to see for themselves what is happening. But we have made quite clear to the Iraqis that, despite the proximity of these towns to the Iraq-Iran border, there is no justification whatever for mass deportations. Britain and other Western countries took the lead in co-sponsoring a firm and unambiguous resolution on Iraq at the UN CHR. It is disappointing that an Iraqi procedural motion blocked that resolution.
The arms fair is very much a matter for individual companies to take part in if they wish. We cannot comment on individual cases.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, how can he justify the arms fair? Does he defend the sale of arms by this country to the present Iraqi Government?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows full well, all exports of defence-related equipment to Iran and Iraq, whether or not they stem from an arms fair, are governed by very strict guidelines. They prohibit the supply of lethal equipment which would significantly enhance the military capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate any conflict. Whether or not companies attended that arms fair would be no guarantee of licences being agreed for export.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what are the non-lethal arms which he believes would be appropriate to export from this country to Iraq?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, a wide range of equipment can be used in a variety of different ways. I do not have a list with me but I shall look at it to see whether I can let the noble Lord know.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, can it be the case—and apparently it is—that the Foreign Office did not receive a copy of the fax sent to The Times and other newspapers yesterday admitting that the evacuation of Qala Diza had been completed, involving the transfer of 16,000 families or approximately 100,000 people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not know where that particular fax stemmed from, but I have not seen it. That claim, which I have heard on a number of occasions and which was referred to earlier, stemmed largely from the press, and we have seen nothing to justify it.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the fax was received from the Iraqi Embassy in London.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge I have not seen it, but I shall check to discover whether it was received.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister said that it was prohibited, as well it would be, to conspire to commit genocide as well as to commit it. Can he explain what kind of preparation has been identified which would rank as conspiracy?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question off the top of my head. We must look at the convention not only from a practical but also from a legal point of view. In answering the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I pointed out that these two elements—the intent and then the acts—must be complied with if a breach of that convention is to be proved. The fact is that we do not believe that the two elements—the intent to destroy and breaching of those acts—has taken place.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are convinced that chemical weapons were used on the population of Halabja and, if so, that it was the Iraqi forces which carried out the attack? If not, who else could possibly have done it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly it is quite possible that chemical weapons were used, and we utterly deplore that fact. On 30th November last year my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State made a clear condemnation of that. We were horrified by the barbaric acts which took place during the Iran/Iraq conflict at Halabja and we played a leading role in drafting the tough UN Resolution 612 which followed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it possible to prove intent? Surely that is difficult to prove.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is perfectly true. It is made even more difficult when the crime must be supported not only by intent but also by the actions to which I referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following the question put by my noble friend the Leader of the
578
Opposition, can the Minister tell us, off the top of his head or otherwise, which British company would attend an arms fair without a serious expectation of selling arms?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is a question which the noble Lord might address to the arms manufacturers.

The Lebanon: EC Discussions
2.46 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent initiatives by the Arab League in respect of Lebanon, they have had any further discussions with their European Community partners with a view to assisting the resolution of the problems of Lebanon by the people of Lebanon.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the urgent need for a solution to Lebanon's crisis is reguarly discussed at meetings of the Twelve. We and our European partners fully support the efforts of the Committee of Three set up by the Arab League Summit in Casablanca, as was made clear in the statement issued by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 12th June.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Arab League initiative would be even more welcome if the proposed cease-fire were being strictly enforced? Are the Government aware that Syria, aided by Iranian extremists, is bombarding and blockading the ports so as to deprive the people of their route of essential supplies? Is it not now clear, as it surely must be, that the position of Lebanon is that of a cockpit being used to perpetuate conflicts among countries of the Middle East, and that the only prospect of a durable solution to restore independence to the Lebanon must be through the appointment of an international arbiter under the auspices of either the European Community or the United Nations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course I am aware of the worries about the cease-fire being broken. However, I believe that my noble friend should have more faith and hope that the Committee of Three will produce a solution. The fact that it has produced a staged plan is encouraging and it certainly has our support. It is a high-level plan involving two kings and one president, and a great deal of serious effort is being made to meet my noble friend's concerns.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with every day that passes without a solution hundreds of ordinary Lebanese people are slain or maimed; the whole country is being further destroyed, particularly Beirut; and that the lives of the British nationals and others who are prisoners there are more endangered on each clay that no action is taken to back up the resolution, making it a reality and bringing peace to the area?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are too well aware of the tragedies referred to by the noble Lord. For that reason it is important that the work being carried out by the Committee of Three should be given a fair chance. Indeed, already there are signs of progress. At a meeting today in Oran in Morocco, no doubt the heads of state of the Committee of Three will discuss the outcome of the first round of their Foreign Ministers' contacts. We should give it every wish for good speed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Arab League has been able to deploy a monitoring force in Beirut following the cease-fire? Can he confirm that the Government have now determined that it is the Iranian Government who decide whether hostages shall be kept in captivity or let loose in Beirut? If that is the case, as seems likely, what representations can Her Majesty's Government make to see that the hostages are set free?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have with me any facts about a monitoring force. As regards hostages, we continue to seek information on their safety and whereabouts. Our ambassador in Beirut was recently following up reports which had been received. We keep in regular contact with the Americans and with other countries whose nationals are held hostage. Their future is extremely difficult to predict; but we do our very best.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there not now a general view that Mr. Rafsanjani is rather more liberal and less radical in outlook than was the Ayatollah Khomeini and that there is a better prospect of obtaining the release of Mr. Terry Waite and the other hostages than there has been for many months?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand that point of view. However, I do not believe that it is helpful to speculate. We continue to call on those holding hostages and those who may have influence on them to release those hostages now on humanitarian grounds.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if one consults the article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the Lebanon, they were at it more than 100 years ago?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the sooner it is brought to a conclusion the better.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is widespread agreement that the European Community is right to give whatever help it can to the Arab League initiative, especially to its very able chief negotiator Mr. Lakhadar Ibrahimi? Does he agree that success depends not only on the withdrawal of the intervention of Syria and Iran but also of the Government of Israel?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, I broadly agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, my noble friend asked me to have faith. How is it possible to have faith in the Arab League initiative, the principal plank of which was the proposal for a ceasefire, when the ceasefire requirement is not being enforced on the Syrians?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course it is important to ensure that the ceasefire is upheld. The fact that it is not upheld goes to show my noble friend the very real difficulties that this sort of matter involves. That is why we have faith in the Committee of Three and why, as I said in answer to an earlier supplementary question, the meeting of the heads of state in Oran today may bear some fruit.

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes: Progress
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further progress has been made in setting up neighbourhood watch schemes and farm watch schemes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there are now over 66,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering approximately 3·25 million households. The total has increased by 28 per cent. over the past twelve months. Farm watch is a useful adaptation of the neighbourhood watch model, which the Government wholly support. The number of farm watch schemes is not recorded centrally.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Does he agree that those schemes have had a considerable effect in that there has been a very welcome drop in the number of burglaries and thefts involving cars? However, is he aware that some Labour councils have made it impossible for neighbourhood watch schemes to be set up because they prohibit the putting up of notices on council-owned lamp posts or on other properties belonging to the council?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is quite correct. There has been a considerable drop—it amounts to about 5 per cent.—in the number of crimes against property as recorded in 1988. It is reasonable to assume some connection between that and the success of the neighbourhood watch schemes. The noble Baroness also referred to thefts from vehicles. Those have dropped by 6 per cent. Thefts of vehicles have also dropped by 6 per cent.
As regards my noble friend's observations about certain Labour controlled councils, that is not a new phenomenon. We have experienced the fact that some councils have not been particularly co-operative regarding neighbourhood watch schemes. But new regulations from the Department of the Environment, which came into force in January 1988, have removed the requirement for prior planning permission to be obtained for the

581
putting up of neighbourhood watch notices. There is evidence that that has helped those schemes.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the stealing of cattle, sheep and pigs from farms is increasing immensely? In my neighbourhood six cattle were stolen about a month ago and there is absolutely no trace of them. I hope that the Government are encouraging the watch schemes one way or another in the hope that they will help the situation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that if anything is stolen it is a misfortune. It is very difficult to trace cattle, pigs and sheep. About 18 forces have recorded farm watch schemes operating in their areas. That is quite a reasonable percentage. Anything that we can do to help, we shall.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if there are designated farm watch schemes but some farms are outside it, are those farms not more at risk? Will the Minister ask police in rural areas to make available to the public more information on how to fight crime?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole principle of neighbourhood or farm watch schemes is that people collectively care for their property. They work together and share each others' interests. Obviously, in the case of farm watch schemes, those who co-operate in the scheme are at an advantage over those who do not; otherwise there is no point in having a scheme.
We are concerned to see as many of these schemes as possible started up. The Home Office has produced a book called Practical Ways to Crack Crime and 2·5 million copies have been distributed. Crime Concern has also been set up. This independent organisation was launched by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in May 1988.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is a neighbourhood watch scheme any help against the sudden, unannounced arrival of about 11,000 people in the neighbourhood who then indulge in a party lasting all night and use drugs?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the object of the neighbourhood watch scheme is to alert the police to anything untoward. If 11,000 people have a party, using drugs, in your street, I should think that the neighbourhood watch scheme would alert the police to it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if he would care to watch, together with other noble Lords, a dinghy race on the Thames between your Lordships' yacht club and our neighbours, the yacht club of the House of Commons, the time to do so is about 3.30 p.m. tomorrow from the Library or the Terrace?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the ingenuity of some of your Lordships to extend the rules of procedure and
582
to advertise is remarkable. However, I agree with my noble friend that that extends the neighbourhood watch scheme in a way which even the Government had not anticipated.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the police be alerted to this untoward event tomorrow?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the police read Hansard, as I am sure they do, they will have been notified.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what interest the National Farmers' Union has shown in these schemes? Is it doing anything? Has it been consulted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend had best consult the National Farmers' Union about that. We are trying to organise schemes whereby farmers co-operate collectively. In so far as the National Farmers' Union can help, then I hope that it will do so.

NHS Policy Board: Membership Criteria
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the criteria for membership of the National Health Service Policy Board as stated to the House by Lord Henley on 14th June.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the criteria for membership of the National Health Service Policy Board reflect the board's role, which is to advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the formulation of NHS policy and on the strategic oversight of the NHS. Unless the board's role is revised, there can be little reason to review the criteria for its composition.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he could have given a more simplistic Answer by just saying "No"? The Government have decided to totally ignore the suggestions and requests from all corners of your Lordships' House on this subject. The Minister will also recall that in answer to me on the previous occasion he said that the nurses must not view this as a "kick in the teeth"—his words. Is the Minister aware that since the Prime Minister herself, who normally pays fulsome tribute to the nurses and the profession, has point blank refused the nurses an opportunity to discuss this problem? If that is not a kick in the teeth from the Prime Minister, can the Minister explain what is?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, it is not a kick in the teeth. On the same day as the previous Question was asked my right honourable friend had a meeting with the leader of the nurses, Trevor Clay, and a press release was issued following that meeting.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that every single professional organisation in this country upon which our National Health Service depends is deeply upset by the omission from the board of the chief nursing officer? Will the Government discuss this with representatives of all the professional organisations and be prepared to listen to their recommendations to change the structure, which they urgently ask the Government to reconsider?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's views, but I think they stem from a misunderstanding of the role of the policy board. The policy board has been formed to bring wide-ranging management perspectives to bear on the development of National Health Service policy. It will be there to advise Ministers, and purely to advise Ministers, on the tasks and objectives which they should set for the management executive. I should stress that the deputy to the chief nursing officer is represented on the management executive.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us are every bit as concerned about what, if anything, the National Health Service Policy Board will be able to do concerning who sits on it? The noble Lord told the House that the board will advise the Secretary of State on the formulation of policy. Is the board entitled to advise the Secretary of State on policy that has already been formulated? For example, can the board advise the Secretary of State to defer the introduction of some of the proposals in the White Paper until pilot studies have been held, or are decisions of that kind still to be made wholly and single-handedly by the Secretary of State? If the board cannot do much, it does not greatly matter who sits on it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I stressed that the board is advisory. My right honourable friend cannot delegate all decisions that are his by right to make.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, now that the National Health Service Policy Board and the National Health Service management executive have started work, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government envisage any change in the role and position of the regional health authorities and the committee—that is, between them and the Secretary of State—who have in the past advised him on policy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the committee of chairmen of the regional health authorities will continue to meet as normally; but, as I have stressed, the policy board's role is advisory.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this is the fourth time that the Government have taken this attitude with the nurses. The Government took them off the regional executives, they took them from the supervisory boards, they have taken away their budgets and this is the fourth time they have tried to take away the managerial functions of the nurses. Why do the Government do this?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord takes that view. My right honourable friend still has the greatest respect for the chief nursing officer and for the nursing profession, as I stressed on the previous occasion that this Question arose.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that Florence Nightingale was a very good manager, in that during the Crimean War she reorganised the whole of the hospital and nursing services? Surely among the thousands of nurses now working in the National Health Service there must be one who is an excellent manager. Would not such an appointment give a boost to the morale of all nurses?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, but my right honourable friend has announced membership of the policy board. He has also announced membership of the management executive, which contains a nurse.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the information which I have received from the Department of Health that the terms of reference of this new policy board will not be agreed until a meeting on 6th July? If that is so, that gives the Government an opportunity to review the criteria for membership in the light of the terms of reference which are yet to be agreed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, to correct the noble Lord, I believe the meeting is on the 7th July and not 6th July. If I am incorrect I will advise the noble Lord. The terms of reference will come before the board but, as I stressed, the board will remain an advisory board.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to rise at this late stage but, referring to his earlier reply, is the Minister aware that yesterday the Royal College of Nursing issued a press statement to the effect that the Royal College general secretary, Trevor Clay, has expressed his disappointment at the Prime Minister's refusal to meet with the Royal College of Nursing council deputation on the genuine concerns of nurses in regard to the policy board? How does that tie up with his earlier reply? Something is different somewhere.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no difference at all. It is up to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as to who she meets. I stress the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has met the nurses' leader, Trevor Clay.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it the Government's policy to set up advisory boards without having the remotest clue as to what will be their terms of reference?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is entirely up to my right honourable friend, or any of my right honourable friends, as to what advisory boards they set up. My right honourable friend has set up the policy board and the noble Lord will see from the White Paper what the policy board is to do. I have stressed that

585
it is an advisory board. There are terms of reference which will come up for discussion at the first meeting.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I have an assurance from the Minister that the principle of "not one of us" has not been applied in various appointments to regional health boards throughout the country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is quite beyond the Question on the Order Paper. We are discussing the policy board, not regional health authorities.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Third Reading of the Water Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill and the Second Reading of the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill will be taken.

Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill
Report received.

Water Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the next Motion is moved perhaps it should be our duty to refer to the Order Paper and the possible misuse of it. A reasoned amendment on Third Reading is an important part of our conventions and procedures, but the amendment on the Order Paper cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a reasoned amendment. It is a rehash of all the arguments discussed in detail during all stages of the Bill. To allow this—and it has happened on one or two occasions in recent months—is to undermine the effectiveness of this House.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a Motion is not before the House at the moment, and although some noble Lords may have sympathy with what my noble friend said, it should be put when there is a Motion before the House. Perhaps I may therefore suggest to my noble friend that if he wishes to speak in this vein it should be after the Motion has been moved.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, at end to insert:
"but this House regrets that completion of consideration of the Bill in this House is sought in the absence of adequate information in respect of the terms of appointment of water and sewerage undertakers; the likely terms of the flotation and the sale of securities; the basis on which prices to consumers will be set; the final terms of the code of practice on environmental and recreational matters; the detailed requirements in respect of the quality of drinking water and river water, and the relevant timetables for compliance".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not conceal the view that I and my noble friends hold that this is a deeply objectionable Bill. We said so on Second Reading and we are certainly net taking the opportunity of a reasoned amendment to Third Reading to go over the arguments which could have been and, indeed, were put at Second Reading. That is not our purpose.
The purpose of the reasoned amendment is one that can be achieved only by an amendment at this stage of the Bill. It could not have been achieved earlier. Indeed, we would have preferred it not to be necessary but it is essential before the final stage of consideration of amendments. However detailed the Bill may be—it now stretches to 416 pages—and however complex the regulatory mechanism which it sets up—it is of unexampled complexity; much of the mechanism is not in the Bill at all but is in regulations to be laid by the Secretary of State, by the Director General of Water Services and by other people in Scotland and Wales—the essential documentation and government decisions which are necessary for Parliament to reach a rational judgment on whether privatisation is right for the water industry are still not available to Parliament and to this House.
If I had said that at Second Reading, there would have been a proper answer from noble Lords on the Government Front Bench. They would have said that there would be plenty of opportunity for these matters to be made available to the House. I have had to list the essential matters which are not available to us. I must tell the House that, in the absence of this information, this Bill, however detailed and objectionable it may be, is still in essential matters a hollow Bill.
The matters to which I refer have been the subject of debate throughout a long Committee stage and a rather long Report stage. They refer to the whole business basis on which the new private water and sewerage undertakings are to be set up. They refer to much of the codes and rules for environmental and consumer protection, which are an essential part of the provisions of privatisation, in circumstances where the Government are turning over to private industry and private undertakings, whose first priority must be profit, the control of a water and sewerage system which most people in this country—I believe rightly—consider to be essentially a public service and one which ought to be there for the benefit of consumers and not of shareholders.
Perhaps I may repeat—I am sorry to have to do so—the issues which make this amendment necessary and set out the matters which are still

587
lacking not only on the face of the Bill but even in the form of government decisions and government statements. I refer first to the terms of appointment. This amendment was put down on the Marshalled List last Thursday. At 5.20 yesterday evening, at my office at work and not in this House, the assistant private secretary to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, brought to me by the fastest possible means—I thank him for that—a draft model of the terms of appointment. I am grateful for that. The note from him said that copies would be placed in the Library next week. I must insist that even that courtesy to me is not an adequate courtesy to the House and is not an adequate provision to the House of the information which is necessary for us sufficiently to consider the terms of appointment and to put down proper amendments as we should do as a responsible Opposition.
We studied the terms of appointment as best we could over the weekend. We have taken certain views which will become evident as we come to the debate later on. However, a personal courtesy to me is no substitute for a proper respect for the privileges and responsibilities of this House. We should have had this document in good time for consideration by Parliament. We have not had it.
The terms of flotation are absolutely essential. We are talking about a privatisation procedure whose object is to bring money to the taxpayer in order to free the water and sewerage industry from what is described as the "dead hand of the Treasury"; "the clammy hand", as I think it is called by the chairman of the Thames Water Authority. We do not know what the terms of the flotation are. We do not know whether the debts will be written off and what balance of debt and security will be inherited by the new water undertakings. To put it at its crudest, we do not know whether the taxpayer will get a single penny from this privatisation. We do not know whether the new water undertakings will be adequately financed. We do not know how they will meet the responsibilities which are laid on them by the regulatory mechanism of this Government and by the regulations of the European Commission. None of this information has been made available. None of these things has been spoken of frankly and fully by the Government either in this House or in another place.
Even the model terms of appointment which were sent to me last Friday do not contain any hint of what the prices will be. We know that the prices are to be based on a complex formula of the retail prices index plus K. We do not know what K will be. We do not know whether consumers will be paying 12 per cent. to 15 per cent. more in real terms over the next few years or whether the figure will be 25 per cent., 50 per cent. or even 100 per cent. All those figures are possible depending on other decisions by government and depending on who takes responsibility for the investment programme which is necessary in the water and sewerage undertakings.
The people who vote in elections for another place and in European elections are entitled to know what the Government intend. If the Government are asking elected representatives in another place to support privatisation, they must tell them what the
588
effect will be on consumers' water and sewerage bills. They have not told them. We have no idea. We have our parallel responsibilities as an unelected body, and even we as an unelected body are not being treated seriously by the Government.
It has been common ground throughout the lengthy consideration of the Bill in Committee and in the House that the codes of practice are an essential part of the regulatory mechanism. Many of the concessions for which we have asked have been granted by the Government. I am grateful to the noble Earl, who with his usual courtesy has listened to the arguments sensibly and has made concessions. He has given me assurances, not on the face of the Bill, because the codes of practice are not on the face of the Bill, about what the codes of practice will contain. I know, because I have had a letter about it, that some of the things in the codes of practice will be better. What I do not know is whether things will be worse.
It was only towards the end of last week that we suddenly discovered that an amendment had been introduced—it was described as a transitional amendment—which has the effect of taking away the ability of our inspectorate to control river water quality and sewage disposal into our rivers for a period of at least 12 months. We did not know that. We were not warned about it. It is an almost impenetrable amendment. It is virtually impossible for the layman to understand. We were not warned that that would happen. It is clearly an enormously significant difference in the Bill—one which creates a great gap between enforcement powers under public authorities and enforcement powers under private undertakings, which will now not really be effective until 1991.
I have every confidence in the honour of the Minister. I know that when he tells me that things are in the codes of practice they will be. What I do not know is what other things will be slipped in by the department. I have seen it happening. I do not want it to happen again. I consider that it is the right of this House to see final drafts of the codes of practice before we are asked to make a decision about whether they are accurate. We simply do not have them. Those codes of practice cover essential matters. They cover the whole general issue of regulation of the water and sewerage undertakings. They cover environmental matters, which are set out in detail, but in inadequate detail, in the clauses and schedules of the Bill. They cover disconnections, an important part of social policy as well as of economic and environmental policy, and they cover the whole issue of leakages. In the absence of an up-to-date statement of the Government's views of what those codes of practice will contain, I put it to your Lordships that we cannot consider adequately whether the provisions in the Bill which we are supposed to be debating today are sufficient for the purpose.
I turn now to the quality of water. We have had many debates on the quality of both drinking water and river water. Your Lordships took the view in Committee that there ought to be a timetable for compliance with European Commission directives on drinking water quality. I welcomed that decision;

589
it is one which I sincerely hope members of the Government will not feel necessary to attempt to overturn when the matter returns to another place next week. If they do, I give due warning that those who vote to overturn a timetable for compliance with drinking water qualities will be branded by their electors, and rightly branded by their electors, as having voted for dirty water. It will not be acceptable. Further, I suspect that many Back-Bench Conservative MPs will know in their hearts that it is not acceptable.
The same issue arises as regards river water quality. It arises not only as regards the question of sampling, monitoring, inspecton and enforcement but also as regards the fact that there is no adequate definition in the Bill of what compliance with river water quality should be. We have an amendment on today's Marshalled List about compliance with river water quality objectives. I am not certain whether it is acceptable to the Government. I am not certain, because I am not a professional in such matters, whether the wording is adequate for that purpose. However, I know that an acceptable, complete and adequate answer to the problem is required in the Bill. It is the responsibility of the Government to see that it is in the Bill.
It is also the responsibility of the Government to reassure the people of this country that they have timetables for compliance with river water quality objectives for making our rivers clean, as they now have a timetable for making our drinking water quality clean. They have a responsibility for seeing to it that the necessary investment for both of those purposes—that is, for drinking water and river water quality—will be made available.
We do not have those assurances from the Bill as it stands. Indeed, all of the secondary information and all of the information which should appear on the face of the Bill and ought to be considered by Parliament as the legislation is being considered is lacking.
I have already said that this is an objectionable Bill, and it is. I hope that we shall not have a Second Reading debate on that point. I hope that we shall concentrate, when considering this amendment, on the fundamental point which I have raised: without the information called for in my amendment, which ought to have been available now and ought now to be available for deliberation by your Lordships as consideration of the Bill is completed, the Bill is hollow. It simply allows the Secretary of State to do what he thinks fit after the legislation is passed. In my view Parliament ought not to accept that. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, at end to insert:
"but this House regrets that completion of consideration of the Bill in this House is sought in the absence of adequate information in respect of the terms of appointment of water and sewerage undertakers; the likely terms of the flotation and the sale of securities; the basis on which prices to consumers will be set; the final terms of the code of practice on environmental and recreational matters; the detailed requirements in respect of the quality of drinking water and river water, and the relevant timetables for compliance".—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a third time, since when an amendment has been moved, at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when I first saw this reasoned amendment to the Third Reading Motion last Thursday, I wondered whether it signified that the noble Lord had run out of amendments. Perhaps, I thought, he has decided to put all of his amendments into one and debate them at the start of today's business. I was not far wrong in that guess because he has touched upon many of the amendments which he will be moving later. However, I was disappointed in my original thought because on Friday morning he put down many more amendments. I was also saddened because the noble Lord, among many of your Lordships, has had great influence in changing much of the Bill. Indeed, no fewer than 14 groups of amendments today alone are designed to meet your Lordships' concerns. I must say that this is not an amendment in the usual constructive terms which we have come to expect from him. It is little more than a ritual hand-wringing before we can move on to the business of revising the Bill, which is our duty.
The noble Lord has suggested that he would like to know a lot more before this House finally passes the Bill. How much more information does he want to see? I believe that he is a glutton for punishment. The Bill itself already amounts to over 400 pages and we have published a great deal of supplementary information, as I shall explain in a moment.
Of course there are details of the flotation; and of the appointments of the undertakers; and of the statutory instruments that will be made under the Bill; and of the compliance programmes that will flow out of the asset management plans that have been produced; and of many other things that will not be known before the Bill gets its Royal Assent. But that does not make it any different from previous privatisation measures or so many other measures. What is important is that the Bill contains all the necessary duties and constraints on the Secretary of State as he carries out his functions once it has Royal Assent. That is what the Bill does, that is what the House should be looking at and that is what we have been looking at in much of the earlier stages of the Bill.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the points that have been raised. The model instrument of appointment of the water and sewerage undertakers was first published in December last year and many aspects of it have been debated during the Bill's proceedings in this and the other place. But we cannot publish a final version until the appointments are made, and we cannot make those appointments until we receive Royal Assent. Work on the model has continued and some of the main changes to

591
our intentions during that consideration have been reported to this House. Consultation with the undertakers is now reaching its final stages and we therefore have placed copies of the current working draft in the Libraries of both Houses. Naturally, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, kindly said, I allowed him to have an advance copy of the document last Friday, as soon as it was available.
On charges, the Government's intentions are also perfectly clear. Charges will be limited according to an RPI plus K formula, where K is the maximum amount by which a company can increase its charges in any year above the rate of inflation. Ks will be set initially for 10 years in advance but will be reviewable after Five years if the company or the director general wishes. There will be scope for interim adjustments to reflect certain specified changes in circumstances.
In setting and reviewing Ks, both the Secretary of State and the director general will be bound by their Clause 7 duties. These will require them to set charge limits which ensure that undertakers' water and sewerage functions can be properly carried out in all of England and Wales and that the appointed company can finance the proper carrying out of those functions. They will also have to have regard to the need to protect customer interests, to promote economy and efficiency, to facilitate effective competition and so on. Later on this afternoon we shall consider whether those duties should be added to so that the director general has to pay particular regard to the interests of rural customers when it comes to charges.
But to return to one of the noble Lord's main points, we are simply not ready to announce the level of K. The levels will be announced as soon as decisions are taken. It is impossible to announce decisions before they are taken.
Turning to the issue of the terms of flotation, I would remind the noble Lord of the statement made by my noble friend Lord Hesketh in answer to a Question on 18th May. He made it plain that the Government will put in place capital structures appropriate for the nominated holding companies in the private sector. This will be done in the run up to flotation and implemented by extinguishing all the National Loans Fund debt and taking new securities which may consist of both equity and new debt. The capital structures of each holding company will be determined in the light of the circumstances of that company.
It is too soon to say what those structures will be. As I made abundantly clear during Committee, the necessary decisions cannot and will not be made until shortly before flotation. That is no different from earlier privatisation exercises. There is no question of our concealing our proposals. Similarly, it is too soon to say what the market value of our securities in each holding company will be at the time of flotation. The total value of those securities implied by the share price of the equity sold will depend on the market conditions at the time. If anyone could predict those with certainty, they would not, I suggest, be in the House this afternoon.
592
Now let me turn to the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation under Clause 10. We have gone to great lengths to secure that the House knows well in advance the way in which the Secretary of State proposes to use his powers. Indeed, he has consulted widely upon its terms. A draft of the code was published some six weeks before the Bill even came before your Lordships' House. That was a quite deliberate action so that the House could identify additions or amendments that it wanted. We have given assurances in response to representations made in the House and as a result have incorporated amendments on six particular matters. I have confirmed those assurances in writing to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We could not have been more open and responsive in the way we have pursued this matter.
Further, in your Lordships' House we have accepted an amendment to provide negative resolution procedure for the code. There will therefore be an opportunity for the House to debate the terms of the code when the relevant order is laid.
There are other codes too. The powers of water and sewerage undertakers to lay pipes are to be subject to a statutory code of practice to be submitted by the private companies to the Secretary of State for approval. Of course, until the private companies are appointed, they cannot submit the codes, but copies of the model code on which the statutory codes will be based were placed in the Library on 2nd March. The codes will provide increased protection for the interests of landowners when undertakers exercise their powers to lay pipes. Unlike the voluntary codes that already exist in some water authorities, those codes will be mandatory and powers will be subject to the ovesight of the director general. We have been quite open about the code and perfectly willing to debate its content.
The general customer code of practice and the two more specific codes on disconnections and leakages are provided for in the model instrument of appointment. Drafts of all three codes were published in February and copies were laid in the Library. The disconnections code was also debated both in this House and in the other place. A revised procedure for the disconnections code was announced on 18th May, and is incorporated in the latest draft of the model instrument of appointment, to which I referred earlier.
Details of the guaranteed standards scheme were also announced in February, and copies of the model scheme were laid in the Library. Those schemes were referred to in debates in both Houses. Copies of the consultation draft of the regulations were made available to the House in April. Following consideration of the responses to the consultation exercise, the regulations themselves will be laid after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The House will have the opportunity to debate them.
Let me now turn to the question of drinking water. Consultation documents on drinking water quality regulations were published in February this year and were widely distributed. Comments have been received from a wide range of interested bodies. The regulations themselves will be laid immediately after the Water Bill receives the Royal Assent and will be

593
based on the consultation documents. The regulations will provide a comprehensive new system for regulating and safeguarding the quality of water supplies. The requirements of the Community drinking water directive will be incorporated in the regulations as mandatory standards, together with additional national measures. There will be more frequent and accurate sampling and a new procedure for approval of chemicals and other substances used in treating water. In addition, water suppliers will be required to provide full information to customers on the quality of water coming from their taps. Once those stringent regulations are in force, both local authorities and the new drinking water inspectorate to be set up by the Government will closely check that all requirements are being met. We have published consultation documents setting out the full details of what we are proposing to do. We cannot bring those regulations before the House until, again, the Bill has received Royal Assent; but we shall do so soon after, and the House will have a chance to debate those regulations.
Undertakers with supplies which do not comply with the standards set under the regulations will have to submit undertakings under Clause 20(5)(b) setting out action programmes to achieve compliance within stated timescales. Any company which fails to comply with the standards will face enforcement action, unless it has submitted an undertaking which has been accepted by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will only accept undertakings which aim to achieve compliance as soon as possible; but timescales must be ones which undertakers can physically achieve and they must safeguard the continuity of public supplies. Programmes have been submitted by the water authorities and water companies but they are still being considered, and details of undertakings, including timescales, will be published in due course. They cannot be published before they have been fully drawn up.
On river quality, we have made it quite clear to the House that it would be wholly unreasonable to establish the relevant classifications and objectives before the NRA is in being to give advice and to consult on them. That is especially so since it will have the main role in carrying them forward. It would be quite irresponsible of us to follow any one course; but we have given assurances that the next steps will follow as soon as practicable after the authority is up and running, work on the 1990 river quality survey completed, and appropriate consultations undertaken.
As far as the related programme of sewage treatment works improvements is concerned, we have made clear its scope, purpose and timetable during the past few months. The first announcement was in December. The noble Lord referred to an amendment which we look forward to discussing later.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred on Report to a study that the Secretary of State had invited the NRAAC to undertake in reviewing the present system for monitoring and assessing compliance with discharge consents. That will include the future role of look-up tables which are
594
currently used to assess whether sewage treatment works meet their consent conditions. We should like to endorse what my noble friend said about the open-ended nature of that review.
Neither the Government nor the NRAAC are committed to retaining the present system indefinitely. I am confident that the NRA will undertake the study in an expert and objective manner and it can look forward to government support in carrying through any changes or developments to the system which its review shows to be justified. The outcome will be important for the NRA in securing the improvements to water quality needed in the 1990s. Our officials are currently discussing the detailed terms of reference of that review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to make a more detailed announcement shortly.
I come back to the point that I made in opening. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is a difficult man to please. He is asking us to publish information before we even have it. He is asking for information that has not been available at a similar stage of earlier privatisations. Much of it cannot be.
The important point is that the powers and duties contained in the Bill will govern the way in which the water industry works in the future to the benefit of customers, shareholders, and—and this is my concern—the environment. So we cannot support the reasoned amendment either in its overall aim or its detail.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, one of the problems with following the noble Earl is that he always sounds so reasonable, but Members on this side of the House do not believe that he has sufficiently answered the forceful arguments submitted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Whatever else may be said about the Bill, there can be no doubt that it is universally unpopular. Its principal sponsor, the Secretary of State for the Environment, whom I will pan, is without question the most disliked and distrusted member of the present Cabinet.
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, yes he is. For confirmation of that statement one has only to recall the size of the Green vote in the recent Euro-election and, more particularly, the result in the Cotswolds, where the Green candidate polled exceptionally well. For those of us in all parties who have pursued environmental issues consistently during our parliamentary careers, the size of the support for the Greens is frustrating, to say the least, but understandable. Yet, under this measure, far too much of vital importance is being left to the discretion of the self-same Secretary of State and the provision of future regulations of unknown content.
I appreciate that in Committee and on Report the Minister has shown concern and brought forward a number of reassuring amendments. The fact is that the whole measure was misconceived, and whether a satisfactory flotation will now prove possible

