Sitting of 7 March 1989

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

    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on defence policy from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on defence policy from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): Since last year's summer recess, I have received three letters, four petitions and one questionnaire from representatives of CND regarding aspects of defence policy.
    The low level of correspondence from CND reflects, no doubt, the decline in support for that organisation. It is clear that the Government's, and NATO's, policy of defence and detente is the only sure way of achieving peace, and that unilateral disarmament gestures would undermine efforts towards multilateral disarmament.
    Mr. Boswell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pay CND the courtesies appropriate to its declining membership. Will he ensure that he does not listen too hard to its views, any more than he did on cruise missiles? As a result of his resistance to CND, we now have a multilateral intermediate nuclear forces agreement and we hope to achieve similar mutually beneficial agreements on other weapon systems.
    Mr. Younger: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Although my disposition is normally to listen to everyone on all subjects, I am very glad that we did not listen to CND because if we had done so we should not have the current arms reductions.
    Mr. Hunter: As the debate on CND is one that my right hon. Friend clearly wins, will he undertake to challenge robustly CND's opposition to the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons because such modernisation may well be necessary to maintain deterrence and to negotiate from a position of strength?
    Mr. Younger: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I have said, there may be arguments for having no
    738
    weapons at all, although I do not accept them, but in my view there are no arguments for having weapons that are ineffective and out of date.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that he has received from CND a briefing on the competitive strategies doctrine? [Interruption] Yes, a briefing—and I am sure that the Secretary of State has read it. Did the Americans consult him about that doctrine and what are its likely effects on NATO strategy in relation to conventional arms talks?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I did, indeed, receive a piece of paper stating that it was a briefing on that matter and I found it interesting, as I always do. I do not think that the doctrine has any effect on the conventional arms talks which are a very specific set of talks with very specific objectives. Our objective is to achieve equal ceilings of conventional weapons at much lower levels than they are now. A very good start was made at the Vienna talks yesterday.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Government's success in pursuing a multilateral policy flies in the face of everything that CND has proposed? Does he share my concern that the SLD party—the old Liberals—seems to be riddled with CND members, including the current general secretary of CND, who is on the committee considering defence?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend has raised a very interesting point. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made some excellent remarks in the Navy debate last week. The only trouble was that they seemed to conflict diametrically with the views of the leader of his party who recently made it clear that he was against all nuclear weapons.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the Secretary of State recall that when he last answered questions in the House he was asked whether he was prepared to match the initiative of President Gorbachev in reducing nuclear weapons, and boasted that he had left President Gorbachev far behind as he had reduced the number of nuclear weapons in Britain by 30 per cent. Why was he pretending to be a unilateralist then but now he is a multilateralist?
    Mr. Younger: I am not sure that I come into either of those categories. The point that I made then is equally valid today—that NATO has reduced its nuclear warheads by about 2,400 since 1979 and, as I understand it, Mr. Gorbachev recently announced that the number of Russia's systems has been reduced by about 24, so it seems to me that he has an awful long way to go.

    Military Depots (Security)
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made any assessment of the effect of contractorisatiÖn on the security of military depots.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Security is one of a number of factors taken into account in the assessment of proposals to contractorise activities at defence establishments. The subsequent effect of such measures on the security of those establishments is assessed by the commanding officer or head of establishment as part of their constant review of their security arrangements.
    Mr. Grocott: Is it not a matter of simple common sense that if long-serving, loyal civil servants in the Ministry of Defence are replaced by short-term contractors, that must involve increased security risks? In view of recent events, does not the Minister owe it to military establishments—I mention in particular COD Donnington in my own constituency—to listen to the overwhelming views of the work force, both civilian and military, and at the very least to put a freeze on existing contractorisation proposals and undertake a thorough, long-standing review before presenting any further plans?
    Mr. Hamilton: No, we continue with contractorisation to give us value for money on the defence budget. There is no evidence that contractorisation increases security risks.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this time of IRA threats we shall be grateful for any assurances that he can give about the safety of our military camps? Will he assure the leader of the Liberal party, through his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), that Norton Manor Royal Marine camp in my constituency is safe and does not require the attentions of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)?
    Mr. Hamilton: We keep the security systems on all our camps constantly under review. I am convinced that the Royal Marines are as capable as anyone of defending their camps.

    Procurement Expenditure
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relative priority, in terms of procurement expenditure, his Department gives to (a) the British Army of the Rhine and (b) warships for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relative priority, in terms of procurement expenditure, his Department gives to (a) the British Army of the Rhine and (b) warships for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The balance of expenditure within the defence programme reflects the Government's defence policy as set out in successive statements on the Defence Estimates.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree with Lord Carver that Britain should concentrate its commitment on British armed forces on the continent at the expense of the Navy, or does he agree with Sir Peter Stanford that the Navy has already shown its worth and should be given priority? Does the Minister agree that that unholy dispute within the military is the result of concentrating too many of our resources on nuclear weapons at the expense of conventional weapons? Is it not also due to the fact that the Government have neglected to undertake a proper defence review?
    Mr. Hamilton: There is no need for a defence review. I agree with Lord Carver who, at the end of his recent lecture, said:
    "It will not be, as it has never been, a choice for us between a maritime or a continental strategy, but a delicate judgment of how to apportion scarce resources between the two."
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: When Admiral Stanford asks where are the construction orders, how does the Secretary of State answer?
    Mr. Hamilton: Construction orders will obviously follow. When it comes to ordering ships, we have not been backward in coming forward, and we have ordered a very large number.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that when allocating resources, whether for the British Army of the Rhine or for the purchase of ships for the Navy, control of the skies must also be considered? Neither Army nor Navy operations can be much good unless we also control the skies. Is it not time that we advised the West German Government that, in controlling the skies, it is essential that our aircraft are permitted to operate at the same altitudes at which they will be required to operate during operational periods—particularly during a war?
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is sad that the Opposition's question makes mention only of the British Army of the Rhine and of the Royal Navy and does not include the demands of the Royal Air Force, which we take into great consideration when deciding our priorities.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question is a particularly silly one? There is no more certain way of decoupling Germany from the alliance than to run down our presence on the continent. Equally, there is no easier way of convincing the Americans that we are not fully supporting them than to reduce our forces in the eastern Atlantic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out, it is impossible to reduce the capabilities of the British Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force without causing political damage, irrespective of any military damage.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. If the suggestion behind the original question is that we should run down the Royal Navy to support the Rhine Army one must bear in mind the critical role played by the Royal Navy in guaranteeing our reinforcement in wartime and in its anti-submarine warfare capability.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister understand that the answers that he has given today, the answers that his officials gave to the Select Committee on Defence and, indeed, his answers to the House during the debate on the Royal Navy last week, have done nothing to allay the fear of many hon. Members that the surface fleet's frigates and destroyers are too few to enable the Royal Navy to fulfil its wartime or peacetime responsibilities and functions?
    Mr. Hamilton: I think that the problem is that the Opposition refuse to believe that we are maintaining our commitment to about 50 ships. I must repeat what I said in the Navy debate—that I call 49 surface ships "about 50".
    Mr. Rogers: Are not the fears expressed by two very senior officers merely a symptom of the fears felt throughout the armed services that insufficient emphasis is placed on our conventional weapons? Will the Minister undertake a defence review so that the fears of those officers can be allayed?
    Mr. Hamilton: The only justification for a defence review is when we do not have the resources to meet our

    741
    commitments. An extra £20 billion has been spent in real terms since 1979, and there is no shor tage of resources to meet our existing commitments.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the role of the Territorial Army; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): The Ministry of Defence receives a great many representations about the Territorial Army, including its role, from a wide variety of sources. Careful note is taken of all those views. Where appropriate, they are fed into the continuing process of evaluation of the effectiveness of the TA, and the vital part that it plays in the defence of the nation.
    Mr. Thurnham: When my hon. Friend is next in the north-west I hope that he will be able to visit the Bolton artillery unit, which has a long association with the town dating back to 1860. He would then appreciate the urgent need for new, larger premises. Will my hon. Friend press the Territorial Army premises unit to find larger premises and to respond more quickly to commercial opportunities as I understand that the unit has £2 million available to spend?
    Mr. Neubert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation to his constituency. He can be assured that North-West TAVR, which is responsible for TA accommodation in the area, is maintaining close contact with the local authority and estate agents in the Bolton district. I am aware of the long association of the Royal Artillery with Bolton. I confirm that we intend to find a site and that funds will be available to construct a suitable permanent centre for 216 air defence battery.
    Mr. Duffy: Why did Territorial Army manpower fall off so sharply in 1988?
    Mr. Neubert: It is true that we have suffered a small setback in our aim to reach an increased target, but our present level is none the less very much higher than it was when we came into power in 1979, increasing from 60,000 to 73,000. We have plans to attract more recruits and to retain more people in the Territorial Army. We have simplified administration and increased the tax-free bounties, and we have improved training. We have a major advertising campaign under way, which has already enhanced public awareness of the importance of the Territorial Army.
    Mr. Conway: As the Territorial Army supplies 50 per cent. of the manpower but takes up less than 4 per cent. of the Army budget, does my hon. Friend agree that it represents extraordinarily good value for the taxpayer? As the birth rate is expected to decline towards the end of the decade, does my hon. Friend agree that the efforts of the employers' support groups in encouraging recruitment among young people will become more and more vital and deserve the congratulations of the House?
    Mr. Neubert: Yes, and I readily pay tribute to Tommy Macpherson and the national employment liaison committee and to the efforts that they are making to foster greater awareness among employers and to make more
    742
    facilities available for people to serve in the Territorial Army which, as my hon. Friend says, has a vital part to play in peace and in war.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Denmark to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.
    Mr. George Younger: I last met the Danish Defence Minister when he came to London, at my invitation, on 6 February. We discussed a range of issues of mutual interest, including SNF.
    Dr. Moonie: The Minister must be aware that the Danes share the disquiet of the West German Government about our modernisation plans. Will their views be taken fully into account, or will it again be a case of Granny knows best for Europe?
    Mr. Younger: It will be for the Danish Government to decide their attitude when NATO comes to discuss the modernisation of the SNF. I spoke to the Danish Minister and it is worth recording that Denmark fully subscribes to NATO's strategy and nuclear deterrence, which is more than I can say for Her Majesty's Opposition.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I recently had the opportunity to visit Denmark, Norway and Iceland to see NATO defences in that area? Is he further aware that while Denmark is a non-nuclear power it is a loyal member of the Alliance and its small forces would give a good account of themselves in the event of war?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Recently, at the last nuclear planning group meeting, Denmark fully subscribed to the principles contained in the communiqué, which made it clear that it was in full support of NATO strategy.
    Mr. Cohen: The Secretary of State says that Denmark fully subscribes to NATO strategy, but does it fully subscribe to the Prime Minister's plans for short-range modernisation in central Europe, as the Germans do not and most of Europe does not?
    Mr. Younger: None of those countries has yet been called on to make a decision on the matter. They will all have to decide in due course what their views are, but there is a wide measure of agreement on a number of important principles. They are, first, that if we are to have weapons we must keep them up to date; secondly, that the Lance system will be obsolete by 1995; and, thirdly, that none of us wishes to see a third zero in nuclear weapons in Europe.
    Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the western nations, including Denmark, would be wise, when listening to what Russia says, to see what that country actually does before abandoning any plans that we may have to modernise short-range nuclear weapons, bearing in mind that Russia has a long way to go not just to abolish chemical weapons but even greatly to reduce its conventional weapons?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While we warmly welcome the change of climate in the Soviet Union and the willingness to discuss matters that it refused

    743
    to discuss for many years, we must wait to see results from the suggestions that the Russians make. As I made clear earlier, from the point of view of reducing weapons, NATO has a much better record than the Soviet Union in having done so already.
    Mr. O'Neill: The Secretary of State spoke of Montebello and of how important it was in relation to the reduction of weapons, but there were two elements in Montebello, one being the replacement of weapons. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks to his colleagues in western Europe, will he appreciate that there is no great enthusiasm for the early replacement of many of the systems which it was envisaged in 1983 would have to be replaced because the circumstances in Europe in particular and the world in general have changed considerably since then? Does he further agree that the Prime Minister's hectoring approach to the NATO allies is regarded as offensive and irrelevant in relation to the modernisation of those weapons?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind all concerned that the Montebello decision was not just a decision to reduce nuclear weapons but to replace those that were aging or out of date. The only criterion as to whether weapons should be replaced is whether the existing ones are out of date and no longer usable. That is the position that we must face in relation to those systems which will become out of date soon.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nuclear weapons the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has scrapped over the past 10 years.
    Mr. Younger: Since 1979 some 2,400 nuclear warheads—or some 35 per cent. of the land-based stockpile—have been unilaterally withdrawn from NATO Europe. In addition, under the INF treaty, some 400 deployed land-based nuclear missiles, together with their warheads, will be withdrawn from Europe by the Alliance by June 1991.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the last 10 years NATO, rather than the Warsaw pact, has taken nearly all the arms control initiatives? Will he warn some of his wobbly colleagues in the Alliance that when the Soviet Union finally lifts the seventh veil of its arms control striptease something rather nasty may be revealed?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I agree entirely that, in performance, there is simply no contest between NATO, which has managed to reduce its weapons systems while maintaining its security, and the Soviet Union, which until recently has done absolutely nothing in that regard. As to the future, we should be very wise to continue our successful policy of maintaining strong defences and forcing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. After all, that policy is working.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State, instead of looking back over the past 10 years—though it is natural that he should do so—try to look to the next five to 10 years and give us some insight into his views on the START negotiations? At this juncture the Soviet Union and the United States have both made gestures towards
    744
    building down to 50 per cent. What meaningful contribution are the Government making to that process by proceeding to develop four Trident boats, all armed with D5s?
    Mr. Younger: The START negotiations, on the whole, have been fairly encouraging, and we are fairly confident that, before very long, there will be agreement on a 50 per cent. reduction in the super-powers' strategic systems. That is very remarkable progress. So far as the British deterrent is concerned, everyone involved in negotiations—not least Mr. Gorbachev himself—has made it clear that it is not expected that the British deterrent or, for that matter, the French deterrent, will be included at the current stage. We have always made it clear that if, in the future, there is a major change in the line-up of the super-powers, if there is a 50 per cent. START reduction, if the conventional imbalances can be substantially reduced, and if there is a world ban on chemical weapons, we shall be prepared to see whether we can make a further contribution in respect of our deterrent.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the promotion of Lt. General Gromov to his new key position means that, for the first time, NATO troops will face battle-hardened Soviet troops? Does not this make it even more important that NATO should keep its nuclear deterrent—particularly its short-range weapons—intact and modernised?
    Mr. Younger: I have no doubt that those factors should all be taken into account. Undoubtedly, the ability of NATO to defend itself is a key factor in persuading all concerned to negotiate a reduction in weapons.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent decisions he has made in respect of procurement of a radar system for the European fighter aircraft.
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent decisions he has made in respect of procurement of a radar system for the European fighter aircraft.
    Mr. Tim Sainsbury (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement): No decisions have been taken recently on the radar for EFA.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister ensure that any decision that is made on new radar systems for European fighter aircraft will benefit Britain's electronic and radar industry? Does he not agree that the real choice is between a British system and a ravamped version of the old Hughes system? If the latter is chosen, will not that perhaps be the death knell for Britain's radar research base? Will the Minister therefore ensure that a British system is adopted?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I suspect that my hon. Friend recognises that it would be wrong for me to prejudge a decision of those who have the job of considering the present competitive bids. Of course, both bidders include British companies.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister agree that he is under increasing pressure from both German and American interests to accept one of the off-the-shelf

    745
    systems that are in use? If that is so, will it not be a severe body blow to the British electronics and radar industry, particularly the radar research base? If the Minister accepts that, exactly what does he intend to do to safeguard this vital British national interest?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I do not think that I recognise the competing bids in the description that the hon. Gentleman has given of an off-the-shelf developed system. He will be aware that we are awaiting a recommendation to the NATO European Fighter Management Agency, the international management agency, from Euro-Fighter. It would be wrong for me to anticipate that recommendation. We must wait to hear what it has to say about its assessment of the competing bids.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree, in order to safeguard the EFA project, that the most essential elements of any radar system are that it should work to specification and be available on time? Will those be the primary considerations which will be taken into account in deciding competing bids?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As my hon. Friend will be aware, a wide range of issues and aspects of the radar system have to be taken into account in assessing its ability to meet the requirement and its competitiveness. I am sure that all the issues will be properly taken into account. Clearly those that he mentioned are among the primary considerations.
    Mr. Mans: When the decision is taken, will my hon. Friend take into account the export potential of EFA and any restrictions that may be imposed upon it by a particular choice?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that export potential is one of the issues which will be taken into account before a decision is made.
    Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that the problems being created over the choice of radar are likely to endanger the whole project? Can he be more fulsome in indicating the true significance of that? While previously we were talking in terms of GEC-Marconi against Ferranti, the danger may now be that a German-backed GEC system, if not chosen, may be the rock on which the whole project founders. Will he confirm that the Government back EFA and will continue to support the British-led technology which lies at the heart of the radar system which many on this side of the House are prepared to support?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that all four collaborating nations entirely support the project. I can also confirm that they all share the stated aim, which is to achieve maximum commonality across the whole programme, including the radar system. That remains the objective. I do not think that I can add anything more about the radar while we are awaiting the recommendation from Euro Fighter to NEFMA. It is frustrating for the House that we have not had the recommendation. I cannot say more. We must be patient until we get the recommendation.

    Reciprocal Unilateralism
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received advocating a defence policy of reciprocal unilaterism.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The Ministry of Defence has received no letters on the subject of reciprocal unilaterialism since last year's summer recess. The Government share with our allies a security policy based on strength in defence and readiness for dialogue.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that reciprocal unilateralism is really a transparent sleight of hand by certain Opposition Members to defend the indefensible? Does he also agree that it is an attempt to conceal from the British public Labour party defence policies that are not only profoundly dangerous but that have been regarded as unrealistic by the Soviets themselves, and are proof positive that, far from the Labour party being able to run a defence policy for this country, it could not even run a bath?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. I can see no difference between reciprocal unilateralism and the policy that the Opposition adopted at the last election which was robustly rejected by the electorate. What we are talking about is the hook on which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) finds herself—trying to reconcile her former chairmanship of CND with being on the Labour Front Bench at a time when the party is changing its policy.
    Ms. Short: Did not the Minister hear the Secretary of State say a few moments ago that NATO had unilaterally got rid of many weapons? The whole world knows that Gorbachev has taken a series of unilateral initiatives. Is it not the case that in so far as we are making progress on disarmament, it has been a process of reciprocal unilateralism?
    Mr. Hamilton: I think that the hon. Lady is playing with words. We all know what unilateralism means to the Labour party. Labour supporters would get rid of our independent deterrent without expecting anything in return or, if there was something in return, it would be very minimal. They would leave us with nothing when our enemies would still have considerable nuclear capability.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is a multilateralist and, unlike 100 opposition Members, he has no plans to join CND? He will, therefore, have no use for a bilateral, unilateral and multilateral nuclear defence policy, whatever that means.
    Mr. Hamilton: I certainly confirm that I have no intention of joining CND. It is quite interesting that the whole idea of reciprocal unilateralism was advocated by an American, Mr. Leonard Sullivan. He said, however, that, if the reciprocation did not come through, he believed that nations should go back to rebuilding their nuclear arsenals with up-to-date weapons. I cannot believe that that is what the hon. Lady the Member for Lewisham (Ms. Ruddock) is advocating.
    Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister not being completely hypocritical, because the Government have just indicated their endorsement of non-reciprocal unilateral short-range modernisation?
    Mr. Hamilton: Hon. Members are continuing to play with words—[Interruption] We have always thought it necessary to keep our weapons up to date, otherwise there would be no point in having them.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible for the Opposition to reconcile reality with the policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? The more the Opposition try to do so by their various policy somersaults, the more they demonstrate that they are completely unfit to govern this country, to keep our defences and to maintain the peace.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is right. I do not believe that anyone in the country will be fooled by the Opposition's performance. Although the Opposition are trying to obscure what they are up to, they will end up leaving people bemused and certainly in no way convinced that they have a reputable policy with which to defend this country.

    US National Security Adviser
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet General Scowcroft, United States national security adviser, to discuss defence matters.
    Mr. Younger: I hope to meet General Scowcroft later in the year to discuss a wide range of matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Smith: When the Secretary of State meets General Scowcroft will one of the issues discussed be the seriousness of the West German Government's decision to postpone any decision on the modernisation of Lance until after their general election in two years' time? In such discussions, will the Secretary of State be taking the view of the Americans, who are forcing the pace on this issue, or that of the West Germans, on whose heads those missiles would fall if they ever had the misfortune to be fired?
    Mr. Younger: I do not think that the West German Government have taken any such decision. There is, indeed, full agreement within the coalition of the West German Government that there should be no third zero, that there will need to be modernisation some time and that Lance will be out of date by about 1995. It is up to each Government to decide how they will react to the proposals which will eventually come before NATO. I cannot, of course, answer in advance for what the view of the West German Government may be.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to General Scowcroft that this Government still regard America as a reliable and faithful ally, unlike many Opposition Members?
    Mr. Younger: Of course, it is an essential part of NATO's success that the United States and, indeed, Canada are fully integrated as part of the Western Alliance. That is an important part of the security which we all enjoy.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: If General Scowcroft asks whether this Government take seriously the threat of a Warsaw pact short-range missile attack on NATO fixed assets in Germany, will the Secretary of State answer yes or no?
    Mr. Younger: I shall reply to the general to any of those questions that he knows, and I know, that we are both members of the same Alliance with exactly the same views
    748
    on the strategy of that Alliance. There is no difference between us. That is the answer to all the questions that hon. Gentlemen have asked.

    Chemical Weapons
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the accuracy of Mr. Gorbachev's statement that the Soviet chemical weapons stockpile is no more than 50,000 tonnes.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The Soviet claim that its stockpile of chemical warfare agents is no larger than 50,000 tonnes has not been backed up by any supporting data. We assess that total Soviet chemical warfare stocks are several times higher.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that there was an unfortunate failure in glasnost when a British team visited Shikhany recently? Does he agree that in those circumstances we have to be extremely wary as to whether the Soviet Union is serious in its arms control negotiations?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. We have every reason to believe that the facilities at Shikhany have the capability of manufacturing serious quantities of chemical weapons. When our people asked to see the manufacturing facilities they were told that these were commercial, that they would have no interest in looking round them, and they were prevented from doing so. So this certainly was not an example of glasnost.
    Mr. Corbyn: In calling for the dismantling of Soviet stocks of chemical weapons, what action will the Minister take towards countries such as Iraq which have used chemical weapons in the recent past? Will he ensure that the maximum possible sanctions are taken against them to show our abhorrence of all chemical weapons wherever they are and by whomsoever they are used?
    Mr. Hamilton: We are, of course, looking for a global ban on chemical weapons and verification will be a critical element of this. This must include all countries that are signatories to that global ban. So the whole business of verification is something on which we will concentrate, not only with regard to the Soviet Union.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the NATO and independent assessment of the chemical weapons stockpile of the Soviet Union is not 50,000 tonnes but 300,000 tonnes? Will he also confirm that it is NATO's objective to have a verifiable assessment of chemical stockpiles both in our country and elsewhere?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. Our estimates of Soviet stocks are very much higher than 50,000 tonnes; 50,000 tonnes is the biggest quantity of chemical weapons held by any country in the world anyway, and our estimates are considerably larger than that. Certainly, we shall need to have a much greater exchange of information, visits and so forth, to be in a clearer position to know how much is held by each side.
    Mr. Boyes: Including the Soviet Union and the United States of America there are about 20 countries with a chemical weapon capability and the world would undoubtedly be a safer place if there were no chemical weapons at all. Will the Minister assure the House that to

    749
    help to achieve this he will do all that he can to encourage the early completion of the treaty on chemical weapons at Geneva, agree to tough verification procedures carried out by the United Nations and encourage stringent economic and trade sanctions against any country that uses chemical weapons? The mass of the people of the United Kingdom want an end to these obscene weapons, and that means more and resolute action by the Government.
    Mr. Hamilton: As my right hon. Friend has already said, it is one of our priorities that a global ban treaty should be achieved as quickly as possible. Certainly, everything will be done to get the global ban agreed and the verification for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the very large stockpiles of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union and the fact that the United Kingdom unilaterally gave up its chemical warfare capability back in the 1950s, does this not make nonsense of the policies advocated by the CND and others on any kind of unilateralism? Do we not want to go for worldwide disarmament of chemical weapons?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. This is an example of unilateral disarmament certainly not working, and it was not reciprocal either.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on Her Majesty's Government policy on the circumstances in which United Kingdom nuclear weapons may be used against (1) a non-nuclear state and (2) another nuclear nation.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am not aware of any such representations.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not the reason why the Minister is unable to, or will not, answer that question that the Americans will not let him? Is not the truth of the matter that the fingers of George Bush and Daniel Quayle are nearer to Britain's nuclear button than those of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence will ever be?
    Mr. Hamilton: The question asked was what representations we had received. My answer was that I was not aware of any such representations. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have an independent nuclear deterrent and that we have our own control over it.

    Courts-martial
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time between charges being made and verdicts being delivered in courts-martial.
    Mr. Neubert: The length of time elapsing between charges being made and verdicts being delivered varies from case to case. Records are not maintained in a form that would permit accurate calculation of the average time without incurring disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend look at the efficiency of the Army legal service? Can he say why nine months elapsed between my constituent ex-Warrant Officer
    750
    Newbery's cancellation of release and the time he was charged? He was subsequently acquitted but his life was in ruins.
    Mr. Neubert: Warrant Officer Newbery was charged not with the theft of £700 but on ten counts of false accounting relating to a period between December 1984 and March 1986. The investigation that preceded the charges being brought required the services of a specialist accountant—a trained royal military police officer. There are few such people and their time is much in demand.
    The investigation ultimately resulted in a report of nearly 100 pages, and I am satisfied that there was no undue delay. Once the charges were brought the court martial was set for six or seven weeks later. It was delayed for a further few weeks solely at the request of the defence. Throughout that time, Warrant Officer Newbery remained on full pay, except for one month when he took unpaid leave to attend to his business interests.

    Unreliable Equipment
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual cost to his Department of unreliable weapons, aircraft and military equipment.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We attach very considerable importance to reliability of equipment, which is a key feature of our procurement policy. A broad brush estimate of the cost of appropriate elements of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance for the RAF, and for similar work for the Navy and Army, was given as more than £1 billion in a recent Comptroller and Auditor General's report. As the report recognised, that figure does not indicate the amount that could be saved by better reliability, nor does it take account of the extremely rigorous maintenance policy that we operate in order to maintain the highest standards of safety. However, we believe that the costs of unreliability can be reduced. A number of measures have already been taken to bring about improvements in reliability, and more are in hand.
    Mr. Powell: I thank the Minister for that lengthy reply. Is it not true that £1 billion of taxpayers' money a year is wasted? Is it not also true that the fast jets of the RAF are grounded for 50 per cent. of the time, which is a total waste of taxpayers' money? Is it not about time that the Government did something about that?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I gave a negative reply and I hope that, on reflection, he will realise that it was positive. I should point out that on a broad assessment of the value of the aircraft that the RAF flies, unscheduled maintenance comes to only 2 per cent. of that cost—the equivalent to spending £120 a year on the maintenance of a Metro.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended the closing session of the ozone

    751
    layer conference. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Battle: Does the Prime Minister think that the EC was right to refuse to allow her Secretary of State exemption from the legal requirement to provide pure water? Is not the real protector of the environment in Britain proving to be the EC, not the rhetoric of her Government?
    The Prime Minister: We are wholly committed to achieving compliance with the EC drinking water directive as soon as is practicable. Obviously, a great deal of capital investment—which Labour cut and we have increased—is involved. For the purpose of accuracy, may I say that we know of no change with the EC from that previously reported? Matters are still under consideration.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend find time today during her busy schedule, to consider the press publicity surrounding the libel court case brought by two of my constituents—Mrs. Warby and Mrs. Chastell—against Tesco in relation to an alleged shoplifting offence in 1984, of which they were acquitted in 1985? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Lord Chancellor to respond swiftly to my letter to him asking him to investigate the case and the associated legislation? There is no doubt that there is grave concern amongst the general public that the people who sought to clear their names are suddenly finding themselves liable to pay substantial sums in costs to the unsuccessful party.
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this case. However, as she knows, we are totally unable to interfere with a judicial decision. As she will be aware, the costs are at the discretion of the courts. The Lord Chancellor will consider the issues raised by this case. My hon. Friend will know that some of the proposals which he put forward in the Green Paper might be of assistance in such a case.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on speaking for the whole country on Saturday morning, when she attacked her Secretary of State for the Environment?—[Interruption.] When is the Prime Minister going to sack him?
    The Prime Minister: May I advise the right hon. Gentleman to listen to an interview that I gave to Channel 4, in which I pointed out that our Secretary of State for the Environment—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Our?"] My right hon. Friend, ours on this side—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order The Prime Minister is replying.
    The Prime Minister: I pointed out that he is one of the people most fitted for the job—whether it be in architecture, art or in the fact that he is a civil engineer, and therefore knows a good deal more about the subject than the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend has a superb record. I am so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the chance to point out that my right hon. Friend is absolutely first class in every way.
    Mr. Kinnock: Obviously, we are not amused. If the right hon. Gentleman is one of the best Secretaries of State for the Environment that we have ever had, why does the Prime Minister feel it necessary to take charge herself?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not expected to be amused; he is expected to recognise outstanding talent when he sees it. For his information, I have not taken charge of water privatisation. It is we who have put forward money—[Horn. MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, we on this side of the House. This Government have poured money into investment in water. It was the Labour party that cut it.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the NATO proposals for reductions in conventional forces in Europe which were tabled yesterday by our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? Will she wish the Vienna negotiations every success?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I welcome the proposals that were tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday. They would set equal ceilings for NATO and the Warsaw pact on tanks, artillery and armoured troop carriers. They would require the Warsaw pact to make greater reductions than NATO, because the pact has far higher numbers of these weapons. Even after the unilateral reductions announced by Mr. Gorbachev at the United Nations, the Warsaw pact's superiority will still be of the order of two to one. We shall need to continue to keep weapons—conventional and nuclear—up to date to ensure effective deterrence.
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that if basic old-age pensions had been uprated in line with earnings since 1979, a single person's pension would now be £48·80 instead of the present £41·15, and a married couple's pension would be £78·15, instead of the present £65·90? Will she therefore instruct the Chancellor, when he produces his Budget speech, to uprate pensions instead of giving away millions of pounds to rich people in tax handouts?
    The Prime Minister: In the last uprating that the Labour Government did before 1979, they did not uprate pensions in line with earnings. It was left to us to do that. Although that Government put the discretion to do so into their legislation, they introduced a national incomes policy which cut earnings and even cut the real wages of many people in the public services. We have done much better, by keeping pensions uprated in line with the retail prices index.
    Mr. Nelson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nelson: Following my right hon. Friend's speech to the closing session of the conference on protecting the ozone layer, would it not be an appropriate time for me to add—and I believe that I share this view with other Conservative Members—my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and the Government on taking the initiative in calling and organising the conference? I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that it has attracted a considerably larger commitment of nations to the Montreal protocol

    753
    and has also drawn acceptance that there is a shared environmental responsibility among all nations, not just some.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The conference was extremely successful and surpassed all expectations. It was stimulating and was enjoyed by everyone present. When we began, 33 nations had signed the Montreal protocol. In the course of the conference, 20 other nations agreed to sign it and 14 more, including China, are considering that seriously. Altogether, it was a very successful operation which made it clear that the co-operation and action of all nations and all peoples is required.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: When does the Prime Minister plan to visit Glasgow Royal infirmary?
    The Prime Minister: Not next week and not immediately.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's attempts to make political capital out of the recent rail tragedies are deplorable and will be deplored by the vast majority of people? Does she agree that people should wait for the report of the independent inquiry before making comments on those tragedies?
    The Prime Minister: All three recent accidents caused great personal tragedies and great concern to everyone, especially those who work for British Rail. As for trying to find the causes of the accidents, we must await the official inquiries and not attempt, in any way, to postulate the causes. As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited the hospitals in both Clapham and Purley and I very much regret that I shall be unable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—under present plans to visit the third one.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to build—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to build on the welcome success of the ozone layer conference, worldwide action is needed and that that will require an understanding of the special problems of developing countries in ending the use of CFCs? Will the Prime Minister commit her Government to being equally active in putting together the co-operation of the industrial nations to provide the resources necessary for the Third world countries, especially India and China, so that they can sign the Montreal protocol as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I indicated that China is thinking of signing the Montreal protocol. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, at present our own industries are finding more ozone-friendly chemicals. They are either ozone-friendly and less damaging than the present CFCs or ozone-benign and eliminate that particular problem altogether. There are few chemical concerns that sell them, so they will have the main sales. There are some factories in other countries that have started on that production, but I see no reason why the substitute chemicals should cost very much more than the present ones. With regard to our multilateral aid programmes through the World Bank and through Europe, we shall have regard to environmental considerations in deciding our priorities. The same will be true of our bilateral aid programme.
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement by Guy's hospital that it is considering applying for self-governing status? Will she confirm that self-governing hospitals will remain an integral part of our Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service. They are not opting out; they are self-governing within the National Health Service, financed by the taxpayer according to the services that they perform. I believe that under that different system of administration doctors and nurses will have more freedom to harness their skills and dedication and to improve services to patients.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Glasgow train accident took place in my constituency? I find it rather sickening that she is not prepared to visit the Glasgow royal infirmary, where the victims of the crash now are, although she has visited other hospitals with the cameras rolling. Surely she should stop ambulance-chasing and get on with doing something for public safety.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I have gone to the scene of every accident when it has been possible for me to do so. I was able to go to Piper Alpha, and twice to Lockerbie. I must, however, have regard to my other engagements. I very much regret that on this occasion I have no plans at present to go to Glasgow, but I fully understand the tragedies that have been brought about. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is on hand to visit patients.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that membership of a trade union should be on a purely voluntary basis? If so, does she think that it is about time that we did away with the iniquitous closed shop?
    The Prime Minister: In principle, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is considering whether any further legislation is advisable.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Prime Minister join my colleagues and me in condemning the recent escalation in arson attacks on properties in Wales? Will she ensure

    755
    that adequate resources are available to the North Wales and other police forces, so that those responsible for these dastardly crimes are apprehended before anyone is killed?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in condemning those attacks utterly. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the necessary police forces are there.

Train Accident (Bellgrove)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the accident that occurred on ScotRail at Bellgrove in Glasgow yesterday. I understand that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) received his copy of the statement late, for which I apologise.
At about 12.50 yesterday the 12.20 Milngavie to Springburn train collided with the 12.39 Springburn to Milngavie train. A passenger and the driver of one of the trains were killed, and five people with serious injuries were detained in hospital overnight. The two trains collided head-on on the branch line to Springburn near to Bellgrove station. British Rail has not yet completed all its tests of equipment, but stated this morning that all the indications are that the accident, like that at Purley, was caused by human error rather than technical defects.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has visited the scene, as have both my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment at the Scottish Office. They have already expressed their deepest sympathy to the injured and the bereaved, and our thanks to the local rescue and hospital services who responded so well to the emergency. The House will, I know, want to join me in expressing sympathy to the people of Glasgow.
British Rail is carrying out its own internal inquiry into the circumstances and causes of the accident. An officer from the railway inspectorate attended the scene, and the inspectorate has already started its investigations. I have today appointed Major Anthony King, one of my inspecting officers, to carry out an inquiry into the accident. His inquiry will of course be wholly independent. It will be held in public in Glasgow and the report will be published. I have asked him to report to me as quickly as possible.
I discussed with Sir Robert Reid this morning the problem of trains passing signals at red, to which British Rail and the railway inspectorate have been seeking solutions for some time. BR has had research carried out into the psychology of driver reaction to the automatic warning system and has been looking into technical improvements to make the system more effective. The chairman told me that BR has now authorised a pilot scheme to develop and test a system of automatic train protection which will work with United Kingdom signalling systems.
Meanwhile, the immediate priority must be for the inquiries into each of the three recent accidents to be completed quickly so that prompt action may be taken.
Mr. David Marshall: I also wish to express my deepest sympathy to those injured in this tragic disaster and to the families, friends and relatives of those who have been killed. I thank the Secretary of State for the statement, and I add my thanks to the emergency services and those local people who assisted in this very difficult rescue operation.
However, I ask the Secretary of State to confirm the report in the Daily Telegraph today that this accident happened on a single track of line which had been coverted from a dual track as an economy measure a few years ago.
758
If that is the case, will he take immediate action to restore all section of single track line to dual track immediately as being in the best interests of public safety?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful for what the hon. Member says. As it happens, this accident occurred on the double line, not the single line. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends must not be unfair to the hon. Member; he made a very relevant point. Of course, single track lines, when properly operated, and when the signals work properly—as I hope they did in this case—and are properly obeyed, should be no more dangerous than double track, and they are widely used on British Rail.
Mr. Michael Martin: I. too, convey my sympathies to the bereaved relatives of the driver and passenger; indeed my sympathies go to a near neighbour of mine who was trapped in the wreckage for more than four hours.
No hon. Member wants a tragedy in his constituency, but it is our job to try to highlight problems which can be avoided. The Minister should take on board the fact that only a few miles further up the track are the railway workshops where his Government took away 3,000 workers, reducing the work force to 300. Also, a depot has been asking for voluntary redundancies. The Government are seeking to get safety on the cheap on the railways, and. it is time that the Minister considered doing more about safety. That means getting a work force that is capable of doing the work, not seeking voluntary redundancies and shedding labour.
Mr. Channon: I can well understand the hon. Members's feelings, this appalling disaster having occurred near his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), and his concern for those injured and killed in the accident. The House understands that he feels strongly about the matter.
What the hon.Gentleman says about the Springburn works, although an important point, must be irrelevant to the cause of this accident. However, I must refute very strongly what he said about our trying to get safety on the cheap. Safety remains a top priority for British Rail. I have discussed the matter with Sir Robert Reid on many occasions, and he has confirmecl to me that it remains a top priority. I have told him that it must remain a top priority.
We are determined to get to the bottom of these accidents so that we can learn the lessons from them and take the appropriate measures.
Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend has spoken for the whole House, indeed the whole country, in expressing our sympathies for the injured and bereaved and in congratulating the emergency services. As he knows, I represent a large number of commuters on the south side of Glasgow. He also knows that the Glasgow commuter network has an excellent safety record. However, can he reassure all those using that network that urgent checks are being carried out on the safety and signalling systems throughout the network?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Every step will be taken to maintain the high level of safety to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I can give him the assurances for which he asks.
The important thing with this accident, as indeed with all the others, is to get at the truth as quickly as possible.

759
Then it will be clear what lessons can be learned from it. I hope that it will not be long before the facts of this accident are established beyond dispute.
Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of the two people who died and all those who were injured in yesterday's terrible accident. This is the third fatal crash in three months and it has left us all shocked and dismayed.
Once again, we express our unfailing admiration of the emergency services who responded so swiftly and with such skill and courage. We pay tribute to their professionalism and dedication. We also pay tribute to the way in which ordinary people living nearby once again played their full part in the rescue operation and wanted to do what they could to help.
We welcome the fact that British Rail, as at Clapham and Purley, has already accepted full responsibility for the latest tragic accident. But it is not enough to go on blaming individual human errors, which will always be a feature of such accidents, especially at a time when British Rail has received a report showing that last year alone there were over 700 incidents of trains going through red lights and has apparently failed to do anything about it. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement today that he has had discussions with British Rail about that problem.
Many of the questions that I asked yesterday are relevant today. For example, would it be easier to determine the circumstances that lead to such accidents if trains were fitted with black boxes? Will a study be made of the nature of the injuries sustained at Bellgrove, Purley and Clapham so that we can learn the appropriate lessons about the design of coaches, their seating and internal layout? The Secretary of State failed to respond yesterday. No doubt he was affected by the appalling tragedies with which it has been his misfortune to deal. However, I hope that he will read yesterday's Hansard and give a more detailed written response to the questions that I posed.
Again, I ask the Secretary of State whether he will order an independent inquiry into all aspects of safety on British Rail. Such an inquiry would take full account of investment, design, staffing and other factors that contribute to British Rail's safety. It would not replace the other separate and necessary investigations into the individual accidents. Indeed, it would complement them. Why will not the Secretary of State sanction a public inquiry with the broad remit that we have requested so that public confidence can be restored? Yesterday's accident illustrates why such an inquiry is needed.
Today I shall concentrate on one specific aspect arising directly out of the terrible accident and, indeed, arising out of the Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who asked whether the collision took place on single or double tracks. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position because that is a most important point?
Is the Secretary of State aware that until recently there was a twin rail track for trains entering and leaving Bellgrove station which made a head-on collision impossible? Is he also aware that when British Rail announced that it intended to replace the twin tracks—which I believe are known as a diamond crossing—with a single track, it was warned that safety would be
760
compromised. it was warned that in the event of a human error or signal failure two trains on the same track could collide head-on. Can he tell me exactly why two trains were in the same position on one line?
Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether, if the extra leg of crossing had been there today, the accident would have been prevented? That is the question to which we are asking the Secretary of State to address himself. British Rail's justification for the removal of that extra link, which I believe played a contributory part in the accident, was that the maintenance of the diamond crossing was expensive in terms of costs and manpower. That is an essential point. Yesterday's terrible accident could have been avoided if British Rail had not had in mind the need to meet the Secretary of State's financial targets by reducing costs, thus affecting the level of safety.
Mr. Channon: I strongly refute what the hon. Gentleman said in the last part of his question, but I will try to deal with the serious points that he has made. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are all serious."] Yes, they are all serious. That is what I said. If I fail to deal with any of them, I shall write to the hon. Member, as he has asked.
The hon. Member asked me yesterday about the black box. Black boxes might make it easier in certain cases to get information after an accident but would not tend to make trains safer. We will see what happens at the inquiries, but I doubt at this stage whether black boxes would have made any difference. Let us wait and see what happens. Indeed, my answer to a great deal of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said is that it is a great mistake for hon. Members on either side of the House to prejudge these inquiries until we know exactly what happened.
Mr. Prescott: Human error.
Mr. Channon: Human error, but whose error is for the inquiry to determine, and that is what British Rail says. I do not prejudge the inquiries.
As to single and double lines, I give the House the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). The accident took place on the double line. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and his hon. Friends are on to a perfectly fair and pertinent point; there is a piece of single line. There are many places both in the United Kingdom and abroad where there are single tracks just like this one. When they are operated properly, when the signalling works—and that will be established by the inquiry—they are safe. I hope that the hon. Member will not suggest that single track, wherever it is, is dangerous. A higher level of signalling is required on single track than on the diamond crossing. The inquiry will, no doubt, determine whether this was a relevant factor. We must wait and see what happens, why this accident took place and what was the relevance of single or double track. Single track is operated extremely successfully and safely in many parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that all of us in Scotland wish to be associated with the words spoken about the bereaved and those who were injured? We welcome the fact that a public inquiry will be held and that all the evidence will become public.