595
remains to be seen. One suspects that the terms, about which of course we remain totally in the dark, will have to be extraordinarily generous, and future regulations watered down, if City investors are to be attracted in sufficient numbers.
We remain in the dark about the mysterious formula K. There are said to be some 39 variations being played around with in the department. Large sums of money are already being spent on advertising. There is even to be a national water exhibition in Birmingham from 3rd to 5th October. That is nice timing if there ever was one. For Mr. Michael Cardey, secretary of the Water Authorities' Association to say, as he did on television last night, that all that expenditure had nothing to do with privatisation is clearly nonsense. He can go and tell that story to the marines. For consumers, it is a disaster. The cost of privatisation alone will add between 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. to their bills. One only has to read the press today to see that, in my former constituency in the Isle of Wight, people receiving their first bills following metering are finding that the cost of water to them has already more than doubled. The Government should, of course, have listened more sympathetically to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. But he was brushed aside by the friends of "you know who" all of them duly rewarded for their pains by invitations to the celebratory lunch at Chequers.
Most of us suspect that despite its undoubted expertise local government will be largely frozen out, although in Scotland it remains in control, and rightly so. That is par for the course with this Government. Representation of consumers and voluntary bodies with expert environmental knowledge on important committees remains in doubt despite continuing concerns expressed about the planning, the land use, the amenity and conservation implications of this Bill.
If, as we suspect, commercial exploitation occurs on a substantial scale, it will be too late to put the process into reverse in a few years' time. The damage will have been done. Those are some of the reasons why the amendment should be supported. It certainly will be by those of us on these Benches.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before we go on with the debate, could I just say one thing? I realise that when we have a reasoned amendment of this kind at this stage of our discussion of one of the biggest Bills I have ever seen, feelings run high. However, I beg noble Lords in all parts of the House to remember that while we jealously guard our own rights in this House regarding remarks of a personal nature made in another place, so we ought to have an eye to our own standing orders. Our own standing orders are absolutely explicit:
"It is undesirable that any Member of the House of Commons should be mentioned by name, or otherwise identified, for the purpose of criticism of a personal nature."
I hope that it will not happen again.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for his
596
observation because it saves me making a similar one. I wish to thank also my noble friend Lord Caithness for a marvellous exposition in which he dealt with all the points raised so cogently and strongly by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in supporting this criticial amendment. I thought he made a good answer to most of them. I recognise that there were some effective points in the noble Lord's critical amendment.
My reason for opposing the critical amendment is that so far as concerns this House and very nearly so far as concerns the other place, the parliamentary process for this monster Bill (because that it is, not only in size but in other ways) is pretty well over. I am looking to the future when the water companies have been launched and go into operation. I cannot but think that a critical amendment such as this attached at Third Reading would be damaging to the confidence of the companies as they enter into the immensely difficult task which Parliament has laid upon them.
Although the noble Lord has conducted a most effective campaign, if I may say so, in opposition to the Bill and has indicated in every way that we should do much better without it, that does not alter the fact that Parliament as a whole is about to cause this major change to happen in the water industry. The water companies will be born. What matters now, in my opinion, is that they should be born successfully and that they should operate successfully. There are some 50,000 men and women working in the water industry; there they are, working away every day, supplying the water for the nation, dealing with the effluent and its disposal. Whoever is in Parliament, whatever legislation there is, these people—I know many of them—have to go on working just the same. What matters, as I see it, is that the companies should be properly financed and launched in a reasonable way. I do not believe that the amendment will help in this context. That is why I shall not be in favour of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to the amendment which I moved at Committee stage. I think we should have had a better Bill if the Committee had accepted my amendment. However, that is now water under the bridge; I cannot alter it. The plcs will have a financial structure—in what we all realise is a no-growth industry—that depends upon the profit motive. There will be a permanent conflict between the interests of the shareholders and those of the consumers. So from the start the water companies will have a very difficult job of management.
I sympathise with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to know the values of K. We have all heard of the urgent discussions going on behind the scenes as to what on earth they are to be in order to reconcile these conflicting interests. Of course the financial structure of the companies is still unknown, as the noble Lord rightly said.
I am surprised at the delay, I am bound to say. I should have thought by now that we should have heard about it. Personally I am prepared to give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as long as he likes, provided he comes back with the right

597
answer. In my opinion the right answer is a generous financial disposition for the new plcs. I say that with all the urgency I can to my noble friend the Minister. That will enable the plcs to shoulder their new responsibilities of satisfying shareholders as well as consumers without unacceptably high increases in charges next year.
The reality is that the Government have chosen to privatise the industry at a moment when a major improvement in standards of purity of water supply and standards of effluent discharge is seen as necessary both nationally and within Europe. The cost of these higher standards is estimated at approximately £5 billion over the next five years. This capital expenditure is in addition to existing capital commitments on such long-term projects as renewal and repair of the half million kilometres of water mains and sewers and much else, although it must be added, as already mentioned, that the initial cost of privatisation is estimated at some £800 million.
To carry all this capital expenditure on water charges would involve excessively high increases for the next few years of the order of 30 to 50 per cent. per annum. Nobody knows, but it is of that order. Such a prospect would clearly prejudice a successful Stock Exchange launch and would place an impossible strain on the water company managers, squeezed between their duty to pay a dividend to their shareholders and supply water services to their customers at reasonable charges.
I suggest that the priority now is to see that this workforce of 50,000 people who keep the service going throughout the year is given a sound financial basis. I do not believe that this critical amendment will help that. It is the Government's responsibility and interest to provide this adequate financial structure. I suggested in Committee that the proceeds of the sale on the Stock Exchange should go back into the industry. That was not accepted. Therefore, I wish to suggest an alternative to which I have adverted previously. I now suggest using the £4 billion worth of Public Works Loan Board loans to the regional water authorities. The law requires the extinguishment of these loans. My proposal is that this large sum should be re-lent to the new water companies interest free in the form of undated loans. That would give a strong enough financial base for the water companies to face the huge commitments ahead of them. It would give them a fair prospect of meeting capital expenditure without unacceptably high increases in charges.
In this context I referred in Committee to the powerful group of local authorities who are preparing to launch a legal action for compensation for what they regard as their assets which were transferred in 1973 by the 1973 Act to the regional water authorities, on the basis that they were given a majority on the regional water authorities. They were given such a majority; they accepted that. However, that was removed 10 years later by the 1983 Act. Therefore, they feel that they have not been fairly treated. As I am not in the counsel of the local authorities, I do not know whether this is the case; but it is possible that if my noble friend was
598
able to make a generous settlement in this context of providing a generous basis for the financial settlement of the new companies, these local authorities may be persuaded to call off their pursuit.
I have taken this opportunity 10 mention this matter as much has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That gives one an opportunity to say almost anything. I have made the point which I feel is of the most practical significance in getting the water companies off to a fair and reasonable start. I hope my noble friend will be able to take note of this point, because I feel that, if my point were taken on board, these regional water authorities who are to become the new private water companies would be given a fair start to carry out an extremely difficult job. That job will be made that much more difficult when they have to satisfy shareholders as well as consumers. I believe that unless we give the new privatised companies a fair and generous start they will not be able to do that job. However, I do not think it would be helpful if the noble Lord's reasoned amendment, even though it is so cogently expressed, were attached to the Bill. Therefore, I shall vote against it.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, much of what I originally intended to say has already been covered. However, I wish to make one or two statements which I think are relevant to the discussion we have already had. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned that on many occasions the final fine tunings for other privatisations had not been mentioned at this stage in legislation. However, I suggest to the noble Earl that there has never been a privatisation which can compare with this one. We are breaking new ground because we are privatising a body which does not even have comparative competition, in that water cannot be substituted by any other natural resource. We are taking out of the control of the nation something which is absolutely vital to life itself. As such, I suggest we should have set new precedents and gone further and been more definite from the start.
I am not all that well informed as regards the actual flotation, so I shall let that matter pass and let the words of those who are wiser than me in this respect carry their full weight. However, the factor of price is worrying for the simple reason that uncertainty is always damaging. However, that matter can be left to rest upon the comments of those who have spoken before me.
The matter that primarily concerns me is that of the environmental and drinking water standards. I suggest that this Bill should have taken as its prime objective the setting of a date by which we would definitely meet certain standards and take a series of positive environmental measures. The Bill should state when those things would occur and where the financing would come from. The Bill should also state that the Government would make such financing available, hopefully before any privatisation. It would be fairer to the City if the funding was made available before privatisation. Surely, as a money making institution, the City should not have to shoulder such responsibilities.

599
When all this is said and done, I feel that the Bill is a very odd one as it does not encourage the establishment of a private industry which will face at least a certain degree of competition in dealing with such an important part of our natural environment and our lives. I hope that by the time we finish today many of the questions that have been raised in this debate will have been fully answered.
3.55 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I do not support this reasoned amendment, broadly for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Nugent has already stated. However, for many of us who support the broad thrust of government policy, this is a disappointing Bill. It is lacking in wisdom, despite the many improvements that have been made in your Lordships' House, and which, no doubt, will be made elsewhere. We have spent many hours on the Bill, and many more hours will be spent on it. Much effort has been spent on what I believe to be unnecessary legislation.
The Bill does nothing to promote either national prosperity or the quality of life which could not have been achieved more easily and more effectively in other ways. However, I wish to pay tribute to my noble friends on the Front Bench, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Caithness. I pay tribute to them for the effort, hard work and, most of all, for the patient way in which they have dealt with the many amendments which have been tabled. If that time had been spent on a Bill which sought to improve the quality of water, to curtail pollution and protect and enhance the environment, it would have been infinitely more worthwhile.
Privatisation of course makes sound sense in every case where competitive market forces operate. Profit is the best incentive to efficient operation, and is an excellent measure of success in serving customers. It is also effective in attracting new capital investment. But that applies only if profit is earned in a competitive market place where customers have a choice. Such conditions do not operate in water supply, so this privatisation is flawed in that respect. Customer protection and prevention of abuse in a private monopoly situation has had to be provided by a vast rigmarole of regulations and regulatory powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services. This is a wholly artificial situation and alien to the sound principles of reward for enterprise and risk taking, and of market forces.
The only one possible reason in favour of this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford mentioned, is that the Exchequer will not have to find the large sums of money that will be required for improving the quality of water and controlling pollution. But that is a poor argument, for it is neither wise nor fair that individual water companies should bear the burden of this expenditure which will raise the costs of water to individuals and to industry, neither of which is desirable, particularly in present circumstances. It would be better if that expenditure was shared throughout the country by means of taxation. That could have been achieved
600
without all the complications of privatisation. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will give serious and sympathetic consideration to the ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Nugent who has such wide and long experience in this matter.
I have no enthusiasm for this Bill, nor, I believe, does it have wide support in the Conservative Party or in the country. Indeed, I believe it has done our party quite considerable harm, to no purpose. Certainly the vast majority of Conservative supporters to whom I have spoken have no enthusiasm for the Bill. However, I shall not vote against the reasoned amendment, broadly for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Nugent has given. In any case that would serve no purpose, and it would simply give encouragement to noble Lords opposite, which I have no wish to do. However, I implore the Government when planning future legislation never again to allow dogma to overrule common sense.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on the other hand—
Noble Lords: Order!
3.59 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I apologise, as I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was about to do, in that I did not place my name on the list of those who wished to speak. I had not realised that that was necessary on a reasoned amendment. I apologise for my ignorance in that matter. However, I think it will be agreed that I have been a conscientious follower of this Bill in all its stages in this House; so I hope I may be forgiven.
I wish briefly but emphatically to support the reasoned amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He listed wide areas of concern where, after all this time, government policy and the administrative arrangements for carrying it out remain far from clear. I shall refer to only one of these areas; namely, water quality and the monitoring and enforcement of standards. Who is really responsible? Consultative documents were indeed issued in February with the most detailed scientific tables. But they did not tell us where the buck stops.
Responsibility for the monitoring of sampling and analysis is divided among the new plcs, the National Rivers Authority as principal watchdog (but not covering drinking water), the local authorities and the drinking water inspectorate of the Department of the Environment, with the director general holding a watching brief on behalf of the consumer. At this late stage we still do not know what the drinking water inspectorate will do. Will it, as one hears, conduct no more than a paper audit based on monitoring data provided by the plcs? Why does the National Rivers Authority not have the duty or the resources to check drinking water as well as other water quality?
We have been given no adequate explanation of the division of responsibilities. At Committee stage I raised the matter of local authority responsibilities. As one would expect, I received a most courteous letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, detailing

601
changes made since the 1973 Water Act. However, he was completely silent on the vital matter of the competence in terms of manpower and laboratory resources of the majority of local authorities to carry out what appear to be their continuing very important and complex responsibilities for water sampling and analysis.
In 1973 many of the local authorities simply transferred their staff and equipment to the new water authorities, on which at that time, as we have been reminded, they were represented. Many of them are now seriously under-resourced for the responsibilities which, according to the Bill as it now stands, will still rest with them. Anyone who has followed the Camelford saga will realise how hopeless it was for any of the victims in that area to rely on the work of the local authority.
I shall not elaborate further. It must be clear to everyone that in their decision to float the new companies in November at all costs, come what may, the Government are imposing on us legislation which leaves vital areas of concern unclear and ill-defined. Not least are the proposals put forward with conviction, at this very late hour, by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
Had the Department of the Environment realised earlier what was involved in this massive exercise of simultaneously both privatising and regulating the water industry we should not now find ourselves forced to acquiesce in matters which we know ought to have been more thoroughly examined. After several decades in the other place and in this House that is not a position in which I for one care to find myself.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may make so hold in my short speech as to confine myself to the terms of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—and I am one of those who admire his spirited efforts during earlier stages of the Bill—made an impassioned speech which was not really justified either by the terms of the Bill or by our legislative practice. Perhaps I may deal with each of the six points in turn.
First, he said that the Bill should have mentioned the appointment of water and sewerage undertakers. No statute that we have ever passed has set out the full terms of appointment of members of public boards. This Bill does at least indicate, in Clause 1(4), the kind of experience required and does so in fairly broad terms.
Secondly, he complained that there is an absence of adequate information on the terms of the flotation and the sale of securities. I feel bound to point out that an Act of Parliament is not a prospectus for the sale of shares and we do not mention such things.
Thirdly, he referred to the basis on which prices to consumers will be set. Again, no statute has dared to lay down fully, or even to any great extent, the basis on which prices are set because that depends upon so many factors, many of which are unforeseeable.
The noble Lord's fourth point is that the final terms of the code of practice have not been set out.
602
The object of codes of practice is to avoid going into great detail in a statute. Quite frankly, we have had so much indication from the Government already, and a copy of the draft code of practice deposited in the Library, that it would have been quite absurd in my opinion if the terms had been set out in this Bill, which is already 415 pages long.
Fifthly, he referred to the quality of drinking water and river water. We have eight clauses, fairly long clauses some of them, dealing with this very matter and referring to unwholesome water, wholesome water and so on. I should have thought that the Bill has gone quite as far as it could in attempting to achieve drinking water of the quality which the people in this country require and deserve.
Finally, the noble Lord said that there was an absence of relevant timetables for compliance. Quite frankly, it is not usual to put in a Bill a chronology of the action which is going to be taken to follow it. It would be generally impracticable to do so. In the context of this Bill it simply would not be feasible. But my noble friend Lord Caithness has from time to time indicated the steps that he contemplates will be taken. I do not think that we could have expected more in the Bill than the Government have given us. Strictly speaking I do not see how, on its terms, anyone could vote for the amendment.
4.6 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say a few words. It is true to say that this is the most difficult debate which I have ever had to sum up. It is part Second Reading, part a re-run of the debates on amendments we have already discussed, part a preliminary encounter with the amendments we shall discuss this afternoon and part Bill do now pass. Perhaps I may touch on three themes which came out of the debate.
I shall deal first with the environment, which was a subject raised by my noble friend Lord Nugent. I was grateful for his words. My noble friend Lord Caldecote also touched on the subject, as did the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady White. It is precisely because we wish to see an improvement in our environment that we have brought forward the Bill. It has been proven, to our shame and satisfaction, if those are the appropriate words, that government control of the finances of the water authorities has not led to the improvement in the environment that we had all wished and hoped for.
I am glad to say that, because of rising investment, there are improvements. We have seen it in our bathing waters, we have seen it in drinking water quality and in the vast reduction of sewage works which do not meet the criteria. However, there is more investment to come and further improvements to the environment are needed. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as the right vehicle for achieving that improvement.
My noble friend Lord Nugent raised a subject which I know is of intense concern to him and to many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, namely the question of charges, the K factor and the capital structure. I join noble Lords

603
in saying that I too wish to know what that will be. We all do. But I know that the House will realise that those figures cannot be given until all the work has been done. We have not done all the work, but we are working on it and have been for some months. As soon as we are in a position to let your Lordships know the capital structure and charges, we shall do so.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote was quite political. He said that he did not like the Bill and that the cost of the improvements to the environment and to drinking water and sewerage quality should be met out of taxation. I remind him that it must therefore compete with the very strong and urgent demands that are made on the taxation levy by hospitals, schools, education, the police force and other important areas. Perhaps I may take him back some 14 years to when the Labour Party could not tax us any more—so it increased prices by nearly 43 per cent. on average in 1975–76 and 26 per cent. the following year. We have already seen in Committee that the Labour Party does not like to have a control on prices, as we advocate. So I suggest to my noble friend that the method that he has suggested to the House has been proven in the past not to give any protection to the customer.
My noble friend also referred to the quality of life. Perhaps I may remind him that the swingeing increases of which I reminded the House were accompanied by a massive reduction in investment and an increase in pollution. That was hardly an increase in the quality of life for all of us in this country.
I believe that I have answered fully the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I understand why he has put forward the reasoned amendment. I feel that he is wrong to do so. I look forward very much to discussing the amendments to which he has alluded for the rest of this afternoon and this evening. I reiterate that we have a number of concessions to give your Lordships to meet the very concerns that the noble Lord has mentioned. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the reasoned amendment.
4.11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous, low-key and even candid response. What he has in effect said to the House is that, "Many of those matters cannot be presented to you because the decisions have not been taken and because"—I believe that I am quoting his words—"they have not been fully drawn up" or, as he said in his winding up speech, "before we have done all the work". I suggest to the House that it is the Government's duty to make their decisions before introducing legislation or before seeking to complete legislation. I suggest that it is the Government's duty to do the work that is necessary. I suggest that it is the Government's duty to draw up fully the instruments that are required to bring into effect legislation.
I do not make that simply as a constitutional point. That would be serious enough. It is most serious because the issues which are still unresolved
604
and on which the Government have not taken their decisions and done all their work—to keep to the words used by the Minister in his response—are vital to the consideration not only by Parliament but by the electorate as to whether privatisation is a good thing or not.
In a speech which understandably undertook to support the Government on this amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, used the remaining nine-tenths of his time to make a devastating attack on the Government and the proposals for privatisation. I wish that he had done so at Second Reading and that he had been free to take a more active part in the consideration of the Bill as it went through.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made the point for the amendment in two very effective ways, although he stood up to oppose it. First, he criticised the timing of the Bill. That is one of the major points that we are making in proposing the amendment. We are saying that the Government have got their timing all wrong because they have not been able to reach decisions that are both administratively feasible and politically acceptable. They are therefore keeping those decisions quiet until after the Bill has gone through. Although I reiterate that I trust the Minister personally, I do not trust the Government and I am not at the Dispatch Box in order to trust the Government.
We read in The Times today that,
"The Government will tommorrow defy the European Commission and the House of Lords over the timetable for Britain to meet EC standards on drinking water",
and that,
"Mr. Michael Howard … will tell the Commission that it is impractical for Britain to meet the £10 billion".
I am not simply referring to the issue; I am referring to the fact that Mr. Michael Howard is preparing to do that on the day after the House is asked to pass the Bill. That is what I object to. It is the same principle by which governments—I am afraid that that is all governments—introduce contentious matters at the end July after the House has risen for the summer. But it is a particularly blatant example here of the Government making decisions and having views which they are not prepared to express to Parliament and to have discussed by Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, went on to ask for a generous settlement for the new water companies. I appreciate his motives in doing so, but when he asked for interest-free loans I must remind him that the interest will in effect then be paid by the taxpayers and any benefit will go to the shareholders. If that is not a fundamental criticism of the motives and thinking of the Government in putting forward the legislation, I do not know what is.
I reiterate that I have no criticism of the courtesy and integrity of the Minister and his colleagues in the House who have put forward the Bill. But the Bill is a sham as a piece of legislation so far as concerns Parliament and the people of this country. We should not let it go through without expressing our most severe disquiet at the way the matter has been handled. We should not let it go through without drawing the conclusion that, because they

605
are not able to come into the open about those essential matters, there must be something wrong with them. That is what I think is the case and I believe that the people of this country will think that that is the case.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 167.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ampthill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brimelow, L.

Molloy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Nicol, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Northfield, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Peston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rugby, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Vernon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kearton, L.

Willis, L.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winterbottom, L.

606

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hood, V.

Aldington, L.

Hooper, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allerton, L.

Ironside, L.

Annaly, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Balfour, E.

Joseph, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Bellwin, L.

Killearn, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bessborough, E.

Knutsford, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blake, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookes, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Manton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Caccia, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Caldecote, V.

Middleton, L

Camden, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Moyne, L.

Chelmer, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cottenham, E.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Onslow, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Daventry, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dundee, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Forbes, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Forester, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seebohm, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Shannon, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Somers, L.

Gridley, L.

Southborough, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Haig, E.

Stockton, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Havers, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

607

Trafford, L.

Wise, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wolfson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Vinson, L.

Wynford, L.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and the amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time disagreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 7 [General duties with respect to water supply and sewerage services]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("or 72") and insert (", 72 or 160").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 96. I shall start with the last three amendments. Clause 160 places a duty on water and sewerage undertakers to move pipes in certain cases. At Report stage I undertook to look again at the provision in view of what my noble friend Lady Blatch had said, in particular in relation to the question of security for expenses incurred by the undertaker in connection with carrying out the work and the question of moving pipes in the street. We have considered carefully the industry's concern and are generally satisfied that the provisions of the clause do contain the safeguards that the industry is entitled to expect. We agree, however, that an undertaker should be able to require a person who requests that a pipe is moved to provide security for the work involved. This is the case with requisitioning water mains or sewers and connections to water mains. This is provided for by these amendments.
We also agree that the provisions of the clause should not extend to pipes in streets which are dealt with separately under the provisions of the Public Utilities Street Works Act. This is also provided for by these amendments.
Amendment No. 1 is consequential on the provisions in Clause 160. It provides for the director general to exercise the powers conferred by virtue of Clause 160 in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7. This is the first of the government amendments to meet concerns raised in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not present to thank the Minister. We give our general support to these amendments. In addition, I should like to say that I am delighted to see that the Government are learning from the Opposition about the effective use of paving amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 46, after ("particular,") insert ("that the interests of customers and potential customers in rural areas are so protected and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, throughout the passage of this Bill it has been your Lordships' wish to ensure that one class of person is not discriminated against in respect of another class and pay more for their water. If this amendment is approved it would make it a specific duty on the Secretary of State and the director general, when exercising their general duty to ensure that the interests of customers of water companies are protected with regard to fixing and recovery of charges, to make sure that consumers in rural areas are so protected.
Although I and other noble Lords who supported similar amendments earlier in the Bill have, I suppose, had the odd moment of disagreement with the Government, I hasten to say that both my noble friend Lord Caithness (Official Report, 12/6/89; col. 1161) and my honourable friend in another place Mr. Howard in Standing Committee on 21/2/89 at col. 1263, have also agreed with the principle of no discrimination against rural dwellers. Indeed, they both quoted the model instrument of appointment and Clause 7 as being sufficient protection.
Unfortunately, the model instrument is not on the face of the Bill. In fact it was only through the diligence of the Librarian of this House that I unearthed it a few weeks back. In my opinion Clause 7 is made more than vague by Clause 76, and indeed by my old friend Clause 7(2)(b).
As a result of this difference of opinion, my noble friend Lord Caithness and his officials have spent a lot of time and effort with me and with the parliamentary adviser to the National Farmers' Union. I should like to put on record my thanks to all of them, for the outcome has been this amendment which I commend to your Lordships. Perhaps I should explain that my noble friend Lord Caithness persuaded me that in this Bill there were problems in amending Clause 76, which he spelt out very clearly to your Lordships at Committee stage and also at Report stage. I suspect that he will do so again today. I am sure many of your Lordships will wish to query how this amendment will work in practice. I, and perhaps my noble friend, will try to answer those queries when replying.
Finally, I thank those in all parts of the House who kindly put their names to the amendments I moved at earlier stages of the Bill and also all noble Lords who supported them. It was a privilege to experience such support from all parts of the House and I know that that support will be appreciated by all those who live in the country. To those noble Lords who turned up at Report stage expecting a Division I can only say that I had intended to divide the House until my noble friend Lord Caithness made me an offer that I could not refuse. However, having farmed for 30 years near to where Milton lived and married, perhaps I may say to them:
"They also serve who only stand and wait".
I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulated the Minister a moment ago on discovering the use of paving amendments. I now withdraw those congratulations. I think that what he

609
has done is to put in the paving amendment and forget the substantive amendment. That is why I am rising to speak to Amendment No. 31, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 2. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, quoted Milton. I should like to go down market a good way in the poetry stakes and quote Roy Campbell's poem On Certain South African Writers:
"You praise the firm restraint with which they write.
I'm with you there, of course.
They use the snaffle and the bit all right,
But where's the bloody horse?"
I suspect that the problem with this amendment is that it has the makings of a significant concession. I am quite certain it is intended to produce a significant concession, but it is not an adequate one. It does not actually ensure that customers in rural areas will be paying the same price for water as those in urban areas. I would have wished to see the Government accept not only the principle which was urged by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others at earlier stages—and I understand they are going to do so—but the effects of that principle and to write into Clause 76 (which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, says, is where it should be) a provision that the charges for domestic customers should be,
"at the same level for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by the undertaker".
That is the full effect of the protection for rural areas. I hope that the Government will accept not only the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, but also my Amendment No. 31.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to add my support very briefly to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. Like him, I am much concerned that those who live in rural areas should not, as a result of this Bill, have imposed upon them burdens which are not shared by those living in more highly populated areas.
In supporting the amendment—I am bound to say that I am a flicker in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which is a little more explicit—I should like to say to my noble friend that I also appreciate the courtesy with which he has received these arguments and the attention that he has given to them. I cannot resist the temptation to ask him to be good enough to communicate the ideas that he has had on this Bill to his noble friend who is handling the Electricity Bill in this House. A similar argument applies there and will be brought up again.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too should like to support my noble friend's amendment and also to support that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because the two seem to go extremely well together. Perhaps the first amendment will be enough on its own, although that must be in some doubt. I hope that when my noble friend comes to sum up this situation he will give us a firm assurance that we cannot accept Amendment No. 31 because in fact rural areas will be protected from what I would term overcharging.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I also am pleased that we appear to be getting near to some resolution of this matter of charges in rural areas. It is very important because the disquiet in rural areas has remained all this time. I should like my noble friend the Minister when he comes to reply to endeavour to make clear to us as regards Amendment No. 2, without Amendment No. 31, exactly what powers the director general will have to stop discrimination against a rural population. That is the one point about which I should like him to be as clear as possible.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, Amendment No. 31 is identical to the one tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley at Report stage. It was discussed with a similar amendment to Clause 37 which was tabled by the noble Lord. The amendment would require that charges schemes made under Clause 76 provide only for charges to be set so that the same level of charge is fixed for the same level of service throughout the area of the undertaker.
At Report stage Amendment No. 31 was put forward by my noble friend to provide protection for rural customers. I think I had persuaded him that the amendment was defective and I hope that the wisdom my noble friend now has will permeate through to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Perhaps I may give him just one example. Thames Water makes a rateable value-based sewage charge of 8.9p per pound of rateable value in the inner area of north London but of 19.5p per pound in Thames western division. This difference of 119 per cent. is intended to allow for the difference in rateable values of similar properties in these two areas to ensure that broadly comparable bills will result. Therefore the net result of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would require very substantial and, I would put it to your Lordships, very unfair increases in water charges in the inner area of London. If those increases take place, there is only one person to blame.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but what we are asking in the amendment is that the charges should be at the same level. I would argue, as he has argued, that the charges in both parts of the Thames Water Authority area are at the same level. The fact that they are levied at a different rate in the pound is neither here nor there.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this was exactly the point I made at Report stage. What does the noble Lord's amendment mean? Does it mean the same level or does it mean the rateable level? It could very well be argued that the pence per pound of rateable value is the level that should be levied. There is the very conundrum that made it so difficult for me to accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley and why I am happy to recommend to the House that his revised amendment on Clause 7 is the one that should be accepted because it covers the point that he was so concerned about. I should

611
like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Stanley and also to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for their assiduous work in pressing the earlier amendments for protection of rural customers.
The amendment that my noble friend has tabled reinforces the message to the Secretary of State and the director that in considering whether particular charging proposals are unduly discriminating it is right and proper for the director to address particularly whether customers in rural areas are protected. Charges are differentiated now and will always be so. The question is whether such differentiation—that is, discrimination, can be justfied. The director must consider the interests of rural and of course all other customers (but specifically those in rural areas) in deciding to enforce the undue discrimination requirements.
I urge the House to accept Amendment No. 2 and to reject Amendment No. 31.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that statement. It is right—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—that as the Bill is written it is still possible to discriminate, as has been mentioned, under Clause 76. But perhaps I might be allowed to give an example of how I believe it would work in practice. If there was thought to be a case of discrimination against some rural dwellers in Little Tooting I would hope that they would bring this to the attention of the local National Farmers' Union secretary, the WI or the new organisation, Rural. On their behalf the organisation concerned would complain to the director stating the amendment. They would also point out the terms of the model instrument. I suppose that if there were no agreement at the end of the day the case could come before the Law Lords in this House. As I understand it—I stand to be corrected—when the Law Lords judge they take into account what Parliament meant and what it tried to say.
Every noble Lord who has spoken, from all sides of the House, supports the fact that there should be no discrimination between rural and town or any other dwellers. Much more important is the fact that the Government have said so—my noble friend at col. 1161 and my honourable friend Mr. Howard at col. 1263. Both have said that in principle the Government are entirely in agreement with there being no discrimination. I see my noble friend on the Front Bench nodding his head. With that I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 8 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 10, after ("architectural") insert ("engineering").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the House will be kind to me as this is perhaps the most modest amendment that could be moved. I am proposing to add one word and one word only. Admittedly, I am proposing to add that one word in
612
two places which adds up to two words or twice the same word. However, it is still a modest addition to the Bill.
As we discussed at earlier stages most of the artefacts are described generally as buildings and sites but these are of an engineering nature rather than architectural, archaeological or even historical. Their main interest is engineering. The water industry is an engineering based industry; architecture, archaeology and so on are subsidiary. I believe that this was recognised by the Government when they took a substantial step forward and proposed that the word "building" in Clause 8 should also include structures. That was a step I welcomed. I am delighted that the Government have recognised engineering to the extent of including the word "structure".
However, I should like the Government to take one further step and include the word "engineering" on the face of the Bill as well as "archaeological, architectural and historic". It is in this case the most important of the four words. I shall illustrate my point briefly with three examples. We might wish to preserve an old pumping station for architectural reasons, although, again, we might not. We might wish to preserve it for historical reasons, or we might not. However, we might reasonably wish to preserve the beam engines contained within it, not for architectural, archaeological or historical reasons, but for engineering reasons. We ought to say so.
I give my second example. Recently in the Royal Docks a new pumping station has been constructed, but not yet opened. I believe it has been handed over to the Thames Water Authority. The very distinguished architects of a small part of it are Richard Rodgers and Partners; the distinguished consulting engineers of the major part of it are Sir William Halcrow. We are unlikely to want to preseve the building at the moment because it is new: in future we may wish to do so. We should consider that only one-sixth of the building is architectural and five-sixths of it engineering based. The architecture stops at ground level because the architect was not permitted below that level. The part above ground level is in the hands of the architect, but the structure is an engineering structure.
Now for my third example. Let us suppose that at some date in the future we wish to preserve the Thames Barrier. The barrier is almost wholly an engineering structure. There is a tiddly little bit of architecture—but not very good architecture—in the parts standing above water level. Nobody would wish to preserve the barrier because of these structures which look rather like Vikings up to their necks in water. We would not preserve the barrier for that reason, but we might possibly wish to preserve it because of its engineering innovations. It is an engineering structure; it is only for that reason that one would wish to preserve it.
I hope that these examples prove the strength of my case. It is not enough to use the blanket word "historical" to cover everything and then to leave the special cases of archaeological and architectural as well. We should add the third special case of engineering, especially in this industry which is so

613
wholly, perhaps entirely, an engineering industry. I throw myself on the mercy of the House. I beg to move this modest amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this amendment; I should briefly like to explain why. Although I sympathise with the idea of trying to preserve engineering work, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has explained, one must move forward with the times. Today a single electric motor replaces a great big steam engine. "Engineering" is not the kind of word we should write into legislation. Very often if these wonderful old steam engines are to be preserved they are better managed and preserved by being moved to a museum.
As I understand the proceedings of your Lordships' House, Amendment No. 3 is to be taken with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9. If that is the case, and in order to save time, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 5, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 4. While I sympathise with the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I must point out that if his amendment to Amendment No. 4 was agreed to then, according to my understanding, it would mean that the engineering works would be available to the public for inspection.
I know from personal experience of nothing more than the drying machinery on a farm at home that it is very dangerous to have children walking around unless they are carefully supervised. It means that if Amendment No. 5 were accepted the water or sewerage undertaker, or whoever is involved, may have to keep a man employed in the building in order to protect the general public against the risk of hurting themselves on machinery. It is for such reasons that I cannot support the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the effect of Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 would be to extend the access duty under Clause 8(2) to include maintaining facilities for visiting or inspecting buildings, sites and objects of archeological, architectural or historic interest.
We listened with sympathy to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on Report—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is not the Minister now talking to Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 and not to Amendments Nos. 4 and 6?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are grouped together. To continue, on Report we listened carefully to the noble Baroness's arguments about the importance of public access to our man-made heritage. We concluded that it would be both reasonable and sensible to extend the duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving public access in this manner. As the noble Baroness reminded the House, there is considerable public interest in our man-made heritage and it is right that we should facilitate access to historic buildings and
614
objects, whether for enjoyment or for serious scholarly study. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.
The effect of this amendment is simply to make clear that the term "building" when used in Clause 8 includes fixed structures.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I read the amendment as going further than "fixed structures". In earlier debates we referred to the copyright Act as regards fixed structures. I thought that the Government had omitted the word "fixed" in order to include such items as sluices, which by nature are not fixed. I am happy with "structures" and do not need the word "fixed".
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to elaborate on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. In response to amendments proposed by the noble Lord on Report we made clear that it was our intention that dams, pumping engines, aquaducts and other fixed structures should indeed be covered by the duty to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest. This amendment serves to make clear on the face of the Bill that such structures are covered and I commend it to the House.
As regards the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, we regret that we cannot also commend them to the House. They would add a reference to engineering in respect of the building sites and objects in the relevant body's conservation duty and in the new access duty. We do not consider that that is appropriate. The conservation duty will not be relevant to all engineering objects and certainly not to current engineering objects. To the extent that it is relevant it is so only by reason of their historic interest. That point is already covered in the clause as drafted. Of course, items of industrial archaeology can be relatively recent so we do not believe that anything of relevance is lost by not meeting the amendment, which we do not regard as appropriate.
As regards the access duty, our view is that it should apply to historic and other objects and should not cover all the normal engineering works of the undertakers, as would be the effect of the amendments. In these circumstances, I suggest to your Lordships that Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are neither necessary nor appropriate.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I must expresss the most modest disappointment with that reply, which I found to be quite disgraceful. It illustrates the contempt with which engineering is held in this country, and quite improperly so. The noble Earl was right in saying that the word "historic" covers engineering. However, it is true that the word covers architectural, and that is in the Bill. It is also true that it covers archeological, and yet that is in the Bill. There is no reason, in logic or good sense, why engineering should not be recognised in an industry which is almost wholly engineering.
I am wholly dissatisfied with that reply. The remarks made by the noble Earl about the dangers