761
I caution my right hon. Friend against the overtures that he is getting about single-track operations. ScotRail operates single track in many parts of Scotland. In my constituency, the line between Perth and Inverness is single-track and it works most efficiently. We would be very distressed if any changes were made there to the detriment of the service. In recent years ScotRail has improved its services between Perth and Glasgow and there is no question whatever but that the services are better and that times are better. There has been a great improvement. Anyone who uses that line regularly, as I do, will vouch for that.
I also find it distressing and disturbing that every time the Prime Minister visits Scotland she is chastised by Opposition Members, yet on the one occasion when she cannot do so because of her other engagements she is again chastised. It seems that regardless of what one does one cannot be right. Hon. Members forget that there is no Secretary of State for England, but there is a Secretary of State for Scotland, who has visited the site.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland visited the infirmary this morning.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend also on the important point, which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will take in, about single rail and the way in which it operates successfully in many parts of the United Kingdom, particularly the line that he mentioned. I am grateful to him for what he has said.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I associate myself with the earlier remarks and pass on our condolences and sympathies to the victims and their families? As someone whose father and grandfather were committed railway workers, I more than anyone else know of the awareness of British Rail and ScotRail staff about safety north of the border.
It puzzles me that the Secretary of State says that he does not wish to prejudge the inquiry, and then says that British Rail has stated that this accident is attributable to human error. Will he tell the House who said that this morning? The lesson that we should have learned from the M I air disaster is that such rumours can fly round very easily. We should wait until a full inquiry has been carried out before we start attributing the accident to human error.
It also strikes me as odd that the railways have to produce a strict 7 per cent. economic return on developments, whereas road funding, when new roads are being developed, can take into account social and safety factors.
Will the Government give us a clear undertaking that any future capital investment in rolling stock will allow British Rail and ScotRail to take safety factors into consideration when replacing rolling stock? It is quite clear that the House is concerned about investment in the railway system. The river Ness rail bridge disaster was another example of lack of investment. Will the Secretary of State respond to the demands for a full general inquiry into British Rail's safety?
Mr. Channon: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, we must get to the bottom of the recent accidents to discover the causes and take immediate action when we know what is required. There has been considerable investment in ScotRail and there have been
762
all sorts of improvements at stations such as Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley and by Strathclyde PTE in electrification and rolling stock. [Interruption.] I shall answer all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He will be interested to know that new rolling stock is due on that line.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about what British Rail has said. It was not said by me. I believe that it was said by counsel to British Rail to the Hidden inquiry this morning, but I shall have to check that. I am merely quoting what counsel for British Rail said.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to prejudge the result of the inquiry. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question and I am doing my best to answer it.
I shall not go into the question of funding for roads. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although there are superficial differences, no worthwhile investment proposal by British Rail in the past 10 years has been turned down by my predecessors or me. I see no reason why that should not continue to be the case.
Mr. Conal Gregory: I am sure that the whole House joins my right hon. Friend in expressing sympathy to the families of the bereaved. As there has been a series of railway accidents, while my right hon. Friend is correct in setting up independent inquiries, will he consider initiating a separate signals inspectorate which would be a completely independent body, to approve British Rail when it undertakes important signalling matters? Not only would that be a major step towards public safety and confidence in our great British railway industry, but it would be one step towards denationalisation and an appropriate division, as we have in the airlines between the Civil Aviation Authority and the airways. We have had such a spate of accidents that nothing less will restore confidence.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of the great importance of British Rail to his constituency, and his deep interest in the industry. His suggestion of a. signals inspectorate must be relevant to Mr. Hidden's Clapham inquiry. I suspend judgment until we know the result of that inquiry, but my hon. Friend has raised an important point which needs to be considered.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister mentioned the pilot study. When will it begin? What will it cost? How long will it last? How quickly can he get the results? Will he give a guarantee that if the pilot study is successful there will be no question of sufficient money being withheld from British Rail to apply it to the entire track?
Mr. Channon: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to all those questions. Given his experience, he will understand that it is a very complicated matter and no system can be installed quickly. In many ways, United Kingdom signalling systems are more advanced than many continental systems, and no systems are available which could be applied to British Rail immediately. They have to be tailored to our signalling system. There has been. preliminary work for some time and now we have to move to a pilot scheme, as British Rail wishes, and as I think is a very good idea.
Mr. Hughes: When will it start?
Mr. Channon: The work is going on now, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer this afternoon as to when the scheme will begin. I do not want to mislead the House as it is an extremely complex matter.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Although the three recent accidents were tragic and regrettable, and we must learn from the results of the inquiries, does my right hon. Friend agree that 15 people are killed on the roads every day, and that he should reassure the public that travelling by rail is one of the safest modes of transport?
Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend about the tragic losses in road accidents every day. His figure is approximately right. In spite of the tragedies in recent weeks, rail travel remains a very much safer form of transport than practically any other.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of my hon. Friends in the nationalist parties, I extend sympathy and best wishes to the families and friends of the injured, and in particular, our sympathies to the families of the bereaved.
Reverting to the question raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), is there not an element of a public relations exercise about this when the Secretary of State gives a throwaway line in a statement of great importance but cannot give the House accurate details of the pilot scheme? That is surely to hold out false hopes that there can be early action to improve the signalling system. May we have from the Secretary of State a commitment that when evidence of the need to upgrade equipment and rolling stock is brought forward from the public inquiries, he, like the Secretary of State for Energy after the Piper Alpha inquiry, will be prepared to say that, when safety recommendations are made, no expense will be spared in implementing them?
Mr. Channon: I assure the hon. Lady that, as I have said on many occasions, safety is our top priority. We shall study the reports of the inquiries and take appropriate action. I see no reason why the House should doubt me on that. If it does, it will have a chance of finding out very shortly.
As to the hon. Lady's question concerning automatic train protection, and whether, as she says, it is a so-called PR exercise, it would only be a PR exercise if I tried to mislead the House and to pretend that there was a quick and easy solution. I am giving the House the best information that I have at present. It is an extremely complicated matter. It is very difficult to install protection systems, which are not exactly comparable to systems used in other parts of Europe. Work is urgently progressing, and a pilot scheme will come forward as quickly as possible. If the hon. Lady will write to me or put down questions, I shall make sure that she is kept in touch.
Dr. John Reid: I add my condolences and sympathy for the relatives of those who were killed or injured, and offer my congratulations to the emergency services.
How many times will the Secretary of State have to come to the Dispatch Box, how many accidents will have to occur, and how many lives must be lost before the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we are experiencing not a series of specific incidents but a growing general pattern of accidents? How can the right hon. Gentleman properly
764
investigate that pattern of accidents unless he establishes a general inquiry into the safety of British Rail, including aspects such as investment, schedules, rosters, the drive for productivity, and cost reductions? In the absence of such a general inquiry, how can the right hon. Gentleman be so sure that the rundown in cash, increases in productivity, cutbacks and cost reductions have not affected British Rail's safety standards? How many times must human error be a factor before the Secretary of State accepts that pressures may be causing that human error? Will the present inquiries include an examination of schedules and of the pressures that are placed on drivers?
I ask the Secretary of State to clarify what appeared to be a contradiction between his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and a later answer? Will he tell the House straight whether the accident occurred on a two-way track that was previously a one-way track? If so, was that change made for reasons of economy and cost saving?
Mr. Channon: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I do not think that I misled the House—certainly I did not mean to do so. The accident occurred on a two-way track, beyond a one-way track.
Dr. Reid: But was it previously a one-way track?
Mr. Channon: No, it was not. It is a two-way track.
Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.
Mr. Channon: I do not want to mislead the House. I am doing my best to clarify the situation, and I do not want to make matters worse. I have given the hon. Gentleman an exact and accurate answer. If he does not think that I have, no doubt he will write to me, and I shall try to clarify the matter further.
As to pressures and all the other factors the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and which may occur in such situations, the inspector can take all relevant matters into account. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there is a link between all the accidents, that will become clear as a result of the inquiries and we can then take appropriate steps. As to investment, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that, this year alone, investment in our railways is 30 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978.
Mr. Gary Waller: In view of recent claims and allegations, and in view of the last question, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very wrong to reach conclusions about patterns in accidents whose causes may prove to be very different? Also, is it not a fact that, despite recent tragic accidents, rail is, by and large, one of the safest surface modes of transport—perhaps 15 times safer than travelling by road?
In view of the many questions that have been asked about expenditure, will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only is spending at a very high level—and, incidentally, unrelated to the size of the PSO grant—but that, in the next four years, British Rail's expenditure, including that on safety, will rise very considerably?
Mr. Channon: I can give my hon. Friend all the assurances for which he asks. I agree with him that we should wait for the result of the inquiry so that the House

765
will be in an informed position rather than that hon. Members should draw conclusions long before there is evidence to support them.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that rail remains one of the safest forms of transport.
On the question of capital investment, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that it is £560 million a year, and will increase to about £755 million a year. It is already 30 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978.
Mr. Bob McTaggart: May I join other hon. Members and express my sincere thanks to the emergency services and indeed the volunteers who were involved after this accident? I extend my sympathy to all those who were involved in it.
I agree with the Secretary of State that there is a pressing need for the inquiry's findings to be reported as soon as possible. But surely the Secretary of State must be aware that the public have the right to expect the highest possible level of service and safety in the public transport system, although at the moment in their mind's eye the safety requirements are seen to be damaged or expendable in the case of obtaining the cheapest possible public transport system. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that the safety of the public is uppermost in any plans for an integrated public transport system?
Mr. Channon: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings and that he and his constituents are deeply concerned about this accident and rail transport safety in Glasgow. I cannot accept, however, what he says about safety; nor can I accept what he says about economies being made in this way. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that basic costs of these lines, including those provided by Strathclyde, have risen in real terms between 1984 and 1989 from £195 million to about £205 million. So far from going down, they are increasing.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that his understandable pleas for the suspension of any attempts to attribute responsibility for these terrible tragedies would be convincing if he stopped doing exactly that himself? He said that all the indications are that this accident, as with that at Purley, was caused by human error rather than technical defects. May I suggest—although I hope that the right hon.
766
Gentleman makes no more of these excursions—that he should impose upon himself the same self-denying ordinance that he asks of others?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the simple reality that, where there was previously a diamond crossing with two cross-over points to prevent collisions, there is now a single crossing? When the Secretary of State met Sir Robert Reid this morning and while he was talking about the problems of drivers going through signals at red, did he also ask what part diamond crossings play in railway safety? Did he ask why this particular diamond crossing was removed? If the answer proves to be that it was removed solely on grounds of economy, will he accept that there is something very wrong with our priorities in the way that we run our railways? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least have the humility to consider the possibility that cuts kill?
Will the Secretary of State please talk to railway workers as well as management to get an authentic grass roots view of what is being done to our railway system? I believe that he will find widespread concern that in the run-up to privatisation, which he currently regards as his personal responsibility, corners are being cut, and especially safety corners.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the situation. Although he says that cuts kill, I have already told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) that basic expenditure has risen in this area. It has not been reduced.
The question of single lines and diamond crossings is very important. Diamond crossings have their own problems of maintenance and safety. Indeed, every part of the railway has its own particular problems. It is a mistake for any hon. Member to say a t this stage that single-line systems are unsafe. It is well known that large parts of the railway network have single lines. When they are operated properly, there is no reason to assume that they are in any way unsafe.
On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about not imputing blame, I have not imputed blame to anyone, I have merely quoted what British Rail said. It is extremely important for the general public to realise that there are no technical defects on this line. Otherwise they would have every right to be worried about that and deserve reassurance. The Opposition have failed to make that important point.

Standing Committee F
4.5 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I see from the Order Paper that you have appointed the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means as an additional chairman of Standing Committee F in respect of the Social Security Bill. I have read in the press—and perhaps you could let the House know whether this is the case—that Government Whips strongly prevented the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), a member of the Conservative party, from chairing that Committee at certain times because they said that the hon. Gentleman had signed an early-day motion.
There are several points on which I should like you to give your view, Mr. Speaker. First, relating to the impartiality of the Chairmen's Panel, is it suggested that because an hon. Member has signed an early-day motion when that hon. Member is on the Chairmen's Panel he or she is not impartial? That would be an insult to the hon. Member concerned. I know that the opposition did not come from you, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there. It is within my discretion who is appointed to be the Chairman of a Standing Committee. I took into account several factors concerning Chairmen of Standing Committee F and I have appointed for this day one of the Deputy Speakers. I cannot go further than that.
Mr. Winnick: May I ask you a question, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not believe the hon. Gentleman can do so.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I shall deal with the statutory instrument motion.

Standing Committee F

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Evidence in Divorce Actions (Scotland) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Early-day Motion 523
4.6 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is. You, Mr. Speaker, probably noticed early-day motion 523 on yesterday's Order Paper. It had little political significance as it congratulated the Prime Minister on the birth of her grandchild. I thought that I would give it some political significance by tabling an amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer in the Chamber to a decision that I have taken regarding the Order Paper.
Mr. Skinner: I did not know that you had taken a decision, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have.
Mr. Skinner: That explains it. I went to the Table Office. Probably we were trying to do the same thing, little knowing that we were working together, you and I. When I got there, I thought, "I shall amend this thing by saying that I hope that the"—
Mr. Speaker: No; the hon. Gentleman must not mention in the Chamber what his amendment might have been.
Mr. Skinner: Our amendment.
Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman and I work very closely together, but let us leave it at that.

Control of Litter (Fines)
4.8 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to give local authorities the power to impose on-the-spot fines for litter offences and to make retail outlets and other premises responsible for the cleanliness of the public footpaths outside their premises; and for connected purposes.
The background to the national problem of litter is well known and widely debated. It is a self-inflicted problem caused by a minority of thoughtless, selfish litter louts who cause a great deal of damage to the environment in which we live and to the quality of life. Sadly, this country is fast becoming the dustbin of Europe and the image that we present to visitors and tourists should fill us all with shame.
The problem can be put in perspective by realising that enough paper and card is thrown away each year to afforest an area the size of Wales. Incidentally, politicians who are concerned for the environment should remember, particularly at election time, that we add to the weight of litter with a plethora of election literature. I trust that Members of the SLD in particular will bear that in mind in 1991–92.
Local authorities, public-spirited individuals and central Government are trying to tackle the issue, but their efforts are hampered by the sheer scale of the problem. For example, Chelmsford borough council has an excellent ad hoc "Cleaner Chelmsford Committee" which, under the leadership of the mayor, Councillor Philip Firth does an excellent job, but its efforts are not so well rewarded as they should be because of the lack of effective legislation to back up what is done with meaningful penalties and deterrents against litter louts. Despite all its good intentions, the Litter Act 1983 is fast becoming a national joke. Between 1984 and 1988, 5,901 people were found guilty of offences under the Act, but the number of people successfuly prosecuted represents but a tiny proportion of the problem throughout the nation. Furthermore, no deterrents have been built up because the average fine imposed by the courts was a mere £32 compared with a statutory maximum of £400. In short, litter louts realise that the overwhelming majority of them can offend with impunity. The chance of getting caught is minuscule and even if they are caught the punishment is paltry.
My Bill is designed to launch an effective attack on litter louts and to show them that society means business in controlling them and reducing the problem. To that end, my Bill has three aims. The first is to extend to all local authorities the power that Westminster city council took for itself last year in a private Bill to enable specially designated local authority employees to impose on-the-spot litter fines on people caught offending. At present, every local authority watching the Westminster experience and wishing to have that power in its own area will have to go through the procedure of launching a private Bill to seek the power. Sweeping away that problem and giving every local authority that power is therefore the first aim of my Bill.
Designated officials of councils—Westminster has between 50 and 60—will then have power, on seeing people throwing down litter in the streets or on the roads, to request them to pick it up and put it in a refuse bin or take it home with them. Should they refuse, they will get a fixed penalty ticket, similar to a parking ticket. They will have 14 days in which to pay the fine, with the option of
770
going to the magistrates' court to plead the case and show why they should not have to pay the fine. In the first six months of the Westminster scheme, up to December last year, 590 people were apprehended. Of that number, all but three picked up their litter and put it in a rubbish bin. One person is being prosecuted. It is difficult to proceed against the two others because one lives in Hong Kong and the other gave a wrong address.
The second purpose of my Bill is to adopt a scheme that is common on the continent. Shops, fast food outlets and banks—particularly banks with cash dispensing machines—would be responsible for their shop fronts and the pavements in front of their premises. At present, one has only to visit any area of any town in Britain late at night, particularly near fast food outlets, to see the mess and wanton disregard for the environment. Fish and chip bags, fast food plastic packages and so forth are discarded for the local authority to clear away. The shopkeeper as well as the individual should have a moral responsibility to ensure that our cities, towns and villages are kept clean. That is why my Bill would impose a duty on the keepers of such premises to keep their fronts clear of litter.
Thirdly, my Bill would encoarage—I say no more than "encourage" because it would be difficult in law to do more—manufacturers to bring back the disposable deposit scheme that was popular up to 20 or 30 years ago. That would be reintroduced on bottles and cans so that when people brought bottles of lemonade or whatever, they would have an incentive to return the containers to the point of sale and to obtain a refund. There would also be an incentive for youngsters to add to their pocket money by picking up that sort of rubbish and returning it to shops, thus cleaning up behind those who do not bother to get the refund and continue to discard bottles and cans. That would enhance our recycling programmes because more cans, bottles and glass would be collected.
Those are the three key points of my Bill, which would set an example for the way forward and give local authorities the power to build up deterrents against litter louts, who would no longer discard their rubbish with impunity. Areas would soon gain a reputation for being tough with litter louts. By that means we would enhance the centres of our cities, towns and villages and improve the quality of life generally.
I ask Members in all parts of the House to support my Bill. If through lack of parliamentary time, as only six or seven months of the Session remain, all stages in both Houses cannot be completed. I urge the Government to take careful note of my Bill and what is said by its supporters—the public in general, local authorities and people with a special interest in improving the environment—and to introduce a Bill of their own. That would increase the reputation that the Government are justifiably establishing for being concerned with the environment. It would show that they are not merely whingeing about the problem but are actively doing something to solve it and thereby providing a better future for our children.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. David Wilshire and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

Control of Litter (Fines)
  CONTROL OF LITTER (FINES)
  Mr. Simon Burns accordingly presented a Bill to give local authorities the power to impose on-the-spot fines for litter offences and to make retail outlets and other premises responsible for the cleanliness of the public footpaths outside their premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 May and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
ESTIMATES DAY
  IST ALLOTTED DAY
    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1988–89
      CLASS IV, VOTE 3
      [Relevant document: The First Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1988–89 on salmonella in eggs ( House of Commons Paper No. 108–I).]

Egg Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 3Ist March 1989 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other services.—[Mr. Sackville.]
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that today's debate on class IV, vote 3 of the Estimates is limited to the subject of assistance to the egg industry, in accordance with the recommendation of the Liaison Committee, whose report was agreed to by the House on 28 February.
4.10 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: It is a rare privilege for the Chairman of a Select Committee to be able to introduce a report for debate on the Floor of the House; to be able to do so within a week of its publication must be almost unique. I fully appreciate that this subject has received more than its fair share of attention in recent weeks, for reasons that the House well understands, and not unrelated to the fact that in the course of the last three weeks at least one Supply day has been devoted to similar issues. Nevertheless, by the nature of things, the press can, and does give only a modest amount of space to our findings.
I hope that those who have read the report in full will appreciate the comprehensive way in which we have sought to cover this limited subject. We have deliberately confined our study to salmonella in eggs, even though many witnesses sought to divert us to the wider territory not only of salmonella in poultry generally but of the whole question of food safety.
Because of the nature of the emergency, the widespread concern expressed in the media, and the catastrophic effect on the industry, we felt that it was extremely urgent to produce our report, together with the evidence that went towards it, as soon as possible. We claim no records, but I doubt whether many Select Committee reports of the substance of this one have been produced in such a short time. Indeed, had it not been for the delay occasioned by the illness of a key witness, we might have been able to report even earlier. We had to invite evidence from all interested parties and leave them a reasonable reply period, which, incidentally, overran the Christmas holiday.
With a number of members of the Committee serving on Standing Committees, and some representing constituencies in regions as far away as Northern Ireland and Scotland, it was really practical for us to meet only on Wednesdays. Although this allows proper consideration of

773
the written evidence in preparation for oral sessions, it may seem from the outside somewhat dilatory. Nevertheless, once we had completed our oral sessions we were able to consider the draft report in the course of the next two weeks, and we finally published on 1 March, only one day behind our original estimate of the end of February.
I must pay tribute to the Clerk, Mr. David Robson, and his staff in the Select Committee office—actually, only two assistants and one hard-pressed secretary—who have to deal not only with the study in hand but with the other peripheral business, which is quite extensive.
Conscious of the fact that in this whole matter there was a considerable element of scientific evidence, we appointed as our special advisers Dr. Michael Whitehead, formerly head of the public health laboratory service, and Mr. Don Haxby, a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We could not have asked for, or received, greater help than we were given by those two gentlemen. I am delighted to learn that Dr. Whitehead will be advising another Select Committee in the near future—with a glowing reference from ourselves.
Naturally, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot be with us today, but I fully understand the extreme importance of his presence in Brussels, where he is negotiating the price review. Sad as his absence from this House may be, I have to say that in the national interest his presence there is probably more important. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who occupies a most important position in the Government, will be an excellent substitute. I know that his day-to-day work on this matter has been extensive, and we could not ask for better guidance from the Front Bench.
I appreciate that the Government will wish, at a future time, to respond in full detail to our conclusions and recommendations. However, I hope that the Minister, when he intervenes, will be able to give a clear indication of the Government's initial reaction to our report, particularly as many of our recommendations are already in train. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture has been claiming that no fewer than 17 measures have been introduced to help to remedy this difficult problem. While it is quite clear that many of those were in preparation before 3 December, the Ministry, too, must have been listening to the evidence that we received, and to the tone of our questions, to have responded in such an across-the-board manner and so promptly. I hope also that the Government will see the time scale for their response as being rather shorter than the normal three months, in view of the widespread public concern about this matter, as well as the very special efforts that my Committee has made to produce its report as soon as possible.
Predictably enough, the press has described the report in various ways, but most of the newspapers have concentrated on those to whom we ascribe blame. I hope that those who have read the report in its entirety will recognise that it is much more balanced than that. Generally, it acknowledges that the Government are on the right track in the way in which they are trying to control salmonella, but it has to be said that some of the measures have been taken too slowly—a criticism that we have set out in detail.
774
If our report has put the Government under the spotlight, I believe that today's debate puts Select Committees as a whole very much in the same glare. It is obvious, to me at least, that the public, and even journalists, who should know better, are still not clear as. to how Select Committees should operate and what resources and information are open to them.
As I see it, it is our role to monitor past decisions of the Government, particularly those involving public money. This is a natural extension of the right of the House in relation to the Government of the day. There are some, of course, who see us in the same light as Select Committees of the United States Congress. Those people fail to observe the very substantial difference, which is simply that Ministers in the United States Administration are not members of the elected Houses and cannot answer questions there. The American Select Committees, therefore, provide a connection and an arm of Government that are neither necessary not desirable in this country.
One journalist, who commented that we as a Select Committee should have been better informed about this affair during last summer, fails to recognise that at no time does a Select Committee have privileged access to Government decisions or papers or to ministerial decisions—nor do I believe that it should. We are a post-mortem body, the pathologists of Parliament, if I may put it that way. It is up to us to judge what has taken place in the past and to cast our judgment where we will. On top of that, it is not unreasonable to say that, having made a criticism, it is only right and positive to make suggestions as to what should be done by way of correction. I hope that the House will find that in our report we have tried to adopt that principle.
This is a classic case of a Minister sparking off an incident encompassing not only the mass media but a large and important industry, as well as touching that most sensitive nerve—the health of the general public. The Government sought to respond, yet even the most partisan observer must acknowledge that the matter had reached a stage of substantial national interest in a very short time. Government money of a potentially serious order was involved; two Government Departments had direct responsibility; the egg producers and the food industry were thoroughly alarmed; and individual members of the public were left bemused, confused, and frightened. The matter was directly the responsibility of the Agriculture Select Committee, and the announcement that we proposed to investigate the matter was greeted with considerable relief by all the interested parties—anyhow, those outside the Government—who recognised that we provided a forum in which the matter could be considered reasonably, with all the information available.
I do not pretend that our report is definitive. No doubt there are questions that we failed to ask, and answers that we misinterpreted. However, the report was the product of a careful examination of the issues in which party politics played little or no part. Commentators are sometimes surprised that committees of politicians with very different views can reach unanimous conclusions. I do not share this scepticism. In the case of this Select Committee, and this report, the conclusions are based on the evidence. The more evidence we heard, the more certain we became of some of our conclusions. We received a comprehensive and widespread selection of written evidence, and further questioned a number of key witnesses.

775
Until now, unofficial comments from the Government have been somewhat limited, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that he intends to take parts of the report seriously. It is interesting to observe the reactions of interested parties, all of whom, so far, have concluded that it is an excellent report, except the part that criticises them. I must repeat that the whole report was considered with the greatest care by the Committee and its final version was unanimously accepted.
I have been concerned by the innuendo that there should be some bias in the report, simply because there happens to be a majority of one Conservative in the composition of the Committee. My hon. Friends and I are not noted for our hostility to the Government—quite the reverse—so I ask Ministers, even if they are not in agreement with our findings, to acknowledge the integrity of the evidence-gathering and evidence-sifting that we have been through.
In that context, I noted the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who described our reaction to his part in the matter as "ridiculous". Anyone who has been in active politics for any time occasionally gets it wrong or is misquoted in the press. We all know the immense difficulty that retraction or correction presents and, even with the wisdom of hindsight, I acknowledge the problem. What is clear, however, is that the reaction of the Government at the time did not produce the desired result. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will ponder that section of the report as carefully as any other.
Interested as the press may be in the safety or otherwise of eggs, we all have no illusions as to why our investigation attracted such intense attention from the press. It was a matter of great relief to me when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) agreed to attend a hearing of the Committee. Whether the public believes our report or not, we would have seriously lacked credibility if we had not been able to question her in person. While she maintained that there was little that she could add to the total sum of our knowledge—and her evidence did little to dispel that—she certainly corroborated our impression of events leading from her statement on 3 December, and for that alone her presence was merited.
Many hon. Members took the view at the time that there was a substantial constitutional point at stake. If an hon. Member who had herself been a member of a Select Committee in the past, and a former member of a Government committed to assisting Select Committees, were to refuse to appear before us, how much harder would it be for Select Committees which wished to compel reluctant strangers to attend. The House absolutely insists on its right to question Ministers, and I do not believe it would be well understood by anyone inside or outside the House if former Ministers were to rely on some claim of privilege that precluded them from examination, particularly when the matters concerned referred to their time as office holders. However, there is no sanction on anyone who refuses to answer questions, although the Committee is entitled to draw its own conclusion from such reluctance.
776
I recall describing the experience of resigning from office as being "extremely hurtful". I am sure that my hon. Friend has suffered considerably. I am personally grateful to her for avoiding a constitutional dilemma for the House, and for her kind words to me personally, which I appreciated.
Now that the Committee has produced its report, which I hope deals with the important issues involved in the affair, I would not seek to bore the House by going over it again paragraph by paragraph. Nevertheless, it is certain that the newspapers' obsession with criticism obscured the far more important issues of establishing an answer to some of the questions that were being asked. Therefore, by way of a summary, we set out what we believed were the six most important questions and our answers to them, extracted from the main body of the report.
Clearly, the point to which we wish to give most emphasis concerns the safety of eggs. It was our very firm conclusion that normally healthy people should feel no cause for concern. I will read to the House the answer to our question, "How safe are eggs?" We said:
"The risks to individual consumers cannot be quantified exactly, but given that the likelihood of an egg being infected with salmonella is very small, and the likelihood of the infection not being destroyed by cooking is even smaller, normally healthy people should feel no cause for concern. Those who consume uncooked eggs or uncooked egg dishes should be aware that these carry a slight risk. Care should be taken to cook eggs thoroughly for vulnerable groups, in line with the Chief Medical Officer's advice."
I hope that that will give comfort to the many millions who every day eat eggs and who look upon them as a cheap, reasonable and safe food, and will also put the market back where it belongs in due course.
I should like to say a word about the role which some television programmes played. Ever ready to pour petrol on the flames, they sought and found two individuals who were ready to spread alarm and despondency with selected facts and figures. The opportunity that was presented to Dr. Lang, a social psychologist who runs the London Food Commission, was not lost on him. Television could scarcely complete a programme on the subject without his gloomy tidings and instructions on hygiene. His business is propaganda. If I say that his organisation was originally funded by the Greater London council when it was led by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I do not think I need say more.
Professor Lacey, whose credentials as professor of microbiology at Leeds university are substantially more relevant, was able with almost theatrical statements to use his position and knowledge to considerable effect, again owing to the endless exposure which his woeful tale obtained, particularly on television. It would be too much to expect that any balanced view should be broadcast, but I wonder how widespread the distress caused by these two gentlemen must have been among the less well informed members of the public, to say nothing of the many thousands of egg producers and others who lost substantial sums of money as a result of the crisis.
The news that bits of dead chicken were being fed to chickens drew pictures of appalling cannibalism that clearly revolved everyone. We examined the matter in detail and found that no less than 1·25 million tonnes of animal products every year are ground, boiled, dried and processed to provide a highly nutritious form of animal protein, very little of which is used in laying rations. While it is true that it can be infected with salmonella, there is no

777
evidence that that was the cause of any outbreaks, nor indeed would any ordinary person be particularly repelled by the substance, which is simply a brown coloured powder, except possibly by its rather rich smell.
I hope to be able to claim that my Committee has enhanced the reputation of Select Committees, has produced a balanced report which contains positive suggestions for improvement that will be informative to the House and the general public, and will uphold the principle that the House will be vigilant and, if necessary, critical of the Government in the interests of the welfare of all the people.
4.37 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr.Wiggin) has already said, my right hon. Friend the Minister is in Brussels taking part in crucial negotiations and has asked me to apologise for his absence from the debate. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend's balanced speech and I express personal admiration for the clear, fluent style used by the authors of his Committee's report. We should also recognise that the Committee worked against deadlines with great speed.
I stress that my speech today is not the Government's official response to the Select Committee report. That will come soon, once we have absorbed the report's interpretation of events and completed our analysis of those recommendations not already executed or known publicly to be in the pipeline. The 17 measures which the Government have already announced to tackle salmonella cover many of the Committee's recommendations. Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows, 15 of the 17 measures had been decided on and disclosed to the Committee before its hearings began.
Soon after my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare decided to inquire into the new and growing problem of salmonella in eggs, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food submitted a joint memorandum to his Committee. That was, and remains, a key document because it sets out at length and in detail the international nature and prevalence of salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 and the action being taken by the British Government to combat it. Paragraph 16 of the submission says:
"There is no other zoonosis as complex in its epidemiology and control as salmonellosis. Epidemiological patterns differ greatly between geographical areas depending on climate, population density, land use, farming practices, food harvesting and processing technologies, and consumer habits. Moreover, the biology of salmonella serovars differs so widely that discussions on salmonellosis, salmonella infections or salmonella contamination are inevitably complex."
Those words were not written by a Minister or Government official—they were plucked as a direct quotation from the World Health Organisation's 1988 expert committee report. So if anyone here or outside still contends that this complex issue can be tackled by sloganising or simple solutions based on magic potions they should cast aside their misleading thoughts and concentrate on the facts so starkly highlighted by the World Health Organisation.
Definitive identification of affected flocks can be achieved only by isolation of the organisms in laboratories. There is no rapid, simple blood test anywhere in the world to identify live birds with salmonella
778
enteritidis phage type 4. Consequently, there can be no guarantees that a flock is free from salmonella. Salmonella organisms are present and persistent all around us in the environment and there is no sound method of eliminating them from laying houses. The Government's chief veterinary officer has always argued that even a wholesale slaughter policy, followed by thorough cleansing and disinfecting of sheds, would not guarantee that subsequent flocks would be salmonella free. The Select Committee acknowledged in paragraph 30 that
"experts agree that salmonellas are impossible to eradicate altogether. They are ubiquitous organisms: reservoirs of infection exist in all birds and animals, and in humans."
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South-West): What the Minister is saying is, of course, true for all salmonella species, but it must surely be possible to eliminate one particular type—for example, salmonella enteritidis phage type 4, which was the one that the Committee mainly considered—as, indeed, salmonella gallinorum and pullorum have been eliminated from flocks because they are pathogenic to chickens.
Mr. Ryder: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's scientific knowledge and background, but no country has found the answer to that form of salmonella. If such an answer existed, clearly it would be deployed. There have been ways of detecting other forms of salmonella, but not enteritidis phage type 4. As soon as an answer is found anywhere in the world, the hon. Gentleman can be certain that the British Government will be the first to deploy it in chicken houses.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Following my hon. Friend's response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), does he agree that other salmonellae are also capable of causing food poisoning in humans? Even if we eliminate enteritidis phage type 4—as we hope in due course to do—we shall still need the general vigilance and the precautions set out in our report to reduce to a minimum the risk of food poisoning.
Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is right. There are nearly 2,000 different forms of salmonella. Indeed, salmonella typhimurium—the form of salmonella which affected the House of Lords last year—is in many ways even more serious than salmonella enteritidis phage type 4. Moreover, far from being unique to Britain, reservoirs also exist in countries such as the United States, France, Eire, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, and some reported cases of salmonella in Britain have been from people laid low immediately after returning from business or holiday trips abroad.
As soon as the Government received confirmation last summer from doctors, scientists and vets of a serious problem linking food poisoning in humans and salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 in eggs, action was taken. An immediate and intensive review was carried out by doctors, scientists and vets. Joint meetings were held between the Department of Health, the public health laboratory service, the Ministry and representatives of the egg industry. The joint working party on salmonella and eggs drew up a report on specific areas where research was required. That report was made available to the House in January. The short-term research that it recommended was commissioned as soon as the working group identified the needs. We did not wait for the report to be finalised.

779
Other committees were established at official level, and work was accelerated in order to forward firm recommendations to Ministers.
Mr. Eric Martlew: The report states that in February last year the Hull medical officer of health advised hospitals in his area not to give under-boiled or raw eggs to patients, but it was not until July that the Government conveyed that recommendation to the National Health Service generally.
Mr. Ryder: The doctors, scientists and vets who advised the Government did not have conclusive confirmation until last summer that there was a serious problem linking food poisoning in humans and salmonella enteritidis phage type 4.
My right hon. Friend the Minister informed the Select Committee in his own evidence that Ministers received recommendations from officials in November. He stressed that we not only decided to act on them straight away but that we decided at once to go further by introducing extra measures which included giving statutory effect to significant sections of the codes of practice. In parallel with those decisions, I met representatives of the industry to repeat to them that Ministers took the problem of salmonella very seriously and that we looked to the industry to do so as well. We also urged it, as a matter of urgency, to carry out the action in the codes of practice. I explained to the industry that the safety of the food chain was paramount—one outbreak of salmonella was one too many—and that public confidence in the industry would dissolve unless it was seen to be acting at the same time as the Government began announcing their comprehensive package of measures.
There is a postcript to the story of my meeting with the industry. Last Wednesday evening, after publication of the Select Committee report, I watched the BBC's 6 o'clock news. I saw Keith Pulman of the United Kingdom Egg Producers Association interviewed by Clive Ferguson. Mr. Pulman said:
"The egg producers were not told about it"—
that is, evidence of salmonella in eggs—
"until 19th December".
That is very rum, because Keith Pulman had written in an article in the "United Kingdom Egg Producers Association News" that
"The Ministry of Health announcement on Friday, 26 August advising the public to avoid eating raw eggs was made after full consultation with the industry".
That article was dated 2 September. All I can say is that Mr. Pulman either has a capricious memory or is a victim of impersonation. The Government decisions and meetings to which I have referred all occurred before the ITN interview of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on 3 December.
The Select Committee has rejected the charge that our package of measures would not have been planned, let alone implemented, but for the events of early December. We assert that those 17 measures amount to the most comprehensive package drawn up anywhere in the world to combat salmonella. Action has been taken at every point in the chain from imported feedingstuffs through to breeding and laying flocks. As the House knows, the egg market collapsed towards the end of last year. The
780
Government reluctantly decided that emergency measures were needed to stabilise the industry in such unprecedented circumstances.
The measures taken are the subject of the motion before the House today. The Select Committee concluded that my right hon. Friend the Minister deserved credit for putting together a skilfully constructed package. It was designed to restore stability to a disrupted market in which sales had fallen to around half normal levels. Hens, unlike men and machines, are not responsive to market forces in emergency conditions. They continue to lay eggs and require feeding even if demand for their product plummets—and, of course, feed is by far the major cost of egg production. As a result of the sudden and dramatic slump in demand, millions of eggs piled up at packing stations and many innocent producers, especially small ones, faced bankruptcy. Moreover, there was a real risk that a major part of the industry's productive capacity would be destroyed so that when demand recovered we would have had to rely on imports to meet it. That would not have been in the interests of British producers or consumers.
The Government therefore introduced two short-term schemes. The purpose of the egg scheme was to restore stability to the market by enabling packers to dispose of the accumulating surplus of eggs. The Government offered payments for eggs destroyed under Government supervision. Although the scheme was only at a safety-net level of 30p per dozen, broadly equivalent to the cost of feed, this rapidly put a floor in the market.
The complementary scheme, for the slaughter of hens, was designed to enable egg producers to cull younger birds in order to adjust production to the lower level of demand which might prevail for some time ahead. Again, payments were offered only at a modest safety-net level of £1·50 per bird, but this at least provided a way out for those producers who considered it prudent to plan for a lower level of output over the ensuing six to 12 months.
In the event, as the Select Committee report states, the package
"was designed to put a bottom in the market and did just that".
My right hon. Friend the Minister was determined that there should be no half measures. If calm was to be restored to a disturbed market any intervention measures had to be on a bold enough scale to meet the maximum demands that could reasonably be placed upon them. That is why he deliberately provided for expenditure of up to a maximum of £19 million on the two schemes. The real key to the cost-effectiveness of the schemes, however, was not that figure but the levels of payment offered and the nature of the mechanism adopted. As soon as the scheme had succeeded in raising the market above the safety-net level of 30p per dozen eggs, this automatically removed the attraction of destruction.
I welcome the Select Committee's conclusion that the package was necessary and I am grateful for the complimentary remarks made about it. In the event, the schemes not only achieved their objectives but did so at minimal cost to the taxpayer precisely because of the way in which they were designed by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Nevertheless, I do not wish to leave the House with the impression that those two short-term emergency measures have fully restored the market or resolved the severe economic problems of the industry. Egg sales are still only some 75–80 per cent. of normal and prices to producers,

781
though above the rock-bottom levels reached at one stage, are far from remunerative. A full return to normality depends on a full restoration of consumer confidence. I welcome the rising interest in consumer issues, which mirrors my own longstanding political beliefs. Power wielded by interest groups—trade unionists, lawyers, bureaucrats and producers of any description—should be fragmented or balanced by watchful Governments if they exceed the size of their boots. The president of the National Farmers' Union knows full well that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I are not his producers' poodles, but that appraisal may not yet have reached every out-station of the food and farming industry.
Consumer sovereignty is the key to the market place. It can be threatened by monopoly and cartels, trade protectionism masquerading as protection, or neglect of public health standards. The eagle eye of Government must always fall on such threats to consumers, however powerful, influential and persuasive they may be. The rights of consumers must be safeguarded by Government in any democracy where entrenched interests, public or private, can ignore the national good. Producers must adhere to them, and, in fairness, the vast majority of Britain's food industry realises their crucial significance. After all, no industry depends more upon repeat purchasing than does the food industry. To the few whose recklessness undermines the reputation of the many by putting public health at risk, however, my message is clear; clean up your act or face the full brunt of the law; and where the law falls short it is being strengthened.
In listening to, and acting on, legitimate consumer anxieties we must never be bamboozled by know-alls and busybodies dispensing flimsy advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has already stressed, we should also beware of a few so-called independent experts. During the past few weeks, some people with political axes to grind have implied that the entire food chain in this country is part of a capitalist conspiracy designed to undermine public health. They merit our derision, they warrant our scorn and they deserve our anger.
Some romantics see all new developments in food science as potentially evil and want a return to a 19th century Utopia, but in reality the 19th century posed far greater hazards to health. Diets were restricted—and besides, Utopia never existed. Confidence in the safety of food is the Government's overriding concern. That is why we are taking so many measures to remove the risk of infection in eggs, even though this is recognised by the Committee to be very small. We have launched a campaign more rigorous and more comprehensive than has been launched anywhere else in the world to ensure the maximum possible degree of safety at every point in the chain from chicken breeder to chicken table. Twenty-seven years ago almost to the day President Kennedy sent a message to Congress that consumers should enjoy a right to safety, a right to be heard, a right to be informed and a right to choose. These rights are being and will continue to be safeguarded by this Conservative Government.
4.57 pm
Dr. David Clark: First, I congratulate the Select Committee on a truly excellent report on salmonella in eggs. I also wish to commend the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for
782
delivering his report to the House in a very lucid manner. In a sense, his speech today was reflected in the report of the Select Committee, because we saw the same lucidity in that. I congratulate him and the members of the Committee on producing this report so speedily. The Committees of the House have gained a fine reputation for producing reports which are clear and are understood by the ordinary person in the street. This is no exception and the members deserve tremendous credit for producing such a thorough, speedy and forthright report. Apart from the cursory, yet fundamental, criticism of the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), they identified the villains of the piece—quite rightly—as the Government. I sincerely hope that the Government will heed the recommendations and the criticisms of the Select Committee.
The Government have completely mishandled the whole affair by their incompetence, excessive secrecy and delaying tactics. By their failure to act speedily they have allowed the problem to become exacerbated and as a result have put public health at risk. Since they were caught out, we have seen a flurry of Government activity in this sphere. Ministers, and the Minister today, repeatedly brag—that is the appropriate word—about the 17 measures that they have taken to control salmonella in poultry since December 1988. That begs the question of why they did not act sooner, because they have certainly been aware of the problem for months, possibly for years.
However, even the 17 formative measures leave much to be desired because, as the Minister told me in a parliamentary answer on 3 March, only two of the 17 measures have the backing of legislation and a further five are merely voluntary codes of conduct.
As the Minister knows and has acknowledged, none of the new changes needs primary legislation. Why, over the past few months, have the Government not come to the House and asked for legislation?
Mr. Ryder: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I do not wish to delay the progress of the debate. However, later, with the permission of the House, I shall answer the charge that the Government have not introduced the measures. We have introduced them. They are being introduced and are proving successful.
Dr. Clark: The Minister gives the game away. He should be frank with the House. He has not introduced the measures; he is going to do so, which is something quite different. The Government have no right to claim that the Minister has introduced 17 measures because, frankly, he has not.
Mr. Ryder: I do not wish to delay the House on this point, but I must put the hon. Gentleman straight. We have doubled the rate of inspections on protein processing plants since December, introduced stop provisions to prevent contaminated material entering the feedstuffs chain and served notice on a plant. We have imposed even more rigorous controls on the importation of animal protein, imposed restrictions on the sale of eggs for human consumption and served notices for the compulsory cleansing and disinfection of premises. I could continue.
Dr. Clark: The Minister could not continue and that is the point. He has given five out of the 17 measures. As he is going to reply, let me remind the Minister about the