615
of allowing children into the vicinity of machinery are correct. However, my amendments have nothing to do with allowing children into areas where there is machinery. They are to do with the desirability of doing certain things. They merely add an intellectural dimension to the areas in which the desirability functions. The noble Earl's reply was wholly inadequate, but I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 23, after ("beauty;") insert—
("( ) to have regard to the desirability of maintaining the availability to the public of any facility for visiting or inspecting any building, site or object of archaeological, architectural or historic interest;").
[Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question is, that Amendment No. 4 be agreed to?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we are delighted and pleased that the Government have moved this amendment. As the noble Earl indicated on Report, it will give access to and covers archaeological, historic and architectural sites. I do not wish to appear churlish but I am sad that a number of other amendments of equal importance—and some which were perhaps more important in the field of archaeology—have been resisted by the Government all the way through our debates on the Bill. Nevertheless, we are pleased that the proposal has been accepted. The amendment is important because without it there would have been the opportunity for access to recreational ground, waters and so forth but not to the ancient monuments, buildings and other areas covered by it.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon may find some consolation in the fact that the amendment moved by the Government, as I understand it, will include industrial machinery, portable antiquities and other areas which come under heritage. Therefore, in that way part of what the noble Lord was trying to achieve will be included.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("the preservation of any such freedom of access") and insert ("any such freedom of access or on the availability of any such facility").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 44, leave out ("an aquatic environment") and insert ("such waters and land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to point out a mistake on the Marshalled List. It should read line 45 and not line 44.
I return to this amendment which I tabled on Report because there was clearly concern on all sides of the House about the wording of Clause 8(4)(b).
616
The Minister said that it was not desirable to extend the duties of the NRA to include conservation of flora and fauna on land as well as water since the NRA would not have any particular expertise in those matters.
However, in practice it is extremely difficult to separate the land from the water. Imagine walking along a river bank or along the side of a reservior. How is it possible to distinguish between life dependent solely on the water and life which uses the land adjacent to it? It is all part and parcel of the same thing. Otters, frogs and eels are examples of mammals, amphibians and fish equally at home in water or on dry land. In practice, the NRA is likely to be involved to a greater or lesser extent in promoting wildlife conservation on land.
Indeed, some of the regional NRA units—for example, Thames—are already advertising for conservation officers who will be involved in habitat enhancement. There is no indication that that should be restricted purely to the aquatic environment. I cannot believe that the NRA will employ conservation officers who are only experts in the aquatic environment. They will surely be trained as regards all matters of flora and fauna.
Clause 8(4) duties are, in any event, subject to a very clear qualification which is that the NRA shall promote conservation and recreation:
"to such extent as it considers desirable".
Therefore, it would not be duty bound to promote the conservation of, for example, badgers as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, suggested but neither would it be excluded from doing so if it so desired.
My noble friend Lord Renton, who has put his name to this amendment, introduced conservation aspects to the Electricity Act 1957 which in a nutshell required the relevant bodies to have regard to conserving all flora and fauna. While that general duty exists in Clause 8(1), the full scope is omitted in Clause 8(4)(b) in respect of the NRA.
My amendment would ensure the flexibility essential if the NRA is to carry out its conservation duties effectively and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that his amendment is correctly printed in the Marshalled List because the word "an" begins on line 44.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and I should like to support it and my noble friend on the Front Bench has asked me to say that he also supports it. We discussed this matter at a previous stage and my noble friend Lady White spoke very eloquently in support of it. It does not seem logical for paragraphs (a) and (c) to refer to waters and land for recreational purposes whereas paragraph (b) does not. Therefore, I hope that the simple logic of this matter will be clear to your Lordships and that this amendment will be supported because it seems to be very straightforward and I see no reason why the Government should oppose it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness—and we should all be grateful to him—has done splendid work in this Bill in trying to protect the environment. He has very nearly got it right and this amendment would just about perfect it.
In addition to the examples given by my noble friend Lord Norrie, perhaps I may just mention a rather special one which indicates that this amendment really should be accepted. For example, let us take the swallow-tail butterfly. It lives on land and feeds off vegetation on land but that vegetation dies unless the water table is kept at the required level, and the maintenance of the water table at the required level in some places depends on the water authority.
I know of a wood in Huntingdonshire which some years ago lost its swallow-tail butterfly because although it was a period of drought, the people maintaining the fenland waters in the middle level allowed or caused the water table to fall so far that the vegatation on which the swallow-tail butterfly depended died off.
Therefore, this is not just a question of the aquatic environment unless one assumes that an environment which surrounds water is also aquatic. However, I believe that that would be stretching our language rather too far. It would be much better to accept the very simple amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie and supported, I am happy to say, by the noble Baroness. It would cause no burden on the water authorities in the future bearing in mind the particular phrase to which my noble friend referred, because the NRA only needs to do that job to the extent it considers desirable. To put it bluntly, it really would be very narrow minded for the Government not to accept this amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to add the support of these Benches for this amendment. When I first looked at the amendment I did not think that I should support it because I assumed that aquatic environment would include the land around the water. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just said, the two are so closely linked that it is almost ludicrous to try and separate them. However, I then thought again. I thought that aquatic environment could be far more narrowly defined as merely what is in or in direct contact with the water at a certain level. For example, I could see quite ridiculous arguments about what is the aquatic environment in a tidal river and whether it concerns the level of the river at low or high tide. I suggest that to insert:
"such waters and land"
would be a far safer and more sensible guide.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I hope that it may make it easier for my noble friend to accept this amendment if I point out that some excellent conservation work on river courses and riparian work is already being carried out by the prototype NRA sub-unit of Anglian Water and that the conservation of land associated with "such waters and land" is already very much part of the duty of water authorities as they exist at present. Therefore,
618
the incorporation of these words would in no way add to that responsibility.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. On reading the relevant clause on page 8 of the Bill, it seems to me that the case for it is overwhelming because the NRA staff will be required, when looking at land associated with inland and coastal waters, to conserve and enhance their natural beauty and amenity and to promote their use for recreational purposes. It seems to me extraordinary that subsection (4)(b) should be restricted in a way in which subsections (4)(a) and (4)(c) are not. To my mind it would be absurd that an NRA conservation officer, for example, when dealing with land associated with inland and coastal waters, should be required to conserve a kingfisher because it is dependent on an aquatic environment,. but not a pied flycatcher on that land because it is not. I hope that the Government will listen to what has been said from all quarters of the House and will accept this sensible amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, this amendment applies to Clause 8(4)(b) and the NRA's general duty contained therein to promote the conservation of flora and fuana which are dependent on an aquatic environment. This amendment, in the name of my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady David, would substitute the words "such waters and land" for the phrase "an aquatic environment".
If we were to accept the amendment it could take the NRA's responsibilities into the protection of flora and fauna which happen to be living on land associated with water though not dependent on it. It seems to us that this would lead to a difficult extension of the NRA's role into matters on which it has no particular expertise and may be ill-prepared to deal with. The important point is that where the Nature Conservancy Council is of the opinion that the flora and fauna which this amendment is designed to protect are of special interest, then it will have to provide for their protection through the establishment of a site of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That, of course, is a designation which is not available in terms of comparability to subsection (4)(c).
Finally, there is one important difficulty. If we use the words "land associated with waters" it could extend into the extremely extensive catchment lands where the protection of flora and fauna would be a difficult role for a body which is, after all, concerned with rivers and other waters. It is for that last reason particularly that we do not feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I am disappointed that he does not see the importance of including the conservation of flora and fauna on land within the remit of the NRA. The NRA is to have the duty to promote recreation, the conservation of natural beauty and the amenity of land. All those duties are intricately

619
connected and it is absurd to suggest that the NRA will have no expertise in the conservation of terrestrial flora and fauna. The NRA apparently is to have expertise in all other areas; indeed, it is to have expertise in planning and land use matters. I have already said that the NRA units will in any case have to employ conservation personnel to deal with aquatic flora and fauna.
I am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Renton has put his name to my amendment. As I said, he introduced the flora and fauna aspect to the Electricity Act in 1957. I am sure that he is equally disappointed that the Government regard the amendment as unnecessary. The amendment would simply be in line with most of the NRA's duties. It is an important matter and therefore I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hayter, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Alport, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amherst, E.

Hunt, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Banks, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blyth, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brookes, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Mayhew, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monson, L.

Congleton, L.

Moran, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Craigton, L.

Moyne, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mulley, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nathan, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elliot of Hanvood, B.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rugby, L.

Grey, E.

Salisbury, Bp.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

620

Shepherd, L.

Underhill, L.

Somers, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Somerset, D.

Walston, L.

Stedman, B.

Whaddon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Willis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Thurlow, L.

Tordoff, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Knutsford, V.

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Balfour, E.

McFadzean, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Manton, L.

Blake, L.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Marley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Melville, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Munster, E.

Chelmer, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Newall, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Daventry, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dundee, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Erne, E.

Radnor, E.

Enroll of Hale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Forbes, L.

Rees, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gainford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Southborough, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gridley, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stockton, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strange, B.

Haig, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Swinfen, L.

Havers, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wolfson, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Joseph, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kitchener, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert ("except that no charge shall be made other than a charge which relates to the provision of physical facilities for members of the public, and any such charge shall be levied at a level likely to produce an income over the expected period of operation of the facility commensurate with the expenditure incurred in such provision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to issues highlighted at the Report stage. Before that, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had stated in Committee that he wished to brood on whether Clause 8(6) required amendment. The subsection states that nothing in the Clause 8 environmental duties shall require access to be made available free of charge. In the debate on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, repeated his view, expressed in Committee, that some qualification of the subsection was necessary, possibly along the lines of Amendment No. 74, which had been put forward at that stage. It stated that no facility available as at midnight that night should be charged for thereafter. My noble friend Lord McIntosh made it clear that this was intended to relate to facilities at their existing standards. Subsequent improvements could be the subject of charging.
In resisting the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, argued that authorities did not at present charge for access for informal recreation, such as walking or rambling. Any incidental costs of these tended to be borne through water charges. Where charges were levied these were intended to be for the use of specific facilities. The noble Lord said:
"The balance which is at present struck is that, where specialised facilities are provided, the water authority normally charges the going rate for the use of them. Elsewhere, where it is simply a matter of access for informal recreation, no charge is made. That is the position which can be expected to obtain after privatisation. As we have said many times before, it is impracticable to levy charges for access to the open countryside, mountains and moorland, and the companies have said that they have no intention or wish to try. So far as reasonable, it will still be open to the companies to recover the general costs of performing their recreational duties from their general charges".—[Official Report, 8/6/89; col. 1025.]
As we see it, the problem with the noble Lord's statement is that it is not reflected in the Bill. This amendment seeks to produce precisely that outcome. Purpose-built facilities such as car parks could be the subject of a charge. Access to the open countryside would not be charged. This meets the noble Lord's objection that there was no incentive for a company to invest to improve a facility at present provided free. It fulfils the noble Lord's statement that:
"The prospect of companies seeking to charge for access to the open countryside is remote".—[Official Report, 8/6/89; col. 1025.]
We accepted the force of much of this argument in relation to large areas of land where supervising a charging regime would be impracticable, but pointed to other areas of land where charging could be introduced. The amendment goes further and recognises the need for the cost of new facilities to be met. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh made clear at col. 1027 of the Official Report, the purpose was to avoid new charges for existing facilities which are currently without charge. He expressed himself happy to withdraw the amendment if the Government would give a commitment that no
622
existing facility would be made subject to charging where there had been no improvement in the service. No such assurance was forthcoming.
This amendment recognises the need for change by limiting the amount of charges to the total on an annual test basis attributable to the overall cost of the facility over the period of its operations. In other words, in building or commissioning a car park, the plc would need to project the likely income and usage over a period and charges would be commensurate with the cost incurred. The amendment can be regarded as in two parts. It would be extremely helpful if the Government could give a commitment to limit charges to the provision of physical facilities related to public access. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has just reminded us, this amendment takes us over familiar ground. It has the same weaknesses as similar amendments moved at earlier stages. It is both too wide and too rigid. I put it to the House that the outcome of the amendment would be wholly undesirable. Despite the major efforts made by the noble Lord to meet the comments of my noble friend Lord Hesketh—I pay tribute to him for that—I contend that the amendment would impose unreasonable limitations on the circumstances in which a company may recover its costs directly from those who benefit.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give one example. By providing that no charge shall be made other than a charge which relates to the provision of facilities for members of the public, it would prevent a company from charging a private boating club. That cannot be right. Again, it might well discourage a company from improving its physical facilities as there is no provision for increasing charges to accommodate the costs of such improvements; the level of charges for a facility being fixed for its expected life.
However, the underlying purpose of the amendment is to resurrect once again the question of charging for access to the open countryside, mountains and moorlands, Yet again I must remind the House that to try to levy charges for such access is bound to prove impracticable and unreasonable, and that the companies have said that they have no intention or wish to try. It will still be open to the companies, so far as is reasonable, to recover from their general charges the general costs of performing their recreational duties.
I thank the noble Lord for trying to take on board what my noble friend Lord Hesketh said at earlier stages. However, there are still major drawbacks to the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for what he has had to say about the amendment and for his acknowledgement of the fact that we on this side of the House have tried in he drafting to meet the points raised at previous stages of the Bill by way of objection to the underlying principle in the amendment.
There is a gulf between us. Whereas there is no argument that existing facilities giving access to

623
moorland and the like which the public presently enjoy would continue and any cost of giving that access and maintaining it would be met as now from general charges levied by the plcs, any new facilities would be the subject of charge. So far as I understand the noble Earl's response, he would like to see the plcs allowed, when providing those facilities, to levy charges at such a rate as would not merely reimburse them for the capital cost involved but might in fact give them a handsome profit on the recreational or other facilties provided.
That seems to us to be rather an invitation to the plcs to be somewhat commercially minded in this area. Far from encouraging them to be so, our amendment—inadequately drafted though it may be—seeks to discourage them. It aims to give them a fair reward for what they have done but does not offer an open-ended invitation to increase charges, perhaps annually and so on, so that eventually providing these facilities becomes quite a commercial proposition. To that extent the public would be disadvantaged because people would be contributing in another way to the revenues of the plcs.
For that reason, despite the cordial way in which the Minister replied, I feel that we should test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 136.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Attlee, E.

Hayter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hunt, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Caldecote, V.

McCarthy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Ezra, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Falkland, V.

Nathan, L.

Fitt, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

624

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Underhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Walston, L.

Seear, B.

Whaddon, L.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Willis, L.

Somerset, D.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Allerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Balfour, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Bessborough, E.

Killearn, L.

Blake, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Kitchener, E.

Blyth, L.

Knutsford, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brookeborough, V.

McFadzean, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marley, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Melville, V.

Chelmer, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Middleton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Moyne, L.

Craigton, L.

Munster, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Daventry, V.

Norfolk, D.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Erne, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Forbes, L.

Fortescue, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Quinton, L.

Gainford, L.

Radnor, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rees, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gridley, L.

Rugby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grimthorpe, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Haig, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Somers, L.

Havers, L.

Southborough, L.

Henley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Stockton, E.

625

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wise, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wolfson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Trafford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.39 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 4, after ("section") insert—
(" "building" includes structure; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Environmental duties with respect to sites of special interest]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 45, at end insert—
("(3A) Where, within three weeks of the completion of consultation under subsection (3) above it appears to the notifying body to be reasonably likely that the consequences referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) of that subsection may occur, the body may refer the matter to the Secretary of State for decision before any such works, operations or activities may proceed, and no such works, operations or activities shall be undertaken or authorised before either—

(a) where no such referral is made, the expiration of the date by which it could have been made; or

(b) where such a referral is made, the determination of the matter by the Secretary of State").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 11. Both amendments are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. These amendments reflect continuing concern over the balance of powers contained in Clause 9, which deals with sites of special interest, as identified by the Nature Conservancy Council, or sites within a national park or the Broads. Such bodies have the power to identify areas of special interest, in respect of which Clause 8 has particular importance, and to notify the water plc of the importance of those sites.
When work is undertaken in those areas which may destroy or damage any flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, the plc is required to notify the NCC, the park authority or the Broads Authority.
The main problem with the notification procedure which the Government introduced into Clause 9 in Committee is that the decision is made by the plc as to whether or not works, operations or activities may be damaging.
On Report, my noble friend Lord McIntosh moved Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 which were designed to give the notifying authority, as well as the plc, the right to make the judgment as to the level of damage. Furthermore, the notifying authorities would have had the right, after consultation, to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for decision as to whether operational works should proceed where there was no agreement on the question. As regards the latter amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, made
626
only one criticism; namely, the need for a time limit within which the reference should be made. More generally, he pointed in respect of both amendments to the conservation duties contained in Clause 8.
The argument about Clause 8 is essentially a non sequitur as the notification process would hardly be necessary in the first place if the actions of plcs were adequately safegarded by Clause 8. More specifically, the main amendment now tabled seems to deal with the issue of time limits and puts forward an alternative method of improving the notification process. All that is by way of background.
The first of the two amendments would provide that where the plc had informed the notifying body of the existence of works, the body would have the power, within three weeks of the completion of the consultation process, to refer the matter to the Secretary of State where it considered that damage was likely to result. The works would be suspended pending either the exploration of the three-week date, or, where a referral had been made, the determination of the matter by the Secretary of State. In other words, the amendment builds in only a limited additional time requirement to that already accepted by the Government in their redrafted Clause 9. The purpose is still somewhat to redress the balance between the plc and the notifying authority.
Amendments tabled on Report which sought to give the notifying authority the right to make the judgment alongside the plc as to whether works were damaging have been dropped. Instead, the more limited suggestion is put forward that the reserve power to refer to the Secretary of State should be available to the notifying authority once it has been informed of works which the plc judges to be damaging. That is regarded as a less satisfactory alternative in that some works could proceed without the notifying authority receiving information about them. It can only be hoped, at least in relation to major works, that the notifying authority would be aware of forthcoming works and would be able to encourage consultation on them.
The second amendment directly addresses the question of notification. It provides that the plc should (in respect of works, operations, or activities covered by the clause) consult the notifying body in the prescribed manner where the notifying body so requests. That would be most likely to arise where the plc did not necessarily consider that the necessary level of damage would result, but the notifying authority was concerned to establish the basis of the proposals and sought consultation on them before the works were commenced.
The amendment highlights an issue which Clause 9 does not satisfactorily address; namely, what happens if the plc does not consider that damage or prejudice to Clause 8 duties is likely to flow from works in the manner described in subsection (3). The Government should think carefully about the provision. One would have thought that the last thing they wanted would be (possibly through mistake or optimistic assumptions about the effect of a particular proposal) for work to go ahead in a national park or in the Broads on which there was no consultation and which led subsequently to public

627
controversy as to its effect on the natural environment. The amendments not merely seek to aid the cause which I plead, but provide sound advice and good government. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the amendments would introduce new procedures in the case of SSSIs and national parks. For simplicity, I shall confine my response to the case of national parks although the points apply with equal force to SSSIs.
Clause 9 imposes on the relevant bodies (that is the undertakers and the NRA) a duty to consult national park authorities on operations or decisions likely to affect areas of land within national parks which the park authorities have notified to the relevant bodies. The duty supplements the general environmental duties of the relevant bodies in the particularly sensitive circumstances of national parks in two ways.
First it provides a notification procedure so that the attention of relevant bodies is firmly drawn to those areas where the operation of those duties may be particularly important; secondly, it ensures that there is an additional element of consultation in respect of any operations which might adversely affect those areas.
It also has the further effect of injecting a second opinion—the national park authority—into the relevant body's policy formulation and decision-making. The procedure is a trip-wire which ensures that the relevant bodies are warned and advised on the performance of their duties in particular cases.
The question is whether we should go further, and take the decision in those cases where there is not agreement between the park authority and the relevant body out of the hands of the relevant bodies and place it with the Secretary of State. We think that that is both unnecessary and inappropriate. It is unnecessary because the relevant bodies are bound to have the fullest regard for what the park authorities say: their Clause 8 duties operate very obviously and clearly in those cases and the performance of those duties must be enforced by the Secretary of State.
It is also inappropriate, however, because it would take out of the hands of the relevant bodies the decision as to how they performed their duties and place it with the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will agree that that is wrong. The better course is, as we propose, to leave the relevant bodies to perform their duties, and use enforcement powers if they fail.
Finally, if we followed that course we would in effect replace a framework encouraging consultation and co-operation by one which imposed formalised procedures and could rapidly lead to transfer of responsibility to the Secretary of State. Such involvement could become heavy and continuous. We think it is better to leave decision with the local bodies, with suitable enforcement powers in reserve.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, may not entirely agree with our conclusion, but I hope that he will
628
accept that our objectives are not far apart and that we have, as he requested, considered carefully the points he has made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin where the Minister left off. We are satisfied that the Minister and his colleagues have carefully considered what he said because I know that he wants to satisfy interested bodies that they will be fully consulted. He can take it from me that the last thing that we want to do is to allow the Secretary of State to have a greater say in more matters than he already has. We do not lightly make the Secretary of State a referee in this or any other matters—and "referee" is not a reference to a Bill that is being debated in another place at the moment.
The question of the ability of interested parties to resolve the matters is fairly dealt with. We have painted a scenario where it is possible (not for underhand or mischievous purposes) to find that some decisions are taken which the plc does not believe to be worthy of consultation because it does not consider that they are important. However, they could be seen by others to be important, but then it would be too late. Like many other things in the Bill we need to see what happens. I am satisfied that the Minister has gone as far as he can. We shall have to wait to see whether we come back in a few years' time and say, "We told you so". In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Codes of practice with respect to environmental and recreational duties]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 26, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("relevant Minister").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 12 and with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 15, 24, 29, 36, 40, 41, 53 to 56 en bloc, 59, 61, 64, 65 to 70 en bloc, 75, 76, 77, 78, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111 and 112, 122, 136, 137, 138, 139, 147 and 148 to 151 en bloc.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend proceeds any further, it seems that he has departed from the grouping. I wonder whether he could give us any help as to how that arises and what will happen to the amendments which have been grouped differently from the way in which he dealt with them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to that, I should like to say that I only noticed half way through that he was departing from the grouping. I had planned to give notice that in my view this grouping of all the amendments which are described as "transitional or technical" is not satisfactory to the House. They are not related in subject; they are only being grouped together on the grounds that the Government think that they are not controversial. If we recall what the Government thought about Amendment No. 135, which was the one which gives a 12-month moratorium to undertakings for freedom from prosecution for

629
breaches of river water quality, we realise that this is not satisfactory.
I am not sure that I followed the whole of the list which the noble Earl read out, but I wish to give him notice that I shall expect him to move and to speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 59, 111, 122, 136 to 139 and 141. I believe that they may well raise issues of which the House ought to be aware. Would the noble Earl like me to repeat those numbers? I believe that I notified the Government Whips of them. They were: Amendments Nos. 54, 59, 111, 122, 136 to 139 and 141. Some of them may have been taken out of the grouping already, which may solve the problem. However, these matters are of substance and ought to be debated.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister included Amendment No. 103. I wonder whether he intended to do so because it stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is quite correct and I did refer to Amendment No. 103. However on reflection I feel that that is not correct and I apologise for it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 104 is in a similar situation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that Amendment No. 104 should not be moved in these circumstances.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, does the noble Earl wish to move Amendment No. 12? That is all he is in a position to move. He cannot move any other amendment at this juncture.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, yes, I have moved Amendment No. 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Orders for securing compliance with certain provisions]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 24, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) A notice served or published under subsection (6) above shall set out the reasons for the decision of the Secretary of State or the Director under subsection (5) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment merely provides information. Effectively, a notice from the Secretary of State or the director that an order will not proceed under Section 20 could at present simply state that it is not intended to take the matter any further. The person should certainly have a reference to the reasons why something is not to be taken further and thus have the foundation for the decision. Effectively, the amendment is to try to clarify the situation because there is no reason why someone should not have this information. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, under Clause 20 the Secretary of State or the director is required to make
630
enforcement orders when an appointed company is in contravention of its duties. Where a contravention is found to be trivial, or the company has undertaken to carry out a programme of remedial action, or the duties imposed on the Secretary of State or the director by Part I of the Bill preclude it, a final order or provisional order need not be made or confirmed.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. The notice required to be published under subsection (6) of the clause will explain that the Secretary of State or director has decided not to proceed with enforcement action for one of the three reasons set out in subsection (5); for example, that the contraventions are trivial. The reason for not taking enforcement action will therefore be stated in the notice. If it is considered that the decision of the Secretary of State or director is unreasonable it may be challenged in the courts. It is for the preceding reasons that we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having heard what the Minister has said, I am not completely happy. However, he has met many of the points which were raised. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [The Director's register]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 38, line 27, at end insert—
("(f) every direction issued in pursuance of subsection (3) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose here is to ensure that interested people have the right to know that they have been excluded from the register. An empty register would be a source of considerable frustration and might involve waste of time and money as people tried to find out what had happened. A precedent appears in Clause 116(1)(b) on page 127 where the Secretary of State has issued a certificate that certain matters may be excluded from the pollution register. The certificate still has to be entered into the register. The same principle can surely be applied here. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Clause 31 requires the director general to maintain a register of key documents and decisions relating to the appointments of water and sewerage undertakers. The register will hold details of appointments, variations and terminations of appointments and of modifications of conditions of appointment. It will also contain details of directions, consents and determinations given and enforcement orders made by the director, and of undertakings given by the appointed companies under Clause 20.
Subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State to direct the director not to include in the register any entry where he considers inclusion would be against the public interest. Amendment No. 14 would amend subsection (2) so that any such direction by the Secretary of State would itself have to be included in the register.

631
The provision for registers and for entries to be withheld in the public interest is well precedented. The Government have accepted in earlier debates that we should not blindly follow precedent and we should be ready to justify the intention in its present content, just as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has made his case.
Here we believe that the case is clear cut, indeed almost self-evident. If it is not in the public interest to disclose an entry, the direction not to disclose the entry is likely itself to disclose the matter which it is not in the public interest to disclose. This might for example include directions concerning precautionary measures in the interest of national security. I would not expect the powers to be used frequently or lightly but where they are used I am sure the House would want to do nothing which might breach the necessary confidentiality. It is for these reasons that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having listened to the Minister, again I am not happy—perhaps a little less happy even than on the last amendment. However, once again I feel that the answer has met many of the points, or at least some of the more fundamental material, of the amendment. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Financial conditions for water main requisition]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 48, line 22, leave out ("direction") and insert ("determination").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Duty to supply water for domestic purposes]:
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 53, line 23, after ("building") insert ("together with any land occupied with it").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a new amendment but it has precedents. There are several points in the Bill where the word "premises" has been expressly modified by government amendments, for example, in Clause 42(3)(b)(ii) and in Clause 52(2). The effect of these amendments has been to avoid unfortunate consequences if the word "premises" referred only to a building or to a part of a building. The same phenomenon recurs in Amendment No. 112 which we passed over rather transiently a moment or two ago. Perhaps we shall return to that amendment later this evening, as an amendment to Schedule 10.
The effect of these amendments is that the word "premises" will, in such cases, embrace both the building and any land which is occupied with it. Despite requests from the Water Authorities Association and others that this wider meaning of the word should be extended to other appropriate clauses, there has not been consistency in the Bill,
632
or in Clause 45. This clause describes circumstances in which the undertaker:
"shall owe a domestic supply duty".
The present wording contains the inference that the duty is to supply the building in question, notwithstanding circumstances in which the responsibility for part of the service pipe crossing land to reach the building rests with the customer. If there should be defects or damage in this part of the pipe before it reaches the building, the undertaker is wholly reliant on the defence contained in subsection (8) of this clause, as having taken:
"all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence".
That defence is inappropriate when no amount of care or diligence or reasonableness on the part of the undertaker can remedy the fact that he has no control, as an undertaker, over part of the means of supply between the building and the stopcock running over the land. That distance can sometimes be quite great. This amendment is designed to attempt to dispel confusion or uncertainty regarding the extent of the undertaker's domestic supply duty, resulting from a failure in Clause 45 to define the word "premises" comprehensively in accordance with the definition that appears elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I get the impression from this amendment that it could involve the undertaker in standpipes in, say, a garden. I am not sure that that is desirable.
6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Clause 45 defines the circumstances in which a water undertaker owes a domestic supply duty to particular premises. Clause 50 gives an undertaker the right in certain circumstances to require the provision of separate service pipes to provide a supply of water to separately occupied premises. Clause 51 sets out the requirements on undertakers in respect of the constancy and the pressure of water supplied to those premises.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 16, 18 and 19 is apparently to seek to clarify the provisions of these clauses by specifying that they relate to premises comprising buildings and land occupied with buildings, rather than just the buildings. I have to say that if the provisions of each of these clauses are considered closely, it is clear that this is not in fact the case. The water supply duty, the power to require separate service pipes and the constancy and pressure requirements all relate to the supply of water to a building, rather than to a building and associated land.
If I understand my noble friend Lord Cranbrook correctly, he is concerned that, under the provisions of these clauses, an undertaker could be considered to be in breach of the duty to supply water for domestic purposes and the requirements in respect of constancy and pressure of supplies if a problem with that part of the service pipe for which the consumer is responsible leads to a failure to supply water to a building on the premises. This concern, however, fails to take account of the provisions of

633
Clauses 45 and 51. An undertaker is required to provide a constant supply of water at the required pressure to the consumer's premises, that is the building occupied by the consumer. An undertaker which fails to comply with these duties is open to legal action. In any proceedings brought against an undertaker, the clauses provide for an undertaker to show in its defence that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the breach of the duty.
In any proceedings brought against the undertaker for failing to comply with its duty or meet the requirements placed upon it, an undertaker would be able to show that it had taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence if the water, in that part of the service pipe for which it was responsible, was sufficient to supply the building at the required pressure.
In circumstances where a breach of the supply duty or a failure to meet the constancy and pressure requirements was due solely to a failure in that part of the service pipe for which the consumer is responsible, the undertaker would clearly be able to show that it had taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid breaching the duty or failing to meet the requirement. I hope with those words that I have been able to demonstrate to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that there is no reason for him to press his amendments.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it is very important for the undertaker to pay attention and to take note of those words which occurred towards the end of the speech of my noble friend, when he said very clearly that no court of law would consider the undertaker to be at fault if anything was to happen in that part of the service pipe which does not belong to the undertaker but to the customer. The essential point of the amendment was to make it absolutely clear that there is a section of the service pipe which is not under the control of the undertaker, and for which he cannot therefore be held responsible as regards any damage or anything that goes wrong in that service pipe which causes a failure to supply water at the correct pressure, or under other appropriate conditions, to the building at the end of that pipe. Provided that my noble friend's words are absolutely clear, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Powers to disconnect service pipes and cut off supplies]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 60, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 22 and insert ("without restoring that supply before the end of the period of twenty-four hours beginning with the time when it is cut off, the undertaker shall, no later than forty-eight hours after that time, serve notice that it has cut off that supply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 meets a commitment I gave to my noble friend Lady Blatch on Report. Clause 49 currently requires a water undertaker to notify the relevant local authority of all disconnections made to inhabited
634
houses within 48 hours of the disconnections taking place. The noble Baroness was concerned that undertakers would be required to notify local authorities even of disconnections lasting no more than an hour or so. In many cases the notification would not take place until well after the supply had been restored. Amendment No. 17 provides that undertakers will only be required to notify local authorities of disconnections lasting longer than 24 hours. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing this amendment to the House. As I said when I pressed my own amendment, most cut-offs occur within the 24-hour limit. I think this provision will eliminate a large number. of occasions when local authorities would have to be notified. I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not opposed to this amendment, but I must express my regret that the Government have not found it possible to agree to the more important amendments which we moved about notification of disconnection. Those amendments would have ensured that the customer service committees were notified of disconnections, in particular for reasons of non-payment of bills, and, at any rate, even if individual disconnections were not notified, that there would be a statistical analysis of disconnections for that purpose. If the customer service committees are to do their job properly, they must know what is happening as regards disconnections in order to be sure that the disconnections code is being adhered to. As I say, I do not resist this amendment, but the other amendments would have been much more important and more welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power to require separate service pipes]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 51 [Duty as respects constant supply and pressure]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 66, line 20, leave out ("water undertaker") and insert ("any person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 21 to 22 and also to Amendment No. 28, which is not exactly on the same subject, but which can, for convenience, be debated with the other amendments. These amendments are concerned with private supplies. Lest it is thought that private supplies are insignificant, let me remind the House that according to Environmental Health, the journal of the environmental health officers. there are approximately 80,000 private supplies in this

635
country. There are 450,000 regular users of water from private supplies, and there are probably 2 million occasional users of private supplies.
The European Commission funded a study of private supplies in Calderdale and found that 3 per cent. of the population there were connected to private supplies. That figure was surprising because it is very much higher than the national average and there was no reason to suppose that it would be. Of those private supplies 88 per cent. exceeded the European Commission's maximum admissible content of extraneous materials and 48 per cent. contained faecal contamination. Clearly it can be a problem; it is not merely a theoretical point.
I remind the House that European Community Directive 87/78, which has been the subject of debate in the House, does not distinguish between private supplies and public supplies. Any regulations for public supplies will eventually have to apply to private supplies as well. In April of this year the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, wrote in a Written Answer that the Government are proposing to the European Commission a 10 year timetable for bringing private suplies into line with the European Commission directive. However, the department itself, as evidenced by a letter which it sent to local authorities in 1987, has no reason to suppose that the European Commission will agree to that 10 year period. Even if it does, the department believes that there will have to be monitoring every two years, and in a letter to local authorities of 26th August 1987 asked local authorities to take part in that monitoring process.
Clearly, not only does the European Commission believe that this is an important matter, the Government think it is an important matter and the Department of the Environment thinks it is an important matter. That is why we return to it at Third Reading. We also do so because, in my view, our amendments at Report stage were pretty heavy. They were overbearing in a number of ways.
Those amendments required that private suppliers should apply for appointment as water undertakings and that the Secretary of State would then grant them an exemption from the conditions. The amendments also provided that private suppliers could not compete with water authorities to supply, for example, new housing estates. I am told that that pleased the Water Authorities Association, although it was not intended to. On reflection, both of those appeared to us to be bad ideas. We believe that we have brought forward better amendments at this stage. The noble Earl thinks that that is funny; when he apologises for his mistakes, as I do, I shall take care to laugh at him.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 relate to Clause 54, which concerns the offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption. The three amendments would secure that any person—including private suppliers—can be guilty of an offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption on the same basis as water undertakings. They provide the same protection for consumers against being supplied with water which is unfit for human consumption
636
wherever they live in the country. That is an important element of justice for water consumers throughout the country.
Amendment No. 28 solves some of the problems raised by our amendments at Report stage by giving the Secretary of State the power to set regulations which would prescribe standards of performance and to set out any requirements he thinks necessary about the supply, pressure, recovery of charges, etc. It would extend to the customers of private suppliers the same conditions with regard to the necessity for a continuous supply at an adequate pressure, the same disconnections code, provisions on metering, leakages, overcharging, etc.,which will be available to the customers of the appointed water undertakings. Again, that seems to us to be a matter of equity and justice for all water consumers throughout the country. Once the matter has been drawn to the attention of the House, as it was, however inadequately, at Report stage, we think that the Government ought to recognise the justice of the case.
We are encouraged to think that the Government have recognised the justice of the case, because the Lord Advocate, when replying to Scottish amendments on 13th June at the end of the Report stage, said that:
"Water which is not fit for human consumption should never be supplied to the public … neither south nor north of the Border can anyone afford to be complacent"—[0fficial Report, 13/6/89; col. 1370]
He went on to say, in the context of hoping that it would not be his responsibility to institute prosecutions against suppliers for breaching those rules, that:
"Their consumers, the general public, deserve nothing less";
in other words, nothing less than the same protection against unfit drinking water.
I hope that the House and the Government will feel that we have moved towards correcting a wrong which had not previously been identified. I am grateful to those in the National Consumer Council who first drew it to our attention. I believe that we now have amendments which give the Secretary of State powers to make reasonable provision. Obviously he will not want to deal with small supplies from individual farmers to tenants and neighbours, but there is reasonable provision to protect the half million inhabitants of this country who rely on private supplies and are, in justice, entitled to the same protection as those who are customers of the water authorities or the appointed water undertakings. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am concerned by the amendments. If Amendment No. 22 were accepted subsection (3) would read:
"In any proceedings against any water undertaker for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show that he … took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence for securing that the water was fit for human consumption".
That is very nice. It protects the water undertaker, but it does not protect the private individual.

637
Turning to Amendment No. 28, I am concerned personally. Clause 54 is repeated almost word for word in paragraph 76C of Schedule 22. As I have already explained to your Lordships, I am a private supplier of water. However, I have no control over the pressure because the water comes from a spring. I do not know whether that spring will continue or not. The only guarantee I have is that there has been no trouble in the past 120 years.
Paragraph (f) of the amendment states that regulations may:
"provide for the payment of compensation in respect of a breach of any regulation under this section".
That could place me in a very difficult position indeed because I do not make any charge for the water. I have no desire to do so. However, reading the amendment I have a feeling that any small undertaker, particularly in England and Wales, will have to make some charge. The Secretary of State may approve or disapprove of that under the proposed clause, but I do not think that that is the sort of thing with which we want to be bothered. I am sure that I speak for many people in the same position. It involves a great deal of book-keeping that we do not want.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, perhaps I may also declare an interest in that I survive on a private supply and am hoping to God at the moment that the spring does not run out!
I have much sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has said. Obviously, it is only right that water that is consumed by those who have a private supply must be fit for consumption. But if we are not careful—I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has watered down the amendment to some extent—we shall cause all sorts of problems in the countryside because landlords, farmers and others who out of courtesy—I am sure that that is the case on the noble Earl's estate—provide people with a supply of water that is not otherwise available to them, will cut it off. I do not say that the noble Earl would do that, but I can see many people in the farming world who would say, "This is too big a thing for me to administer. I am not prepared to allow myself to be prosecuted for this, that and the other". Somehow the pipe would suddenly be broken and not replaced. That will lead to all sorts of problems.
It is not a simple matter and I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Earl said. I should certainly find it gravely inconvenient if my supply were suddenly cut off. I have good relations with my next-door neighbour. The pipe burst the other day and we had no supply at all for over 24 hours, but he repaired it and did not charge for it. I think that this is a difficult area in which to legislate and I hope that the Minister will agree with that.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, perhaps I may support the previous two speakers. One is concerned about the attempts to raise the purity and general standard of water and about the introduction of controls. But, while the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested to
638
us that there would be a waiver in the case of small farms and tourist houses—I put the words in his mouth—in remote rural areas, one can see the regulations being applied insidiously further and further down the line to arrangements where the supply and control of water is more in the hands of nature than it is in the hands of the farmer or the current owner, particularly in the years of drought.
I should therefore like the noble Lord to expand on how he believes that the regulation will not be applied with its full rigour to those casual and small users, farmers and holidaymakers in remote areas where the water supply is extremely erratic at any time. As previous speakers have implied, to bring the full rigours of the law into the matter could only result in the supply being withdrawn. Surely that is not what anyone wants to see.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not be put off by the thought that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has no control over the pressure at which water comes out of the spring. I am quite sure that he is right. He has no control over that, but ensuring water at a proper pressure is not the point. That comes from the noble Earl or anyone else taking water from the spring or wherever and putting it into a suitable tank or receptacle at a suitable height. It is from that height that the pressure comes. There is no difficulty of any kind in applying regulations to that situation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has developed arguments that he first put forward at Report stage in relation to the licensing of supplies. But I must say that, notwithstanding the major attempts that he has made to alter his amendment—I credit him for that—our objections in principle to a farther tier of regulations for private supplies remain.
In our view, it would be quite unjustifiable to take arbitrary powers to change existing agreements under which private supplies are made, particularly where there is no evidence of customer complaints for the sort of contingency for which the amendment would provide. Among the reasons why private supplies are sometimes preferred to public supplies is the fact that they can often be of minimal cost and in some cases even free. Should the opposite situation of excessive charging or disconnection for non-payment ever arise, there would be every incentive on the householders concerned to consider obtaining supplies from the appointed water undertaker. There might be scope for competition for private industrial water suppliers and the discipline that imposes on charging and the other terms and conditions of supply.
However, for any significant new green field site housing development, the domestic supplier would be expected by house purchasers to be a water undertaker because, as I said at Report, the power of undertakers will be needed to provide the necessary infrastructure and because customers will expect the certainty that goes with requiring services from the appointed undertaker.

639
If the fears that lie behind the amendment had any justification, the new customers or their mortgagees would, in the case of a major new development to which I have referred, check very carefully to ensure that the water supply was by a water undertaker and, if not, to see that safeguards were there in any agreement with a private supplier. In those circumstances, there would be every reason for the private supplier to become a new undertaker. Clause 12(2)(c) provides for variation of appointments in areas where the undertakers currently serve as customers so that a different company could be appointed.
In so far as the amendments relate to the quality of private supplies—which is something that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stressed—I can assure noble Lords that the Bill already contains perfectly adequate provisions for ensuring that private supplies are wholesome. The regulations shortly to be made under Clause 65, laying down standards of wholesomeness, will apply just as much to private supplies as they will to mains supplies. Local authorities will have new powers under Clauses 57 to 59 to ensure that the private supplies comply with those regulations.
In our view, it would not be appropriate to apply the criminal offence in Clause 54 to private supplies. There are few private water supplies run on a commercial basis. More commonly, the private supply is on the premises of the person supplied. We do not think that it would be a crime for a person to drink from his own well. In other cases, the private supply may be provided free of charge to neighbours, as my noble friend Lord Balfour generously provides.
The arrangements under which those supplies are provided are many and various. In those cases where the quality of the supply is governed by the terms of a contract or agreement, the person supplied could take action against the supplier for breach of the contract or agreement. He may be able to sue for damages if he suffers any injury or loss as a result of the negligence of the supplier.
We are at one with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in agreeing that the most important need is to ensure that such water is not supplied. For that, there is a longstanding power for local authorities to ask a magistrates' court to close down or restrict the use of water from a polluted source. That power is contained in Section 140 of the Public Health Act 1936. Where the water is so polluted as to be prejudicial to health, it enables a local authority to ask a court to issue a summons to the owner of such a source. After hearing the summons, the court may make whatever order it considers necessary to prevent injury or danger to the health of those using the water.
Agreement on the principle is, therefore, not in doubt, but the method of achieving the objective causes a difference between the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and ourselves.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that there have been a number of misunderstandings about the amendments, particularly among noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, seems
640
to think that something in the amendment would require him to charge for the water that he supplies. Indeed, he said that at Report stage with regard to similar amendments. He has been wrong on both occasions. There is nothing in the amendment that would require, encourage or even make it advisable or necessary for him to charge for his supply to his neighbours.
The other point that seems to have been missed is that the criminal sanctions in Clause 54 apply only to the very limited definition of water that is unfit for human consumption. The Minister has reminded us of the Public Health Act 1936 and the provisions in it for local authorities, and he is quite right. But, if that is the case, it is difficult to see why Clause 54 is in at all unless it adds something to the 1936 Act. If it adds something, then surely the added protection that it provides should be available to all customers, not just to the customers of the authorities.
So far as concerns all other aspects, including such matters as pressure, charging, metering and so on, I remind the House that Amendment No. 28 provides only for the possibility of the Secretary of State making regulations. Clearly, in making those regulations the Secretary of State will have regard to the points which have been raised by noble Lords and will not make regulations for very small groups of people. The amendment provides that he can make different regulations for different groups of people. And it specifically provides that the regulations shall not be more onerous than they would be for water undertakings.
I am therefore not satisfied with the response. I do not think that adequate protection has been given to the people—nearly half a million of them—who are concerned. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of the regulations under Clause 65 and indeed of other regulations to increase protection for customers or users of private supplies. In that spirit I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 66, line 41, leave out ("or the Director of Public Prosecutions") and insert ("the Director of Public Prosecutions or a constable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a subject to which I referred at both Committee and Report stages; namely, the right to bring prosecutions when water is unfit for human consumption. At present those allowed to bring prosecutions are the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions. We think that that is too narrow. We proposed initially that local authorities should be allowed to bring such prosecutions. When that proposal was rejected we stated at Report stage that in our opinion it should be the consumer councils; once again, our suggestion was rejected.
We now suggest that it should be the responsibility of the police. I believe that the police are an excellent choice: they enforce the law and make sure that those

641
who break the law are caught. Someone who provides water that is unsafe and may do damage could effectively be committing a type of assault. That may be stretching a point; if so I am sure that the lawyers present will correct me. However, I believe that we should give to some wider body the power to bring prosecutions. It is a simple issue but one potentially of great importance that could have wide consequences. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment. The question of water being unfit for human consumption arises in some people's minds. I must confess that for years I have drunk tap water all over the United Kingdom and have reached the age of 80 without any ill effects. On the other hand some people take one sip of a glass of water from anywhere and say, "Oh dear! This is not fit for human consumption. We must tell the local police".
We cannot expect people responsible for this matter to deal with a large number of unnecessary prosecutions. It is far better that we should stick to the Bill as it is. Either the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions should be the ones—the only ones—with the responsibility for initiating prosecutions.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would enable a police constable, in addition to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Secretary of State, to prosecute a water undertaker for supplying water unfit for human consumption.
The amendment would not actually achieve anything very different from what is already in the Bill. Although a police constable could institute proceedings under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Director of Public Prosecutions would thereafter have to decide whether or not to continue those proceedings before the courts. The addition of these words would hardly therefore broaden the subsection as prosecution would still be directly subject to DPP control. In both cases the DPP would be responsible for deciding whether to proceed with prosecution. But what the amendments could do is result in a delay in the department and the Secretary of State hearing about a serious breach of an undertaker's responsibilities while a local police force investigates it and prepares the case for submission to the DPP. That is the last thing that we would want.
I was very grateful for the learned words of my noble friend Lord Renton who put so lucid a case that it is our belief that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not be able to resist withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has not been damaged by drinking tap water. The fact remains that there is the distinct possibility that he could be damaged one day. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that wide access is given to people who feel that damage has been done to them. I agree that there is always a slight danger that one or two lunatics will 'phone up the police. I suggest however that the
642
police have to deal with dozens of such people anyway and have more than adequate experience of dealing with them.
The aim of the amendment is to give consumers wider access for making a complaint it' they feel that damage has been done to them. I suggested earlier that local authorities should be able to bring a charge. That amendment was withdrawn. It was then suggested that consumer councils would be appropriate bodies. That amendment was also withdrawn. I do not feel that we can again withdraw our proposal. This time it must be pressed. I feel that there should be a wider body capable of dealing with this matter. I shall ask the opinion of the House.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Ardwick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Attlee, E.

McNair, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blease, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nelson, E.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

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.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Raglan, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Fitt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Msinsfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Willis, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blake, L.

Allerton, L.

Blatch, B.

Alport, L.

Blyth, L.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

Auckland, L.

Borthwick, L.

Balfour, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Belstead, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Bessborough, E.

Brookes, L.

643

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kimball, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Kitchener, E.

Caithness, E.

Knutsford, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chelmer, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Manton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Margadale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Morris, L.

Craigton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Eccles, V.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elibank, L.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fortescue, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Quinton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Radnor, E.

Gainford, L.

Rees, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharples, B.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Somerset, D.

Grimthorpe, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Haig, E.

Stockton, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vinson, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Joseph, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.44 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 71, line 5, at beginning insert ("may").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 73, line 1, after ("may") insert ("on the recommendations of the Director").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 26. These amendments are different versions—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking also to Amendment No. 27?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Yes, I am speaking to Amendment No. 27 as well. With these amendments
644
we return to the issue of drinking water quality assessors under Clause 60, which has been the subject of debate both at Committee stage and Report stage. However, these are significantly different amendments. They do not seek dramatically to change the location of the assessors for the enforcement of drinking water quality. Amendment No. 25 involves the Director General of Water Services in the appointment of the technical assessors for water quality. Amendment No. 26 sets out more clearly than the clause at present sets out the functions of the assessors. Amendment No. 27 specifies that the powers and duties of the assessors shall apply to private supplies as though those supplies were provided by an undertaker.
These amendments are of considerable importance, not so much because the Government do not recognise the necessity for the technical assessment of drinking water quality but because the method by which they are proposing to achieve that is both bureaucratic and centralised. We have heard how the Government propose that those concerned shall be centrally appointed and centrally recruited. We have not heard any significant concession to the argument we put, that the technical assessment of water quality is essentially a local matter, and although standards must be set centrally the actual assessment—I nearly said "on the ground" but that would have been quite inappropriate—must be carried out at local level.
This applies particularly to the functions which we set out in Amendment No. 26. There is the monitoring of the compliance with regulations on drinking water quality; and although the publication of an annual report of course ought to be central, advice to the Secretary of State and the director on breaches of water quality regulations is hardly possible unless the assessors are actually there to observe and monitor the breaches. An overall decline in drinking water quality is of course a central matter and is produced by collating evidence from the local activities of the assessors. The monitoring of improvement programmes is also a local matter and the making of arrangements with local authorities is clearly a local matter. So in the amendments we are not now claiming that the technical assessors should be appointed purely locally and controlled purely locally. We accept that there is a mixture of functions between central and local functions. We hope that by specifying it in this way and specifying that the Director General of Water Services will have a say in it, we shall achieve both a clearer definition of the responsibilities of the assessors and a clearer division between the local functions and the central functions, as I have set them out. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not see how the Government could reasonably accept these worthy amendments. The motive behind them is sound and sensible, but their content is already covered in effect by the terms of the Bill. If I may give an example, in Clause 60 under the side note
"Assessors for the enforcement of water quality"
we find that a person appointed shall carry out such investigations as the Secretary of State may require for the purpose of advising him as to whether, and

645
if so in what manner, the various powers mentioned in Clauses 52 to 58 and Clause 65 should be exercised.
If we were to go into all the detail that is set out in these amendments as well as keeping to the terms of the Bill, it would be cluttering up the Bill quite unnecessarily and it would be confusing to those who have to administer it. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the Government should not accept the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is much in the amendments which we already have in mind to apply to the technical assessors, or the drinking water inspectorate as we are now calling it. I set out some of the tasks which we envisage for the inspectorate when we discussed the topic on Report. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh has clearly taken what I said to heart and has elegantly re-presented these tasks in the proposed subsection (1A) in Amendment No. 26. I confirm to him and the House that it is our intention that the inspectors should monitor compliance with the drinking water regulations and with the other duties concerning water quality set out in Part II of the Bill. We will also want them to monitor improvement programmes and advise the Secretary of State in connection with his enforcement duty in Clause 20. They will also need to liaise with local authorities and carry out a certain amount of check samplings and analysis. Indeed this is all provided for in the existing Clause 58, as my noble friend Lord Renton has just reminded the House. The only additional matters brought in by this new subsection are the reference to the director general and the use of the word "shall" in relation to the tasks of the inspectors.
I have several times explained why it is inappropriate to involve the director general in the subject of drinking water quality. Economic regulation does not sit very easily with public health considerations, and placing responsibility on two bodies rather than one is, I contend, a recipe for confusion and delay. I gave an assurance in Committee that we would not employ water undertakers to carry out any of the assessments. I also explained why we may wish to employ consultants for some of the initial and more technical tasks of the inspectors, and that we would not wish to be limited to full-time Government employees.
If customer service committees had the power to require an inspector to carry out whatever monitoring or analysis it wanted, I would hesitate to put a figure on the number of inspectors who might be needed to duplicate a task which is essentially carried out by the water undertakers. Such a role for CSCs would also quite change their relationship with water undetakers so that they became part of the enforcement function. As for the local organisation of the inspectorate, this question is being considered but no decisions have yet been taken. It would therefore be premature to fix the organisation in the mould desribed in Amendment No. 26.
The final amendment, No. 27, is not necessary as private supplies will be assessed by local authorities,
646
and they will have ample powers to ensure that the quality regulations are met. The only time when the inspectors might have a function; relation to private supplies would be if an appeal were made to the Secretary of State under Clause 58 against the terms of a notice serviced by a local authority. They could then hear that appeal.
Your Lordships will have gathered from my remarks that the Government are not able to support these amendments, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh will bear in mind the assurances that I have again been able to give him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was entirely convinced by the Minister's argument on Amendment No. 27. I am satisfied that the local authorities should continue to have the responsibilities for local supplies that exist now and that he referred to. I am less satisfied with the other assurances he has given us, although in so far as they move towards the position that we are trying to achieve, I thank him for them. I particularly thank him for the assurances about the responsibilities of the assessors, the drinking water inspectorate, under our proposed subsection (1A).
I confess that I am still disappointed that the Government have not found it possible to make a decision about the establishment of local divisions. I should have thought that the matter had been under consideration for long enough for them to be able to make up their minds and recognise the necessity for it. I do not believe that consumers will be convinced that a drinking water inspectorate based on Marsham Street which does not have local divisions in which the inspectors or assessors do not deal with customer service committees in the areas, is providing the back-up necessary to enforce increasingly, and rightly, severe drinking water quality standards.
I am afraid that even with all the assurances and indications of what will be in the regulations, this will not be seen to be the Government's finest hour. They will in the end find that this is another example of intransigence, or at least partial intransigence, against substantial public pressure for more open and more responsive assessment of drinking water quality and for greater access for ordinary people to achieve the drinking water quality they require. However, this is Third Reading, and this is not the kind of matter we can deal with by Divisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Financial conditions of sewer requisition]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 87, line 42, leave out ("direction") and insert ("determination").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Performance of sewerage functions by local authorities]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 88, line 32, at end insert—
("(4A) Arrangements entered into for the purposes of this section shall, where a relevant authority has served notice on the undertaker, include provision that where arrangements are varied or terminated, the Local Government Agency Arrangements (Staff Transfer and Protection) Order 1976 shall have effect").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report Stage my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved an amendment which is reported at cols. 1403 and 1404 of the Official Report. That amendment was designed to ensure that all existing sewerage agencies would, if they were terminated under the provisions of the Bill from 1st April 1992, be covered by the provisions of the present staff transfer order for sewerage staff. The purpose of the present amendment is different. It seeks not to require transfer arrangements to conform with the order in the period after the 1st April 1992. Rather, it looks further ahead to the period when agencies created as a result of the Bill may be terminated after that date—perhaps in the late 1990s or even the early years of the next century. The purpose, however, is that identified by Lord McIntosh: namely, to preserve for local authority sewerage agencies the prospect of retaining good staff on proper terms and conditions commensurate with the responsibility of the job.
The 1976 order is discretionary and may be applied or omitted under a particular agency agreement at the decision of the parties. As the Minister pointed out at Report stage, the great majority of agency arrangements are believed to incorporate the 1976 provisions. At that stage the Minister resisted an amendment, which would have underwritten existing agreements with the 1976 provisions, to cover the minority of cases where they have not been incorporated into the agreement. This amendment recognises the Minister's argument that existing arrangements should not be disturbed and looks rather to the future of the sewerage agency under the new regime created by the Bill.
The amendment would require the 1976 provisions to be applied to a sewerage agency where a local authority indicated in the drawing up of the agreement that it wished those provisions to be applicable; in other words, to give the local authority the opportunity to protect the terms and conditions of its staff to the standards envisaged in 1976. The undertaker could not be forced to accept these provisions, since the creation of the agency itself would be a matter for agreement.
There is a widespread fear in local authorities that the uncertainties over the future of the agencies, which have been created in the recent past and which have led to a decline in the numbers of senior and middle management staff, will prove the precursor of a long-term trend. The agency could wither if the prospects of its staff, particularly on the engineering side, are not given a measure of protection. This amendment would at least enable a local authority negotiating an agency to attempt to protect the medium term prospects of its staff by ensuring that
648
they would enjoy a measure of transfer protection where that agency is terminated by the undertaker at a future date. By accepting the amendment, or the spirit of its terms, the Government would go a long way to reassure those managers and staff who are providing an increasingly pressured service in an uncertain environment.
We do not regard the amendment as being contentious. It merely ensures the same level of protection where arrangements are renegotiated at any time after 1st April 1992. It has no effect upon any new arrangements which may be created where currently none exists although such inclusion may be agreeable to both parties. It does nothing to increase or strengthen the position of the local authorities in their desire for continued sewerage involvement. It does not impose provisions on the undertaker nor does it restrict any freedom under the Bill.
The amendment seeks only to ensure that where local authorities are recognised as providing a fully efficient and effective service to the undertaker the terms of any renegotiation of arrangements which may arise after the transfer date recognise the 1976 order. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would allow a sewerage agent to require that the provisions of the Local Government Agency Arrangements (Staff Transfer and Protection) Order 1976 should apply to any sewerage agency arrangement. This order specifies, in some considerable detail, the terms on which staff would be transferred, if they were transferred on variation or termination of the arrangement.
We welcome a continuing role for local authorities as sewerage agents; and if they are providing a fully efficient and effective service I cannot see that they have any cause for concern. Even if undertakers do wish to terminate an arrangement they must give reasonable notice which cannot expire before 1st April 1992. In this way, we believe we have provided the conditions for a smooth transition to the new regime without introducing any unnecessary rigidity. It is against this background that I ask your Lordships to view this amendment.
Existing sewerage agency arrangements have been made between individual sewerage undertakers and local authorities within certain guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State. We understand that the vast majority, if not all, of current arrangements do provide that the 1976 order shall apply if the arrangement is varied or ended. For such arrangements, the provisions of paragraph 15(2) of the schedule ensure that the order, and all other aspects of the arrangements, shall continue to apply after the coming into effect of the Water Bill. So for most if not all existing arrangements this amendment is irrelevant.
It may be that a few arrangements do not incorporate the provisions of the 1976 order. Some future arrangements may not. I remind your Lordships that such an omission would be the result of unconstrained negotiations between the two

649
parties involved, and I am sure that you will understand that in such circumstances we should not wish to allow one party the right to unilaterally impose a change in the termination provisions. That is why we resist this amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply although I am considerably disappointed by both it terms and its tone. There is an air of unreality on the part of the Government in assessing the degree of uncertainty which must arise for the qualified staff of local authorities who are sewerage contractors after 1992. That is not an eternity away; even at our present ripe old age some of us have high expectations of seeing 1992.
I believe that the Government considerably underestimate the problems of maintaining a highly-qualified technical staff, particularly on the engineering side. Such people may believe that after 1992 there will be the possibility of changes in arrangements which could mean that they are not required by the local authority or that their terms and conditions would be adversely affected. In those circumstances qualified engineers and others will look to the future with some apprehension. They will take the sensible view that it may be better to be sure of one's future than uncertain about it. That appears to be the effect of the Government's attitude to the amendment.
Having tried my best and failed to persuade the Government to see what might be done without great difficulty and without imposing any obligation on either party to do anything in particular—because the provisions of the amendment can come about only after agreement between both sides—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Charges schemes]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 77 [Liability of occupiers etc. for charges]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 92, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, following the persuasive arguments put forward by my noble friends Lords Renton and Lord Trafford and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, during the Report stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Caithness undertook to consider whether subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 77 should be deleted. We have now carefully considered the issues and have come to the conclusion that, on balance, it is in the interests of consumers that they should be deleted from the Bill.
As a result of this amendment, where there is an agreement with an undertaker that a person other than the occupier, for example a landlord, will be liable for charges, the undertaker will no longer be able to recover outstanding charges owed by that person from a subsequent owner or the occupier. Instead, the undertaker will have to recover the debt through the courts from the person who originally agreed to be responsible for the charges. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl knows that if he blows in my ear I will follow him anywhere. When he describes his noble friend Lord Renton and myself as been persuasive he knows that he will have our support for the amendments. It was always a nonsense that new occupiers could be pursued for the debts of old occupiers. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, it is always better to rely on recovery through the courts, as is the case for other debts. We welcome the amendment and the removal from the Bill of these unnecessary provisions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should also like to express my great thanks to my noble friends on the Front Bench for moving the amendment. It has more significance than appears at first sight. Not only does it remove an injustice. It is also refreshing to find that in this case at least the Government are not using the excuse that the provision is already contained in the present law as a reason for perpetuating it. The amendment removes an injustice; it removes too from this voluminous Bill 30 lines of quite unnecessary detail. For that we rejoice.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will join me in saying that as I was inspired by the National Consumer Council to move the amendment on Report it is also entitled to its share of the credit for removing the injustice.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, on behalf of the National Consumer Council I should also like to thank my noble friend for this generous concession which is extremely welcome. We cannot win them all; but we are most grateful for those we do win.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 81, insert the following new clause:
("Fixing maximum charges for services provided with the help of undertakers' services.
.—(1) The Director may from time to time by order fix maximum charges which a person who is not a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker may recover from another such person in respect of water supplies or sewerage services provided to that other person with the help of services provided by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker.
(2) For the purposes of this section water supplies or sewerage services are provided to a person with the help of services provided by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker if—

(a) a facility for that person to have access to a supply of water provided by a water undertaker in pipes, or to make use of sewerage services provided by a sewerage undertaker, is made available to that person otherwise than by the undertaker;

(b) that person is provided with a supply of water in pipes by a person to whom the water is supplied, directly or indirectly, by a water undertaker; or

(c) that person is provided with sewerage services by a person who, for the purpose of providing those services, makes use of sewerage services provided, directly or indirectly, by a sewerage undertaker.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Director to publish any order under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it
(4) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases, including different provision, in relation to

651
different persons, circumstances or localities, and may fix a maximum charge either by specifying the maximum amount of the charge or by specifying a method of calculating that amount.
(5) Where a person pays a charge in respect of anything to which an order under this section relates and the amount paid exceeds the maximum charge fixed by the order, the amount of the excess shall be recoverable by that person from the person to whom he paid the charge.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause which arises out of an undertaking that my noble friend Lord Caithness gave to your Lordships during the Report stage, is to give the director general powers to make orders fixing the maximum prices at which water supplied or sewerage services can be re-sold.
By necessity, this new clause is rather more complicated than the corresponding provisions in the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Bill. This is because of the need to exclude from the arrangement such sales as bulk supplies between water undertakers or, at the other extremes, bottled water or a glass of orange cordial in a public house or restaurant. In consequence, the clause covers only the resale of water services by persons who are not a water or sewerage undertaker but where the service was originally provided by an undertaker. There is a further restriction in the case of water where the person being resold the water must be provided, either directly or indirectly, with a supply of water through a pipe.
Subsection (3) places a duty on the director general to publish any order under this new clause in such a manner so as to bring it to the attention of people likely to be affected by it. It will of course be up to the director to decide how best to carry out this duty but, for example, we imagine that he would want to ensure that copies of orders are set to citizens advice bureaux.
Subsection (4) provides that an order under this new clause may make different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities, and may fix a maximum charge either by specifying the maximum amount of the charge or by specifying a method of calculating that amount. This should provide the director general with sufficient flexibility to cover the different circumstances by which water might be resold; for example, on an unmeasured basis or through the use of individual meters.
Finally, subsection (5) provides that where a person pays a charge for water or sewerage services in excess of the maximum resale price, the amount in excess will be recoverable by the person to whom it is resold. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are grateful for this amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will not think that I am churlish if I still have some worries about its wording and some of its content. It is clearly going in the right direction. It is the Government's intention to secure that there is no overcharging on resale of water supplies and to secure the protection which is necessary for tenants and those who live in houses in multiple occupation, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook,
652
reminded us, tenants who live in a park of mobile homes. Such tenants should be protected from landlords who could otherwise readily overcharge for the use of water which comes from a water undertaking.
As the noble Earl acknowledged, this is a much more complicated amendment than that which I moved on Report. I was not fully satisfied with his reasoning for the additional complexity. After all, if this law is to be effective, it also has to be clear. I hope that the Government, in implementing the law, will see to it that there are general regulations on resale and that they are couched in such a way that they can be understood by the ordinary people who will have to rely on them in order to obtain their rights. For example, the phrase in subsection (4):
"or by specifying a method of calculating that amount"
does not seem to me at all clear. I hope that the Government will issue clear and explicit regulations which are not misleading and, perhaps, leaflets which are not misleading in order to explain the intention of the amendment with which we thoroughly agree.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it is up to the director general to make the order and to provide the explanatory material.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Initial Government holdings]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 96, line 17, after ("may") insert ("in accordance with subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 34 returns to the issue which we debated on Report but which we also touched on in the Reasoned Amendment at the beginning of this afternoon.
The issue here is that there should be an adequate gap between the setting of the K figure on which charges to consumers are to be based and the flotation of the shares. There are many reasons why that is necessary, even though we acknowledge that K will not now be set until the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
I still feel that that is deeply regrettable and that we should have been given an idea of what consumers are to be charged. Moreover the electors of Members of the House of Commons will feel that their representatives should have been given some idea of what will be the cost of water privatisation as reflected in consumer prices. I am strengthened in deploring that by the indication from the Financial Times on Friday that the figures for K have already been communicated, if only on the basis of final consultation, to the regional water authorities and the statutory water companies. That may be only a press rumour but even so it shows that we are, as indeed we must be, very close to the time when the information on consumer prices must be made available, should have been made available and should now be made available in an adequate time—and we suggest three months—before flotation.
The situation is different from that which we faced when the Bill started in your Lordships' House in April. The 1988–89 accounts of the regional water authorities have now been published although there has been very little time to subject them to adequate analysis. We understand that the asset management plans of the authorities have been submitted and may even have been agreed. As I say, the regional water authorities and the statutory water companies are being informed about the K formula.
Therefore, we have good justification for saying that there should be an adequate gap between the declaration of K and flotation. The purpose of this amendment is not to put back flotation but to put forward publication of K. That is what is essential. It is the gap between the two which matters.
This is an issue on which the Government's credibility is very much at stake. The Secretary of State has gone on record as saying that he thinks that water prices will increase by, I think the figure was, 7·5 per cent. to 12·5 per cent. in real terms over the next five years. If that is the case, the figure for K in addition to the RPI can only be about plus 1 per cent. If the Secretary of State's estimate of the rise in prices is to mean anything and is not to mislead the public, then the Government should be committing themselves to a figure for K of not more than 0.1 per cent. However, the indications are that K might be as much as plus 10 per cent. in which case we should be talking of increases in prices of as much as 150 per cent. in real terms over the next 10 years.
Somewhere between those two figures, the truth lies. The Government should have told us in time for that to be considered by Parliament. However, even if we have lost that argument, we must insist that the Government tell the consumers and investors in good time for them to make judgments. Consumers should be making judgments about the figures because they must be assessing K against the stated investment needs in the asset management plans of the authorities. They must be able to assess it against the statement in the Bill that the Government will ensure a reasonable rate of return for the new water and sewerage undertakings. What is that reasonable rate of return to be? We received no answer from the Government despite heavy probing. Above all, they need to know what are the performance improvements which the Government have always used as their basis for privatisation but on which we have no firm indication and no firm assurance that the pricing formula will be adequate to secure those performance improvements.
Of course, investors are concerned with all those matters but in the end they are concerned with making a commercial judgment about the water industry as an investment. The prime piece of evidence which they must have, where the Government are choosing price regulation rather than profit regulation, is what the price will be. At present, nobody knows. Speculation in the City is becoming increasingly despondent about prospects for a successful flotation. Only the Government can put the City out of its misery and only the
654
Government can do their duty to consumers. They should do so by allowing an adequate gap for analysis, consideration and public debate between the setting of K and the time of flotation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments seek further to protect the interests of customers, and I must say that the existing provisions are already adequate to meet the noble Lord's concerns. I base my argument on two points. First, the customer is protected from excessive increases in charges by the terms of the Bill itself which lays down the way in which the Secretary of State must act in setting charges initially and, similarly, the responsibilities of the director general subsequently.
What are important are the terms of Clause 7 which, I remind your Lordships, say that the Secretary of State must,
"ensure that the interests of every person who is a customer … of a company … are protected as respects the fixing and recovery by that company of … charges".
That is a requirement which could not be stated more clearly and it is one to which we are already paying the most serious attention as we consider the expenditure programmes of the future water plcs and the charges needed to finance them.
Secondly, I remind your Lordships that the model intrument of appointment which makes clear the basis on which charges will be set was published as long ago as last December and has been widely discussed since then. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will also be aware that, following discussions with the undertakers and before the House goes into Recess, we hope to make known what the project K values are for future charges. The requirement to publish such information three months in advance of the Secretary of State exercising his powers under Clause 82 ensures that the consumers will know in good time. However, the three months is an over-rigid period and it may be marginally less, as the noble Lord knows only too well.
I contend that the Government have acted generously in consultations on future charging arrangements and the terms of the Bill reflect our concern for customers. In conclusion, .1 have to say that the reason behind these amendments smacks a little of an attempt to wreck the Government's timetable for privatisation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am shocked that the Minister should think that I have any interest in wrecking the Government's timetable for privatisation. As he well knows, and as he acknowledged in his description of the purport of the amendments, we are concerned that both investors and consumers—but particularly consumers—should have an adequate time to consider the figure of K, which is an essential element of consumer prices in the judgment of whether privatisation is of advantage to the consumer, as it is claimed to be, and whether it is a viable basis for flotation.