783
third initiative which he mentioned. He said he will require protein processors to take samples from each day's production and notify MAFF, but the Government are still required to bring an order before the House before they can effect that measure.
The sixth initiative provides for the compulsory bacteriologist monitoring of all poultry-laying flocks. Under section 1 of the Animal Health Act 1981, that still needs to be ratified by the House. The seventh initiative requires the registration of breeding and laying flocks and the monitoring of hatcheries. It, too, awaits ratification under section I of the Animal Health Act.
The tenth initiative relates to the tightening up of hygienic handling of eggs, and is inoperative while we await new statutory action. The eleventh initiative tightens up the controls on rodents and is inoperative for the same reason.
The Minister could not have continued. He may be proposing to take action, but he has not yet taken it, which is the key point. The Minister should not mislead the House—and certainly not the nation—by saying that he already has such powers. He has not. He merely intends to take them.
Mr. Ryder rose—
Dr. Clark: I shall be happy to give way to the Minister but it would perhaps be better if he waited until I have finished speaking and sought an opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
There is no excuse for not bringing forward the necessary statutory instruments. Labour Members and, I am sure, Members of the Liberal and other minority parties would agree that we would facilitate the passage through the House of any Bill which protected public health. We have repeated to the Government—and I repeat today—that they have no excuse for not introducing such legislation.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is not the hon. Gentleman judging Government action in the light of what he now knows? At the time, what evidence did the Government or the hon. Gentleman have that would have led him to take the sort of action that the Government took last year? When should that action have been taken—many months ago or some years ago? Frankly, the evidence did not exist.
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman intervenes in most of these debates, which is helpful to me because it gives me the opportunity to develop my arguments, and I shall certainly consider the detailed points that he made. I was simply replying to assertions repeatedly made by Ministers, and by the Minister this afternoon, that, since December 1988, the Government have introduced 17 measures. Those measures have not been introduced. The Government intend to introduce them and any leglislation in the form of statutory instruments will certainly be supported by the Opposition. [Interruption.] The Minister disagrees, but I warn him that the Government are responsible to the House and the Minister does not rule by edict. Statutory powers are laid down and the Minister knows that he must bring regulations to the House.
I shall now deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). The
784
Opposition's argument centres on the Government's slowness and delay in handling the food issue. Perhaps one of the most disgraceful factors was the Minister's failure to tackle the problem of salmonella food poisoning earlier—about which the hon. Member for Wealden asked.
Apparently, the Select Committee supports my view that if the Government had acted when they originally discovered the signs, they would not have found themselves in the ridiculous mess which followed the former Under-Secretary of State's comments last December. Also, they would have saved the taxpayer £3 million. I refer the hon. Member for Wealden to the conclusions of the Select Committee, which support the thrust of my argument.
What signs and evidence are there of salmonella poisoning? The report shows that evidence had been accruing since 1982, and that salmonella enteritidis—not just salmonella—had been increasing and had become a serious health problem. In July 1985 the Government's food safety research consultative committee reported some revealing points, which I shall quote in answer to the hon. Member for Wealden. Its report stated:
"In 1983 more than 17,000 cases of bacterial food poisoning were reported in the United Kingdom. More than 80% of these involved Salmonella…The United Kingdom faces a serious and apparently deteriorating situation in regard to microbial food poisoning …This subject is highly-research sensitive."
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman quoted from the report that 80 per cent. of cases were related to salmonella. What proportion of that 80 per cent. was related to salmonella enteritidis, and what further proportion was related to salmonella enteritidis phage 4? It would be useful to have those figures.
Dr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is usually so well informed that I am amazed that he asked that question. The minutes of evidence given to the Select Committee on which he served contain the answer on the first page:
"The isolation of one serotype, salmonella enteritidis,has increased almost 13-fold between 1981 and October 1988".
I need not continue. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had studied the report before he deigned to intervene. That was our of character. He appears to have missed a vital piece of evidence.
We have evidence that the Government knew there was a problem as far back as 1982. It is interesting to note that the Department of Health was aware of the possible connection with eggs as far back as November 1987. For confirmation of that, I refer hon. Members to page 171 of the evidence.
Next, we discover that the Minister became clearer about the risk of eggs in May 1988. A month later, on 13 June, the DHSS called a meeting which included representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, interestingly enough, representatives from the industry. I say "interestingly enough" because of the strictures that the Minister directed at those representatives this afternoon.
The House will recall that the purpose of the meeting was
"how to inform the NHS that recent outbreaks of salmonella food poisoning at two hospitals appeared to have been caused by raw eggs".
True to form, the Ministry of Agriculture and the industry decided once again to play down the matter. It was not until 29 July that hospitals were informed of the problem.

785
Even worse, we had to wait another month, until 26 August 1988, before the chief medical officer warned the general public—another example of the Government's secrecy and delaying tactics taking over official policy..
Finally, on 3 December, the former Under-Secretary of State for Health signalled an apparent change of approach when she said—I quote with care—
"We do warn people now that most of the egg production of this country, sadly, is now infected with salmonella."
I draw the House's attention to the fact that the first word of the text of the Select Committee's report was "we".
Mr. Ron Davies: Not the royal "we".
Dr. Clark: Indeed not. We all get confused about "we" becoming grandmother these days.
The former Under-Secretary of State was clearly not speaking as an individual: she spoke on behalf of the Government. The fact that she said "we", not "I", was a clear sign that she was enunciating Government policy—
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith rose—
Dr. Clark: I have given way three or four times and I am anxious to make progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.
The Select Committee was clearly correct to conclude that it found
"no evidence to support Mrs. Currie's assertion".
We believe that she should have been allowed to qualify her original ambiguous statement, as she did in a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on 25 January. If she had done so at the time, much unnecessary suffering could have been avoided.
All this does not detract from the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has shown incredible complacency about the problem. When the Ministry found a farm selling eggs contaminated with salmonella in May 1988, it failed to take action and continued to allow eggs from a farm with a flock that was proven to be infected with salmonella to be sold to the general public. The Ministry issued no warnings to consumers. As the Minister reminds us, we had to wait until January of this year—nine months—before the Government implemented a clause under the Zoonoses Order to stop that sort of thing happening.
In evidence to the Select Committee the Minister justified not taking action sooner on the ground that only a small proportion of eggs was affected, which is no answer. Surely he must have known that people were dying of salmonella poisoning. As many as 35 died in 1987 from all types of salmonella, nine of them from salmonella enteritidis phage 4. Incidentally, the figures for 1988—they are now available up to the end of October—were considerably worse: there were 48 deaths from all types of salmonella and 23 from salmonella enteritidis phage 4.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me from the table of figures from which he is reading how many of the people who were supposed to have died from salmonella poisoning were suffering from other serious illnesses? I understand that some were suffering from terminal illnesses.
Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady is familiar with the report, which contains the evidence to the Select Committee on which she served with such distinction. I quoted figures from the report because, as the debate is about it, I thought
786
that the best way to proceed. I do not have the detailed figures that she seeks. Paragraph 7(3) makes the point that some of the patients suffered from other diseases.
The Minister knew that there were dangers. The hon. Lady has made the point more succinctly than I could. We are all aware that the problem is much more acute for vulnerable groups—the ill, the young and the elderly. That is the message of the report. The Chairman of the Select Committee made the point that for healthy people the problem is not nearly as great as it is for vulnerable people.
The Minister made great play today of how he would bring the wrath of the law down on people who were found transgressing and putting public health at risk. The record of such action, however, is not particularly good. I have already cited examples of farms that were proven to be sending out contaminated eggs. Twenty-one protein processing plants were found in 1987 to be sending salmonella-contaminated feed to egg producers. In spite of being warned, some of them continued to ply their trade; yet the Ministry refused to name them, so the poultry breeders and egg producers did not know that their suppliers were sending them salmonella-contaminated feed. The Minister also refused to prosecute—so his words today have a hollow ring. The Government have been weak on enforcing the legislation and thereby safeguarding public health.
Another hallmark of the Ministry's approach is obsessive secrecy. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) seems to disagree, but I shall justify my remark. If the Ministry had not been so secretive, it would have been more able to tackle the problem. The result would have been that many of the egg producers and the workers in those plants would not have been placed in such a vulnerable position. They are in that vulnerable position because the Government were plainly caught unprepared and had no contingency plans. The fault is wholly the Government's and the Minister knows it.
The Minister quoted figures today showing that egg demand is about 75 per cent. of what it was. He knows that the irony is that in the months ahead, because of bankruptcies and redundancies, we may have to import eggs from abroad, which will come from flocks over which we have no control. That does not seem to be a sensible approach. Will the Minister work with the EC to ensure that other countries have as high a standard of poultry hygiene as possible? How does he intend to cope with the problem of the import of eggs from non-EC countries? How will he ensure that they are salmonella-free? As the Minister has pointed out rightly, we are dealing with an international problem. As a result of his own complacency and his having no contingency plans, he made the industry very vulnerable.
Before I leave the issue of secrecy, I must point out that the Minister announced last month that he would establish a committee on food safety to deal with salmonella and other issues, chaired by the eminent Professor Richmond. Since that flourish of trumpets, the Minister has become strangely quiet. Why is that? Who are the other members of the committee? Will he ensure that there are representatives from the consumers on that committee? We would find it completely unacceptable if, as is the case with the Food Advisory Committee, there was only one representative from a consumer organisation. On previous occasions, the Minister has claimed that there is more than one consumers' representative on the Food Advisory Committee, but he is wrong. There is only one such

787
representative, Mrs. Ann Strumper, representing the National Federation of Women's Institutes. All the other members who do not represent industries represent bodies such as the British Nutrition Foundation.
Mr. Ryder: No.
Dr. Clark: I have checked those facts, so the Minister may want to apologise afterwards. The British Nutrition Foundation is funded by levies from industry. Other committee members represent trading standards operations or other professional bodies. I repeat my charge—
Mr. Ryder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Clark: I shall give way in a minute. There is only one representative from a consumer body on the Food Advisory Committee.
Mr. Ryder: If environmental health officers and others who enforce food safety are not representatives of consumers, who is?
Dr. Clark: The Minister does not understand my point. We are in no way challenging the integrity of the people who serve on that committee, but the point that I am trying to make is that they are there to represent viewpoints and organisations. They are not appointed because they are consumers and the only person who is appointed because she is a consumer is Mrs. Ann Strumper. The others are appointed because they are trading standards officers or representatives of industry. I hope that the new committee will contain more people from consumer organisations.
In a recent written answer the Minister confirmed that members of the advisory steering group on food surveillance are required to sign the Official Secrets Act 1911. Will the members of the new committee be required to sign it? I must remind the Minister that we are living in 1989, not 1939, and it would be for the benefit of consumers and the industry if we had far more freedom of information. An obsession with secrecy runs throughout the Minister's approach.
A further reflection of that secrecy is the Minister's habit of not being open with hon. Members. Last week, I tabled four simple, naive questions about hygiene standards in abattoirs in the United Kingdom to which I know the Minister has the answers on file. All I received was a holding answer that he would reply as soon as possible. That is an example of the Minister withholding information from the House. He knows that EC inspectors are in this country at present inspecting abattoirs which, by and large, are in a dreadful state.
I want to draw attention to the point made by the Select Committee about research and development. Has the Minister anything fundamental to tell us today about that crucial matter? I would like to think that, when dealing with a matter as important as that, the Minister would admit the error of his ways and would step up research into the complex problem of salmonella. In particular, is he prepared to work with industry as a partner to try to continue Dr. Mead's research project at Bristol? There are only two more years of field trials to go. The Minister
788
would have the support of Members of all parties if he made an announcement and took an initiative on that project.
Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point and I want to quote from the evidence given to the Select Committee:
"There is a number of companies in GB at the present time who are interested in applying the work done by Dr. Mead on their farms. I know of at least two organisations who want to apply competitive exclusion techniques: in part to see whether they can assist in the control of salmonella in their growing flocks."
Who said that? It was not a Government Minister, but the Government's chief veterinary officer.
Dr. Clark: I was under the impression that the Government's chief veterinary officer was paid by the Government, not by industry. Obviously, I was wrong. It seems to be privatisation gone too far when we find some private companies paying the salary of the Government's chief veterinary officer. The Minister must not play semantics with the House. The chief veterinary officer is an officer of the Ministry, as the Minister knows.
I repeat my question: is the Ministry prepared to go into partnership with industry, if necessary, to ensure that that vital research work, which has two years to go in field trials, is continued? The Minister knows as well as I do that industry is reluctant to pay the lot because it is worried that the independence of the study would be put in jeopardy if it funded the whole work. We are talking only about £300,000 for two years' work. The Minister and the Ministry have a terrible record. The Minister knows that over 2,000 posts have been lost from the Agricultural and Food Research Council and he also knows that the Government are shortly to propose the axing of a further 2,000 jobs in vital food and agriculture research and development. Will the Government recognise that that is a shortsighted approach? Will the Minister increase the number of research staff working on salmonella?
We tried to do some work, at short notice, on the Select Committee report. We looked at its recommendations about monitoring flocks and we believe that we need at least a further 50 members of staff in scientific work if the protections for which the Select Committee asked are to be carried out. It is imperative that if new research is carried out into salmonella money is not switched from other essential research work on bovine spongiform encephalopathy or listeria. To rob Peter to pay Paul is not an effective way to run research and development.
I note with interest that the Select Committee believes that the Government should actively discourage retailers from issuing misleading statements about eggs. Is the Minister aware that eggs are still being sold as being salmonella-free?
Mr. Martlew: Quite right.
Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he will understand the difficulty. Will the Minister confirm that he has not issued any guidance to local authorities about the misleading nature of such claims? In the interests of consumer protection, will he not issue advice to them? This specific issue highlights the Government's failure to issue clear advice to consumers and local authorities about food matters and the need for a body such as a food standards agency to give independent advice to consumers.

789
I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit today to give us even a preliminary assessment of the Government's reaction to the Select Committee report. We have been able to give our reaction. The Minister saw that—
Mr. Andy Stewart: Farming News.
Dr. Clark: Ah, now we know who writes in Farming News. That is very interesting.
The Minister has been dilatory. It would have been helpful to have more of a reply than we have received this afternoon. By not providing such a reply the Minister has added weight to our charge that the Government are in a state of complete confusion when it comes to handling the issue of food safety, and has confirmed our general view that procrastination and confusion are the order of the day. The Government do not know what they are doing, and meanwhile the health problem is getting worse and worse.
I urge the Minister to take more definitive action in the next few weeks, if he cannot do so today. If he brings orders before the House as soon as possible to protect the public health, he will have the support of Opposition M embers.
5.30 pm
Mr. John Biffen: I begin my modest remarks with a declaration of interest. I am a non-executive director of J. Bibby and Sons plc, a subsidiary of Barlow Rand, whose activities include animal feed production.
Opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said that it might be argued that the topic had had more than its fair share of attention. I do not think, however, that my hon. Friend or the Select Committee should be at all diffident about bringing it before the House. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has reminded us, questions of public health were very much an issue in the politics of the last century. We think of Disraeli or of Richard Cross—although my hon. Friend sounded more like a Gladstonian Liberal as he reeled off his consumerist aspirations in the Department. In any event, we are discussing public health today in support of a real and legitimate public interest. I congratulate the Select Committee on the temperate nature of its report, which I believe will be of great value to all who carry on the debate more publicly in the world outside. I also congratulate the Liaison Committee on choosing the matter for debate in the House.
I wish to raise four points. The first is of a quasi-constitutional character, and concerns whether ex-Ministers should appear before Select Committees. Departmental Select Committees are of such recent origin that they are all the time tentatively establishing parameters, not merely for their current work but for the work to be undertaken by successor Committees. The objective of a Select Committee in the last century—perhaps set up to investigate circumstances related to railway legislation—would have been to examine the public at large, not to examine other Members of Parliament. But when we set up the departmental Select Committees at the beginning of this Administration a convention was established whereby Ministers—who, by definition, were Members of Parliament—would appear before those Committees and give evidence. It was therefore necessary to find an appropriate and protective
790
framework. It was established, for example, that advice divulged by civil servants was not conventionally to be disclosed to Select Committees.
It seemed to me inevitable that at some stage there would be interest in parliamentary circumstances involving the resignation of a Minister, and it would have been inconceivable in common-sense terms for the Committee to carry out its work without seeking and securing evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). She approached it with quasi-Trappist enthusiasm, but that is not really the point. The point is that the principle was established and. I am sure, is of value to the work of Select Committees. Our thanks are due to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and the Committee's members for their handling of a very delicate issue affecting the way in which this place conducts itself and, ultimately, how it is seen by the public.
A more difficult task is to comment on the behaviour of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and I do so with diffidence and sadness because he is a good friend of mine. In "Who's Who" he states that modern jazz is his recreation—he is the Satchmo of the Treasury Bench. He is also one member of the current Administration who actually looks as though he enjoys his job. I work on the basis that one Cabinet Minister found in Ronnie Scott's is worth 10 captive cultural apparatchiks at Glyndebourne. As a consequence, however, my right hon. and learned Friend's relaxed attitude has the potential to slide imperceptibly into the cavalier. I well understand his reactions when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South made her compelling contribution to the debate about food hygiene. On 5 December, he told the House:
"It may be that many hon. Members are a little envious of her natural gift for obtaining publicity. This is not the first occasion on which she has obtained great publicity on a serious matter".—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 20.]
These are all matters of judgment, not of political morality. There is no more to it than the grubby business of being a street politician getting by from one problem to the next. From the day she arrived in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South should have worn a label saying that she was a political health hazard. She was a person of extraordinary genius, gifted in almost every quality except that of being a subordinate, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State found that the matter in question had been given a most powerful lift by her television interview. It is easy to speak with the benefit of hindsight, but I say bluntly that that was a political situation and not a technical contribution to a discussion on health education and public health generally. Although it was understandable that Sir Donald Acheson, the chief medical officer, should have been propelled into being master of ceremonies for the next few days, I think that that judgment was mistaken.
It is a matter of careful political discrimination to decide how senior members of the public service should be used in such circumstances, and it is often a considerable political hazard. There has been an increasing tendency for public servants to be put into the position of being more overtly political in speech and behaviour than would have been the case a generation ago. That forms a kernel of seriousness in the wider issue. Although I feel that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was wrong

791
to hold back from the circumstances for so long, I do not feel that he should be the subject of serious censure. Of course not—it is the kind of mistake that we all make on a day-to-day basis in the conduct of our political lives. Nevertheless, the Select Committee was absolutely right to identify that point and to make that judgment, and I wholeheartedly concur with its convictions.
On the subject of research and the comments in paragraph 41 of the report, I had not heard of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) as a great agricultural debater and he seemed to me to have a preference for the sword rather than the ploughshare today. I should have thought that there must be broad general agreement across the House with the recommendations of the Select Committee and, indeed, with the tentative response from the Government. Nothing can be definitive at this point, but I am sure that there is widespread anxiety that we should look again at the funding of research in the industry to see what is a proper and legitimate public commitment, especially in trying to establish the mode of transmission of salmonella and the whole question of bacterial and viral infections in farm animals. I do not think that this is an area in which one can be dogmatic, but there is a long and legitimate tradition of collective interest and responsibility in the funding of research into these matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it too much of a streak of Tory paternalism if I suggest that we look at the present levels of funding to see whether they can be improved.
Finally—this is the point at which I have a modest direct interest to declare—I should like to talk about the regulations that the Government must secure to have more effective control over a healthy food supply throughout the chain. Of course, I suspect that the area of most intractable difficulty is domestic hygiene and what goes on in the house, where one can do little more than constant exhortation. Government can take action, it seems to me, for example, in regulations concerning animal feed, and I very much welcome the recommendations made in this report in paragraphs 62 and 63. The regulations which have to be made must, first of all, be enforceable, and they must be enforced. That is true in relation to both on-farm mixers and compounders. Secondly, in seeking effective regulations, we have to ensure that they can be applied equally to imported as well as home-produced products.
Those are my four points. I end as I began by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and his Committee on the report. There is always a tendency to try to fashion out of a fairly scrawny acorn a massive constitutional oak. I shall not do that, but I say to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members that in the past decade or more we have seen a situation in which increasingly the power of the Prime Minister dominates the Cabinet and the Executive dominates the House. The traditional means whereby this House has sought to balance the Executive by debates and the normal forms of processing legislation are becoming less and less effective. I do not yet assert that Select Committees can tangibly help to restore that balance, but the process is well started and I offer congratulations to my hon. Friend and to the members of the Select Committee
5.43 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I start by echoing some of the words of praise for the Chairman of the Select Committee. It has been said to me that it is very hard indeed for 11 people from three different parties to come to a conclusion. However, the reason why the Committee did compile its report so speedily and in such depth and, in fact, came to a unanimous conclusion, was that it recognised the very serious nature of the salmonella scare, the effect that it was having on the industry and the need to react quickly to determine not only what the real threats were but to examine the way that the Government had handled it at every level.
Not everyone saw that in the same light, and I refer in particular to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), in terms of the assistance which she gave to the Committee. It has been said that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South did the country a service in bringing this matter to the public's attention. That in many ways is undeniably true; she was, in fact, the catalyst which led to this inquiry and allowed the Committee to uncover a number of issues, whereas the Government, shall we say, did not give a sufficient response. However, it must also be said that her comments were purely accidental. They were not made out of any great concern for the consumer, and when she had the chance to clarify them, she did not take it nor, during the course of the Committee's inquiry, did she join the Committee to state what she knew about the serious deficiencies in the way the Government were tackling the serious problems. I do not believe that her role in all this should be acclaimed as being of any great assistance to the consumer. In fact, because she refused to clarify her statements, £3 million has gone on compensation which could have been spent in more productive areas, for example, on research or other medical areas.
At that point, I must take issue with the Secretary of State for Health over the way that he dismissed the criticisms of the Committee as they refer to him personally. If we accept that the former junior Minister had to resign over the mistake that she made—we know that it was a mistake because of the Committee's inquiries—we should also accept that the Secretary of State for Health should take his share of the blame as part of the collective responsibility of government, as he was her immediate superior. It does the Secretary of State no credit whatsoever to dismiss those comments, nor does it do the Department of Health any credit that there is no Minister here today to take part in this debate. I believe that Ministers are abrogating their responsibility in this affair by not being here to discuss it.
There is one issue in the report that I would like to expand on in depth, and that is whether free-range eggs are safer than battery eggs. The Committee found that the evidence suggested there was slightly more risk with free-range eggs than with battery eggs. This was because the independent scientific adviser pointed out that in free-range systems the eggs are more likely to be laid on the ground, where there is a higher risk of faecal contamination. There are also problems with droppings of wild birds and shared drink water, with the risk of cross-contamination. Those are very valid points, which I do not criticise in any way. However, since the report has been published I have had the opportunity to make further inquiries. I should point out that, of course, the Committee