655
I am grateful to the Minister for saying in public what he was good enough to say in a letter to me last week, that the figures for K will be available before the House rises at the end of July. As he said, that comes close to the Government's own timetable for flotation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 85 [Conversion of certain loans]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 99, line 5, leave out ("on") and insert ("under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Tax provisions]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 106, line 13, leave out ("on") and insert ("under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Registration of statutory water companies under the Companies Act 1985]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 38:
Page III, line 4, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) Where—

(a) provision for the constitution and regulation of a statutory water company holding an appointment under Chapter I of this Part—

(i) is contained in local statutory provisions having effect in accordance with paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the said Act of 1985 (enactments to have effect as if contained in memorandum and articles); or

(ii) would, apart from this subsection, be so contained if the company became a registered water company;

(b) the company has by special resolution proposed (whether before or after becoming a registered water company) that provision contained in a memorandum and articles shall have effect in substitution for those local statutory provisions;

(c) the proposal that a memorandum and articles shall so have effect in relation to the company has been approved by order made by the Secretary of State; and

(d) in the case of a company that has not already done so, the company becomes a registered water company,

those local statutory provisions shall cease to have effect on such date as may, for the purposes of this subsection, be specified or described in that order and the proposed memorandum and articles shall come into force on that date subject to any modifications, terms or conditions contained in any order made by the High Court under section 101 below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 42 to 52 and 142 would allow a statutory water company to register under the Companies Act 1985 and to adopt a new memorandum and articles, in one step, rather than in two separate steps, which is what the Bill as currently framed would require.
The advantages are clear. Only one shareholders' meeting would be necessary and this measure could prevent companies being stuck in the half-way position of being for a time both a statutory water company and a registered company. The Secretary of State and shareholders would still have to give their approval to any changes to a company's status, so we are not dispensing with any safeguards, and
656
nobody will be disadvantaged; we are simply taking the opportunity to streamline the conversion procedure.
I now turn to Amendment No. 144. This amendment has been laid to meet the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Elliott at Report stage, when he moved Amendments Nos. 120B and 120C to allow a statutory water company to restructure its debentures. It would allow a statutory water company or its creditors to apply to the courts for an arrangement or reconstruction under Part XIII of the Companies Act 1985. The practical effect of this would be that companies which intended to convert to plc status, using the powers in the Water Bill, would be able to reconstruct their capital at the time of conversion rather than having to carry this out as a separate and later exercise.
I have already indicated that for practical reasons companies will probably not wish to apply for registration under the Companies Act until they have obtained all the necessary approvals from shareholders for the adoption of a new memorandum and articles; and the time for appeals to the courts by dissentient minorities has elapsed. But until they register they would not, under the current Bill's provisions, be able to apply to the courts for a restructuring of their debentures, which many wish to undertake. The time required for this application to the courts would either delay conversion or result in the debentures being restructured as a separate exercise after conversion.
This amendment would apply Part XIII of the Companies Act 1985 to statutory water companies with such modifications as may be prescribed and so allow them to approach the courts for a restructuring of their debentures before they are registered under the Companies Act. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this extension of well-tried Companies Act provisions to the water companies is the most satisfactory way of resolving the difficulty which the companies face in achieving a modern structure for their debentures. I hope your Lordships will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the Government for meeting, as they have done through this group of amendments, the very real concerns of the water companies which I expressed on Report through my amendments. The Water Companies' Association is most grateful for this meeting of their concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak to Amendments Nos. 39 to 48 I propose that they be taken en bloc.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh: moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 48:
Page 111, line 23, leave out ("under subsection (3) above in relation to a registered water company") and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above in relation to a proposal by any company").
Page 111, line 36, leave out second ("to") and insert ("of").
Page 111, line 39, after ("consent") insert ("to").
Page 112, line 6, leave out ("registered water").
Page 112, line 9, leave out ("under subsection (3)") and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2)(c)").
Page 112, line 13, after ("specified") insert ("or described").
Page 112, line 29, leave out ("under subsection (3)") and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2)(c)").
Page 112, line 34, leave out ("under subsection (3) or") and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above or an order under subsection").
Page 112, line 44, leave out from ("resolution"") to end of line 46 and insert—

("(a) in relation to a meeting held after the company in question has become a registered water company, means an extraordinary resolution within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985; and

(b) in relation to a meeting held before that company becomes a registered water company, means such a resolution as would be a special resolution within the meaning of section 97 above if the meeting were a meeting of the company;").

Page 113, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
(""registrar of companies" has the same meaning as in that Act; and
"special resolution"—

(a) in relation to a time after the company in question has become a registered water company, means (subject to subsection (2) of section 101 below) a special resolution within the meaning of that Act; and

(b) in relation to a time before that company becomes a registered water company, means (subject to that subsection) a special resolution within the meaning of section 97 above;

and in this section and section 101 below a reference to a company's becoming a registered water company is a reference to the issue to that company (whether before or on or after the transfer date) of a certificate under section 688 of that Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 101 [Procedure for cancelling resolutions for substituting memorandum and articles]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 49 to 52:
Page 113, line 5, leave out ("registered water").
Page 113, line 40, leave out from ("after") to end of line 43 and insert ("the date of the last resolution, consent or approval to be passed or given for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) or (4)(b) of section 100 above or for the purposes, in connection with the company's becoming a registered water company, of section 681 of the Companies Act 1985 (procedural requirements for registration).").
Page 114, line 17, leave out ("registered water").
Page 114, line 26, leave out ("registered water").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 102 [Waters to which Chapter I applies]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 115, line 39, after ("means") insert ("(subject to subsection (5) below)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 115, line 49, at end insert—
("(bb) that a lake or pond which does so discharge and is of a description specified in the order is to be treated for those purposes as if it were not a relevant lake or pond;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was good enough to advise me beforehand that he would require some further clarification on Amendment No. 54. This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make an order excluding lakes
658
or ponds of the type described in the order from the class of controlled waters.
In framing Amendment No. 54 we had in mind such things as settling lagoons at coal mines. If those lagoons discharge into rivers they count as controlled waters because of the definition of "relevant lake or pond" in Clause 102(4). Thus, a coal miner would need a discharge consent from the NRA before he could discharge effluent into his lagoon. Clearly the NRA would have no interest in what goes into a lagoon but will be concerned with what comes out of it and into a river. As a result of the amendment it will be possible to exclude lagoons from the class of controlled waters, thus confining the NRA's involvement to what it is interested in; namely, what enters the river from the lagoon.
I should add that any order made under this amendment will, because of Clause 102(6), be subject to negative annulment by either House. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. I have no objection to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 116, line I, leave out ("specified in the order") and insert ("so specified").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 116, line 10, leave out from ("(b)") to ("make") in line 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will find this an appropriate moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to Third Reading at 8.30 p.m.
I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill
7.30 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Control of Smoke Pollution Bill
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
At Second Reading I undertook to answer a point raised by noble Lords concerning the financial and manpower implications of the Bill. The House will be aware that the provisions of the Bill were the subject of a government consultation exercise in December 1986. All local authorities which commented on the proposals supported them.

659
Local authorities currently have a duty under the Public Health Acts to inspect their areas to detect matters which require to be dealt with as a statutory nuisance. In the case of non-dark smoke emitted from dwellings outside smoke control areas they now receive complaints but cannot take enforcement action. The Bill will enable local authorities to take rapid and effective action against such emissions where they are considered to constitute a statutory nuisance. In the case of non-dark smoke emitted from dwellings outside smoke control areas they not only more effective control over smoke nuisances but a reduction in the number of repeated complaints about smoke nuisances because of the lack of local authority enforcement powers.
In the case of dark smoke emitted from industrial or trade premises, local authorities currently face a barrage of local complaints and the expense of court cases which prove abortive because they cannot prove that dark smoke was emitted at night or because it was successsfully argued that the person causing the emission was not the occupier of the premises. The Bill should help to improve the local authority success rate with the resultant saving in legal fees. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill
7.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to be able to inform noble Lords that, in the debates which took place on this Bill in another place, both Government and Opposition speakers found themselves very much in agreement on the two broad principles which this Bill seeks to reinforce. Those two principles are, first, that the industry which generates profits from the manufacture and supply of pesticides should underwrite the full cost of the procedures by which the use of these products is approved and monitored; and secondly, that the arrangements under which the controls on pesticides are enforced embody sufficient flexibility for them to be applied and quickly when the need arises.
The products I am talking about consist not only of pesticides which are used in agriculture and horticulture but also those which carry out essential pest-killing and health-protecting roles in factories,
660
food stores, sewers, hospitals, restaurants and homes. All of us benefit, every day, from the use of these products and all of us need to be assured that they are safe.
Clause 1 sets out an amended version of Section 18 of the Food and Environment Protection Act—customarily referred to by the acronym FEPA—and thereby solves a difficulty which has arisen over the arrangement for imposing charges for the approval and monitoring of pesticides. When the charging system was being drawn up after FEPA had passed into law in 1985, it was intended that there should be two different types of charge by which the pesticides industry should meet the costs of ensuring that its products were safe from the point of view of human health, wildlife and the environment before their use was approved. Part of the costs, but not all, would be recovered by means of fees which would be payable before approval was granted, and the remainder would be recovered by means of a levy that would be charged on turnover on approved products after approval had been granted. That levy would also serve to underwrite the costs of monitoring the use of pesticides in the United Kingdom. In that way, smaller companies within the pesticides industry would not be required to bear the full burden of approval costs before any revenue had been earned from the products concerned, and a disincentive to technological innovation would be avoided.
That scheme turned out to be incapable of full implementation, because it was established that the present wording of Section 18 of FEPA did not allow approval costs to be met partly by application fees and partly out of the levy on turnover. As a result, the taxpayer as well as the pesticides industry has had to contribute to the costs, to the tune of about half a million pounds a year. The new Section 18 set out in Clause 1 of the Bill will allow the original charging scheme to be implemented in full and ensure that all the costs are met by the industry.
Clause 2 puts right another unforeseen difficulty concerning the people who may be designated as enforcement officers under the Bill. Under Section 19 of FEPA at present, local authorities and port health authorities cannot be designated as enforcement officers under the Act, even though it is to those bodies that the primary responsibility for enforcing the controls on pesticides falls. The result is that all the officers who need to have enforcement responsibilities have to be authorised personally by Ministers. That is a highly impractical arrangement and the amendment to Section 19 of FEPA set out in Clause 2 puts this right by enabling local authorities to authorise members of their staff as enforcement officers in categories specified by Ministers.
I hope that the passage of this small but important Bill through this House will provoke as little disagreement as did its passage through another place. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for confirming what my own reading of the Bill conveyed to me and for reminding us of the peace and harmony which prevailed at Second Reading and in Committee in another place concerning this measure. I played a part when the 1985 Act, which I did not realise was known as FEPA, passed through your Lordships' House and to that extent I must accept my share of the responsibility for the inadequacies of the drafting. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness has explained this evening, Clause 1 will place the burden where it properly belongs and Clause 2 will tidy up an administrative matter which needs just that treatment. We wish the Bill well and a speedy passage through the House.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Chemical Industries Group. The record of the pesticides industry and its allied organisations is a good one. What slightly worries some people about the Bill are the powers given to the Government. It is surely possible for the industry itself to set up a task force to generate the data required by the Government and be self-regulatory as opposed to the Government doing the job. That would decrease the amount of time required. Any organisation which failed to provide the data would not be exempted from the levy.
My understanding is that it is open to the Secretary of State to review at any time an approval given for the use of a particular pesticide. Moreover, under the clean air legislation, I believe that the Government already have considerable powers to control the use of pesticides and other such substances. However, with that reservation, I give a warm welcome to the Second Reading of the Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his welcome to this tiny Bill. I was also most interested in his paternity claim as regards FEPA. I noted what my noble friend Lord Auckland said and I shall write to him on any points which I think he may like to have answered.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8.30 p.m.]

Water Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 104 [Water quality objectives]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 57.
Page 116, line 37, after ("classification") insert ("and in accordance with subsection (2A) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. It is comparable with the amendment we tabled on drinking water quality. It applies the principle of trying to establish a date for the timescale required for water quality objectives. Although it is an important amendment, I believe that I can deal with it rapidly in the form of a question.
We know that the Government have resisted strongly the idea of a timetable for drinking water quality objectives. We know that even now the Minister of State is putting alternative proposals to the European Commission which, presumably, will have to contain an alternative date. What stage have the Government reached in the water quality and river quality objectives? If they cannot agree to the date of 31st December 1993, what date do they think is realistic? It would be inappropriate for a House of this size at this time of night to proceed to a Division. But any help the Government can give would be of assistance to my right honourable and honourable friends in another place in securing that there is a sensible debate about river water and drinking water quality. I beg to move the amendment in the form of a question to the Government Front Bench.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has made. I hope that he will understand that I feel that I should reply to his amendment, albeit briefly, because that would be as appropriate as trying to answer his question.
The effect of the amendment would be to require that all statutory quality objectives must be achieved by the end of 1993 except where the Secretary of State, in the light of representations from effluent dischargers, decides that that is an impracticable goal and that more time is needed. However, in no circumstances would the Secretary of State be able to extend the deadline for achieving an objective beyond December 1995.
Clause 104(1) provides that water quality objectives may be set both for the maintenance and the improvement of the quality of controlled waters. The amendment would be perfectly compatible with any objectives requiring the maintenance of water quality which were set no later than 31st December 1993 for objectives for the maintenance of water quality must be met from the day they are set. However, it is difficult to reconcile the amendment with any subsequent variation of an objective made after 1993 requiring the waters to be maintained at a new higher standard. Even more significant perhaps the amendment is totally incompatible with

663
objectives designed to achieve long-term improvements in water quality. The best example I can give is that of the Mersey Basin campaign which we established in 1983. By the time that it is finished £2·5 billion will have been invested in eliminating all poor and bad quality waters and in upgrading all existing fair quality waters, but it is not expected to be finished until about 2010. That campaign cannot be reconciled with the amendments making it impossible to set deadlines for any improvements which could not be met by 1993 or, at the latest, 1995.
Are we to deny ourselves the opportunity to use quality objectives for one of the key purposes for which they were designed—the necessary long-term improvement of our rivers? The amendment would mean that water quality objectives would, in a few years' time, be of use only in maintaining water quality. They would be stripped of their role as a means of securing improvements. I am not sure what the Bill has to do with the EC directive on drinking water quality. The government position remains as set out at previous stages of the Bill. Beyond that, it would be inappropriate for me to anticipate what might happen in another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a most unhelpful answer to the major question that I put. However, I understand from what the Minister said that there is a danger that the amendment as drafted would make it more difficult to apply higher qualities in the future. That was not our intention. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 105 [General duties to achieve and maintain objectives etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 117, line 40, leave out from ("under") to end of line 41 and insert ("this Chapter, to monitor the extent of pollution in controlled waters and to consult, in such cases as it may consider appropriate, with river purification authorities in Scotland.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to with respect to breaches of objectives.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the Authority to exercise the powers conferred on him or it, by or under the provision of this Chapter and Chapter VI below in such manner as ensures that the investigation and determination of breaches or possible breaches of water quality objectives as established under section 104 above is completed as soon as practicable.
(2) The Authority shall, in any case where it identifies a breach or possible breach on a single occasion of one or more water quality objectives, or where such a breach is brought to its attention, undertake sufficient sampling, together with any other appropriate investigation, as shall enable it to establish as soon as practicable whether or not a breach of a licence, consent, or statutory provision has occurred, or whether an offence has been committed under section 106 below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been overtaken by government Amendment No. 145.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 106 [Offences of polluting controlled waters etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 118, line 30, at end insert ("or derives from a prescribed process or from a process involving the use of prescribed substances or the use of such substances in quantities which exceed the prescribed amounts.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108 [Deposits and vegetation in rivers etc.]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 121, line 7, at end insert ("provided that a person shall not be guilty of such an offence where the removal was carried out in an emergency in order to avoid danger to life.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with the dangers of flooding, and that emergency action, which would otherwise be an offence, should not be regarded as an offence when it is designed to remove any risk to life and limb as a result of flooding. The clause prevents a person from removing silt which has accumulated at the bottom of a stream bed because that action is banned. Someone acting under land drainage boards is not guilty of an offence, but rapid flooding caused by extra heavy rains may cause there to be a danger. By acting to release water pressure which might build up, for instance, as a result of a dam caused by silting, someone would be acting to save lives. The amendment is appropriate because such action is not against the spirit of the clause and is designed to protect life. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we cannot imagine a person being prosecuted, convicted and fined, for disturbing mud while saving life. If the amendment is needed here, it is needed throughout the statute book; but it is not needed. I am sure that we can instead rely on the good sense and humanity of the NRA and the courts. It is for those reasons that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I feel rather chastened by that reply, but having been given that assurance, which is now on the record, the amendment has served any purpose it might have had and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109 [Requirements to take precautions against pollution]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 121, line 30, leave out ("the matter from entering") and insert ("or controlling the entry of the matter into any").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 63. The effect of this amendment will be to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 109 prescribing works, precautions, and other steps to be taken to control the entry of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into controlled waters. As currently drafted, Clause 109 only allows such regulations to be made for the purpose of completely preventing the entry of such matter into such water.
As a result of this amendment it will be possible to require that anyone in charge of poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter must not only store that matter in a safe manner, but must take precautions to ensure that should an accident occur the polluting effect of the matter will be minimised. An example of the precautions which might be prescribed is a requirement on the person having charge of the polluting matter to keep decontaminants to hand for use in an emergency. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 [Water protection zones]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 70:
Page 122, line 4, after ("consultation") insert ("(in the case of an area wholly or partly in England)").
Clause 117 [Information and assistance]:
Page 128, line 24, leave out (", to give the Secretary of State") and insert ("or the Minister, to give him"):
Page 128, line 26, after ("State") insert ("or the Minister").
Page 128, line 28, after ("State") insert (", the Minister").
Page 128, line 30, after ("State") insert (", the Minister").
Page 128, line 33, after first ("or") insert ("the Minister or by").
Page 128, line 35, after ("State") insert ("or the Minister").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 126 [Minimum acceptable river flows]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71:
Page 132, line 34, at end insert—
("(3A) The National Rivers Authority shall review all abstraction licences within a period of not more than five years, for the purpose of determining the impact of such abstraction on the physical condition and amenity of the inland waters concerned and the surrounding area and on the quality of the water, and shall submit the results of such review with recommendations where it considers them appropriate to the Secretary of State.
(3B) The National Rivers Authority may, in any circumstances where a licence is or has been under review, issue an interim direction to the licence-holder for the purpose of determining the permitted level of abstraction where the Authority considers it expedient for the purposes of improving or maintaining the physical condition or amenity of the inland waters concerned, or of its surrounding area, or of the quality of the water.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have decided not to move this amendment because another amendment—Amendment No. 72—standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is substantially
666
the same. I indicate to the House that I shall not move Amendment No. 71.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause:
("Licences to abstract water.
Where the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Regional Rivers Advisory Committee or the Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee is of the opinion that it is appropriate to do so, they may request the Authority to review any particular licence and for the Authority to vary the conditions or revoke or otherwise suspend such licence in order to ensure the flow, level or volume of any inland water or any water contained in underground strata fur the purposes of protecting fisheries, flora, fauna or natural beauty.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has become apparent in the last weeks, through national and local press and television coverage, that over-extraction of water is and will continue to be a contentious issue for the water industry. I do not intend to reiterate the numerous case studies of over-extraction which have already been drawn to the attention of the House by myself and other noble Lords during the Committee and Report stages.
It is an issue to which I feel particularly committed. While the Minister had some sympathy for my amendment at the Report stage, he still felt that the powers and duties of the NRA already in the Bill were sufficient. I fear that this rather underestimates both the problems and the concern of the countryside users who are seeing their rivers and wetlands drying up.
Your Lordships will know that I moved amendments at both Committee and Report stages and I make no apology for tabling two amendments at this late stage. I view the amendments as being a belt and braces approach. They simply seek to ensure that evidence of environmental damage through over-extraction of water will trigger a review of licences by the NRA. The Bill in its present form does not specifically address the problem.
My first amendment, No. 72, provides the means for relevant agencies to request the NRA to carry out a review when problems arise. The second amendment, No. 121, which is grouped with Amendment No. 72, ensures that the NRA takes into account its environmental duties when reviewing licences.
Let me speak first to Amendment No. 72. It is similar to the one which I tabled at Report stage and will provide the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the NRA's advisory committees with a statutory right to request a review of water abstraction licences. I welcome the Minister's previous assurance that the NRA will have the power to review licences of right. However, during the Report stage I tried to convince the House that the NRA should have a duty to review abstraction licences in the same way as it has a duty to review discharge consents.
The Minister tried to persuade me that this was not necessary as the NRA is to be independent from the water service plcs. That is one of the advantages of separating the two arms of the water industry—a

667
concept which I fully support. Nevertheless there is a strong case to be made for the adoption of statutory means which will ensure that the NRA conducts a review of abstraction licences which are considered as having a damaging effect on the environment. The precedent for this already exists in relation to discharge consents.
My contention with the Government is that if they feel that there is a need for a statutory review of what flows down the river, surely it is equally important to review how much water is taken out. The NCC, which is the body responsible for advising the Government on conservation matters, believes that the NRA should have a statutory duty to review abstraction licences. Since no such duty is provided for in the Bill, there should be as a minimum requirement a power for the NCC, the Countryside Commission and the NRA's advisory committees to be able to request the NRA to review these licences. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to do. I know that the Minister will tell me that the NCC or anyone else is at liberty to request a review of abstraction licences, but this amendment will strengthen and formalise the process and not leave it to chance.
When the Minister responds to the amendment, I should be grateful if he would clarify one small point. Will the NCC have the legal right to request the review of an abstraction licence which affects a river or wetland, neither of which is notified as a site of special scientific interest? That would clarify the Clause 9 duties for both the NRA and the NCC.
I now wish to speak to Amendment No. 121. It is a simple amendment which would clearly identify environmental problems resulting from over-abstraction with the ability of the NRA to review licences. It is an amendment to the relevant section of the 1963 Water Resources Act which provides for the review of abstraction licences. I have used the same wording as has been used in Clause 126(4)(b) with respect to the setting of minimum flows. That subsection ensures that the NRA will have due regard to its Clauses 8 and 9 environmental duties when it comes to determining minimum flows.
My amendment seeks to ensure precisely the same duty with respect to abstraction licences. Where there is evidence of environmental damage caused by over-abstraction, the NRA will have a clear duty under its Clauses 8 and 9 responsibilities to consider reviewing the abstraction licences. I accept that the power to deal with licences exists in the Bill but I believe that an issue that is of such concern to so many people should have a clear reference in the Bill. I do not believe that the amendment is in any way contentious and I feel that the Government should be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I only intend to take a minute or two of your Lordships' time. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has put forward an acceptable case most persuasively. What are we faced with? In previous debates the Minister talked about bureaucratic nightmares which of course are the device and the last refuge of
668
a Minister of the Government who does not wish to have duties imposed upon him which he does not like. I can tell him that in my view the people who would be affected by this bureaucratic nightmare would prefer to have it than to face the prospect of the beauty, the facilities and amenities which we seek to protect being damaged.
All the new amendment does is to make statutory and to lay down something which the Minister will probably tell us will be done in any case. In the amendment we say that environmental duties on a statutory basis need to be taken into account. We ask for a periodic review. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, it is all very well saying, as the Minister did previously, that these things can be requested. We do not want that; we want people to acknowledge that if we are serious about these matters it should be part and parcel of the obligations to carry out these matters as good husbanders of our natural resources.
I very much hope that the Minister will accept that this provision is designed to maintain and improve the condition or the amenity of water, or the surrounding area, or the quality of the water itself. That very much rests upon arresting the depletion of water from our watercourses when that takes place unnecessarily and dangerously. In my view, this is an eminently reasonable amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. However, that implies no discourtesy to my noble friend or the House. In moving the amendment, my noble friend told the House exactly how I would answer it. I think we can both award ourselves 10 out of 10 for perseverence with the same arguments, and nought out of 10 for bringing forward any new arguments on Third Reading.
As regards Amendment No. 72, I am afraid I can only repeat what I said on Report; namely, that there is no point in putting on the face of an Act a provision which is completely unnecessary. The NCC and any other interested party can always request the NRA to exercise its powers, or to exercise them in a particular way; the fact that this may be done by means of abstraction licences is immaterial, and it is irrelevant whether it is a question of an SSSI, so my noble friend's concern is totally met. In fact my noble friend's amendment has a mischief in it. The mischief is that to formalise the position in statute could, I contend to the House, only cast doubt on the ability of parties other than those named to make similar requests. I am sure that my noble friend will see the wisdom of that.
I have rather similar remarks to make in connection with Amendment No. 121. Here again, Clause 8 itself already requires the NRA to take environmental and conservation matters into account in formulating any proposals. That includes proposals to revoke or amend abstraction licences.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I am afraid that the Government have not given any ground since the Committee and Report stages on the amendments on water abstraction. The amendments which I tabled

669
today were put down in response to the Government's previous criticisms, and are not, I believe, in any way contentious at all. The Minister has repeated his criticism that the additional powers are not necessary. However, I still find it horrifying that this Bill does not contain a reference to a very major problem—that is, over-abstraction.
I accept that there are resource implications in dealing with over-abstraction, but that should not be the reason for failure to resolve this problem. All the conservation bodies, including the Government's own advisers, feel strongly about this issue. Indeed, having seen so much damage caused in my own local environment by over-abstraction of water, which has been perpetuated as a result of 23 years of inaction by the present water authority, I hold out no hope of improvement under the privatised water industry unless an appropriate amendment is made to the Bill. I can only hope that the problems of over-abstraction can be resolved when the Bill goes back to another place. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 [General drought orders]:
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 131 [Emergency drought orders]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 145 [Ministerial directions to the Authority]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 153, line 1, after ("to") insert ("the making of applications for orders under section 111 above or with respect to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 153, line 4, leave out from ("to") to ("anything") in line 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Admissibility of analyses of samples]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 154, line 44, after ("sewer") insert ("or other outfall belonging to a sewerage undertaker").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 154, line 46, after ("sewer") insert ("or outfall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 151 [Restriction on disposals of land]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 157, line 16, at end insert—
("(3A) Before granting any consent or authorisation under this section, the Secretary of State may establish a local inquiry to report to him with recommendations and the report of any such inquiry shall be published.
670
(3B) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of any local inquiry established under subsection (3A) above, make arrangements to secure that

(a) such individuals and organisations as appear to him to be concerned receive notice of the inquiry, is terms of reference and procedure of the making of submissions; and

(b) that notices of matters referred to in paragraph (a) above are placed in the London Gazette and such local newspapers and other publications as appear to him to be relevant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 80, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. These amendments deal with public consultation on land disposals. I hope the House will agree that that is a most important aspect of the Bill.
These amendments return to the issue raised by Amendment No. 140F at Report stage, which was moved to the Government's then new clause on disposals, now incorporated as Clause 151 of the Bill. My noble friend Lord McIntosh argued that a process of public notification and consultation was necessary in relation to proposed disposals. The amendment would have required notification in the London Gazette and local newspapers of the receipt of an application, and of the results of a determination. My noble friend Lord McIntosh described the fact that the clause made no provision for such public notification as "an astonishing omission" which was:
"out of keeping with the spirit of much recent legislation and with the Government's own proclaimed support for open government".—[Official Report, 8/6/89; col. 953.)
In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, did not really deal with the issue of whether or not the public had an interest in knowing of proposed disposals and the planning implications arising from them. This does indeed seem to be an extraordinary omission. Public concern may be less with the transfer of ownership than with the possibility of development of land whether for housing or more intensive recreational use. This is precisely the sort of issue which generates intense public interest to which the Government seem largely to be insensitive.
I am sure that the Government ministers will by now be very much aware that these are the matters that excite interest and concern in the national and local press. The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, at col. 975 dealt wholly with whether or not such a public notification procedure would be useful to the Secretary of State in reaching a view on whether or not a change of ownership should take place. We believe, having read the Minister's reply, that it reveals the degree to which the Government misunderstand the extent of public concern, and the particular sensitivity to possible development of land currently held by water authorities. The Government need hardly be concerned that the placing of an advertisement in respect of an uncontroversial piece of waste ground or a redundant site in an urban area will draw any substantial public reaction. They must accept, however, that a notice of sale in respect of an area of some scenic interest will naturally still be of concern to local residents. I remind the House of the Secretary of State's own experiences with controversy over the releasing of agricultural land

671
for housing development in the South of England in recent years. That should of itself have demonstrated to him that concern. The Minister chose to concentrate on the narrow issue of change of ownership. The much more important issue would be that of the consequences of such a change.
Accordingly, the amendments now tabled seek to explore further what appears to have been a wholly neglected area of the Government's thinking in drawing together the disposals proposals. The first amendment would give the Secretary of State the discretion to establish a local inquiry to report to him with recommendations in respect of a proposed disposal. The second amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake public consultation and invite representations and publish notices of the consultative process.
I believe that if one is concerned about taking the public along with this legislation, rather than stripping the Bill of any onerous duties upon the prospective investors, one should appreciate that these amendments are sensible and reasonable. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these amendments would provide that the consent powers of the Secretary of State for the disposal of environmentally sensitive land in Clause 151 should be subject to substantial obligations in respect of public consultation through advertisement in local papers, the London Gazettes and to the discretionary public inquiry procedures. We obviously have some sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The fact of our establishing a requirement of the Secretary of State's consent reflects acceptance that there may be significant issues of public interest involved. Clearly, relevant bodies should be consulted. The issue is how we achieve that in a simple and effective manner.
Our view is that this proposal is disproportionate. What we are considering here is the transfer of ownership which could have some hypothetical impact on certain landscape, conservation or amenity considerations. We are not considering substantial or immediate development proposals. For what is involved extensive advertising requirements and formal consideration of objections are excessive. That is too blunt an instrument.
Instead, we propose that before any consent is issued there will be a requirement, through the terms of a general authorisation, that the undertaker consult the Countryside Commission. That body is in the best position to advise whether, in the light of consultation with the NCC and other statutory bodies concerned, significant issues are raised by the proposal. Where appropriate it will no doubt seek the views of other relevant bodies or affected interests before recommending to the Secretary of State whether the consent should be granted, and if so, subject to what conditions.
I suggest that that is a reasonable, flexible and sensible approach. By contrast the noble Lord's proposal would mean that every time an undertaker
672
sold a car park or vehicle depot within the very extensive designated areas advertisement in the London Gazette would be required. We believe that to be excessive. However, I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lord that we are taking due account of the need for consultation, and that he will not therefore consider it necessary to press his amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister rests his argument on the fact that the NCC will be consulted. Can the Minister tell the House what are the NCC's powers as regards consultation in these matters? How long do they have to respond? If consultation is to be meaningful there must be an opportunity for the NCC to consider whether it is competent to respond or whether it needs the views of others. Can the Minister help us?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the important point is that consultation takes place. I do not have with me information as to the exact period of time but I shall certainly let the noble Lord, Lord Graham, know.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I understand the Minister's difficulty in responding to that point. But the Minister will understand that he is asking the House, and the country, to accept that the mere process of consultation with the NCC will be sufficient to satisfy anyone who is concerned. The NCC itself may wish to have time for consultation. I wonder whether the Minister is now in a better position to give such an indication.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we shall specify a period in the general authorisation. Obviously, we shall take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said this evening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister is very wise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 157, line 20, after ("above") insert ("and subject to subsection (5A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments derive from consideration at Report stage of the Government's proposals for special protective controls of the disposal of environmentally significant land when I said that we would consider what could be done to clarify and extend the scope of the controls.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us which amendments he is speaking to?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 81, 83 to 86, 88 and 90 to 92. I apologise deeply to the House for not having said so at the start.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the grouping which we agreed, which includes our amendments, comprises Amendments Nos. 81 to 88

673
and 90 to 93. That includes amendments in my name, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and in the name of my noble friend Lady Nicol. We have the Government's agreement to speak to them all as a group and I hope that the Minister will also do so. That would make for a much more sensible debate.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was just coming to the point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised. I propose that it would be sensible for me to speak to the government amendments and at the end of the debate answer the opposition amendments, if that would be satisfactory.
Perhaps I may first draw the attention of the House to an error in the third line of Amendment No. 85, where the words "or the Minister" should follow the reference to the Secretary of State. That reflects the reference to the Secretary of State or Minister in subsection (4).
The government amendments make three proposals: first, Amendment No. 85 applies the Secretary of State's power to require to offer a first refusal explicitly to the two cases covered in the Government's announced policy: the sale of compulsorily acquired land and the sale of land within national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty, and, if other amendments are accepted, SSSIs. The other amendments provide for special controls on environmentally sensitive land to extend to all SSSIs. Thirdly, they correspondingly withdraw the reserve order-making power of the Secretary of State for other specific areas to be brought within the scope of the controls on an exceptional basis.
When the Government originally introduced the proposals at Report stage, I undertook to come back to the House at Third Reading on two related points: whether SSSIs could be brought within the scope of the protection, and more generally whether anything could be done in the terms of the clause to make it clearer and firmer in its effects. The amendments before you are the result.
I have emphasised that policy on water authority land must strike a delicate balance. It must meet the need for permanent protection of special environmental areas; it must not inhibit development for socially important purposes in the right areas elsewhere; and it must not inadvertently blight land valuations in circumstances where, as under our proposals, water customers will directly benefit from any sales.
This evening I shall seek to point out to the House two matters: first, that overall our amended proposals represent a better balance of various factors which must be weighed; secondly, that our amended proposals are overall a considerably better deal for the environment.
Before I deal with the specific terms of the amendments, perhaps I may reiterate the two fundamental aspects of our proposals. The first is the reason why we are singling out certain areas for protective controls and not others. We are doing so because certain types of water authority land, notably the upland catchments and important lowland reservoirs, have distinctive conservation
674
features. On such land water authorities have often done more by way of conservation, access and amenity than ordinary planning and countryside legislation could achieve. Elsewhere, on most ordinary utility land, that does not apply. Our ordinary planning and conservation legislation remains an important and sufficient protection.
The second consideration is the range of controls which should be available within those special areas. It remains our view that the variety of circumstances requires three alternatives: purchase by conservation bodies, management agreements or covenants which can cope with the variety of circumstances that can arise. In those three options, our proposals go beyond anything pressed upon us, but, in our view, rightly so.
I remind the House of those considerations as background to the three groups of amendments to which I now turn. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 85. It is the Government's policy that the Secretary of State of the day should have power to require that land placed on the market by undertakers should first be offered to particular bodies in two particular cases. The first is the case of compulsorily acquired land. In accordance with the Crichel Down rules, we believe it right that it should be offered back in the first instance to those from whom it was compulsorily purchased. The second case is the special circumstances to which I referred in respect of land in any designated area—the national parks, AONBs and SSSIs—where the Secretary of State, advised by the Countryside Commission, would have power to require that the land be first offered to a suitable conservation body, where the land is of particular importance and where protective ownership by a conservation body is the best way in which to ensure that it is indefinitely protected.
To cover those two cases, the earlier drafting of the clause went wide, as some noble Lords remarked. It could have implied that any land of any kind in the ownership of the undertakers, even if not compulsorily acquired or of special conservation or amenity value, would be subject to the power. That would be unreasonable and it was clearly right that we should ensure that the powers in the clause should match their announced and intended use. That is simply what Amendments Nos. 81, 85 and 86 achieve.
I now turn to the amendments which provide for the widening of the application of the clause to cover all SSSIs. We considered that with great care because it is a very substantial widening. As the House knows, we had certain doubts as to the need for it. SSSIs are exceedingly diverse and a high measure of continuing protection can be provided by the SSSI procedure itself. But, at the end of the day, we have felt it right to have regard to two particular considerations. First, the feeling of this House, which we believe to be that, in spite of the niceties of logic, it is safe and better that such sites should be covered and that, given the inclusion of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, it was invidious not to cover SSSIs also. The second consideration is the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, which believes that there will be circumstances in

675
which the existence of such powers, particularly in respect of covenants, would be very helpful to it.
Having regard to those considerations and, more generally, the fact that the water and land of the water industry represent a special resource for certain kinds of flora, fauna and habitat, we have felt it right to alter our proposals. The effect on the scope of the controls of bringing in SSSIs will be considerable. The Nature Conservancy Council has substantially completed its notification of sites on reservoirs, lakes and associated land and some 200 to 250 sites are now covered. The effect is that the number of significant countryside sites alone which are brought within protection increases by 40 per cent.
I must say that it is most unlikely that inclusion of so many sites would or could ever have been justified or even contemplated by the reserve order-making power. I must also say that most of the sites for which we anticipated using the order-making power are covered by the inclusion of SSSIs. In those circumstances, we had to question whether there was a justification for maintaining the discretionary power for the Secretary of State to include other sites by order. That risked causing uncertainty and confusion and, because of that uncertainty, it would also have an effect on the valuation of land assets and could ultimately reduce the financial benefits from the disposal of surplus lands which are now, under our proposals, to flow back in large measure to water service customers.
Having satisfied ourselves that, through the SSSIs, we have brought firmly into it the majority of sites for which an arguable case for inclusion might in future have been made, we concluded that more would have been lost than gained by preserving the discretionary power. The fact is that the extension of protective controls is so wide that the justification for reserve power for additional ad hoc designation no longer holds. The purpose that that would have served would have been to allow the full coverage of what the Countryside Commission has identified as the jewels in the crown; inclusion of certain other areas, upland moors and lowlands of value on landscape, amenity and recreation grounds; and inclusion on an exceptional basis of particular SSSIs. In practice, the inclusion of SSSIs secures substantial coverage of those three elements now and on a firm basis, rather than leaving it to an uncertain future decision.
SSSIs bring in almost all of the Elan Valley and most of Vrynwy, so that, taking account of national parks, AONBs and the proposed AONBs, all the "jewels in the crown" would now be covered. They also bring in many of the important lowland reservoirs such as Rutland Water and Grafham Water, which are important on access and recreation grounds as well as in terms of nature conservation, and a number of reservoirs and lakes in urban areas which are of value for amenity and conservation. As I have said, overall, we estimate that the net effect of the proposals will be to increase by around 40 per cent. the coverage of sites of countryside and amenity value.
676
Finally, I should like to emphasise one further point. There have been reports, either muddled or mischievous, that the effect of our proposals tonight is to reduce the protected area of the total water authority holdings from some 450,000 acres, which it is claimed the designation power could have involved, to the 170,000 acres of national parks and AONBs. That is simply wrong. I emphasise that of its very nature the reserve designation power could only be used exceptionally for isolated cases of land analogous with national parks and AONBs. If the argument is pursued in terms of acreages, then what we are now doing will increase the 170,000 acres by about a further 100,000 acres. That is more than is likely ever to have been covered by our earlier proposals, assuming that the Secretaries of State at the time had seen fit to make use of the reserve powers on that scale.
What we are proposing tonight is justified on four grounds. It avoids uncertainty and makes clearer distinctions. It draws firm and defensible lines reflecting clear statutory designations. It brings in now the majority of those sites, the inclusion of which might, on an exceptional basis, have been in future proposals. In substantially extending by some 40 per cent. the total sites covered, it provides wider protection than previously proposed.
For all those reasons it is a better proposal and one which is better above all for the long-term protection of the environment. I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is curious that in making a speech in which he claims that there is such a major advance in government thinking, the Minister should have been so defensive. I remind the House that this whole matter has been the subject of intense concern since Second Reading and in Committee. It was as a result of pressure on the Government from all sides of the House that concessions were made on the disposal of land. I remind noble Lords that we on these Benches welcomed those concessions, although, as will be apparent, we felt that they did not go far enough.
Let me say without equivocation that we welcome the inclusion of the SSSIs in the provisions for restrictions on disposals of land, the pre-emption first option provisions and the other controls which are proposed. We recognise that in that respect the Government have moved significantly toward the position urged on them by their own colleagues and by my noble friends and other noble Lords from all sides of the House and particularly from the Cross-Benches. So, to that extent, we do not in any way want to minimise the value of what has been done by the inclusion of the SSSIs.
In his speech the Minister set out the extent of the protection, and it is useful to have it established in terms of the numbers of acres and the percentage of the total which is involved. But then, in an extraordinary shift, where the indication was that they were going to accept the pressure on SSSIs, the Government suddenly say that this will be at the expense of the power of the Secretary of State to designate other areas.

677
Again, I have to remind the House that the designation and inclusion of particular types of land in these provisions has two effects. First of all it affects the concession by means of which a relevant body, such as the National Trust, would be offered the land on a first refusal basis. Of course that provision will be available for SSSIs but it will no longer be available for designated areas. Secondly, the requirement for consultation with the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council will now be restricted to the national parks, the Broads, the AONBs and the SSSIs.
We welcome the consultation and the first refusal but for the life of us we cannot understand—and understand even less after having heard the Minister's speech—why the reserve power for the Secretary of State to designate other areas for inclusion in these provisions should now be taken away. The Minister was very candid with us. He said it was never the Government's intention to use the reserve powers to bring in anything like as many areas as will now be covered by the SSSIs, He said nothing about that when the amendments were introduced. Indeed a lot of the concern expressed at Report stage when these amendments were first introduced was defused by the fact that reserve powers were available to the Secretary of State and that he could designate areas if he thought it was necessary.
The Minister in his speech has chosen to use the examples of the Elan Valley and Lake Vrynwy. There are still 7,000 acres of the Elan Valley which will not be covered by the SSSIs and cannot now be covered by reserve powers. There is still about 50 per cent. of the 21,800 acres of Lake Vrynwy not covered by SSSIs or by any of the other designations which cannot now be covered by the reserve powers. There are 7,600 acres of the Washburn catchment in North Yorkshire and 9,700 acres of the West Pennine moors in Lancashire. So it is not a small amount of land that we are talking about. It is a very significant amount of land and it seemed to us—this may sound paradoxical to those of us who have been trying to get the Bill to be more precise and less discretionary—that to take away this discretionary power is to freeze the designation of land at June 1989 in a way in which it should simply not be frozen. The designation power ought not to have been taken away when the concession on SSSIs was given.
I am forced to the conclusion, without in any way impugning the honour of the Ministers concerned, that there is an element of switch-sell in this. We have been given something which the Government would undoubtedly have had to yield on a Division had it not been yielded by a concession of this kind. But it has been done in such a form that, quite rightly, it raises the suspicions of those who know most about our countryside and are most concerned about it. I am authorised by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who is very sad that he is not able to be here tonight—he is dining at Buckingham Palace—to tell the House of his fury that this change has been made and that the improvement as regards SSSIs has
678
been accompanied by the damage resulting from the removal of the designated areas.
For that reason I am urging upon the House my Amendments Nos. 82, 87 and 93, which deal with the designated areas while keeping the concession on SSSIs. In particular, I am urging the House to reject those government amendments which remove the designated areas from the face of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like briefly to rise to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on this matter. My name is attached to Amendment No. 82 for the simple reason that I too am unable to see why the Government should effectively say "thus far and no further". The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, spoke about jewels in the crown. I would suggest that we could do with a few more of those jewels in that particular crown. We should not shut the door on any area of expansion in this section, as we do not know what will happen in the future. An area that is now not regarded as being of great natural beauty or as worthy of inclusion in a national park may be so regarded in the future. I suggest that we should keep the door open to allow for future improvements and for any future steps towards greater conservation and greater protection. I urge your Lordships to support Amendment No. 82 and to oppose these government amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Hesketh replies, I think that at the very beginning of his speech he said there was a mistake in Amendment No. 85. I wonder, when he winds up, whether he could tell me again what the mistake was. I did not quite catch it.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, his Amendments Nos. 82, 87 an .d 93 have the effect which all of us who wished to protect the SSSIs desired—that is, all those of us who wished to see SSSIs included in the specific protections provided by Clause 151—but without the penalty which is now being imposed by the Minister.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh has said, we are grateful for the inclusion of sites of special scientific interest for all the reasons which we ourselves gave at an earlier hearing and upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has now enlarged. But we are dismayed to find that the price to be paid is the loss of the general discretion—the discretion of the Secretary of State to protect from unsuitable development any undesignated areas which may later emerge, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, as important in terms of ecology or amenity. We cannot understand why it has to be "either/or".
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, gave various reasons, none of them very convincing, for why the discretion had to be lost; why we could not have extra protection for SSSIs without losing that discretion. My Amendment No. 91, to which no one has yet spoken, draws attention to a difficulty which could arise. For example, discussions are taking place about the need for a European directive on the protection of habitat, known as the Flora and Fauna Habitats Directive. Such a directive could identify sites of international importance to wildlife

679
conservation. The United Kingdom Government would be under a duty to protect such sites within their borders. The Government's proposal to remove the Secretary of State's general discretion would make such protection difficult. An amendment such as Amendment No. 91 becomes necessary if the general discretion does not remain.
I do not wish to seem ungrateful for the concessions which the Government have made, but it seems incredible that a power added by the Government only two or three weeks ago should be removed so soon. It is disheartening that every gain in conservation matters has to be fought for so hard and can be lost so easily. We question yet again the Government's commitment to environmental matters. It seems that they must always be last in the queue, a long way behind financial gain or political expediency.
All the protective powers in Clause 151 are hedged about by ifs and buts. There is no absolute protection for anything. As we now see, when certainty is introduced, it is a certainty in favour of protective developers and not of conservation. The reaction of the Countryside Commission, the National Trust, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the RSPB and others proves the value of the discretionary powers which could now be lost. I hope that the House will support the amendments of my noble friend, Amendments Nos. 82, 87 and 93.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I should like to give a warm welcome to the Government's proposed amendment which will bring all sites of special scientific interest within the safety net of Clause 151. The House will know that I supported an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, which sought just to do that. To that end I congratulate the Government on accepting the need to safeguard SSSIs which may become surplus to the requirements of the water industry. A number of conservation bodies were deeply worried that the wildlife value of many of the industry's lowland sites would deteriorate without there being a mechanism to help to guard against inappropriate land disposals, or without the ability to apply conditions relating to access or land management. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in particular considers that the proposed amendment will provide a basis for helping to safeguard many of the water authorities' lowland sites which are important to wildlife.
In welcoming the inclusion of the SSSIs into the scope of the disposal restrictions, I am particularly concerned by the Government's intention to withdraw the provision accepted by the House at the Report stage which would have retained a large amount of flexibility in the application of the new restrictions. If the Government's move to withdraw the power to designate areas outside national parks, AONBs or SSSIs is accepted, we shall have removed the only opportunity under the Bill to preserve recreation or the environment in non-designated areas.
My noble friend Lord Caithness kindly wrote to me to explain that sites of special scientific interest, which are now to receive protection, also cover many
680
areas of importance for recreation; that that would substantially meet the concerns expressed by the recreational bodies about land disposal. I am afraid that it does not. I do not think that the Government expect us to believe the proposition that recreation is best preserved by designating areas of high conservation value. After all, what about recreation in other areas? Do the Government really wish to leave themselves without a reserve power to protect areas of particular amenity or conservation value? We are considering a discretionary power which need not unduly fetter the Government or the water industry.
In persuading me that I should withdraw another amendment relating to preservation of recreation on water industry land the Government relied on the proposed power. In such circumstances I believe that it would be wrong for them now to withdraw the power. Much as I welcome the inclusion of SSSIs in the provision of Clause 151, I hope that my noble friend will accept the views of Members on all sides of the House on this important matter and will take steps to retain the power to designate areas under Clause 151.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I support what has already been said. It is a major concession in respect of SSSIs and I congratulate the Government on giving that power. I am worried about the ability of conservation bodies such as the RSPB to find the money to acquire such sites if they are put on the market. I am also worried about the market price which will be put on them. Already we know that the Nature Conservancy Council has reported to the Government, who are considering a loan, about whether some of the reservations which they now control and own should not also be sold to some of the voluntary bodies. With the best will in the world their finances are limited, as I well know. If suddenly vast tracts of land are to be offered to such bodies they will have an awful job to find the money to acquire and subsequently manage them. On the other hand, the concession is greatly to be welcomed.
The other side of the coin is most disappointing. There are always sites which suddenly come into consideration and which should have been scheduled in one way or the other. The flow country is a typical example which blew up in everyone's face when we saw what was happening in Caithness. Action was then taken and a great deal of money was put in by the NCC to deal with the problem. Recently we have heard about the Rose Theatre, but a year or so ago no one even dreamt of that situation and hardly knew it existed. Suddenly it is there and the Secretary of State had to become involved—I think reluctantly, but he did so.
We should not withdraw and lose the fallback situation and the flexibility of deciding that some sites which are not necessarily scheduled in any other way are important and should be preserved. At this late hour I beg the Government to think again about that matter. I congratulate them in respect of the SSSIs, which is a major step forward. I accept that totally. However, in respect of planning consent SSSIs have been lost all round. The figure is now

681
into the hundreds and they override the control which we thought existed. There will always be cases where people expect the Government to step in. They will probably throw them back and say that there is no legislation to cover the issues. I believe that that is a grave mistake.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was one of the many noble Lords who raised the question of land disposal on Second Reading. I warmly welcomed the amendment put forward by the Government to create protected areas. I also supported the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, to include SSSIs. I am glad that the Government have agreed to make that change in the Bill. I believe that it is most important.
However, I am also dismayed by the proposal to remove the Secretary of State's discretionary power. Indeed, when I was first informed about it, I found it hard to believe. At first, I refused to credit the fact that it should be the Minister from the Department of the Environment who was making the change only two weeks after the Government had introduced it.
There are all sorts of cases which may arise concerning land outside areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks or SSSIs which may be endangered for one reason or another and which may need to be protected. I believe that it is obviously sensible that the Secretary of State should have that reserve of power. To surrender that seems to me a profound mistake.
I give one example of the sort of problem which may arise in the sphere of conservation; that is, the case of a declining bird, the merlin, in Wales. There are only about 40 pairs left in Wales, and only a very small percentage of their breeding sites and hunting grounds on which their survival depends are included in SSSIs. If this already very rare bird continues to decline in number, we may be unable to do anything to protect it further, if proposals are made to use land in ways which would be damaging to its survival, if we dispense with that power.
It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Government should have brought in this measure, on the one hand bringing in the very good change of including SSSIs and, on the other, the very bad change of getting rid of the discretionary power. I too ask the Government, even at this very late hour, to think again.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it not true that if an area of land conformed with the criteria to become an SSSI, it could be recommended for such status; and if it acquired that status, it would enjoy that protection under this Bill? If that is so, not only is there the protection enjoyed by SSSIs, as the amendment sets out, but there is also the assured protection should an area of land conform. However, I am not sure about that and I should like some confirmation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I could first answer the question of my noble friend Lord Balfour concerning the error which I pointed out and which he did not pick up. The error is on the third line
682
of Amendment No. 85 where the words "or the Minister" should follow the reference to the Secretary of State. That reflects the reference to the Secretary of State or the Minister in subsection (4).
Perhaps I may then move on to Amendment No. 91, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. This amendment would provide that designated areas for the purpose of Clause 151 should include areas designated for the purpose of complying with international obligations relating no doubt to the protection of birds, wetlands and other Clause 8 matters. We believe that the greater part of the effect of this amendment is already achieved through the designations covered by this clause; that is, the national parks, the AONBs and the SSSIs. For that reason we do not believe that the amendment is justified.
It may be that the noble Baroness is referring to isolated individual cases which are not so covered. However, I suggest that it would be wrong to complicate the legislation by seeking cover those exceptions and, as I said earlier, we should try to draw clear and simple lines.
I accept that the RSPB put to the Government the case for including sites covered by international designations. However, that was only if we were unable to include SSSIs, which is what it most wanted and warmly welcomed. We take the view that inclusions of SSSIs would satisfactorily cover internationally designated sites. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why we resist her amendment on that particular point.
I believe that it is fair to say that the only point at issue is the withdrawal of the discretionary power which would leave any areas at risk which would reasonably have been protected by it. Noble Lords have referred to various organisations and examples outside this House and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred particularly to the Washburn catchment among others. That is in a proposed area of outstanding natural beauty and will come into control if justified on that basis. With reference to the Pennine moors around Hebden Bridge, the chairman of Yorkshire Water has already confirmed publicly the intention to retain these within the utility companies and to preserve public access across them.
Rather than argue the toss the fact, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has pointed out, is that extension of protection is available. Far from being a power taken away with designation it is a power that has been superseded. I am slightly disappointed to have to come to the Dispatch Box in your Lordships' House and say that the Government wish to increase by 100,000 acres the area which will go into immediate protected status rather than possibly benefit from designation. We have the powers both for the extension of areas of outstanding natural beauty and, as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, for further designation of SSSIs.
It is wrong to suggest that the figures, areas, acreages or places are frozen in terms of this week in 1989. There are the methods and the wherewithal available today and tomorrow to create and to protect those sites which are considered important.

683
We have gone a very long way. I believe that we have made a major contribution to the environment. There are methods to extend it even further without the power referred to this evening. We believe that we have flexibility for the future; we believe too that we have made a great leap forward in terms of nearly doubling the acreage that will go into perpetual protection.
9.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hives, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Alport, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Joseph, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Knutsford, V.

Belstead, L.

Lindsay and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Middleton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crathorne, L.

Radnor, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haig, E.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hampton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blease, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blyth, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falkland, V.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monson, L.

Galpern, L.

Moran, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Grey, E.

Mountevans, L.

684

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stedman, B.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Underhill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walston, L.

Rea, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Shepherd, L.

Somerset, D.

Winstanley, L.

Stallard, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 157, line 37, leave out ("a designated area") and insert ("an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 84 and 85:
Page 157, line 39, after ("Commission") insert ("and, in the case of an area of special scientific interest, with the Nature Conservancy Council").
Page 157, line 47, at end insert—
("(5A) A consent or authorisation shall not be given on any such condition as is mentioned in subsection (5)(a) above except where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the condition will have effect in relation only to—

(a) land which, or any interest or right in or over which, was acquired by—

(i) the Authority;

(ii) the water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in question; or

(iii) any predecessor of the Authority or undertaker, either compulsorily or at a time when the Authority, undertaker or predecessor was authorised to acquire it compulsorily; or

(b) land situated in a National Park, in the Broads or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 158, line 14, after ("a") insert ("company holding an appointment as a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 158, line 15, leave out ("a designated area") and insert ("an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 158, line 17, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved this amendment on Report I explained that it was a simple change with a moderate but important aim:

685
to provide that when the Secretary of State considers whether to grant his consent to a land sale he should, in all cases, be bound by the general duties to the environment and recreation which are set out in Clause 8.
On that occasion my noble friend Lord Hesketh said that he had some sympathy with my concerns but that he felt my amendment went too far. He persuaded me to withdraw the amendment on the specific grounds, as he reminded your. Lordships' House, that the Secretary of State could by order designate areas of water industry land not falling within national parks or areas of natural outstanding beauty. He said that it was most important to keep that important power in mind. It was for that reason that my noble friend hoped I would not press the amendment.
I was therefore considerably disturbed, having been persuaded to withdraw the amendment, to see that the Government subsequently decided to withdraw the power to designate special areas. My noble friend Lord Caithness kindly wrote to me in an attempt to reassure me that the Bill would nevertheless provide full and effective protection for recreation. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that contention. It is now crystal clear that areas of lowland which may be of particular importance for recreation but which fall outside national parks and other special areas will have no protection whatever under the terms of the Bill should the land be sold. It is especially worrying that this type of land, now left starkly exposed by the way in which the Government have withdrawn their amendments, is the very land which is most likely to be sold off and developed by the water industry.
The remaining safeguard is that the Secretary of State must agree to the sale. But that is hardly reassuring when the Government are refusing to accept that the Secretary of State should be bound by duties to the environment and recreation when considering whether to grant his consent. My noble friend the Minister told me that the Government have had particular regard for the views of recreational interests in developing the code of practice and that the new water companies will have a positive incentive to provide for recreation. I still have doubts about the strength and efficacy of the recreation duties under the Bill. However, I acccept that the Government have moved a long way in extending protection for recreational interests on land in which the water industry has an interest.
My point is that such measures simply and abruptly end at the point where it is decided to sell the land. The decision itself is not even covered by the duties in the Bill. It is really no good to extol the virtues of protective measures when they can be ended by a simple conveyance.
Whether or not the power to designate areas of importance will return to the Bill, my firm belief is that the amendment is straightforward and reasonable, and one which the Government could accept without damage to the Bill or their privatisation plans. It does not aim to prevent land sales; it aims merely to bring recreational and
686
environmental considerations into the decision-making process when land is sold. It does not go as far as the Government's principal measures in the clause which extends protection in perpetuity. In view of the change of circumstances, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will now tell me that he can accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will explain why it is that, having been persuaded at an earlier stage of the Bill to include a power to designate an area, he, or the Government, have now changed their mind. There may be a good explanation and I think that we deserve an explanation. In any event, apart from that point, if the amendment were to be accepted it would have the advantage that the proposal concerned would have to be one, or could be one, for which the Secretary of State's consent or authorisation is required. For those two reasons, I think that my noble friend Lord Norrie is entitled to a full answer from the Government on the important case that he has made.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is to require that the Clause 8 duties—more importantly the duty to further conservation of flora, fauna, natural beauty etc.—shall apply to the Secretary of State's consideration of all disposals, not simply those which are within the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other designated areas.
As I said on Report, we have some sympathy with the noble Lord's concerns, but I have to say to him again that we think that the amendment goes too far.
The Clause 8 duties, particularly the duty to further conservation, are onerous ones. We believe that it is a proper duty to maintain on the undertakers in performing their duties and managing their land; but the question is whether it should carry through in all circumstances to the term of each and every sale.
Let me make the Government's position clear. In national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and SSSIs (areas designated specifically for the protection and furtherance of conservation) the duty is appropriate. It is consistent with overall planning policies and the purposes of those designations.
We must not forget the position elsewhere—redundant sewage works in urban areas, for instance. There may be urgent need to develop that land for housing, employment or other important social needs. The existence of SSSI designations will protect flora and fauna. Over and above that, to have a duty to further conservation would go too far and could prejudice decisions which may need to be taken about the future use and development of the land.
It remains our view that we must strike an appropriate balance here. We believe that the main issues for conservation and amenity in the water industry estate will arise in the countryside catchment lands. Application of the duty is reasonable there. Elsewhere it is less appropriate, and could, as I say, inhibit proper consideration of

687
all those other factors—housing, employment and urban renewal—which must also be weighed in the balance.
With the inclusion tonight of SSSIs we have increased the scope of the Clause 8 duties in ways which will be favourable to recreation and amenity as well as conservation.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Renton asked about the removal of the powers which we discussed on a pevious amendment. As I pointed out then, and perhaps I may do so again, that amendment is superseded by the government amendment which places a further 100,000 acres in perpetual protection. That would not have been the case had we not introduced the amendments. It is because we feel that we have superseded the special powers and not replaced them and because we still have the powers in regard to areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest which can be extended to new and important sites that we believe that we have answered that part of the question. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, may feel that in view of the various steps which we have taken he need not press his amendment.
10 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain in what way the very valuable addition of so many acres of sites of special scientific interest will make a great deal of difference to the areas available for recreation? SSSIs as a rule—but not invariably—are not places in which recreation is strongly encouraged. They are protected from too much intrusion. That is not universally true; but it is true of a great many SSSIs. To my mind at any rate it is not of such significance as the Minister tried to indicate when we discussed the possibilities for recreation.
Lord Hesketh: In answer to the noble Baroness's question, I can immediately off the cuff give two examples: one is Rutland Water and the other is Grafham Water, which provide enormous pleasure to thousands of people.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his full explanation. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 158, line 36, at end insert—
(" "area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest" means an area which—
688

(a) is for the time being designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty for the purposes of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; or

(b) is an area in relation to which a notification given, or having effect as if given, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest) for the time being has effect;

and the reference in subsection (5)(c) above to an area of special scientific interest shall, accordingly, be construed as a reference to an area such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this definition; and").
[Amendment No. 91, as an amendment to Amendment No. 90, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 158, line 38, leave out from ("1988") to end of line 47.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 160 [Duty to move pipes etc. in certain cases]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 96:
Page 167, line I, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) below,").
Page 167, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) Nothing in this section shall require a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker to alter or remove any pipe or apparatus which is kept installed in, under or over any street.
(2B) A water undertaker or sewerage undertaker may make it a condition of complying with the duty to which it is subject by virtue of a notice served by any person under subsection (1) above that such security as the undertaker may reasonably require has been provided for the discharge of any obligation of that person under subsection (3) below.").
Page 167, line 9, at end insert—
("(3A) Where any sums have been deposited with a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation under subsection (3) above, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either—

(a) by the undertaker with the approval of the Director; or

(b) in default of a determination under paragraph (a) above, by the Director,

on every sum of 50p so deposited for every three months during which it remains in the hands of the undertaker.
(3B) An approval or determination by the Director for the purposes of subsection (3A) above may be given or made in relation to a particular case or description of cases or generally and may be revoked at any time.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 96 en bloc. They are consequential upon Amendment No. 1.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 171 [Indemnities in respect of fluoridation]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 176, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 97, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 98, for which Amendment No. 97 is merely a paving amendment. Those noble Lords who were still around at about a quarter to eleven on Tuesday 13th June may remember that a number of noble Lords from various quarters of the House joined me in attempting to prevent taxpayers' money from being used to indemnify the privatised companies in respect of any costs or damages awarded against them by a court as a result of behaviour which resulted in an excessive amount of fluoride being added to the water supply.
In response, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, speaking for the Government, argued that the amendment as then drafted might catch a water undertaker who was accidentally responsible for a slight overdose. That was certainly not my intention. In the light of that possible ambiguity, I withdrew the amendment for further consideration.
The redrafted substantive amendment—that is to say, Amendment No. 98—will, I am sure, meet the Government's objections and those of certain Members of the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, argued at Report stage, at col. 1389 of Hansard, that although one milligram per litre was the optimal fluoride content, a content of slightly more than that level constituted absolutely no danger to health. That is why the Department of the Environment's standing technical advisory committee on water quality permits the content to fluctuate up to 10 per cent. above the optimum—in other words, to 1·1 milligrams per litre.
However—this is the important point to take on board—the Minister went on to concede that the standing technical advisory committee of the Department of the Environment stipulates that the fluoride content of the supply should never exceed 1·5 milligrams per litre. He revealed that this absolute maximum from the point of view of safety was also strongly endorsed by the World Health Organisation and by European Community directives relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption. Accordingly, we have modified the amendments so that they come into play, as it were, only when the fluoride content exceeds the absolute safe maximum, currently set at 1·5 milligrams per litre, as defined by these three prestigious organisations.
It is also important to note in this context that a recent addition of Probe, which is the journal of the General Dental Practitioners' Association, argues that the margin between a safe daily intake of fluoride and a potentially harmful one is impressively small. That is a further argument for keeping the maximum at 1·5 milligrams per litre.
We have further tried to accommodate the Government by substituting the word "negligence"
690
for the word "actions". Eminent counsel, from whom I have taken legal opinion, tell me that to be negligent in legal terms one has to be very negligent indeed. This runs the risk that a statutory water undertaker may be able to secure taxpayers' support following an overdosing incident which a lay person would consider negligent, but which was not strictly negligent in law. All the same, this seemed a risk worth taking in order to render the amendment more acceptable to the Government, whom we are leaning over backwards to try to accommodate.
Your Lordships will also notice that we provide for the safe maximum level to be revised periodically in the light of new medical knowledge. On Report, I reminded your Lordships that asbestos had been considered not only safe but positively beneficial for over 100 years, until about 10 years ago. The same can be said of butter and other animal fats. One might add that sunbathing was considered safe and indeed beneficial until a mere five years ago. In contrast, it was revealed only two days ago that cigarettes are positively beneficial to people suffering from Alzheimer's disease; in other words, safety levels recommended by doctors and scientists are always in the process of fluctuating. The right people to set a safe maximum level, and the most impartial people to do so, are, I believe, the World Health Organisation. It is worth noting in this context that on 15th October 1984, the World Health Organisation published a communiqué warning of the great toxicity of fluorines and recommending that they should not be used when they could be avoided.
The European Community, 75 per cent. of whose members oppose fluoridation, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, might well set even lower safety levels. However, as someone who opposes excessive harmonisation within the EC, I did not wish to take advantage of that particular loophole, tempting though it was.
There is one more thing to be said in connection with this pair of amendments. Although it does not think the amendments go far enough, and it would much prefer the total deletion of Clause 171, the political party which won 15 per cent. of the votes at the recent Euro election, and which probably has the support of a further 15 per cent. for some of its less radical proposals, fully endorses these amendments. I am grateful for that support, but it is not for that reason but because I believe that these modest compromise amendments will act as an incentive to privatised water undertakers to be careful with the health and well-being of the people they serve, that I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I had not intended to be tempted to get to my feet and say anything about this provision, as I do not think it is a good idea at this stage of the evening yet again to get into a fluoridation debate. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord who has moved the amendment, I feel that it would try the patience of the House if I, as a vice-president of the Fluoridation Society, were to reiterate the arguments in favour of fluoridation.