793
was not given the responsibility of looking into whether free-range eggs were safer than battery eggs, but I would like to take this opportunity to evaluate the differences between them.
The evidence suggests that there is no greater risk with either system. I have seen a report by the Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetic Research at the Edinburgh research station by Dr. Hughes, who carried out detailed studies into the incidence of eggs being cracked when laid. He came to the conclusion that it depends on the laying box being used and he demonstrated in his work that there could be a lower rate in certain free-range systems than in battery systems. His argument is that cracked eggs are more of a risk than external faecal contamination. He also pointed out that the incidence of cracked eggs depends very much on the age of the bird; as the egg-laying hen gets older, the shells get thinner and therefore the incidence of cracking is higher.
I have also seen a paper by Mandy Hill, a MAFF scientist, who looked at the alternatives to battery systems, such as free-range, straw yards, deep-litter, aviaries and percheries. In July 1981 the former Select Committee on Agriculture recommended that the battery system of egg production be phased out within five years. I am sorry to say that few steps have been taken in that direction. Quite apart from the fact, which few would dispute, that the battery system is an unattractive way of handling animals, it could be argued that there are inherent risks of cross-contamination because of the constant proximity of birds. There are more humane ways of producing eggs. They may be more expensive, but people are now prepared to pay slightly more for products that are produced in an environmentally sensitive and, as in this case, more humane way.
Mandy Hill discovered that the perchery system had clear advantages, and that is confirmed in a paper by McLean, Baxter and Michie of the Scottish farm buildings investigation unit which points out that the perchery system has clear welfare advantages, providing such things as dust baths and wider areas in which birds can move around. In addition, the collection of eggs from Astroturf cuts down the number of cracked eggs in comparison with the battery system.
The 1981 Select Committee recommended that more research should be done and that funds should be allocated to look into more humane ways of producing eggs which avoided contamination. It recognised that any restrictions on egg production must be in the EEC context. Restrictions on the way in which birds are reared and eggs produced would be grossly unfair to our poultry farmers if continental egg producers could export their eggs produced at lower cost using a less humane system. The report suggested that there should be a block on such imports or that agreement should be reached within the EEC.
The 1981 Select Committee also suggested that financial incentives should be given to poultry producers who wanted to experiment with more humane systems, and I concur with that. The Select Committee pointed out that the Brambell committee also recommended phasing out the battery system.
The joint working party of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the egg industry considered whether greater risks were attached to free-range or battery eggs. It concluded:
"Initial thoughts that the problem"—
794
that is, salmonella—
"may be more closely associated with free-range eggs are now difficult to support in view of the information available in incident one where salmonella enteritidis exposure occurred in the contents of two eggs not in the shell."
It goes on:
"We ought to be very careful about blaming the free range system for having a higher rate of incidence."
I concur with that.
The Select Committee made its recommendations on information available within a narrow context, but there is no scientific basis for suggesting that free-range eggs are more at risk from salmonella contamination than battery eggs. There is significant evidence to suggest that the battery system is an inhumane way of producing eggs and should be phased out in line with the recommendations of the 1981 Select Committee's report.
The Select Committee dealt with cuts in research and I wholeheartedly concur with its recommendations. However, since that report was published I have received correspondence from scientists working in research centres in Bristol, one of which is faced with cuts. Let me quote from one letter, from a gentleman whom I shall not name because I did not ask his permission to do so. I do not want to embarrass him, particularly at a time when people working within various Government institutions in the public sector are often threatened for speaking out even when to do so is in the public interest. It says:
"Quality and safety are foremost amongst the considerations of the scientific programme and, as you may know, the Laboratory houses the United Kingdom's leading group working on the problem of eliminating salmonella infection from eggs and poultry. However, since Government and AFRC policy on food research, especially on commodities such as meat, milk, eggs, poultry, etc. is one of contraction and retrenchment to ill-defined 'generic' research, it seems inevitable that such necessary 'public good' work will not take place. Clearly, the fragmented, introspective sectors of the agriculture and food industries are not capable of taking the broad 'public good' view, if left to themselves, and they obviously need strong direction and support from Government acting through the country's R and D agencies."
It is clear from the evidence that the Select Committee received that, far from receiving clear support and direction from the Government, Britain's agricultural and food research institutions are going through a period of cuts which is undermining the basis of research into food quality and safety.
The letter goes on:
"To take the opposite view, as is present policy, and in effect to throw responsibility for the nation's health and safety on to commercially-minded organisations, is clearly as dangerous as it is ineffective."
The Minister read from evidence to the Select Committee given by the chief veterinary officer about Dr.Mead's research programme at Bristol. However, he failed to read on to the point where I challenged the chief veterinary officer to say whether any commercial firm had signed a contract to pick up Dr. Mead's research. His answer was clearly no. That had not happened. Even if it does happen, it is irresponsible for the Government to throw open research which is so concerned with the public good to the whims of private industry without adequate funding or without ensuring that information will remain widely available. The package of cuts proposed by the AFRC puts at risk programmes such as that on meat identification which is designed to identify meats such as horse and kangaroo in meat products. To end such

795
programmes in the run-up to 1992 when there will be much more open access to such products seriously puts at risk people's health.
Another environmentally-friendly programme that will be put at risk as a result of the cuts is on the replacement of pesticides in crop control by the use of nematode worms. Green issues seem to be the order of the month, as dictated by the Prime Minister. The irony is that the Prime Minister visited that programme and saw it in operation, but now it has received the kiss of death and is to be ended. That has happened in the approach to 1992 when all our European rivals are giving more funding to their agricultural research and development. In contrast, we are giving such research less funding and throwing it open to the whims of a fragmented industry which is in no position to pick up such research programmes.
The Select Committee has given a balanced and well-considered report. The Minister has boasted today about the Government's 17-point programme, but it is fair to point out that the Government have done more in the course of the Select Committee's inquiry than has been done in the last decade in poultry research and salmonella control. That in itself underlines the value of the Select Committee and the important role that it has played in this whole affair. I also recognise what was said by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), that the Select Committee had to go to certain lengths to compel the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South to come before the Committee. I hope that that has now set a precedent so that when Select Committees are trying to do their work for the benefit of the whole community they are given the support that they deserve from all hon. Members.
As regards the Government's policy on agricultural research and development and the cuts, I hope that the Government recognise that they are making mistakes. They have arrived at the stage where the cuts are biting so deep that they are putting the consumers' health at risk. I hope that they will decide to turn away from the ideological blind alley that they are in, and will put the needs of the consumer first.
6 pm
Sir Hal Miller: I follow very closely the remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), particularly in relation to the lack of difference in liability to salmonella between free-range and battery eggs. He has done us a service. He followed my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) in supporting a research programme, although it was not clear from his rather general remarks which particular direction he wished the research to take.
I join with others in congratulating the Select Committee on Agriculture and its Chairman on the selection of their report for debate. It is only the second report of the Agriculture Committee to be debated, but only one in 10 is debated. Thanks to research done in a publication on the new Select Committees, in a chapter by Geoffrey Lock, I find that up to the 1982–83 Session only six out of 193 reports were debated. Those reports contain 4,400 pages and cost £5 million to produce. In that period there were 80 overseas visits and 180 visits in this country. Since the 1985–86 Session, only six departmental committee reports have been debated, two from the Select
796
Committee on the Environment, and seven concerned with House of Commons matters, occupying the attention of some 150 hon. Members who have put over 100,000 questions. I mention this not because the work of the Select Committees is part of this debate but to put the report into context.
I cannot say that I congratulate the Liaison Committee on choosing this report for debate because, as I have listened to it, the argument seems not to have advanced much since the matter was last debated, on 19 December. I have referred to my notes for that occasion. What I have heard convinces me that the Select Committee has performed a valuable role in ensuring that some of the measures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister are pushed forward or have been put into effect, despite the claims of Opposition Members, but nothing has been added to the argument.
I hope that I shall not be misinterpreted—I have come to praise the report, not to bury it, but my praise is perhaps fainter than some of the Select Committee members would have wished. I welcome the recognition of the work done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in introducing codes of practice, the market support scheme and measures of control and monitoring, although I shall return to that in a question to my hon. Friend the Minister shortly, and I welcome even more warmly the recognition that the risk to healthy people from eating eggs is slight indeed.
Why, then, did I suggest that my praise might be slightly muted? I venture to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), the Chairman, when he said that he believed that the function of Select Committees was that of a post mortem body—a felicitious turn of phrase, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his comments on the report. I believe that the best reports anticipate problems, look forward and present possible solutions, but this report has been largely retrospective. Perhaps it has not been retrospective enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is that rare species, a gamekeeper turned poacher. I have been refreshing my memory about some of the things that he said when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject of consumer protection and the poultry industry. I would not, of course, wish to embarrass him by referring him to his speeches of 7 November 1980, March 1981 and July 1981, but he certainly took the view then, if I may summarise his comments, that we should not go too far in introducing monitoring and regulations. There are certain passages which, as a good Conservative, he would still own, but of particular interest is the one of 7 November 1980.
Mr. Wiggin: Another Whips' Office brief.
Sir Hal Miller: I am quite capable of doing my own research.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, when he was a Minister, was talking about consumer protection, with specific reference to eggs and the marking of egg packs and the codes thereon, and I agree with what he said. He stated:
"In discussions with Brussels my officials have been seeking amendments with a view to achieving the changes that would be in the best interest of those most concerned. In addition, they will seek some relaxation of the present very restrictive regulations regarding the information that can be put on egg packs."—[Official Report, 7 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 1649.]

797
There are other, similar passages. Why, then, are my praises muted?
Mr. Wiggin: I am deeply impressed by the profundity of my hon. Friend's research. It seems to go beyond that normally carried out by a Back Bencher, but I will not go into that. Will my hon. Friend accept that even the severest critic on the Opposition Benches acknowledges that the problem of salmonella enteritidis inside whole eggs did not come to anyone's notice before 1982, by which time I had happily been translated to other spheres?
Sir Hal Miller: Of course. It was only out of natural admiration for my hon. Friend, perhaps tinged with slight envy as I myself have never held ministerial office, that I wished to refresh my memory of the wisdom and authority of his utterances in that post. He is correct to say that the incidence of this particular salmonella came to our notice after he had, unfortunately, left the Treasury Bench, to the regret of many of us, including myself.
I wish that the Committee had felt able to give itself the time to look a little more widely and to take account of what is happening in our partner states of the Community, because it is believed that this disease is widespread and has perhaps a greater incidence in certain other member states than in this country. That raises a matter to which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred briefly—the question of imported eggs.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: If my hon. Friend has read the evidence taken by the Select Committee, he will know that those points were raised and questions were asked about egg imports. He is right that there is a serious problem in some parts of Europe, and we do not want to put our egg producers out of business only to import eggs from a place where we cannot control the standards of production and hygiene.
Sir Hal Miller: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and happily compliment the diligence of the Committee, but its recommendations lack a specific course of action with regard to the important matter of imports. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure the House.
I would have wished the Select Committee to look a little further ahead, not merely in regard to the research to which it drew attention, but in terms of how some of the measures that it recommended should be implemented. I wonder whether there are adequate vets to carry out all the proposed functions, and whether any consideration was given to the proposals by the veterinary colleges, whose authoritative research would have been welcomed and respected. It might have been possible for the Select Committee to take more account of the role of local authorities, and not just of the number of vacant posts for environmental health officers about which we hear so much from the Opposition.
I would have hoped for some reference to the slaughter policy and compensation to farms affected by zoonoses orders. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the scope of a zoonoses order. Will it apply to an entire farm or to an individual poultry house? That is a significant point for many producers. I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know.
There is also concern about how the monitoring and inspection measures are to be paid for. In the case of other
798
animal diseases the Government contribute towards the cost of monitoring and inspection. Egg producers are anxious about that aspect.
In conclusion, in whose interest has the debate been? It is not clear that it has helped the housewife, although the report and the work of the Select Committee brought about a response from the Ministry and was very useful. However I do not think that the housewife is better informed as a result of today's debate. I am particularly concerned that caterers have still not reacted positively to the measures that have been taken. Down on the farm, the position is still serious. Large producers are still experiencing prices some 15 per cent. below break-even, and there is concern that the recently determined slaughter compensation prices are inadequate and will undermine the confidence of suppliers, particularly in the matter of chick placings. Those suppliers will be concerned about the viability of customers who might be exposed to the incidence of disease, which could lead to a serious shortage of eggs and consequent high prices. The smaller producers face retail sales down by 20 per cent. and sales to catering firms down by 60 per cent.
I am still left wondering why the Liaison Committee chose this subject for debate. I cannot see whom it benefits, except perhaps the Opposition, who have nothing to offer—the idea that they had any interest for the consumer is laughable to those who remember their commitment to the coal producers or any other producing interest and their total disregard of any interest held by consumers of any product of nationalised industries. In that context, I must tell the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the article in Farming News provides the answer. It says:
"Every night the members of the Labour party interested in agriculture (all three of them) must go down on their knees and praise the Lord for salmonella, listeria, Professor Lacey and BSE. These plagues have come as manna from heaven to a party which is still waiting for its policy 'revue' before it knows what it is supposed to think about agriculture."
6.16 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: Many years ago I was a member of the Ponterwyd young farmers' club. One wintry evening I was chosen to speak on behalf of the club at a public meeting of the young farmers' movement. We were not told the subject until we reached the hall. On the platform I was given a piece of paper which said, "You are given three minutes to speak, if it is your wish, and the subject is eggs." Being a young man, I found it very difficult to find any words on the subject, but I said, "If you eat a boiled egg or a fried egg for breakfast, you will lead a healthy life and you will be able to work on the farm for the rest of your days."
Forty years later I am confronted with the same problem. We are confined to saying a few words about eggs. But I have a little more to say this time and I shall speak for longer than three minutes. First, I should like to endorse the sentiments expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on the excellent way in which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and his colleagues dealt with the situation, their urgency and the way in which they presented their report. I shall go a little further than the hon. Members who have paid tribute to the hon. Gentleman by saying he did an excellent job on television when the industry was at a crossroads and when the Government were in troubled waters in regard to eggs. The hon. Gentleman gave an assurance to producers and consumers that he would look into the matter and make

799
recommendations to the Government. Personally and on behalf of my colleagues I should like to thank him for what he did.
Tonight, what has been missing from the debate is a sense of proportion. A few unguarded words from a junior Minister caused great havoc in the industry and panic among the buying public.
The Government must restore confidence in the industry and reassure consumers that they can eat eggs without fear. It is vital that they do so, for two reasons. First, eggs are an important part of our daily diet. They are cheap and easy to prepare. It follows that the egg and poultry industry must be encouraged, and be protected from unfair competition and unforeseen costs resulting from the need to introduce new and safer production methods. Unfair competition will arise unless and until the high standards that are to apply in this country are matched throughout the EEC. Raising standards will cost a great deal of money, and may mean a number of producers going out of business. Consequently, imported eggs will be at a lower price. There must be safeguards against that both for the sake of the consumer and to protect the industry's future.
The industry's future cannot ultimately be left to market forces because, clearly, they will operate against the best interests of consumers. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the industry survives in good shape. It is the Government's responsibility also to ensure that the level of funding available for research and development is adequate. The agriculture industry as a whole has been apprehensive about research cuts, and many parts of it fear that important areas of research will be starved of necessary funds. A great deal of work and money is necessary to ensure the eventual eradication of salmonella in eggs. If we are to succeed, cash limits should have no part to play in that objective.
Sufficient money must also be made available to provide monitoring facilities, because the industry should not be expected to pay for them. The Select Committee has done a worthwhile job, and its recommendations should be accepted by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. At the same time, it must be remembered that the egg industry has gone through a traumatic period. Even today, egg sales are down by 15 per cent., with producers losing £20 million since the beginning of December, and the national flock being depleted by about 2·5 million birds.
Monitoring and improved production methods will be extremely expensive, and many smaller producers may feel unable to carry on, so the Government must be prepared to be more generous with compensation, and more understanding of the higher costs involved in developing the industry along the right lines. The health of the consumer must always be a priority, but that cannot be achieved without a positive Government commitment.
I make a final appeal to the Government not to dismantle the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because of what has happened. The Ministry has served the farming industry and consumers well over many decades. I read with regret that the Labour party intends dismantling the Ministry; I read in the press that the Labour party is proposing a new Ministry of Food and Farming.
Dr. David Clark: I wish to make the position plain, because I do not think that there is any deep disagreement between us. We believe that all food production ought to fall within the responsibility of one Ministry—the Ministry of Food and Farming, say. It is imperative that, from the plough to the plate, food production is in the hands of one Ministry. Also, the consumer must be protected by an independent food standards agency. However, I emphasise that we believe still in having one Ministry covering both food and farming.
Mr. Howells: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest. I shall not comment, because it is now up to the agriculture industry to decide whether, after hearing what the hon. Gentleman had to say, there is to be a change in the nature of the Ministry.
Mr. Ryder: Perhaps I may be of assistance to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) because, by happy chance, I have a copy of the press statement of 17 February issued by the hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) setting out their views on the subject, which stated:
"The Foods Standards Agency would be independent of Ministers but responsible to Parliament."
If the agency is to be independent of Ministers but responsible to Parliament, which Ministers will answer questions about it?
Mr. Howells: I am very sorry for raising a thorny issue. We had better leave it at that for the time being.
I have a further question for the Minister. Will he give a helping hand to the agriculture industry, which has been financially clobbered because of present Government policies? Unless something is done, many small farmers will go out of business. Please give a helping hand before it is too late.
6.26 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), because we share a common concern in respect of many matters that he has raised in previous debates. I echo his remarks concerning the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has served the country well. A very good case would have to be made for dismantling it—and it is not a case that I would anyway support.
During my life time, I have followed the advice that the hon. Gentleman gave to young farmers all those years ago, because I was brought up on the maxim, "Go to work on an egg". Unless I had a lightly-boiled egg for breakfast every morning, I would not have the strength to stand up and face you, Mr. Speaker, in my efforts to participate in debates.
Putting frivolity to one side, we are debating a serious subject. When the Select Committee on Agriculture was appointed at the beginning of this Parliament, it could not have foreseen that it would be catapulted into the public eye by the subject matter of the inquiry on which it reported in the middle of the salmonella crisis just before Christmas, caused by the unclarified statement of a former junior Health Minister.
I shall address myself to one or two points arising from the Select Committee's report, which was published last week—not least, the package of measures introduced by

801
my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is no doubt that urgent action was needed not only to restore public confidence but to prevent financial disaster among British egg producers, who would otherwise have been put out of business or placed in serious financial difficulties. I reiterate my earlier remark concerning the importance of our domestic egg industry and the benefits that it brings to this country, which would have been jeopardised if egg producers had been forced out of business by last December's crisis.
I was often dismayed by those people who commented publicly about the so-called strength of the agricultural lobby, saying that consumers' interests were being overridden in the interests of egg producers. My belief is that consumers' best interests are virtually the same as those of producers—because unless producers heed consumer demand there will be no market for their goods and they will be put out of business.
The fact is often overlooked that farmers and their families are also consumers. Generally they are not in the business of producing food that they would not expect their families and neighbours to eat. They have been somewhat maligned in some press comments.
I do not know what advantage it is to the consumer to put egg producers out of business. As we know, imported eggs have many problems. No Government could control the standards of their production and few guarantees could be given. It would not serve this country well for eggs to be imported. We must watch out for that.
It is also true that no food can be made absolutely safe or sterile. Cast-iron guarantees cannot be given. We found in our report that many of the food poisoning cases that we have heard about were directly due to poor storage, cross contamination and unhygienic practices in private domestic kitchens and in catering establishments. Much work needs to be done to tighten up standards, especially in catering establishments.
Salmonella enteritidis is behaving in every way identically to other salmonellas. There is no reason to believe, and no evidence to suggest, that its incidence will not grow to a peak and fall back, as other salmonellas have done, and then be replaced by another strain. I am not in any way being complacent, because one case of salmonella enteritidis poisoning is one case too many. I speak as someone who has suffered from acute salmonella poisoning, although I hasten to add it was not enteritidis. Some years ago, on my return from India I was extremely ill. I lost a lot of weight so that the buxom woman hon. Members see before them was a mere skeleton. I would not wish that condition on even my worst enemy.
Many of the problems about food that are highlighted in the media these days are due to the policy of successive Governments of providing cheap food. The subsidies that have been given to the producers, although not to egg producers, first took the form of deficiency payments and then, following our entry into Europe, the CAP. All those have been indirect subsidies to consumers to provide a steady supply of temperate foodstuffs at moderate prices, and to iron out the highs and lows of food production that can never be predicted, depending as they do on our unpredictable weather. Egg production has always been unsubsidised, but some of its overheads depend on the policy of the CAP, in the cost of cereals.
This cheap food policy has also been responsible for the development of our intensive livestock and agricultural systems. Farmers have always worked within parameters
802
set by the Government. Therefore, both after and during the war when temperate foodstuffs were in short supply, the agricultural community responded magnificently to the challenge to produce more. It was no fault of theirs that the bureaucracy that is Europe was made impotent to act by the political pressure maintained effectively by the small and inefficient farmers of France and Germany.
Our agriculture industry, including egg producers, needs not a kick up the backside but a pat on the back for its achievements as good custodians of the countryside, and for producing our supplies of temperate foodstuffs, thereby saving on our balance of payments. That subject is very much in the public eye, and being debated generally at present.
The difficulties that have faced our egg producers have been typical of those in an industry that by its very nature is fragmented. We know that 30 million eggs are consumed each day and that 68 per cent. of the flock is held on 400 holdings. The remainder are dispersed among 40,000 smaller enterprises, many of which supply eggs directly to the public at farm gates or through a local outlet. The big five retail chains are supplied by the largest egg producers. Stringent checks are made on the quality of the product. It should be said that the food chain in this country is far superior in every way in its high standards. It compares very well with the much lower standards of other European countries.
However, there is a genuine cause for concern that, through the Government changing the policy on research and getting the private sector to take up near market research, certain projects will fall through lack of funding. It is very difficult to unravel the difference between research into the public good and research that has an imminent commercial application. That difficulty is heightened because of the fragmentation of the egg-producing industry.
I suggest that somehow the egg producers must get together on research so that it can be funded by the industry as a whole, possibly through a levy. It is not for me to suggest the means, but it must be funded by the industry as a whole rather than by one or two major companies. It is obvious that developments on, say, a test for salmonella enteritidis to be used on the farm should be readily available to all those selling eggs to the general public, including small producers. Such a test and such an assurance would greatly restore confidence in the quality of the product.
I believe, too, that national standards must be set by the Government. All hon. Members will have experienced the diversity of ways in which regulations are implemented by local authorities' environmental health officers and meat inspectors. There is no set standard to which they must adhere. That mistake must be addressed. Such a measure will be unpopular because it will cost taxpayers money. Indeed, consumers must realise that they will be expected to pay more for a higher quality product.
The priorities of my parents' generation were having a roof over their heads, clothes to keep them warm and good food. There were no other competing priorities in those days such as mortgage repayments or repayments on luxury goods. Many of those, such as washing machines, which are often of foreign manufacture, or video recorders, are considered no longer to be luxury goods.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend, who was a distinguished member of the Select