691
The amendment would reverse the effect of the new clause which the Government inserted at Committee stage which will indemnify the new water companies and enable them in some cases to continue using fluoride and in other cases to start using fluoride, without the danger of people who are not well informed seeking to sue them.
I should like to assure noble Lords that the supplementation of water supplies with fluoride to bring the level up to one part per million is probably the most widely researched and safest aspect of public health. Without going into the fluoridation argument, I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, I shall not go into the anti-or pro-fluoridation argument and I shall be brief. However, it seems to me that when certain subjects are discussed common sense goes out of the window. That seems to be the case here. All the amendment asks is that people who are careless of the public good should not be indemnified. All we say is that a water undertaking or employee who discharges considerably more than the recommended dose of fluoride into the water system should not be indemnified against being sued by a water consumer.
Anyone who has seen what happened at Camelford, where downright carelessness resulted in excess doses of aluminium, would surely agree that such negligence should not be indemnified by the Government. That is all the amendment asks. I should have thought that it was a commonsense amendment which the Government could accept and which this House ought to support.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that I can persuade the movers of these amendments that they are unnecessary and should be withdrawn. As I have said to noble Lords on previous occasions, fluoridation in this country is carried out according to guidelines laid down by the Standing Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality. Those guidelines impose an upper limit on the concentration of fluoride in the water supply resulting from a fluoridation scheme of 1·5 milligrams per litre. The upper limit allows a very wide margin of safety.
The guidelines provided for water undertakers require that the scheme should generally run at between 0·9 milligrams per litre and 1·1 milligrams per litre, and daily readings as high as 1·5 milligrams per litre would be most unusual. Water undertakers are obliged to keep within the guidelines, as the guidelines are written into the contracts which govern fluoridation schemes. If one of the daily readings shows a concentration of over 1·5 milligrams per litre the water undertaker will rectify this immediately by temporarily halting the supply of the fluoride compound. In fact, most of the plants operating in this country have systems which do this automatically.
It is important to put this whole matter in perspective. Short-term consumption of water
692
fluoridated at levels over 1·5 milligrams per litre has absolutely no ill effects. Indeed, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that a permanent level of 4 milligrams per litre still allows an adequate margin of safety.
I can understand noble Lords' concerns that the negligence of a water undertaker should not be indemnified by the Secretary of State. I would, however, point out that the terms of any indemnity granted must, under this clause, be approved by the Treasury. I therefore see absolutely no need for this extra statutory restriction on the Secretary of State and I would ask that these amendments be withdrawn. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will also see his way to withdrawing his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, seemed to imply that this was an anti-fluoridation amendment. It is not. It is an anti-excessive fluoridation amendment.
We reluctantly—I admit—accept that Clause 171 is in the Bill, but it is excessive, dangerous fluoridation that we oppose. I find it hard to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, thinks that it is no serious matter that excessive fluoridation should be tolerated, particularly bearing in mind the article in the journal of the General Dental Practitioners' Association to which I referred in my opening speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that it was most unusual for the upper limit of 1·5 milligrams to be exceeded and that, if it was exceeded, the water supply would immediately be cut off. I am bound to say that that is reassuring, but I doubt whether there would be no ill effects. The World Health Organisation does not seem to think so, nor does the European Community or the Department of the Environment's own committee on the matter. American scientists may claim otherwise, but that is not the view generally held in this country or on the continent of Europe.
I originally intended to test the opinion of the House on the matter, but in view of the strong hint from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that, were a privatised water undertaker to exceed that limit other than by a very small degree or on more than a very rare occasion and were it to be sued in consequence, the Treasury would refuse to grant consent for indemnity. That is the kind of thing that we want to hear. With that implied assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 190 [Local statutory provisions: consequential amendments etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 99 to 101:
Page 193, line 4, leave out ("or amend") and insert (", amend or re-enact (with or without modifications)").
Page 193, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) make provision applying generally in relation to local statutory provisions of a description specified in the order;").
Page 193, line 30, after ("(6)") insert ("Subject to the provisions of Schedule 26 to this Act,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I should like with the leave of the House to move Amendments Nos. 99, 100 and 101, en bloc.
These amendments are proposed in response to an amendment put down at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Amendment No. 100 makes provision for a general translation of water authorities' local statutory provisions to be made in an order under Clause 190 of the Bill. Amendment No. 99 enables water authorities' local statutory provisions to be consolidated, if appropriate. Amendment No. 101 qualifies subsection 6 of the clause to take account of the transitional provisions and savings in Schedule 26. If any noble Lord requires further clarification on the amendments, I shall most gladly give it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the changes.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 193 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 195, line 37, after ("1967,") insert ("the Capital Allowances Act 1968,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 197, line 45, after ("No") insert ("member or other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 198, line 16, after ("If") insert ("any person or ceasing to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Schemes providing for the Initial Transfers]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 205, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("so") in line 37 and insert ("Where a scheme under this Schedule for the division of a water authority's property, rights and liabilities comes into force on the transfer date, this paragraph shall have effect on that date").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Customer Service Committees]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 211, leave out lines 18 to 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House in moving this amendment I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 143. The purpose of
694
Amendment No. 143 is to provide for public access to meetings of the regional and local flood defence committees established under Clauses 136 and 138, to meetings of the NRA's regional rivers advisory committees established under Clause 2 and to meetings of the NRA's regional and local fisheries advisory committees established under Clause 140.
Schedule 4 paragraph 7 already provides for public access to meetings of the customer service committees by bringing these committees within the ambit of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. Following on from the debate at report stage on public access to the NRA's committees, we have considered these issues and I am satisfied that the application of this Act to the committees listed is the most appropriate way of meeting the genuine concerns expressed by noble Lords that these committees should be open and accessible to the press and public.
Amendment No. 109 is a technical amendment deleting reference to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 from Schedule 4 as this would no longer be necessary since customer service committees are covered by Amendment No. 143.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Government for these amendments which not only take up the points we raised at earlier stages but in fact extend them further than we asked. They are very welcome and a real extension of accountability for these committees.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional Provision on Termination of Appointments]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 216, line 5, at end insert:
("( ) make provision applying generally in relation to local statutory provisions of a description specified in the order;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Sewerage Functions]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 226, line 16, at end insert ("and after the word "horticulture" in the words after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "fish farming".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Provisions relating to Meters etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 232, line 26, after ("premises") insert (", or any land occupied with those premises,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Consents to certain Discharges]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 118:
Page 239, line 24, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 25.
Page 239, line 26, leave out ("in the prescribed form").
Page 240, line 1, leave out from ("Authority") to ("and") in line 4 and insert ("to consider any written representations or objections with respect to an application under this paragraph which are made to it in the period of six weeks beginning with the day of the publication of notice of the application in the London Gazette").
Page 240, line 34, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
Page 243, line 3, leave out ("in the prescribed form").
Page 243, line 20, leave out from ("Authority") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("to consider any written representations or objections with respect to a consent under this paragraph which are made to it in the period of six weeks beginning with the day of the publication of notice of the consent in the London Gazette").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I should like with the leave of the House to move Amendments Nos. 113 to 118 en bloc. The amendments propose a number of technical changes to the procedure which the NRA is to follow under Schedule 12 in handling discharge consent applications.
Amendments Nos. 113 and 117 remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the form of advertisement to be used by the NRA in advertising consent applications. We believe that the NRA is fully competent to decide this for itself and there is no need for the Secretary of State to make regulations covering it.
Amendment No. 113 removes the requirement that advertisement of an application should take place within two weeks. We believe that such a deadline could be quite unreasonable and impractical in certan circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 make clear that the six-week period referred to in paragraph 3 refers to the period within which they are to be made, not to be considered. In complex cases with representation coming towards the end of the six weeks, consideration may clearly need to extend longer.
Finally, Amendment No. 116 extends from three months to four months the period from the receipt of an application before which the application is deemed refused. For complex cases three months may simply be unreasonably tight, although we are sure that the NRA will make every effort to process applications quickly.
These amendments offer the NRA a little extra time and flexibility in the handling of consent applications. They prevent the Bill's requirements being—as we believe they might otherwise have been—unreasonable in some circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment no. 119:
Page 246, line 6, after ("section") insert ("107(1)(a) or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 119, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 120. I apologise for the fact that these amendments have not previously been tabled but I would have to say to my noble friend the Minister that this particular point has only recently been spotted.
Perhaps I may first welcome the provisions in the Bill at paragraph 9 of Schedule 12, which will enable
696
the NRA to levy charges on the "polluter pays" principle: that is something I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House would agree with. As I understand the position, in practice the NRA would submit a draft charges scheme to the Secretary of State for his approval but before doing so there would be a requirement to advertise the draft scheme. Those not satisfied with it would be able to object. Ultimately it will be for the Secretary of State to decide who will be required to pay, and how much. The Bill, quite rightly in my view, affords adequate protection for those who are likely to be charged under such a scheme. However, as your Lordships will readily appreciate, the NRA or the Secretary of State will not be able to formulate a charges scheme which is outside the framework of the enabling legislation. It is therefore vital that Parliament should get the framework right; and this brings me to the specific amnement which is before the House.
As presently drafted, any charges scheme would have to be confined to levying charges on those who actually make a discharge, as is referred to in paragraph 9(2). In other words, the NRA could not seek to charge a person who merely had a consent to discharge but did not in fact take advantage of it in any particular year. For example, as regards storm overflow consent for a sewerage works which may be used only, say, once in five years, I believe that the NRA should be able to make a charge on the person who has the benefit of the consent, although he may not actually take advantage of it each year. The fact that he does not use it may very well be taken into consideration in fixing the charges under such a scheme. However, that is a quite separate issue and not part of the amendments. I do not think it is one with which the House should concern itself tonight. What is important is that the enabling legislation should be in place.
Coupled with this amendment goes an amendment to paragraph 9(2)(b), since, without the deletion of the word "specified" in the amenement, the NRA would be able to charge only the original person to whom the consent had been granted. However, as the House will be well aware, COPA consents run with the land, so they last for many years. Some which are still in existence today are 30 or 40 years old. Inevitably during those years the ownership or occupation of such land to which the consent relates changes. Clearly the intention here was that the holder for the time being of the consent should be liable to pay, rather than simply the original person.
By accepting these amendments, and in particular Amendment No. 119, it would at least be possible to identify a person whom the NRA knew was entitled to be charged. That would give that same person an incentive to notify the NRA if someone else was actually making the discharge. My Amendment No. 120 would ensure that the appropriate person was charged. These are two very important amendments and I hope that my noble friend will see fit to accept them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, these amendments would seem to address two separate issues: the first concerns the power of the NRA to charge for the use

697
of a discharge consent. We accept that a problem clearly can arise if the NRA is not sure who has actually been using a consent. Under these amendments it would not be able to seek out the actual discharger. Instead it could impose the charge on anyone with a right to make use of the consent concerned. This would hardly be fair. Moreover, in so far as it encouraged the NRA to take a cavalier attitude to the identity of the actual discharger, it would have unacceptable implications for pollution control. If the NRA is to be able to prosecute the discharger for breaching the conditions of a consent, it will need to know who the discharger is. It would do the NRA no good to bring a prosecution against an innocent third party simply because that third party was entitled to use the consent.
The second issue to which these amendments relate is the case of discharge consents used on a most infrequent basis. Clearly it would be impossible to levy an annual charge for the use of such consents for those years in which the consents were not used. These amendments would instead allow charges to be levied for the mere right to use a consent. However, where consents were not used, the NRA would not need to carry out a monitoring programme in respect of which it would need to recover its costs. In any event, if there were some reasons why the NRA might incur costs in respect of consents not in use, it could always revoke them and grant new ones later when they were actually needed.
What my noble friend has identified are not defects in the Bill. They are the consequence of what is and has long been an essential feature of pollution control legislation—namely, that consents refer to the making of a discharge and do not limit to a named individual the right to discharge. Were we to tie consents to named individuals the whole structure of the legislation would need to change. Inescapably, therefore, we cannot follow the course of charging those who have a right to discharge, but must charge those actually making the use of a discharge consent at a particular time. As I have said, we believe that this is perfectly practical and need not cause any insuperable administrative difficulty. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will not find it necessary to press these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am disappointed with that reply. It seems to me that the person receiving the consent—that is, the person with the ownership of the consent—needs to be vigilant about how that consent is discharged or, in other words, about who will use it. I am absolutely in agreement with my noble friend the Minister that, whoever the polluter is, he should be penalised if the pollution is in breach of a consent or if it is unauthorised. But I should like to think that the owners of a consent would be as vigilant as possible about the way in which it was used.
My other amendment, which is intended to make sure that the appropriate person is charged, seems to me to be a very fair amendment. Ownership of land changes and a previous owner of 30 or 40 years back seems to me to be the most inappropriate person to be charged. I am very disappointed that my noble friend the Minister cannot accept the second amendment.
698
This is a Third Reading. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I nevertheless record my disappointment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Amendments of the Water Resources Act 1963]:
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Drought Orders]:
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 259, line 15, leave out from first ("of') to ("for") in line 18 and insert ("a power to make discharges of sewage effluent or trade effluent in pursuance of any consent shall be made by the applicant for the order to any person who has been exercising that power").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Boundaries of Regional Flood Defence Areas]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 125:
Page 271, line 39, leave out ("public authority which") and insert ("person carrying out functions under any enactment who").
Page 272, line 8, leave out ("public authority (if any) on which") and insert ("person (if any) on whom").
Page 272, line 17, leave out ("public authority which") and insert ("person who").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments reflect points raised in the House by my noble friend Lady Blatch. By substituting the rubric "persons carrying out functions under any enactment" for the existing references to "public authorities", they will extend the range of bodies which will have to be notified. To take an example, if the NRA wishes to seek the Secretary of State's approval for a by-law under Clause 113 affecting a water undertaker's reservoir it will, as a consequence of these amendments, have to serve notice of its intention on the undertaker. Clearly, it is right that an undertaker should be notified in such a case. I therefore ask the House to accept these amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Powers with respect to the Laying and Maintenance of Pipes etc.]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 284, line 28, after ("only") insert (''except in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (5) below, after the consent of every owner and occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised has been given, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and any question whether such consent is or is not unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State; in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (5) below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 126, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 127, which ties in with it. It is important to speak to the two together. The amendments alter the rules in the Bill concerning the entry of plcs on to private land to lay pipes.

699
Clearly, under the Bill they may give reasonable notice and then carry on with the job.
Under the amendment the onus is upon them to receive the consent of the owner and the occupier, which consent is not to be unreasonably withheld, before they may enter the land. If consent is considered to be unreasonably withheld, there is a referral to the Secretary of State.
In the following amendment three exceptions are allowed for, at least two of which were raised by my noble friend on Report. The first is an emergency which may be connected with health or any other matter. It would then be unreasonable to have to wait for the consent of the owner or the occupier. The second is a requisition under the Act which is also understandable. The third and new element which I have introduced in the amendment since Report is a requirement that, should there be multiple negotiations which would make life too difficult for the pipe layer in carrying out the job, the Secretary of State can certify that reasonable notice is enough. I have included that requirement in the amendment particularly because my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the ring main around London.
Although at Report stage I was not taken aback, I did not then know much about the ring main around London. However, I have now found out a little about it. On average it travels 30 metres below ground and in most cases the rising mains come up on what will be plc property. They then join up to existing distribution points. I accept that there must be difficulties and extremely difficult occasions when it would be impossible for the plcs to negotiate with too many people. Again, that matter is dealt with in the amendment.
As I said on Report, from 1945 to 1974 the rules were much as they are in the amendment and they worked well. Since 1974 they have not worked particularly well. I am sure that they were put there with the best of intentions, but reasonable notice has not proved to be reasonable in any way whatever. In the country there have been difficulties with timing, planning, payment, reinstatement and all the matters that would have been better put right before the pipe layer ever entered the property.
I have read carefully the model code of practice. In its essential part it states exactly the same as is stated in the Bill. It is only a model code and under "Notice of Works" it states that:
"the undertaker shall as soon as reasonably possible endeavour to make contact with all owners and occupiers".
That is part of the trouble about which we are talking.
If your Lordships would like a comparison then look at the gas pipelines. I should have declared an interest, as should most noble Lords who are concerned with land. I have a number of pipes of one kind or another under my land and recently I had close experience of the ring main which carried gas around England in a distributor main. I looked at the letters from the agents of the gas authorities and they all begin by asking for consent.
It is not only one-way traffic. The fact that there is negotiation and consent is requested often leads
700
to the situation where the owner and occupier can be of help to the company in giving local and practical knowledge. I make no excuse for repeating the fact that this concerns not only big farms and estates but also small pieces of land.
I also make no excuse for repeating the case of Mr. Hatton who on 30th March was given notice that a pipe would be run through his bungalow. It was run through on 2nd May and the bungalow was destroyed. Rightly he was very upset and took the Esher Urban District Council to court. The action of the district council was upheld because it was considered that that was reasonable notice. So far as I am concerned that example alone is enough to alter this part of the Bill in the way that I have outlined. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, the issue is very simple; namely, whether the water companies should remain the only public utilities with compulsory powers to enter land or premises through which pipes are to run. There is nothing new in saying that they should not, and this amendment says that they should not except in emergencies or in special circumstances.
There is nothing new about that because, as my noble friend Lord Radnor reminded the House, the Water Act 1945 provided that entry onto land or premises to lay pipes required the consent of the owner or occupier. An order made nearly 30 years later gave the water authorities a much wider power to enter without consent after merely giving reasonable notice. Schedule 19 to the Bill transfers that power to the water companies, and that is what we object to.
I moved an amendment in Committee requiring the water companies to seek agreement, as under the 1945 Act. The amendment provided that in an emergency or when a pipeline is being laid to comply with a requisition under the Act, then there would merely have to be reasonable notice so that fast action could be taken.
The Government's objection at that stage was that, unlike British Gas and the oil companies, which operate very satisfactorily and without friction by consent, the water companies are operating in the realms of public health and therefore require compulsory powers. In Committee, we were also told that to avoid the conflict and grievances which have arisen under the post-1974 powers of entry, the Government propose a mandatory code of practice to regulate the behaviour of water companies which would also have to move pipes if they were put in the wrong place.
Like my noble friend Lord Radnor, I felt that a code of practice was not a sufficient safeguard and that it is much too late to be able to have pipes moved after they had been mislaid—if that is the right expression—or after some disastrous mistake had been made. All that could surely be avoided by proper consultation in the first place. It was my view that the Government's objections were taken care of by my amendment which I, nevertheless, withdrew for further consideration.
My noble friend Lord Radnor reminded us that on Report he moved a similar amendment which

701
was given support from all sides of the House. In his reply my noble friend Lord Caithness recognised the problems which have arisen through the arbitrary exercise of entry powers by the water authorities. My noble friend Lord Radnor quoted the extreme case of the Esher Urban District Council which wished to lay a pipe through the unfortunate Mr. Hatton's bungalow. It gave notice on 30th March and entered on 2nd May. The pipe was laid and that is the end of Mr. Hatton's bungalow, which was destroyed in the process. There were no negotiations and no consent although the UDC gave a month's notice. As my noble friend reminded us, that action was upheld by the courts.
On Report, the Minister reiterated the public health argument and the need for speedy action in an emergency. In my view that was allowed for in my noble friend's amendment on Report. However, the Minister produced a further argument which was cogent; namely, that where there is an undertaking like the London ring main involving a multitude of urban properties, it could hardly be expected to negotiate and reach agreement without enormous delay. I believe that my noble friend was right to recognise the force of that argument and to withdraw his Report stage amendment.
This amendment, as my noble friend reminded us, allows for other circumstances and these would surely cover a scheme such as the London ring main where the consent of the Secretary of State could be sought by the water companies in order to avoid delay. I very much hope that the Government will now be able to accept this amendment which cuts down what I and many noble Lords think are unacceptable arbitrary powers but which still allows for emergencies and special operations. I support my noble friend wholeheartedly.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there are strong practical reasons why reasonable notice should be given before there is entry on land for any of the purposes envisaged in this schedule; for example, growing crops, the presence of cattle, and various other work being carried out on the land. That is in addition to the ordinary courtesies expected in a civilised society.
As my noble friend Lord Middleton mentioned, and as the Government mentioned at an earlier stage, there are cases where it is difficult to identify all the owners. That applies not only in the case of urban land, as my noble friend mentioned, but, as I remember very well, on the fens. After the fens were drained over 100 years ago, part of them—a part I know well—was divided into fairly small plots and to this day it is not easy to identify the owner of each plot. As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Radnor has accepted that position. Although I am one of those people who regret having to go into too much detail in legislation, this paragraph of the schedule has gone into a great deal of detail and we might as well try to get it right.
Subject to what my noble friend on the Front Bench might say, I feel that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Radnor is a very wise
702
attempt to try to get it right. I therefore hope that these amendments will receive sympathetic consideration.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am concerned about one aspect of the amendment. I hope I have read it correctly. I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 5 of Schedule 19, on page 284, dealing with stopcocks. I have the impression from reading the amendment that it might prevent an undertaker from even putting in a stopcock on private land. That is of concern to me because stopcocks need to be put in and often changed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, now that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has revised and watered down this pair of amendments to make them more acceptable to the Government I very much hope that the Government and the House will accept them. They would merely restore the position to what it was 15 years ago, prior to 1974, as the noble Earl reminded us.
Over the past 10 years the present Government have encouraged private individuals to stand on their own two feet. Most people would consider that by and large to be a good thing. However, the corollary is that private enterprise companies should also stand on their own two feet. Unfortunately, as the Bill stands, the private water companies are given the go-ahead to stand on other people's feet—and very heavily at that.
We are meant to be reassured by the promise of a code of practice but, as with estate agents, a code of practice has no legally binding force and leaves the way open for the less considerate and the less scrupulous to ride roughshod over the rights of individuals. This is particularly unsatisfactory where profit-making private enterprise firms are concerned. Platitudes about the public interest do not alter this fact. I hope that the Government will see the justice of the amendment. If, by some misfortune, they do not, I hope that the noble Earl will stick to his guns.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, some years ago in a similar situation I supported amendments to the Telecommunications Bill. Eventually, a government amendment was concocted which met our concerns. I wonder why the Government are being so inflexible this time. Exactly the same situation has arisen with the Electricity Bill. Perhaps the fact that different government departments have been involved with these Bills has something to do with it. Government departments do not get together very often to compare notes. That may be a reason why past experience does not seem to have had any effect in this instance.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to add my support to the amendment. It seems to meet all the points and objections made by the Government on this subject during previous stages of the Bill. It seems to protect the rights that should be protected while giving the Secretary of State all the rights that he needs. It seems to strike the correct balance between private rights and public duties.

703
While listening to the problem concerning the London ring main, and having read the second amendment, Amendment No. 127, it occurred to me that I am involved in the farming of some land which is subject to a lease drawn up in the 17th century. The Secretary of State would have some difficulty in identifying all the owners of the land in that case. This amendment meets such a difficulty. I am extremely pleased to support it.
Lord Addington: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the amendments for the simple reason that they seem to be fair and reasonable. The fact that if too many owners were involved or there was an emergency the consents would not have to be sought should cover everything. The owner should at least have the right to be consulted if somebody is going to enter his land.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is the third occasion on which we have debated this issue during our consideration of the Bill. I have to say that, although I very much appreciate that my noble friend Lord Radnor has again tailored his amendment to meet the remarks I made on Report, the effect of his latest amendment would be to impose extremely cumbersome arrangements on the Secretary of State and water and sewerage undertakers which would to a large extent defeat the object of the pipe laying powers.
The Secretary of State would be required by the amendment to determine whether it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain within a reasonable time the consent of every owner and occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised. In many cases the Secretary of State would be able to satisfy himself that this was so only after a lengthy process involving independent advice. This would be a time-consuming exercise which would offer scope for significant delays in pipe laying operations. The purpose of the powers to lay pipes on notice is to enable water and sewerage undertakers to put in place the infrastructure, often to meet public health needs, without the constraints that would be imposed if they were required to seek the agreement of all landowners concerned or use compulsory powers. The amendment would, I fear, open the undertakers to ransom demands from certain landowners—I agree not all—who would be willing to allow pipes to be laid on their land, but only at a price.
The more I look at the amendment—I have looked at it again while noble Lords have been supporting it—the more I feel that it would impose on any Secretary of State a most onerous burden and would place him in an invidious position. It would also open up a Pandora's Box of difficulty and potential objections arising from the Secretary of State deciding that he should exercise his power and the land owners saying that that was totally unreasonable and that they were just about to agree in any case. That would only lead to further delays and complications.
I appreciate that in raising this issue again my noble friend is concerned to ensure that the interests of landowners are fully protected. Indeed, I think
704
that Members of the House, from all quarters, are equally concerned about the matter. However, as I explained on Report, we believe that the new provisions in the Bill provide the protection that landowners have a reasonable right to expect: they ensure that the powers are not abused.
The powers are to be subject to a statutory code of practice to be submitted by the private companies to the Secretary of State for approval. These codes will be mandatory. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that such powers would not be mandatory. I must correct him on that point. These codes will be mandatory and the powers will be subject to the oversight of the director general. In addition, there is provision for the director general to direct an undertaker to make a payment to a complainant if he is satisfied that an undertaker has failed to consult the owner or occupier before or during pipe laying or by acting unreasonably has caused them to suffer loss or damage or to be inconvenienced.
The interests of landowners are further protected by the provisions in Clause 160 for undertakers to be required to alter or to remove a pipe in response to a reasonable request from a person with an interest in the land where the pipe is installed or in adjacent land. There will be recourse to the director general in cases where a person considers that an undertaker has refused to comply with a reasonable request. An undertaker will be able to recover its reasonable expenses.
I know from what has been said, the strength of feeling that there is about these powers. My noble friend Lord Middleton said that the water undertakers would be the only undertakers with such powers. They are, however, essential if water and sewerage undertakers are to be able effectively to meet the operational and public health responsibilities placed on them and to enable them to comply with EC requirements.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked why this legislation appears to be different from the Telecommunications Act. I covered that aspect at some length during the earlier stages of the proceedings on the Bill. However, perhaps I may just repeat that I remember acting for and against water authorities where they were laying pipes under the Public Health Act 1936—rather than subsequent legislation—for the very reason of having to meet a public health concern. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, my honourable friend the Minister for Water and Planning and myself have been at pains to amend the Bill so as to take into account such concerns. I realised at first hand, when I was a land agent, that the concerns which landowners faced were very real. However, having considered the matter we think that it is right that they should still have such powers; but they are substantially different from the powers under which the water authorities would have acted in the case of which my noble friend Lord Radnor reminded us.
There has been a major and fundamental step forward. I believe that, with the new provisions we have included in the Bill, we have now struck the right balance between the need to ensure that

705
landowners' interests are protected and the reasonable needs of undertakers.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say whether the code of practice will be enforceable in a court of law?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, the code of practice will be mandatory and the powers will be subject to the oversight of the director general rather than the courts.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords from all quarters of the House who have given their support to the amendment. I must confess that I am not convinced by my noble friend's explanation about how difficult it would be as regards time, and about the difficulties that the Secretary of State would face.
While my noble friend was speaking, I read the amendment again very carefully. I just cannot see anything there as regards what he said, except that his explanation is an exaggeration of what might happen. I still make the comparison with gas and all the other concepts which work perfectly well in practice, and which are reasonable, far more democratic and sensible than that which is written into the Bill. What is written in the Bill will not lead to efficiency; indeed, there is a danger that it will lead to inefficiency and petty arrogance. On that note, I must ask for the opinion of the House.
11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 126) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Knutsford, V.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Alport, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blyth, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Middleton, L.

Carter, L, [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Chorley, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Moran, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Craigavon, V

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Radnor, E.

Falkland, V.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gibson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somerset, D.

Grey, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hacking, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wynford, L.

Kirkhill, L.

706

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Henley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Boardman, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Crathorne, L.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haig, E.

Young, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.8 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 284, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) The circumstances in which powers shall be exercised only after reasonable notice as provided in sub-paragraph (4)(a) above are—

(a) in an emergency; or

(b) when a pipe is laid in order to comply with a requisition under this Act; or

(c) where the Secretary of State determines it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain within a reasonable time the consent of every owner and occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised and so certifies.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Orders conferring Compulsory Works Powers]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 289, line 36, after ("copy") insert (", together with a plan showing the general effect of the draft order so far as it relates to the footpath or bridleway,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 130 to 134. These amendments follow an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, at Report stage, to consider further the amendments he proposed to Schedule 20 to the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 128.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank t he noble Earl for these amendments and for implementing the promise he made at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 144:
Page 290, line 31, leave out ("and").
Page 290, line 36, at end insert—
("(f) such other persons as may be prescribed.").
Page 290, line 52, at end insert ("and of any relevant map or plan").
Page 291, line 15, at end insert—
("(4) Where, on an application for an order under section 154 of this Act, the appropriate Minister refuses to make an order, the applicant shall, as soon as practicable after the refusal, notify the refusal to every person on whom the applicant was, by virtue of paragraph 1(1)(c)(i) above, required to serve a copy of the notice with respect to the application.
(5) The duty of a water undertaker under sub-aragraph (4) above shall be enforceable under section 20 of this Act by the Secretary of State.").
Page 291, line 45, at end insert—
("Notice after making of order
4A.—(1) As soon as practicable after an order under section 154 of this Act has been made, the applicant for the order shall—

(a) publish a notice of the making of the order, at least once in each of two successive weeks, in one or more newspapers circulating in each relevant locality; and

(b) not later than the date on which that notice is first published—

(i) serve a copy of the notice on every person on whom the applicant was, by virtue of paragraph 1(1)(c)(i) above, required to serve a copy of the notice with respect to the application for the order;

(ii) in the case of an order authorising the stopping-up or diversion of a footpath or bridleway, cause such a copy, together with a plan showing the general effect of the order so far as it relates to the footpath or bridleway, to be displayed in a prominent position at the ends of the appropriate part of the path or way.

(2) The notice required by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above to be published with respect to an order under section 154 of this Act shall—

(a) state the general effect of the order;

(b) in the case of an order made wholly or partly for the purpose of enabling any discharges of water to be made—

(i) contain particulars of the discharges, stating the purposes of the discharges and specifying each place of discharge;

(ii) specify the places at which the water to be comprised in the discharges is to be taken and the treatment (if any) which the order requires the water, or any of it, to receive before being discharged under the order;

(iii) state the effect which, in the opinion of the applicant, the discharges would have on the flow, level and quality of water in any inland water or underground strata; and

(c) specify a place where a copy of the order and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable times.

(3) Where an order under section 154 of this Act has been made, the applicant for the order shall, at the request of any person and on payment by that person of such charge (if any) as the applicant may reasonably require, furnish that person with a copy of the order and of any relevant map or plan.
(4) The duties of a water undertaker under this paragraph shall be enforceable under section 20 of this Act by the Secretary of State.
(5) In this paragraph "relevant locality", in relation to an order made under section 154 to this Act, means—

(a) any locality which is affected by any provision made by the order for the purpose of enabling any engineering or building operations to be carried out; and

(b) where provision is made by the order for the purpose of enabling discharges of water to be made, each locality in which the place of any of the discharges is situated or in which there appears to the applicant to be any inland water or underground strata the flow, level or quality of water in which may be affected by any of the discharges.").

Page 292, leave out lines 8 to 23.
Schedule 22, page 303, line 46, leave out ("it is") and insert ("they are").
Page 306, line 48, after ("(d)") insert ("may,").
Schedule 23, page 312, line 1, leave out from ("(b)") to ("make") in line 2.
Page 313, line 34, after ("above") insert (", or in a notice under section 104 of the Water Act 1989,").
Schedule 24, page 339, line 41, leave out ("public authorities") and insert ("persons carrying out functions under any enactment").
Schedule 25, page 342, line 48, leave out ("Schedule 10") and insert ("Schedules 10 and 20").
Page 345, line 51, leave out ("under section 100(3)") and insert ("made for the purposes of section 100(2)(c)").
Page 352, line 12, at end insert—
("The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (c.67)
In paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (bodies to which Act applies in England and Wales), at the end there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—

"(i) regional and local flood defence committees;

(j) advisory committees established and maintained under section 2 or 140 of the Water Act 1989;

(k) customer service committees established and maintained under section 6 of that Act.";

and the functions of those committees shall be regarded as public functions for the purposes of that Act.").
Page 368, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Part XIII of that Act (arrangements and reconstructions) shall have effect in relation to statutory water companies that are not limited companies with such modifications as may be prescribed; and in this paragraph "statutory water companies", in relation to any time before the transfer date, has the same meaning as in the 1973 Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 130 to 144 en bloc. I believe they have all been spoken to.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 383, line 17, at end insert—
("(7) Where the rights and liabilities in respect of any such consent are transferred to a water authority's successor company in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act and the conditions of that consent include one or more of the following, that is to say—

(a) a condition that requires that authority to take samples of any matter discharged;

(b) a condition that requires that authority to furnish any person with information about samples taken by that authority; or

(c) a condition that is contravened where there is a failure by more than a specified number of samples taken by that authority to satisfy specified requirements,

then any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above shall cease to have effect on the transfer date and any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above shall have effect on and after that date as if any samples taken on behalf of the Authority in exercise, at any time on or after that date, of a power conferred by this Act, but no other samples, were the samples falling to be taken into account for the purposes of that condition.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 145 invites the House to do two things. The first is to make amendments to the terms of existing consents for sewage treatment work discharges and to eliminate references to water authorities

709
themselves taking samples of the effluent discharge which could be inappropriate to apply to the private sewerage undertakers. After the transfer date it will be for the NRA to take such samples. The second is to put beyond doubt that where a work's compliance is judged by a programme of samples taken over a relevant period, on and after the transfer date, only samples taken by the NRA shall count as a basis for prosecutions of the new companies. In other words, the new bodies and their staff shall not be liable for acts and omissions of their predecessor bodies.
Amendment No. 146, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks in short to achieve the opposite effect to the government amendment. In retrospect, the Government should perhaps have foreseen that, as this amendment touches on controversial issues, it would evoke more controversy than the normal run of transitional provisions, even though it is a simple, fair, natural, and indeed inescapable proposal.
However, in the light of the disproportionate response it has evoked, and the noble Lord's counter amendment, I clearly cannot now limit myself to the brief factual account I had intended. The record must be set straight, and I must therefore ask your Lordships to be a little patient with me, even at this late hour, so that I can deal with some of the wilder accusations which have been raised.
Let me deal first of all with the accusation that this is some ploy, furtively slipped in at the last moment, to assist privatisation. Yes, it does come at the last moment but that is the inevitable fate of a transitional provision, especially one which applies not to the primary legislation, not even to secondary legislation, but to instruments made under it. Maybe, even in a Bill of this great scope, we should have got every detail right and overlooked nothing, however detailed and remote. But the impossibility of that is part of the need and justification of your Lordships' House, and I see no need to apologise for troubling the House with this matter.
Let me now turn to the real matter of substance. I shall not long delay the House on the first two provisions of the amendments. These simply disapply from consents certain provisions concerning monitoring and reporting by the water authorities. It is surely utterly self-evident that, with the establishment of the NRA, it would not be appropriate for the undertakers to take their own samples and to report on their own performance to the Secretary of State. Consequently, these provisions should go.
The remaining provision deals with circumstances where compliance with discharge consent standards is assessed over a series of samples taken over a 12-month period, for instance the look-up table system used for sewage treatment works discharges. All it does is to secure that the new company shall be liable only in respect of discharges it makes. In other words, the relevant period for assessment of compliance shall begin with the establishment of those companies. The effect of this is no more than to secure the operation of basic natural justice, that new companies shall not be liable for actions of a different corporate body and its different executives
710
and directors some 12 months previously, going back even before legislation to establish those companies was published, let alone enacted by Parliament.
I ask one simple question: how could we ever have contemplated that we could, in fairness and propriety, consider any other possibility? And of course, we did not, The provision before your Lordships simply makes clear that the ordinary principles of justice are to apply and reflects the implications of paragraph 58 of Schedule 26 that criminal liability does not pass to the successor bodies.
Be all that as it may, it is said that the principle produces unacceptable results, that the companies have "immunity" for a year, that the NRA is crippled at birth, and other such unrealistic arguments. These bear no relationship to the facts. There are four principle reasons for this. First, and most important, there will be no immunity in the early stages of the companies' life. It is quite wrong to suggest that the companies will be able to discharge what they like and get away with it. Companies will have to comply with the terms of their consent conditions from the outset, and failures will go on the public registers. Non-complying samples will clock up against them. They will not be discounted. If the record reveals non-compliance over the sampling period, the NRA will be able to bring prosecutions in respect of breaches of the discharge consents for that period.
Secondly, discharge consents for all works now non-compliant, or at a high risk of non-complying, which are varied for the period improvement works are in progress, will in any case include so-called "upper tier" limits. This is a new environmental safeguard, a single breach of which—I repeat, a single breach of which—will open 1 he company immediately to the risk of prosecution. As well as being an important environmental safeguard, this will provide the NRA with a new enforcement mechanism for these works.
Thirdly, in the case of all the other works with no history of non-compliance, it is unlikely that samples taken by the water authority before the transfer date would have any significance for prosecution purposes. It is true that the NRA would need to take samples over a 12-month period before bringing a prosecution, but it is the position now that compliance for sewage treatment works has to be assessed retrospectively over a 12-rrionth period. There is nothing new in that. In practical terms we must remember that prosecution is a tool of last resort. While this will be a matter for the NRA, early evidence of non-compliance is likely to be a trigger for investigation and discussions with the discharger. The NRA, under its normal enforcement policy, would want to go through a number of stages, including warnings, before contemplating prosecution.
Finally, the Secretary of State is enabled under paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to direct the NRA at any time to revoke or vary consents when it appears to him appropriate to do so for the protection of public health or flora or fauna. In the event I hat the NRA was seriously concerned about a particular discharge and about constraints within the consent on its ability to take enforcement action, it could draw the

711
case to the attention of the Secretary of State. It is likely that it would be open to him to direct the authority to revoke or vary the consent, perhaps by imposition of an "upper tier" limit, breach of which would make possible immediate enforcement action.
For these four reasons, I tell the House once more that any argument that the NRA will be significantly impeded in its enforcement role by the terms of this amendment is wholly without foundation.
On all those grounds, there is no reason why we should not proceed on the basis set out in the amendment. There is one overwhelming reason why we should so proceed. How could the NRA or anyone else conceivably justify prosecuting a company on the basis of evidence relating to the actions of its predecessor, a body legally distinct from it and in important ways quite different? To attempt to do so would surely be quite unjust.
What the Government propose in this amendment is the only fair and proper course. It is the only course consistent with the provision already in the Bill that criminal liability shall not pass to successor bodies. That was an amendment which was agreed without any discussion at all. It is the only course consistent with legal principles which have always appeared important to this House. Above all, it is a way forward which holds no risks for the NRA, for pollution control or for its effective enforcement. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, Amendment No. 146:
Line 13, leave out from ("in") to end of line 19 and insert ("those paragraphs shall have effect on and after the transfer date in the same manner as before that date, except that any reference to samples taken by that authority shall be taken to mean samples taken by the National Rivers Authority insofar as it refers to samples taken after the transfer date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an astonishing story. It is one which reflects no credit on the Government and no credit on those who have advised the Government. At the very best this is a story of negligence in the drafting of legislation. It leaves us now, as the Minister himself has admitted, at the very end of the last stage, with a new provision which is not dependent on any amendments which have arisen during the course of the consideration in your Lordships' House, which could have been introduced at any stage in another place or here, and which is only thought of at the last minute and is presented initially as being purely a transitional amendment.
When I was first told that it was a transitional amendment I took that at face value. It was only at the very last minute, at lunchtime on Friday, that I realised that something was wrong. I immediately took the precaution of having a telephone call made to the Minister's staff to ask whether the amendment meant what we thought it meant: that there is in effect immunity from prosecution for 12 months after privatisation. The answer my staff received was that somebody would telephone them back. No reply
712
came until after 4.30, which was the last moment for putting down amendments on Friday and for giving the Government a sensible opportunity to consider amendments.
We were therefore forced to put down an amendment and to the conclusion that our analysis of the Government's amendment was correct. Looking at the amendment, I think that noble Lords will agree that it is virtually inpenetrable. It is couched in such detailed, complex prose that it is virtually impossible to tell what it means.
But what the amendment means is now clear and has been confirmed by the Government. It means—and this has been confirmed by the Minister from the Dispatch Box this afternoon—that the sampling procedures which have been debated at length in the House and which require that samples of river water quality shall be built up over a period of 12 months shall come to a full stop at the time of privatisation. Those samples which have been—to use the Minister's phase—clocked up over the period up to privatisation shall be of no account, and we shall have to start again.
The 12-month period starts from day one on the day of privatisation. However much may be clocked up, nothing can happen until the 12 months of sampling have been completed. That means that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution—and all the provisions that have provided for the enforcement of clean rivers in this country—cannot achieve its full effect by prosecuting breaches of river water quality until a period of at least 12 months has passed. Bearing in mind the time that the provision will take to become law and be enforced afterwards, it will probably be a period of significantly more than 12 months.
The only arguments that are advanced in opposition to that view seem to me so pathetic that I hardly dare to refer to them. The first argument is that it is unfair—if you please—to the plcs that they should be saddled with the testing and the deficiencies of their predecessors. Those plcs are composed, in a realistic sense, of their predecessors. They are inheriting the staff, fixed capital, assets and customers of the existing water authorities. In what way should their obligations to achieve adequate river water quality be exempt from all of those other assets and liabilities, rights and obligations that they are inheriting at the time of privatisation? There is no conceivable reason why they should be exempt in that way and not in any other way.
The second argument is that because the plcs are a separate entity, there is something unconstitutional—it was even suggested—in them taking over the liabilities. The Government have abolished local authorities and created new authorities with the rights and responsibilities of their predecessors. It has never been suggested that it was unconstitutional for new local authorities to have the liabilities of their predecessors and to be subject to enforcement procedures against the deficiencies of their predecessors. It has always been accepted that, when they take over the rights and liabilities, they take over those liabilities complete, including, if necessary, the liability to face prosecution for defects.
If the Greater London Council had not been responsible for the faults—if they existed—of the London County Council, the London Government Act 1963 could not have been put through. If the successor authorities at the time of the Local Government Act of 1986 had not been responsible for their predecessors, then those Acts could not have been put through. It is a nonsense in law to suggest that the new authorities that are taking over the rights and turning them, it is supposed, to profit, must not also take over the responsibilities and, with those responsibilities, the legal liabilities.
The people who are forgotten in all of this and who were never mentioned once in the Minister's speech are those who suffer from poor river quality; namely, the people of this country. It is those people who demand that there should be continuity. They demand that the Government should accept the responsibilities of privatisation. They have not asked for privatisation. It is this Government who are insisting on privatisation. They must demand that there is continuity of responsibility and of enforcement of river water quality. They must and do demand that this amendment be carried and that the Government are not allowed to let the new water undertakings off the hook. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, Amendment No. 146, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said, tries to bring back what may be regarded as the status quo. The new plcs are taking over the old water authorities' plant and their responsibilities in regard to providing good water quality. It would seem absolutely ludicrous if this continuity were brought into question by saying that there is a cut-off point for switching responsibilities from one to the other and that the creation of the new plcs produces entirely new entities. Effectively, they will be run by the same people and with the same plant.
I have always regarded greater protection of the environment as one of the few benefits provided by this Bill. If we do not accept this amendment we shall be allowing a gap of possibly up to 12 months when considerable damage could be done. I suggest that we accept Amendment No. 146 for reasons of continuity and give support to those who seek to maintain our river quality.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that there has been considerable over-emotion on this subject. To suggest that this is not a transitional arrangement is simply not a serious statement. This is a transitional arrangement and the year of grace suggested in Amendment No. 145 is not a year in which nothing will happen. Those of us who oppose Amendment No. 146 do so because we see the year of grace as a year in which the improvements that we all want to see will take place. We all know that there are some sewage treatment works which do not comply with their consents. Therefore, something must be done.
It is wrong to suppose that on the day that the companies are formed they will automatically be in breach of their consents and therefore liable to be sued. What is absolutely right is that some time should be given so that the companies bring all
714
sewage treatments into line. In fact there is already a programme in train to bring discharges up to consent levels. As a House we should insist that that improvement continues.
I believe that to put one year on that time for improvement is absolutely right. If we really want to achieve improvement and not simply knock the Bill at this stage, then, instead of settling for what I believe is the art of the impossible, we should be going for the art of the possible and bringing about the improvements.
It is a matter of going for what is practicable and what is assuredly achievable. That covers also one of my objections to putting the year 1993 as the time for bringing drinking water up to quality standards. In my opinion this one year of grace—and I hope that it is just one year that the Government give—for the water companies to bring all their water sewage treatment works up to consent levels is something that should be supported by the House.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has gone rather over the top in his objection to this amendment; I hope that his argument will be opposed.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as I understand it this government amendment, if it goes through, means that the newly established private water plcs with their exemptions cannot be prosecuted for pollution on the basis of samples taken by the NRA, the Anglers' Co-operative Association or any other independent body, for at least 18 months after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
As chairman of the Anglers' Co-operative Association I expressed my concerns at Second Reading. The use of samples, tripartite samples, and look-up tables is essential to provide evidence for the polluter to be prosecuted. The ACA has been in existence for 40 years. It exists to fight the anglers' cause when their fishing waters are polluted. This amendment, if accepted, will take away the tools that we require to do the job. The effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority will be equally adversely affected. Indeed it has already been stated by the Minister that there is bound to be a twelve months' stoppage of anti-pollution prosecutions. It will provide the plcs with a major prosecution-free holiday at the expense of the health of the nation. It will place handcuffs on the NRA and tie ACA.
The main objective of this amendment is to protect all the new privatised companies from prosecution when they pollute rivers with effluents from sewage works, because the NRA and the ACA will be unable to use pollution evidence gathered from and by the present water authorities before the act of privatisation. I really believe this to be a cynical move at this late stage of the Bill and I believe the Government are frightened that investors will shy away from a purchase without these prosecution exemptions; so it is a blatant attempt to buy off the investor.
This is how the ACA and the NRA will by stymied under this amendment. So far prosecutions have been brought against the water authorities under

715
Section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act. Evidence has to be sought that a breach of the conditions attached to their consents for discharge of sewage effluent has taken place, and also that there have been more than the permitted number of breaches in one year, working back from the one breach complained of. Secondly, a reference to a look-up table to check the number of breaches is required. These are going to be denied to the National Rivers Authority and the Anglers' Co-operative Association in any effective manner for twelve months, just as the Minister stated.
The effect of this government amendment is twofold. The Government want the plcs to start with a clean sheet. In other words, the NRA and the ACA cannot have information of the last twelve months' samples or the use of look-up tables. Therefore no prosecutions can take place against all those exempted sewage works for at least eighteen months. Twelve months have to elapse before the new sampling regime can begin to act, and a further six months are needed to collate the evidence and prepare the cases for court. What is more, cases in the prosecution pipeline, those pending and in preparation, are likely to fall. Existing offences will be written off. Already the legal sub-committee of the ACA is experiencing delays by some of the water authorities refusing to move on some of the legal cases that are pending. The ACA legal sub-committee has met today to consider 41 cases of pollution, and the water authorities, where they are affected, are, I suspect, purposely being unco-operative in the hope that their cases will fall.
Already applications have been made by all ten water authorities for relaxations of the conditions attached to their consents to discharge sewage effluent in respect of problem sewage works. Over 500 applications have been made. There are 6,400 sewage works: all of them might claim immunity from prosecution for river pollution. The water authorities have already admitted over 500 because they have sought special immunity for them for at least twelve months, although it would appear that more than 1,000 problem sewage works are wanting at least a 12-month amnesty from prosecutions.
I thought this Bill was giving us the opportunity to stop the polluter being protected by his own water authority, with the water authorities being both poacher and gamekeeper, but now this is clearly not so. Twenty per cent. of sewage works regularly discharge illegal effluent, and many of them would and should face prosection as private companies. I believe this is a cynical rescue operation to save the water privatisation programme, to save the sell-off. It has now become a sell-out, ditching the environmentalists.
The most guilty polluters, those who have poisoned our rivers for years, are going to be allowed to carry on polluting and discharging filthy effluent into our waterways in order to effect a more attractive flotation prospectus. I believe that to be the truth of the matter. That is why this amendment came in late; that is why it has been bandied about in the press by the Government as a technical amendment. But what I have said is the truth of
716
the matter. It appears to be a last minute panic amendment to save the privatisation programme, irrespective of the damage that it may do to our people's health. I hope that the noble Earl, when he replies, will allay all my fears and my concerns about these consequences.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am seriously disturbed by this amendment. It seems to me that, in an effort to protect the plcs from criminal actions based on the quality of sewage effluents before vesting, the Government are giving them, under this amendment, complete immunity over a period of at least 12 months. That seems to me to be wrong.
As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the one exception is where relaxed consents are given, which I think applies to about 15 per cent. of all sewage effluents. In that situation, as I think he told us, an upper tier value will be applied which, if it is exceeded, will form the basis of an immediate prosecution.
My understanding is that the HM Inspectorate of Pollution and the NRA suggested a level for this upper tier value of somewhere between 1·5 times to twice the consent value, but that the water authorities are asking for a much higher value of something like three times. If that is true, I am told that in at least one NRA region in 50 per cent. of the works where conditions are being relaxed the consent value when converted to an upper tier value three times higher will have a strength greater than raw sewage. It would therefore be possible for a plc to discharge raw sewage before screening and not exceed the upper tier limit for the works in question.
I think that would be an intolerable situation, if it is right. What worries me very much about this is that it will start the NRA off on the wrong foot. The Government have constantly said throughout the discussions on this Bill that they mean to have a strong and effective NRA. I have accepted that and I believe it, but, if the amendment goes through, it will mean that the NRA will be emasculated for the first 12 months of its existence. We shall have to see the pollution of our rivers by sewage works continuing without being able to do anything at all about it. If there is, for example, a major fish kill or a grave pollution incident damaging one of our rivers very seriously indeed, the public will see the NRA with its hands tied, unable to do anything. I cannot imagine a worse way of starting it off, because we want everyone to have full confidence in the NRA and its effectiveness. To see it start off by being unable to move for a whole year on questions like this would totally undermine public confidence.
I therefore greatly hope that the Government will have second thoughts over this amendment.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I do not want to keep the House at this late hour, but I believe that certain statements made from the Opposition Benches have really rather exaggerated the situation. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, began by implying that nothing is happening now, yet we have heard endlessly during the proceedings on the Bill that improvements are even now taking place. Further investment is taking place and various examples,

717
which I shall not list because everybody is aware of them, were given. Secondly, there is being put in place a stricter, better and more complete system of control in which the poacher and the gamekeeper are not one and the same person. It will be introduced on a specific date.
It is true that one could argue against this amendment that a year is a long time, except that there is provision for sampling. However, with a new system and new companies taking over and with a different and tighter system of control, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be a period of adjustment. It is assumed that any plc which takes over from a water authority will be completely crazy and will allow pollution to continue knowing perfectly well that sampling will be taking place, after which it will be inviting prosecution if it does not improve the environment or reduce pollution.
Let us assume that the figure of 20 per cent. given by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, is accurate. If they are not completely crazy, those companies will be making every endeavour to ensure that, at the end of the period, they are not causing as much pollution. Otherwise they will be inviting prosecution. It seems not unreasonable to argue that it is fair and just that a period of adjustment should be allowed because the system of control and the separation of the industry will come into being. For those reasons I believe that it is right and proper to include the amendments which my noble friend has moved.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Trafford has said, because, with respect, I believe that some of your Lordships followed speaking notes prepared before I had spoken. A great deal of what I said covered and met the concerns subsequently raised by your Lordships.
The situation is that our sewerage works have not been given the full investment that they should have received. During the late 1970s funds were drastically cut by the Labour Party—by 50 per cent. in real terms. That was a terrific boost for pollution. At the same time charges to the consumer rose—earlier this afternoon I quoted a figure of 43 per cent. in one year.
Since then there has been a dramatic improvement. We now have a situation where about 20 per cent. of our sewerage works are not meeting at some stages the consents under the Control of Pollution Act. That means that 80 per cent. are doing so. When one compares that record with what is happening in Europe one may be surprised to learn how far Britain is in advance of its EC partners in this matter. Some of them are still busy trying for the first time to install sewerage works for their major cities.
There has been a tremendous improvement and it is continuing. My honourable friend the Minister for Water has said that, with the £1 billion programme for sewerage works, they will all have been brought up to standard by March 1992. That will be good for the environment and it is something we all wish to see.
We are now in a transitional period. It is quite right that during that time when money is being
718
spent on sewerage works with new consents they should not be the subject of prosecution for old consents granted to authorities whose legal basis was not remotely like that of the proposed NRA.
Let me just take one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He mentioned the upper tier limit. There has been no government decision on the upper tier limit. That will be set to ensure that there is no possibility of raw sewage being discharged. Of course Her Majesy's Inspectorate of Pollution inspectors will have to be satisfied that the upper tier limit is appropriate.
Let me remind your Lordships that the upper tier limit is an entirely new item which was brought in to improve the environment. It does not exist at present and I know that the noble Lord. Lord Moran, who studies these matters carefully, will realise that when one is working on a 95 per centile basis, in the other 5 per cent. there can be a rapid discharge of very high polluting substances—and not heavy metals because they are dealt with under separate legislation—which cause enormous damage. That is not being tackled at present but it will be tackled as a result of improvements which we have made to the Bill and will apply to the 20 per cent. of sewerage works currently being refurbished. One single breach of that will allow the full power and authority of the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, and the NRA to come down on that authority.
Therefore, there is no question of any period of legal immunity. Up until vesting date prosecutions can be based on the present series of samples. From vesting date, any discharge in breach of the consent will contribute to the potential legal liability of the undertakers. What is important is that from vesting date the gamekeeper/poacher conflict will end and I know that that will be welcomed by all of your Lordships. The new NRA will be in place as a powerful body properly financed and acting in the interests of the environment, which we all care for so much. It will not be a shackled body but will be trying to improve the environment. Moreover, at the first sign that the sewerage works are not coming up to standard, for the first time there will be an independent body to take on the water authority plcs.
It is true that vesting day must bring a new regime but in that new regime any sample which fails on day one can contribute to a successful prosecution in just the same way as a sample taken on the last day of the old regime. There is no legal immunity at any period whatever.
11.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that reply was very carefully phrased and has not started to dent the arguments against this new government amendment. The fact is that sampling is taking place now. Sampling is being carried on by ':he water and sewerage authorities and that sampling will be of no effect unless prosecutions can be mounted before the day of flotation.
Indeed, as regards the water authorities, if this government amendment is agreed to without further amendment, they may as well stop sampling now

719
because between now and flotation there is no possibility of effective enforcement of the sampling of river water quality.
The sampling, control and improvement of river water quality is or should be a continuous process. It is not affected dramatically by vesting day on day one or on day 365 or on day 366. The investment programmes which the Minister has talked about—and we all applaud the investment programmes just as we applaud the creation of the NRA, as we have throughout the passage of this Bill—are not suddenly introduced on the day that the water and sewerage industry is privatised. They are a matter of gradual progress towards acceptable standards.
The government amendment halts the control of progress towards acceptable standards. It says that all of the sampling being carried on now and which will be carried on until the day of transfer is of no avail and they will have to start again and build up a new set of evidence on a scarcely different basis—and the Government have secured that the basis is not very different—after that time. Not until 12 months have passed will evidence have accumulated sufficiently to allow the start of prosecution or enforcement procedures.
As I said, the argument has not been dented. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, called it a year of grace. It is a year of grace for the shareholders and investors but not for the rivers and those who use our rivers. In effect, it is a year of disgrace. I invite the House to support the amendment.
11.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 146), as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 58.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Alport, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blyth, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Moran, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Craigavon, V

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gibson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Kenilworth, L.

720

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hesketh, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Balfour, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Boardman, L.

Knutsford, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Middleton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crathorne, L.

Radnor, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Somerset, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Haig, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 145 agreed to.
11.57 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 384, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where an application for a licence under the 1963 Act—

(a) has been made before the transfer date to the Secretary of State by a water authority in pursuance of any regulations under section 52 of that Act (modification of Act in the case of water authority abstractions etc.); and

(b) that application is pending on that date and is an application the rights and liabilities in respect of which are allocated by a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act to the water authority's successor company,

the Secretary of State shall refer that application to the Authority to be determined on or after that date as if it were an application made to the Authority under that Act and may direct, in relation to such an application, that specified requirements of that Act with respect to procedure and publicity are not to apply, or are to be deemed to have been complied with if the requirements set out in the direction are complied with.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 27 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 151:
Page 399, column 3, after ("from") insert ("by a").
Page 399, column 3, leave out lines 31 and 32.
Page 403, line 36, column 3, leave out ("in paragraph (d) the words "charging scheme or" and").
Page 403, line 41, column 3, leave out ("in subsection (6) the words "charging scheme or"").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness

721
the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Water Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
11.57 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—[The Earl of Caithness.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is the occasion when we put aside the differences that have divided us over the weeks and months and pay tribute to those who have helped us and to those who have taken part in debate. We also attempt a summary of the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House.
The first part of this task I undertake with pleasure and a sense of honour and humility. I am deeply grateful to my noble friends and to other noble Lords on this side of the House and indeed to noble Lords on all sides of the House for taking part in the critical evaluation, which we believed to be necessary, of this most complex Bill. It is invidious to mention names, but I must refer, first, to my noble friends on the Front Bench, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Gallacher. Among my noble friends on other Benches, the very fact that I can refer to my noble friends Lady Birk, Lord Carter, Lady David, Lord Howie, Lady Lockwood, Lord Mason, Lady Nicol, Lady Phillips and Lady White—I do so in alphabetical order but no doubt there are others—makes it clear how many of my noble friends and how many in the Labour Party feel strongly that this Bill deserved the full and critical attention it has received.
We could not have done the work without the help which we received from a very small and devoted circle of admirers. I do not know whether it is in order for me to mention names, but I should especially like to name Mr. Damien Welfare and Miss Katherine Sand who have played a very distinguished and devoted part in helping us with the work which we have carried out. I should also like to mention the reseachers in the Opposition Whips' Office.
These debates do not take place in a simple straightforward way; there is always a complex mesh of agreement, antagonism of movement and change. However, one thing is always unchanging and certain, and that is the relationship between the Front Benches on this side of the House and the Front Bench on the other side.
As I have been able to do on many occasions in the past, I thank and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the part they played in the proceedings on the Bill. They, of course, have to do what we do not have to do; they must be concerned with every amendment. Moreover, although they receive more help than we do this is still a formidable task. I congratulate them for the
722
work they have done on the Bill and thank them for their almost unfailing courtesy in dealing with our amendments. There was an occasion when they lost their tempers and tried to refuse me permission to withdraw an amendment. I do not think that they will remember that with much pride. Nevertheless, in formal terms—in non-political terms, if you like—I hope that relationships between the Front Benches have not been seriously strained throughout the passage of the Bill.
I should also like to refer to other noble Lords on the Front Benches and especially those of the Liberal and Social Democratic Party, many of whom have played an active part in the debates on the Bill. We have been particularly glad to have the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has added considerable distinction to the proceedings on what is, I think, the first occasion that he has dealt with major legislation. We have also been glad of the assistance given by many other noble Lords on those Benches and of the Social Democratic Party.
This has been a Bill in which the Cross-Benches have been particularly active and there are many noble Lords on those Benches who played an extremely valuable part, as has been evidenced by the results.
This is a Bill which is deeply offensive to the instincts of this country. It has emerged now as offensive as it has ever been. There has been no success by the Government in achieving popularity or esteem for the Bill; indeed, it has gone out in a blaze of public distrust at almost the very last stage in regard to what was almost the last amendment moved on the last night of our deliberations. That shows how deeply people feel that it is wrong to be privatising the water and sewerage system in this country.
When she took office in 1979, the Prime Minister quoted St. Francis of Assisi. I too should like to quote him. He said:
"Praise be my Lord for our sister water; who is very serviceable to us, and humble and precious and clean".
Throughout the passage of this Bill it has been our intention to seek to secure that our water is humble, precious and clean. I hope that it will survive the period of privatisation and that when we come to return water—as it must be returned—to public control we shall find that not too much damage has been done to our sister water.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his kind remarks. I also thank my noble friends Lord Ezra and Lord Addington, Sir John Bates and our own researcher, Mark. We congratulate the Minister on achieving his Bill. His patience and willingness have been greatly appreciated on all sides of the House and especially on these Benches.
Despite our fears for the future, shared by many outside the House—I shall not go into that any further, because I am already in trouble for saying what I said earlier—I feel that our time has not been wasted. The Bill has been much improved during its passage through your Lordships' House. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the part they have played in achieving that objective. It is

723
in no small measure due to the attentiveness and kindness of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and his two colleagues on the Front Bench opposite. I thank them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word from these Benches. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, my noble friend Lord Caithness has had a most formidable task. He has performed it with tremendous efficiency and courtesy. He has shown—I hope that I shall not be mistaken if I say this—nearly always, very good judgment. We are grateful for such concessions as he has been able to make. He has been ably assisted by my noble friends Lord Hesketh and Lord Arran.
I should like to acknowledge the spirited and efficient way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has led for the Opposition. He too has had a formidable task, and one can but admire the way in which he has discharged it.
I am in favour of the main principles and the main purpose of the Bill. It is significant, and we should take note of the fact, that the water authorities broadly support the Bill. However, I am dismayed by the way in which the Bill is constructed and by its inordinate length—416 pages long when we started the Third Reading—its mass of detail and its overlapping provisions. Despite the repeal schedule being 18 pages long, too much of the present law is repeated, with or without amendment. Eventually there should be a consolidation, and I hope that will not be long delayed.
The legislative method of carrying out our good intentions does not give me pride and satisfaction, but having criticised that method, I firmly believe that the Bill is desirable and that it will lead to improvements which cannot be achieved under the present system. I wish the Government well in carrying out its provisions. It will be judged by results.
I should like to congratulate the Government on choosing my noble friend Lord Crickhowell as chairman designate of the NRA. He deserves our full support in meeting his responsibilities. The main problems with which the new authorities and new companies will have to deal are first and foremost river pollution. The rivers need cleaning, although they are much better than they used to be thanks to the legislation passed in the past 30 years. Pollution of the sea by sewage is still a serious matter. Drinking water, in my opinion, is mostly wholesome, but all of it should become so. Recreational facilities should be made more freely available and should be improved. Having said all that, I wish the Government well in the implementation of the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at eight minutes to three on the afternoon of 17th April we set out, in your Lordships' House, to consider the second largest Bill in living memory. I said then that the main purpose of the Bill was to restructure the provision and regulation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales, and to enable the privatisation of those services. I said that the Bill would be a good one for consumers and for
724
taxpayers; it would be good for the environment; it would create a more efficient and effective water industry; and above all it was the way to achieve the water quality standards we all want.
During our consideration of the Bill, its central objectives have stood up well to the close scrutiny which your Lordships' House has given them. It has become better understood both in the House and more widely.
When I introduced the Bill, I explained that we looked forward to listening to the arguments that would emerge. Our minds were open on whether the Bill represented in every last detail the best structure for the future. In the main we have ended our consideration of this Bill in the same constructive way by today approving a further batch of improvements flowing from commitments given at earlier stages.
We originally undertook to listen carefully to positive proposals that were put forward, I hope your Lordships will agree that we have done just that. We have had over 100 hours of debate over 13 days with the opinion of the House being tested on over 40 occasions. Most importantly, we have improved the Bill in more than 50 ways involving over 360 amendments to the Bill as received in this House.
Perhaps I can touch on some of the most significant changes we have made. All of us have been keenly interested to ensure that almost half a million acres of water authority land finds its way into the private sector subject to proper environmental controls, so that its protection is assured under the private sector just as it is under the public sector. In fact, with the addition of the major amendments on the protection of disposals of water industry land, we have introduced a degree of protection far stronger than that which exists at present. That is something I know my noble friend Lord Norrie and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will welcome. At the same time we have ensured that customers will share in the proceeds—including the development value which might be gained through obtaining planning permission for alternative development—when the water industry disposes of its surplus land.
I freely pay tribute to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who persuaded us that the environmental code of practice should be applied to the NRA, and to those of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway and others who persuaded us that Parliament should have a role in the approval of that code of practice.
The Bill has been amended to reflect the successful outcome of discussions between the Government and the European Community. The Community is now satisfied, with the Bill amended as in Clause 20 and with the commitments we made in introducing those amendments, that the Government intend to rectify any deficiencies in water supplies as quickly as possible, taking certain practicalities into account. But I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there is one group of his amendments on drinking water which would take us beyond the practicable. This House is a revising chamber and

725
we are bound to send back the Bill in a workable form. My regret is that in this one respect we shall be sending back an unworkable Bill and we may not have heard the last of the topic in this House, whatever the noble Lord may say about voting for dirty water.
We have made a great deal of progress in the area of charges. For example, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has been instrumental in persuading us, with his usual eloquence, of the need to clarify the Bill to make absolutely clear that the interests of rural customers are to be protected in this respect. We have ensured that water used for various fire-fighting purposes should be exempt from charges and we have improved the position of those who pay for their water through their landlords. We have also made sure that developers pay their fair share of the additional costs they impose on water and sewerage undertakers, and in this respect I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding who cogently sustained arguments that we first started to hear in the other place.
Another major set of amendments introduced in this House following undertakings in the other place were those which will ensure much better protection of water supplies in areas which are sensitive to the overuse of nitrate fertilizers. In addition to these major points there have been a whole host of minor amendments to the Bill, all improving it in one way or another.
I am sincerely grateful to all noble Lords for the appreciation and courtesy extended to myself and my noble friends Lord Belstead, Lord Hesketh, Lady Trumpington and Lord Arran during the many hours of debate. We very much appreciated that. I thank my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Hesketh, who has done a fine job in supporting me, in particular on those days when I was rather more than a thousand miles away. Both he and my noble friend Lord Arran visited water authorities before and during the passage of the Bill. They are very knowledgeable about treatment plants and sewerage works. One could say that they are thoroughly immersed in their subject. Indeed I know that my noble friend Lord Hesketh greatly regrets that he was unable to bring out in the debates his knowledge of the optimum shape of sewer pipes and the gradients at which such pipes can be self-cleaning. The House, I can assure it, has missed an interesting dissertation on the theory of the inverse egg.
I should like to thank those on the Back Benches behind me who have helped me most of the time. In particular I would mention my noble friend Lord Renton who has very much kept us on the legal straight and narrow through our scrutiny of this massive Bill. We are all, on all sides of the House, grateful to my noble friends Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Elliott of Morpeth who have brought a wealth of experience to our debates and who ensured not only that we looked at the detail of the Bill but that we tested the very principles on which privatisation is to proceed. I would also like to thank my noble friends Lord Trafford, Lady Carnegy of Lour, Lady Blatch, and Lord Radnor who did a splendid job in assisting me, and, of course, criticising me when it was due. I must pay
726
tribute to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his sustained interest from the first debate. I suspect that few people have read as much of the 400 pages as he. Last but not least on this side of the House, I must mention my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who goes forward with these debates ringing in his ears as he sets out to lead the National Rivers Authority through its crucial early years.
I have had an advantage in our proceedings on this Bill for I had the honour to be the Minister responsible for water for much of the first part of last year. That was an enormous help to me in understanding the industry, yet I must confess I thought my task fairly hard work. How much more difficult it has been for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who has shouldered so much of the work of the Bill on his side. He has led his party with very great distinction through our thorough consideration of the proposals and our detailed discussions of every aspect. We may not always have agreed on the principles, but I very much appreciate the constructive way in which we have tackled the details. I join him in thanking his team of the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Gallacher, who have continually tested us.
I also welcome the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Newport and Lord Addington, which were always and invariably brief and to the point. They were ably reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has the advantage of his French connection in appreciating the opportunities of a private sector water industry.
Finally I should like to stress my thanks for the backing I have received, in particular from my honourable friend the Minister for Water and Planning and from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who have been closely involved with the deliberations in this House, and have willingly shown flexibility to respond to your Lordships' pressure to improve this Bill in very many detailed ways.
I wish on behalf of the whole House to thank the officials who have looked after us with their normal courtesy for long hours, the Hansard writers and the clerks. I wish to pay a special tribute, as the noble Lord did, to my team who have helped my noble friends and myself.
I said on Second Reading that this was a good Bill. There is little more to say except that with the efforts of your Lordships' House it is an even better Bill. It will be even better for us as consumers and as taxpayers. It will, I am glad to say, be even better for the environment; and we shall all benefit from the better, more efficient and more effective water industry that it will bring about. I look forward keenly to the new era for the water industry in this country.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past midnight.

  IRAQ AND THE KURDS: GENOCIDE ALLEGATION
  IRAQ AND THE KURDS: GENOCIDE ALLEGATION
  GRENADA APPEALS AGAINST DEATH SENTENCE: TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
  GRENADA APPEALS AGAINST DEATH SENTENCE: TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
  WILLS: RESTRICTION ON VARIATIONS AFTER DEATH
  WILLS: RESTRICTION ON VARIATIONS AFTER DEATH
  ADULT EDUCATION COLLEGES IN LONDON: FUNDING
  ADULT EDUCATION COLLEGES IN LONDON: FUNDING
  HOUSING RENT ARREARS
  HOUSING RENT ARREARS
  "ACTIVE EDGE" NATO EXERCISE
  "ACTIVE EDGE" NATO EXERCISE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE AND VISITING FORCES PERSONNEL
  COMMUNITY CHARGE AND VISITING FORCES PERSONNEL