803
Committee, leaves the question of paying more for the best possible inspection standards, could she share with the House its thoughts on section VII of the report, which the Minister completely ignored? However much we pay for inspection of UK production, is it not the case that if imports are not properly inspected the consumer will not get the protection, however much is spent on inspecting our own output?
Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a very good and valid point, which I could not better. He is absolutely right. In my remarks about the standards of food production, I was also saying indirectly that if people do not want eggs produced from the battery system they must pay more for eggs produced in a different way. There is a cost for all of this.
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about ensuring that the production standards of food, anything else that is introduced into this country are as high in the exporting countries as they are here. More often than not, the standards of this country are far better than those of our European counterparts. But times have changed. Surely good food must be considered as one of the highest priorities in household expenditure.
Many people have tried to calculate the risks of eating an egg contaminated by salmonella enteritidis. It has been compared by some as having the same risk as being struck by lightning. Indeed, the risks to people walking down Oxford street doing the shopping one afternoon must be far greater.
Although the scare about the wholesomeness of eggs for normally healthy people has been an over-exaggerated storm in an egg cup, many lessons from it will have to be learned by the Government, and the report sets those out in a clear and unambiguous way. I recommend the report to hon. Members and respectfully suggest to those who hold power in their hands that its constructive criticism and recommendations will be ignored at their peril. The Government will emerge with credit if, for once, they listen to wise counsel and act on it.
Unlike the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I do not expect a change of policy to be announced after this debate, but the Government should reflect on the recommendations of the report and bring forward measures to effect the necessary change.
6.40 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: Little did I know when I wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on 6 December last asking that we investigate the statements made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) the amount of media attention that the subject would attract. Nor did I envisage the sort of political shock wave that would be created. This has become a high political issue, though I do not kid myself that I had anything to do with it.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is not in her place for this debate. The Select Committee report opens its introduction with the comment by the hon. Lady:
"We do warn people now that most of the egg production of this country, sadly, is now infected with salmonella."
That was why the Select committee met. It resulted in 400 pages of evidence and a report containing many
804
recommendations. Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box on many occasions attempting to answer questions put by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) criticised the Government strongly on some issues, yet the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is not in her place for this debate. That reflects the fact that the hon. Lady not only held the Select Committee in contempt but appears to hold this House in contempt. The least she should have done was to appear. Although it is not cricket to criticise people in their absence, I regret that she is not here because one would have expected her to turn up today.
I enjoyed being a member of the Select Committee and I echo the comments that have been made about its Chairman, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). He was fair and he represented the Committee well when he appeared on television. He presented the case excellently today. He was not entirely fair to two of the witnesses. Dr. Lang and Professor Lacey. Their view differed greatly from that of the Chairman, but they had every right to express it and it would have been better had he not criticised them so much today.
We produced a unanimous report, and I appreciate the support that was given by Conservative Members. It is easy for Opposition Members to criticise the Government of the day; it is our job to do that. It is more difficult for Government supporters to produce a report which is in some ways critical of the Government. Another reason why that proved possible was that Labour Members on the Select Committee took a responsible attitude. We were all after the facts and we were not interested in scoring political points. We have reached a conclusion that gives almost a good clean bill of health to this country's eggs.
The egg producers' representatives, as distinct from the egg producers, did not do their cause any good. They were, and still are, divided. The Minister criticised a producers' organisation. Neville Wallace, the director-general of the British Poultry Federation, did not do his case much good. Those representatives gave a complacent view to the Select Committee. They suggested that there was really nothing wrong with egg production, when we knew that there was a problem. The view that people could continue to eat raw eggs, as advocated by Mr. Wallace to the Select Committee, was rather irresponsible.
Nor did the representatives of the Retail Consortium do themselves any good. When, last week, we debated food in general, I referred to that body, as a result of which it sent me a scathing letter, and I gather it sent a copy to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. It claimed that I had misquoted the consortium.
I was also sent a copy of a letter that the consortium had sent to the Government complaining that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South had said that all or most egg production in this country was contaminated with salmonella. In fact, she referred to "egg production." Here was the Retail Consortium, supposedly a responsible body, spreading the rumour that most eggs in this country were contaminated with salmonella. If those concerned claim that egg sales have gone down, they must, at least in part, accept responsibility for that.
Reference has been made to imported eggs, and that whole issues concerns me. The chief medical officer of health pointed out that in Spain, for example, between one in 1,000 and one in 100 eggs were contaminated. That compares with one in 12,000 in the United Kingdom. It

805
would, therefore, be dangerous for us to reduce our production and import eggs from a country such as Spain. Indeed, in view of the figures given by the chief medical officer of health, it might be wise for the Government to consider stopping the importation of eggs from Spain at this time.
I have been doing some research recently, talking to food companies which test employees at various times— for example, when they begin work with the company, when they take ill with symptoms of food poisoning and when they return home from holidays abroad. One company which has been carrying out such tests for a decade informed me that three quarters of all cases of salmonella poisoning among employees in its factory concerned employees returning from holidays abroad. I have looked into figures produced by another company which has been carrying out similar tests for six years. In that case, only one quarter of its employees so suffering had returned from holidays abroad.
Clearly, much information is available in Britain, and the Government should be studying it to discover the reasons for the food poisoning epidemic. I apologise for using the word "epidemic"; the report urges us not to use it. We must have tighter standards Europe-wide—most people who go on holiday abroad visit EEC countries—otherwise we shall not get to the bottom of the increase in food poisoning in this country.
Much has been said about the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I shall not dwell on that today. That Department has been found wanting in many areas, but at least we have a Minister from that Department before us today and ready to stand at the Dispatch Box to answer our questions. It is noticeable, however, that there is not a Minister on the Front Bench from the Department of Health.
The Department of Health seems to think that it was not involved in, or concerned with controlling, the outbreak of salmonella. In fact, that Department was probably more guilty, so to speak, than the Ministry of Agriculture. I appreciate the way in which spokesmen for the latter have not tried to suggest that the criticisms levelled against it have been ridiculous.
On the other hand, the Secretary of State for Health has objected to such criticism. As I pointed out in an intervention, the Select Committee received evidence to the effect that as far back as February 1988 the Hull district local authority's medical officer of health, Dr. Dunlop, realised that there was a major problem with raw eggs and stopped raw eggs and undercooked eggs being given to patients in hospitals in his district.
No action was taken by the Department of Health, nationally, until July 1988, and only then did the Department give guidance to National Health Service hospitals. It did not give any guidance to the general public until almost a month later. That, in itself, represents criminal neglect of the situation—there is no doubt about it. If one health district knew in February 1988 that there was a problem, why did not the Minister know? I suspect that he did know, yet he took no action whatsoever.
I come now to the famous statement that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South made on 3 December. We all know that that was a problem, but, as has been said already, it should have been corrected the following day. The Secretary of State for Health came to the Dispatch
806
Box—on 6 December, I think—to pacify the country, and the chief medical officer was put on television to calm the situation.
Let us look at the facts. During the week ending 3 December 1988 there was a drop of 15·5 per cent. in egg consumption, compared with the corresponding period in 1987. After the Minister had been to the Dispatch Box the drop increased to nearly 30 per cent. Following his appearance on television the week after that, consumption had gone down by 49 per cent. Such was the assurance from the Minister.
I do not think that it was right for him to appear on television and use the word "ridiculous". I get the feeling that he is becoming a little remote from this place. My wife's favourite film star is Humphrey Bogart. [Laughter.] am talking not about "Casablanca", or even "The African Queen", but about the captain in "The Caine Mutiny". That gentleman seemed to accept responsibility for nothing. He used to play with marbles and put the blame on everybody else. He said that it was ridiculous to blame him, even though he had people counting how many spoons of ice cream were being taken.
That is how the Secretary of State has been behaving—and not only in respect of this matter. Those of us who saw him respond on television to the comments of the British Medical Association on his White Paper on health will remember his saying, "Of course, you have to remember that the doctors opposed the concept of the National Health Service." What he forgot to tell people was that the Conservative party had fought the concept of the National Health Service root and branch. I am greatly concerned—actually, I have to admit that I am not really concerned—about whether the Secretary of State's reputation will ever recover from the crisis arising from salmonella in eggs.
The main purpose of this report was to satisfy the general public that, having looked into the situation, we could tell them whether there was any danger in eating eggs. We came to the conclusion that there was a slight risk for certain groups, but our recommendations will mean that the British public can turn the clock back to the time when they could eat hard-boiled eggs, soft-boiled eggs, raw eggs, fried eggs, scrambled eggs—any kind of eggs they liked—without fear of food poisoning. If the recommendations of the Select Committee are carried out, the general public will be able, once more, to eat eggs with confidence.
6.54 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I enjoyed working on the Select Committee with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Although I do not agree with the tenor of all his comments, I think it is clear that Members on both sides of the House, together, have been able to produce an effective report.
I should like to make two general points in introduction which I think have not been made earlier. First, the general public have only a vague and ever-changing apprehension of the nature of risks that they face. Very often the major aspect of change in risk is not some objective shift but rather the amount of media coverage that the risk is given. It suits us that matters within our own control—such as whether or not we choose to smoke—do not get quite the prominence of matters in respect of which we can feel that

807
someone else is to blame. In a sense, that is perfectly reasonable. I do not see why people should have to face uncovenanted and unacceptable risks.
In another context I suggest that perhaps one day we should give some consideration to the establishment of a national health risk assessment machinery rather like the National Radiological Protection Board in a narrower area to tell the general public about the risks that they face. However, in the absence of such machinery, as paragraph 101 of the report indicates, it just is not possible to eliminate all elements of risk and it is just as irresponsible to over-emphasise risks as it is to play them down.
The only time we become immune to risk is when we are dead. In the meanwhile, we have the problem that our grandmothers tended to teach us about. They worried tremendously about germs. There are germs all around us. We do not succeed in eliminating them, but equally they do not succeed in eliminating us. What is important is when circumstances change.
In all these public health matters, the real issue for the Government is the management of risk, keeping it at acceptable levels and, if possible, reducing those levels, and in laying the facts before the public.
The second general point that I want to make concerns the nature of the Select Committee's comments on the Government's response. It is a law of nature that if a Select Committee inquires into the actions of the Government it is more or less bound to be critical. I do not think the reasons are particularly political. I do not think there is some deep interest, although obviously the Opposition have a natural interest in drawing the tenor of a report away from uncritical support of the Government. It is simply that Governments are fallible. Governments always get something wrong, and, by the nature of their general duties, Select Committees sometimes have to criticise their actions. That does not mean that this Select Committee report constitutes what the media have presented as a "savage attack" on the Government. It is a balance of risk that the Government present; it is a balance of criticism that the Select Committee presents.
A Select Committee's greatest luxury is to be able to criticise with hindsight. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) not only joined us in the use of hindsight but seems to have second sight as well. In earlier exchanges, he referred to the work of the Research Consultative Committee in 1985. When I asked him about it, he, quite accurately, but irrelevantly, referred to the general increase in the incidents of salmonella enteritidis, and phage type 4 in particular. I have no quarrel with that, but the fact remains that if one looks at the figures for 1985—or rather the figures for 1984, which was the last year whose figures were available to the Research Consultative Committee in 1985—such is the changing nature of the disease that typhimurium was responsible for half the cases that year and the whole complex of enteritidis, not the particular strain only, accounted for only 14 per cent. of the total number of cases.
Furthermore, it could not have been known by the Research Consultative Committee in 1985 that eggs were the problem because, even in 1988, the public health laboratory service said that the evidence remained scanty. I think that the hon. Gentleman was being less than fair to the House, and indeed to me personally, in developing the
808
point as he did. We all know that this is a changing situation in which everybody has been to some extent perplexed and at odds. I feel that the Committee had to make some allowance for that changing situation and the way the scientists have viewed it. As the report, in paragraph 20 and elsewhere, makes clear, eggs were a new dimension in a new variant, a new special type, of the multiple problem of salmonella. We did not know the risk a priori and we still do not know the full story. Hence the importance which various hon. Members have attached to further research. I welcome that, although the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is absent now, perhaps over-emphasised some of the cuts in agricultural research. I speak as a member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. The hon. Gentleman should study the transcript of the press conference at which some of those matters were discussed recently.
As our knowledge has increased, the Government have had to alter and tailor their advice. That is bound to lead to charges of confusion and inconsistency. As the position changed, the Government response had to change. In conclusion on the general matters, it is reasonable for the Select Committee to criticise the specific timing, but we cannot fail to recognise that the Government, like the consumer, have a problem.
That brings me to the specific points. We need to remember that the debate takes place on the expenditure that the Government incurred on the egg market intervention scheme. We all welcomed the fact that the final cost of the scheme was only 20 per cent. of the forecast. Clearly there was a need to intervene because of the massive drop in market confidence in eggs. Even though that has been partially repaired, long-term market damage has taken place and it has had a knock-on effect on other farmers, particularly cereal farmers. For example, all the efforts that the Ministry put into set-aside to reduce cereal surpluses have been wiped out by the reduction in agricultural markets because of the reduction in the demand for eggs. Faced with a specific and definable problem, much easier than the general scientific problems to which I have referred, the Ministry of Agriculture got its act together. It was very much in the interests not only of the public and consumers for it to do so, but of taxpayers as well, otherwise there would have been more cost to the taxpayer for cereal intervention.
Three other points ought to be emphasised because, perhaps through haste, they did not appear as much as they should in the report. The first, referred to by several hon. Members, relates to imported eggs. I attach considerable importance to imported eggs because salmonella is at least as big a problem in some Mediterranean countries and probably generally in western Europe. It is unlikely that it will be picked up by a few random and token samples at ports, even if samples are taken. From 1992 there will be an effective free market in eggs across national frontiers in western Europe. Therefore, the answer must lie in building on the working party which has been established to lick the problem at European level.
I hope that the Minister will make reports to the House after tonight on further follow-up action that he is taking in the domestic market and on the European initiative because we need to cut off the problem at source so that all eggs are salmonella-free, wherever we get them.

809
The second point relates to broiler breeder flocks. We naturally wanted to confine the report to eggs, but we had interesting evidence from Hull, which has been referred to in the debate, that there was a specific problem with double yolk eggs that are taken off broiler breeder production and consigned to direct consumption. That may be taken into account in the new provisions for monitoring under the code of practice. Broiler flocks do not normally cause a problem because chickens are cooked thoroughly before eating, thus killing the bug, but I do not think that eggs should be transferred from broiler flocks to direct human consumption.
The final specific point involves catering establishments. It is obvious from the evidence that part of the problem of food poisoning, though not the original source, lies in the kitchen. A single family cook may be just as prone to make mistakes as a caterer. The difference is that in one case damage is confined to a family and in the other hundreds may go down with the disease. I am particularly concerned about sandwich bars, if for no other reason than that I am fond of sandwiches. Sandwich bars should be effectively monitored by local authorities, even if that means that they will need more resources.
On the general lessons of the report, the references in paragraph 32 to effective control at all points in the food chain, from the farm of origin all the way to the kitchen, are important. There are many gateways and pathways through which salmonella may come. It is important to close and restrict as many as we can. Some are in the farmer's hands, some in the trade and some in the kitchen. We must have resources, the right pattern of regulation and incentives to comply with the regulations.
The history of zoonoses and protein processing orders, as presented to us in evidence, suggested that the position was far from ideal in the past. Of course, legislation was generally, though not always, in place, but it was not working effectively. For example, the Protein Processing Order had no power to stop the sending out of food from a source that was known to have been infected. There was no compensation under the Zoonoses Order. That put considerable strain on the professional farmer. If he suspected that he had a problem, was it wise to raise the issue? It also put a considerable ethical strain on his veterinarian as to whether the problem should be reported under the order. Of course, it should have been reported, but whether that was done on the proper scale is perhaps another matter.
Government Departments are always conscious of another problem. While it was uncertain that one could point the finger at an individual farm, as soon as the Ministry cracks down and says, "Though shalt not sell," it is involved in litigation with producers. One needs to draw a contrast with the practice under public health legislation which for some time has enabled the payment of wages to infected persons who are taken out of food factories because they are carriers; they may be paid until the infection is stamped out and they can go back to work.
Mr. Martlew: Is it not a fact that in 1983 the Government changed the regulations and people who are still salmonella positive are going back to work?
Mr. Boswell: I do not think that that has been investigated. It may be appropriate for the Minister to
810
comment on it in his reply. If it is the case, and if the incentives are inappropriate, we should consider the matter again.
As so often in these matters, the Treasury is the uninvited guest at every Whitehall table. Once again it has held the purse strings and has starved the regulatory machinery of resources. The result in this case, though not always, is that the cost to the taxpayer has been more than would have been necessary if there had been adequate resources from the start. This must not happen again. The Government must find the resources for regulation so as to restore confidence in the industry. The events after 3 December show clearly what happens when the Government move from a smooth top gear into overdrive; a measure of supercharging goes into the system and things go much better.
We are all conscious of the extreme sensitivity of the public to allegations of risk. The counterpart is the extremely vulnerable state of consumer confidence in many foods. It is not always justifiable, but that vulnerability is now established. It is the peculiar and special responsibility of Ministers of the Crown to inform the public clearly about what its happening. Never is that more so than when the responsibility crosses departmental boundaries. Once again hindsight comes cheap. One major lesson to be learnt from all these events is that Ministers at their own level must consult each other and they must speak as a single voice. In this case I fear that careless talk has cost the taxpayer and the egg industry a pretty penny. It has also, sadly and unnecessarily, cost one ministerial life.
7.9 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South-West): It is not surprising that our Select Committee report on salmonella in eggs is welcomed by the Government with the same sort of enthusiasm to be expected from the Ayatollah Khomeini on being presented with a bound volume of "The Satanic Verses" in Farsi. Apart from the obvious embarrassment that any Government would experience from having some major blunders of several Departments exposed to the public gaze, we are, I believe, experiencing, too, the exposure of the fundamental flaw in free-market Toryism. Later Victorian society was not the laissez-faire: heaven that the Government would have us believe, but it was a period when the increasing complexity of society and. the increasing evils of free-market theory were beginning to become so evident that they had to be controlled. Food and water were the first areas in which social planning and collective provision were considered necessary.
The report and the Supplementary Estimate to which the debate refers expose a catalogue of errors, many of which arise from the ridiculous assumption that the state has no role in the production of anything. In a sense, the report should have had a wider brief, because one of our problems in Committee was that of avoiding expanding the remit to take in areas which perhaps were the real cause of burgeoning public health problems—for example, the poultry meat problem that has been around for some time; the uncontrolled growth of new methods of food preparation, such as cook-chill and the perhaps dangerous combination of that with microwave cooking, or, to be more exact, reheating; the reduction in the numbers of public health officers employed by local authorities; and the appalling cuts in research which cannot pay its way in

811
purely commercial terms. All those areas require close examination, but they were not unfortunately included in our remit.
As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, the report was unanimous in its conclusion. I believe that the report's main areas are valuable assets to the safety of the consumer and to the guidance of the producer. As we are now in the Chamber, I am sure that it is in order for us to stress areas of political dissent, some of which I have already mentioned, such as cuts in research and the role of the Ministers involved.
It was amusing and puzzling to witness the antics of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) after she had made her statement. In fact, she became the very model of ministerial discretion only after resigning from her ministerial post. Could that be because she was told to be quiet by the Secretary of State? If so, why? If that was her own idea, was that for an egotistical or, dare I say, a literary reason?
The Minister said that it was not possible to eradicate salmonella enteritidis, but I am told that Sweden has already done that. I remind him also that there is a part of the British Isles—Northern Ireland—which has managed to stay free of salmonella enteritidis.
Mr. Ryder: Sweden has had a slaughter policy for many years, but it has not eradicated salmonella.
Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Minister's assumption is right, but I am sure that it does not have enteritidis phage type 4. I was trying to make a point that salmonella is a term that was used rather loosely by many people giving evidence to the Committee. As a Committee, we have been looking at enteritidis phage type 4 because that is the one that is rapidly increasing in Britain.
It is possible that we can eradicate enteritidis phage type 4 in Britain. All that would be required to do that would be for some of the balance of the £19 million allocated to repairing the damage to the egg industry—some £16 million to compensate for the destruction and disinfection of the few tens of flocks which have already proven to be infected—to be put into the immediate initiation of research into finding a quick immunological test for specifically salmonella enteritidis phage 4. The technology is there, and it was used for salmonella pullorum eradication. The difference, of course, is that salmonella enteritidis is near market only for consumer health, whereas salmonella pullorum is a chicken pathogen and directly affects the profitability of the producer. Near market research is a nonsense when we are considering public health and food production.
I shall quote from an article on Government cuts in research in the Farmers Weekly of 24 February 1989. It said:
"Agricultural research and development is in danger of collapse. About 2,000 scientists, almost one in three, face redundancy, work on environmental pollution and public health will disappear and ADAS is fighting for the survival of its R&D.
The latest Government spending cuts strike at the heart of agricultural science and have triggered a massive reorganisation as beleagured scientists try to salvage a coherent research programme from the wreckage.
The Government plans to increase private funding of R&D by reducing the financial support it provides. But the speed of the attack has left the agricultural industry floundering and unable to react fast enough to save many
812
endangered projects. At a time when many of our European competitors are stepping up research spending, Britain has embarked on a programme of cuts and closures.
Reductions in Government spending on agricultural R&D are not new. But the cuts looming now are not the penny-pinching of a cost-conscious Government. They represent a profound change in political motives and will have an impact that far outweighs the sums of money involved.
Even after pruning another £30 million from its annual budget over the next three years, the Minister of Agriculture will still be spending £200 million a year on scientific research. But the figures hide a massive shake-up in the way those funds are shared out.
ADAS will lose more than a third of its budget, while the Agricultural and Food Research Council will lose £10 million (nearly 25 per cent.) and divert more of its money away from its own research stations and into the universities.
The effect is to leave more and more ADAS and AFRC scientists fighting for a share of the Government's shrinking purse and the private sector's near-stagnant spending. Confidential documents leaked to Farmers Weekly show the enormous extent of the damage. ADAS R&D could shrink by two-thirds while the AFRC is considering axing as many as 1,150 jobs. The omens are not good.
The political logic behind the cuts is persuasive. The Government argues that if private industry profits from the results of scientific work, then private industry should be prepared to pay for that work."
What industry will pay for research into consumer safety when all that that will do is to decrease that industry's profitability? That is, however, what free-market monetarism means. We are supposed to believe that the Ministry will enforce legislation. But that implies state control—the testing and the sampling of farms and producers. Who will do that? Will it be the veterinary service? The Government are closing two veterinary schools—Cambridge and Glasgow. Will the industry pay? I doubt it.
How can the Government claim to be turning green but at the same time believe in free market capitalism—the dogma of which implies the exploitation of any market to its cost-effective limits? That is an especially obvious nonsense in a complex 20th century situation of public health.
What further delights of free-market choice have we to come? Will there be more listeria and clostridium botulinum cases? Will we see bovine spongiform encephalopathy spread to humans and become an epidemic? Will we see a reduction in standards of water quality—so that the Government can sell off a monopoly with more liabilities than assets—resulting in an epidemic of cryptosporida or enteric viruses?
The free market is a 19th century myth, and to apply it to 20th century food production is bordering on insanity. The report has illustrated that fact graphically.
7.17 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: In strict response to the subject of this debate as to whether the cost of this intervention scheme was good value for the taxpayers, I must say that I believe that the money spent was essential and gave good value to the taxpayers and to the consumers. Apart from anything else, it stabilised the egg market. If there had been panic slaughtering of chickens, there would have been a massive drop in production and we should not only have had imported eggs, with all the dangers that that implies, but the price of home-grown eggs would have soared.
I believe that it was the Government's responsibility to find that money because it was as a result of a Minister's blunder that the matter blew up in the way that it did. In

813
my view, the Government were liable and it was right that they should come forward with the money. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) agrees with me. He said that £3 million was expensive, but had there been a panic slaughter of, say, 25 per cent. of the chicken flock, there would have been a massively increased surplus of cereals. I have it on reliable authority that the extra cost of storing those cereals and buying them into intervention would have been £110 million, rather than the £3 million that the hon. Gentleman criticises.
Dr. David Clark: To make the matter quite clear, when the Minister introduced the claim in December—the hon. Gentleman will recall this as I believe that he was present—we supported the Minister, who had no alternative, because we feared the import of eggs and poultry from countries where conditions would not be so good as those in this country.
Mr. Marland: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is helpful to have that cleared up. I wanted to make the point about the £110 million as against the £3 million. Fair is fair—I will accept the hon. Gentleman's point if he will accept mine.
There is no point in reiterating what has already been said about the report. I confirm that we on the Select Committee considered its contents very carefully. Like others, I am grateful for the remarks that have been made about the effort that we put in on this and I add my words of good will and my compliments to the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), whom I think one can describe as being in most cases fair and firm. I hope that our report has brought some sense of order to the situation and will help to get things into proportion and serve as a useful background document to any further consideration of salmonella in eggs or micro-organisms in food generally. The report attempts to show the way forward.
The report highlights the fact that Ministers have a responsibility to be measured in their actions and in their responses to any situation. I do not believe that since 3 December Ministers have done anything wrong. The hype and hysteria and the genuine desire of people to know what the situation is have focused a great deal of attention on the whole subject, which in itself has demanded instant attention and cried out for instant action. But instant action in this situation is not possible—we have to find out the facts before the Government and Ministers pontificate on the subject. People are confused and they want a guide as to what is safe and what will happen in the future.
The Government's action and speed of reaction to the correct information have been highlighted and complemented in the lead article in this week's Farmers Weekly, which gave the Government eight out of 10 for the way in which they responded to and handled the Southwood report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Such a high score from a magazine not usually disposed to write complimentary things about the Government is a great credit to my hon. Friend the Minister. The magazine's only reservation is one that I share—it felt that if farmers found that their animals were suffering from a notifiable disease and informed the Ministry they should have 100 per cent. compensation for slaughter. I agree because it is all too easy to slip an animal into the market if one thinks it is showing any signs of a notifiable disease
814
before one has to notify it. It would be sensible to give 100 per cent. compensation and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that.
I emphasise again that the Government need a steady hand when dealing with these emergencies. We have seen the damage that hype and hysteria can do. We have also seen, with other measures that the Government have taken to try to give guidance to the public, that if things are dealt with quietly and steadily they can be effective. The introduction of seat belts and warnings against smoking, alcohol and AIDS, for instance, have been handled gently and steadily and people have gone home, considered what has been said and acted accordingly. I do not think that hysteria is the way to deal with such matters.
For all their self-righteous indignation, members of the Labour party—with the exception of those on the Select Committee—have contributed little of value to the debate. I do not remember their ever acting in the consumer's best interest. Throughout this whole episode they have fed the nation's worst fears with scurrilous remarks which have absolutely no foundation. Saying that the Ministry of Agriculture is in the pocket of the farmers is about as accurate as saying that the Department of Energy is in the pocket of the coalminers. The nation deserves a steady hand, and I believe that that is what we have both at the Ministry of Agriculture and at the Department of Health.
We need full details of research, and perhaps more research. A review of Government research and the publication of that information would be most helpful. With the benefit of hindsight, if the Government publish this information for goodness' sake let us try to do a better job than we did with the publishing of Sir Donald Acheson's advice on what to do about eggs. If ever I saw a diabolical advertisement, that was it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scaremongering."] That is a matter of opinion.
As the Select Committee report states, we need an information and education campaign for cooks, whether private or commercial, male or female. In a recent Which? report published earlier this week in most of the national newspapers all manner of dangers were revealed. It spoke of dog hairs in the kitchen, cats on the washing up, dirty dishes left in the sink, inaccurate defrosting of food, wrong storage of food that is not defrozen and the inaccurate setting of refrigerator temperatures, all of which can induce salmonella in food.
I know of a friendly vet in Gloucestershire who has done some experiments on listeria to see whether and how it is controlled by cooking. He injected listeria into meat and then took two similar samples. He put one in a conventional oven and cooked it in the normal way. This killed 99 per cent. of the listeria, as he found when he tested the sample afterwards. He cooked the other sample in a microwave oven. When he tested it, he found that only 25 per cent. of the listeria had been killed. This is very important. In their own best interests, the public should be told these things and how to handle a microwave oven. I also know an intelligent grandmother who proved the point by putting her grandchild's milk in the microwave oven to heat it. The top part of the bottle of milk was nice and warm, probably a little over body temperature, and the bottom was still stone cold. Luckily she knew what to do and fed the baby the milk only when it reached a steady temperature. But that proves that microwave ovens need careful handling.
This is not a finger-pointing exercise, but I believe that the people of this country want to know the truth. I

815
wonder if schools could have more of an input into teaching young people how to go about cooking. Years ago we used to learn domestic science, but sadly that has now been dropped from too many schools and the children learn something else. Boys as well as girls should be taught. We are moving into new systems of food production which necessitate different handling of food in the kitchen. There must be a new regime of food preparation and a new awareness of the dangers of prepared foods. Changed circumstances necessitate new guidance. Many supermarkets are being thoroughly responsible in highlighting the way in which their customers should store and defrost food, but we still need more information—information rather than direction. I should not like to see the banning of green-top milk or soft cheeses, wherever they come from, because we could be banning shellfish next. Conservative Members do not want to live in a nanny state—we want information, not direction. The Opposition like direction and nannies, but that is not how it is with us.
The problem should not be underestimated. People both within and outside the House want information and guidance. Being a practical person, I intend to do what I can to get information to feed to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department of Health. I am doing that by having a public meeting in my constituency on 22 March. I have invited a local doctor, a representative of a supermarket chain, with whom I came into contact at Gloucester chamber of trade and commerce, a microbiologist from the public health laboratory in Gloucestershire Royal hospital, egg producers from Day Lay in Monmouth and an environmental health officer. I, of course, will be in the chair. I hope that we shall receive some interesting information from the meeting and I shall pass it on to my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that we can all depend on him and his colleagues to do the right thing with it.
7.30 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: It is with great pleasure that I join with other colleagues who served on the Select Committee in complimenting the Chairman on his deft, sensitive and, happily, at times lighthearted handling of the Committee. I also thank and compliment the clerk who served the Committee, his assistant and the advisers and others who served so expertly and did a tremendous job behind the scenes to produce the report. It was with great satisfaction and some pride that I served on the Committee and participate in tonight's debate.
The Select Committee report is very important, not just in its subject matter, which clarifies the position on salmonella and eggs, but in establishing the powers of Select Committees. The Committee handled a politically sensitive topic in a unanimous way. I also pay tribute to the courage shown by Conservative Members who served on the Committee; they did the Select Committee system a great service.
Rather than go over the ground of the report, I shall comment on the Minister's opening speech this afternoon. His speech was empty, and his various excuses to try to explain away the report's criticisms were unconvincing. The Minister cited the difficulty of achieving Utopia on earth as an excuse for some of the Government's failures
816
and incompetences. When a Minister starts explaining his failures by saying that there is no such thing as Utopia, it is a sign that he is in trouble.
Another excuse used by the Minister and other hon. Members who have spoken was that it was not fair to criticise the Government using the benefit of hindsight, and that certain matters could not have been anticipated before the Government acted. However, some of the report's most telling criticisms cannot be excused or deflected by talking of the benefit of hindsight. There was no hindsight involved in the Ministry's failure to prevent eggs from farms deemed responsible for food poisoning outbreaks from entering the food chain. It simply failed to take the necessary action. Likewise, it is no use saying that it is only with hindsight that one realises that the Department of Health should have issued advice to the public at the same time as it issued advice to the National Health Service. The vulnerable groups concerned were at large in the public as well as in NHS hospitals.
Paragraph 60 of the report deals with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Government's failure to take the statutory powers necessary to prevent feed found to be contaminated with salmonella from being sold. That does not involve hindsight, either of the Committee or of the Opposition Members who have criticised the Government. As the report states,
"the action should have been taken several years ago."
The Government cannot hide behind the excuse of hindsight.
The third excuse that we have heard from the Minister and Conservative Members is to concentrate attention on what the report describes as skilful handling of the intervention package. The Opposition gave credit where credit was due and agreed that the intervention package was handled skilfully. The Minister chose to dwell on that at great length in his speech. However, to use that as an excuse for the earlier failures—
Mr. Ryder: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the motion before the House today deals with the intervention package, which is why I dwelt on it.
Mr. Macdonald: I think that the Minister dwelt on that topic with a great deal of relief and loving attention, thereby hoping to deflect some of the report's criticisms. For the Government or their Back-Bench defenders to try to use that argument to exempt the Government from criticism is like a motorist who has knocked down a pedestrian claiming credit for skilfully administering the kiss of life afterwards.
We must consider—as does the report—the earlier problems and failures that led to the crisis which necessitated the intervention package. At least the Minister is here to defend his Department. It is a cause of great regret that no representative from the Department of Health is present, even to listen. The report covers that Department's failures and shortcomings as well as those of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It would have been sensible for a Minister from the Health Department to be present to hear some of the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the failure of the Health Department and the Secretary of State for Health's inadequate response to the report's criticisms of him. He has tried to brush off some of the criticisms as being ridiculous and preposterous.
When I raised the question of the Secretary of State's responsibility in an earlier debate on a similar topic, the

817
Secretary of State tried to deny any failure on his part or that of his Department. He said that there was nothing wrong in the way that his Department had handled the difficult task of explaining to the public what was meant by the then junior Minister's statement on 3 December 1988. The Secretary of State said that the appropriate person to handle the matter was the chief medical officer and that no blame should be attached to him or to the Department for the way in which the affair was handled.
That still strikes me as somewhat mysterious. If there was nothing wrong with the way in which the Department of Health handled the fallout from the 3 December statement, one wonders why the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South was allowed to resign. If, on the other hand, she was right to resign, surely the Secretary of State must carry some of the blame, because he was her superior.
This is where I differ from the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He rightly attacked the cavalier attitude of the Secretary of State to the criticisms made of him in the report, but he was wrong to insert a wedge between the responsibility borne by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South and by the Secretary of State, because the responsibility for the crisis and failure of communication was shared by both. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North said that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South should carry a political health warning, but, although her original statement was undoubtedly wrong, as was her refusal to correct it, the Secretary of State was equally wrong in his handling of her statement. Hereafter he, too, should carry a political health warning.
One of the things that strikes me about the comments that the Select Committee saw fit to make about the Government's handling of the salmonella problem was how much they parallel criticisms that we made in an earlier report on Chernobyl. Then, as now, we found a slowness to act and delays in taking vital decisions. Then, as now, we found confusion and lack of co-ordination between Ministries. On both occasions we found a failure to inform the public in time or adequately. Perhaps if the Government had taken our earlier criticisms to heart they would have avoided falling into the same mistakes on this occasion—but they did not, and they still do not.
The Minister mentioned the salmonella control programme being undertaken in Sweden. I asked the Minister a parliamentary question about that this week. I understand that the Ministry sent some officers to Sweden to examine its salmonella eradication and control programme. I understood that a report had been prepared on the programme and on its success or otherwise, and I asked the Ministry to deposit that report in the Library so that hon. Members could have the benefit of some of the information on which Ministers rely when making statements. Unfortunately, the Ministry responded that it would be inappropriate to place the report in the Library for the benefit of hon. Members. After all the problems and travails that the Ministry has undergone because of its failure to be open, such secrecy is deplorable.
As I have said, many criticisms parallel to those that have been made of the Government on this occasion are to be found in earlier reports such as the one on Chernobyl. There is, however, one vital difference. One of the causes for the Government's mishandling of the affair has been what some have termed their cosy relationship with the producers. This is not a broad-brush criticism; I do not say that the Government enjoy a cosy relationship with all
818
producers. I sometimes regret that they are not more sympathetic to some producers. But if we contrast the Government's intervention package after the salmonella egg scare with their handling of the rescue package after Chernobyl, the cosy relationship with the egg producers can clearly be seen.
Tonight, the Minister said that the Government were determined that there should be no half measures about the intervention package for eggs, but when it was a question of compensating the hill farmers who were affected by the Chernobyl fallout the Government took the line that the farmers would have to accept some rough justice. The contrast is obvious—
Dr. David Clark: Before my hon. Friend leaves Chernobyl, and in order to emphasise his point about obsessive secrecy, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Ministry of Agriculture is holding a public meeting tonight in Cumbria to explain to the farmers in the restricted areas the results of the aerial survey? The only trouble is that the Ministry has not supplied copies—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. By decision of the House, the debate must be confined to salmonella in eggs. Has the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) concluded his speech?
Mr. Macdonald: I have not. I agree with my hon. Friend, who has cited another example of the Government's deplorable lack of openness.
A group of producers in Scotland who do not enjoy such a cosy relationship with the Government are the fishermen, who have been affected by the quota cuts in haddock and cod. Another group are the hill farmers, who will lose out under the sheepmeat regime. When these cases have been brought to the Ministry's attention, it replies that it will have to assess the effect on their incomes retrospectively—no question of rushing in with an intervention package of £19 million to help fishermen or hill farmers in Scotland.
The lesson to be learnt from this episode is that ordinary people who do not possess the economic clout of the large producers—fishermen, small hill farmers and ordinary consumers—cannot look to the Government for protection. They can look only to the Opposition for protection and support.
7.48 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Earlier in the: debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) alluded, in a witty and informative speech, to the proceedings before the Select Committee that produced this report. In one respect he was in error. He said—I think that I quote the substance of his comment accurately—that if a Member of this House appeared before a Select Committee and did not answer its questions, there was nothing that the Select Committee could do about it.
Mr. Wiggin: I said that.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am sorry, it appears to have been the Chairman of the Select Committee. However, I think that hon. Members will find that it was also said by my right hon. Friend. The comment was not correct.
This House sets up Select Committees by an Order of the House and empowers them with their terms of reference. If a Select Committee's inquiries fall within

819
those terms of reference and if it finds it cannot continue its inquiries to the point of the production of the report, either because a Member of this House refuses to attend or because a Member of this House does attend, but refuses to answer the questions that the Committee puts to him which are within its terms of reference, it makes a special report to the House stating those facts. The Leader of the House is then, by convention, bound to move a motion from the Dispatch Box ordering the hon. Member concerned to attend the sitting of the Select Committee at a time notified by its Chairman and there to answer to the satisfaction of the Committee—not to the satisfaction of the House—the questions that the Committee addresses to that hon. Member. The position is not obscure; it is clear.
Select Committees are chosen by the Select Committee of Selection, not by the normal channels. The House, which sets up the Committees to do a job for it, grants them the power to do that job. It is perfectly true that the Chairman cannot issue a witness summons to a Member of either House, as he can to anyone else. The remedy that applies to a Member of this House, which does not, of course, apply to a Member of another place, lies in a special report. It is then the duty of the Leader of the House, who moves the motion in the first place setting up the Committee, to move the motion in the name of the House directing the hon. Member to attend and to answer the questions put to him or her. It is as well that that should be put on the record.
I read the report carefully, as soon as it come out. My judgment is that the Committee had discharged admirably its duty to the House. It would have been easy for it to produce a report lacking in precision or lacking in scope. It avoided both of those pitfalls and the whole House has reason to be grateful to the Committee and its Chairman for their industry and also for their lucidity, both of which can be seen in the report.
May I also commend the Committee's use of heavy type, which makes it easier to identify the recommendations from the general text. I want to focus on section (vii) of the part of the report which is headed "Countermeasures". It is of crucial importance, and I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister, in responding to the Committee's report on behalf of the Government, ignored it. It is an important section and is headed "Imported Eggs". It says:
"S. enteritidis is not confined to Great Britain, but the Government's present powers do not allow it to prevent the importation of infected eggs as readily as it can ban imported protein."
May I mention in passing that the treaty of Rome allows importation bans if they are bona fide for the protection of health? If we are not talking about the protection of health, we are not talking about anything at all. It is clear to me that bans on infected food fall within the bona fide protection of health provision. I imagine that that would be so even after 1 January 1993, which is so often referred to as 1992, as I must say for the avoidance of doubt. Importation bans are a necessary protective measure.
I now come on to a part of the report in heavy type.
"We recommend"
said our Committee, because it is a Committee that reports to the whole House,
"that MAFF study how far imported eggs are contributing to the present problem; and whether any tighter restrictions are needed."
820
The report then goes back into normal type and the Committee tells us:
"Since the UK is not alone in the European Community in having a problem with poultry-borne salmonellas"—
and here the report continues in heavy type—
"MAFF should press for Community initiatives to prevent the trade of infected products; and should hold similar discussions with other trading partners."
There are good precedents for such a step. For a long time, we have been concerned that two EEC countries in particular—Holland and West Germany—have been sending pork meat products to this country that are so lightly cooked that they have caused outbreaks of disease in our pigs, when discarded sandwiches and food, inadequately recooked, have found their way into the diet of pigs. There is nothing new in saying that we need to intervene in the EEC to raise the standards in other countries. However, the last observation in bold type that I quoted does not remove the necessity for the first.
Unless and until the other EEC countries adopt measures and enforce them—the one does not necessarily, alas, entail the other—which will result in salmonella-infected eggs not being exported to the United Kingdom, we are perfectly entitled at the moment, as I read the treaty of Rome, to ban them at the port of entry. However, in practical terms, that could be done only if the eggs were inspected, because nobody will know whether they are infected unless they are inspected. It is here that we come up against the difficulty that unless and until we have a national inspection scheme, funded nationally on the Estimates that we are discussing today, we shall not have effective control over imported eggs. As this excellent report says, the only way in which one can tell whether an egg is infected is by penetrating its shell and testing what is inside. That is not in dispute. There must be, therefore, extensive sampling of imported eggs.
Such sampling would be far too much of a financial burden to impose on inspectors paid from the rates, which are rigidly controlled by the Government. That is why it must be a task adopted by central Government and charged to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or to the Department of Health. I said that in last Monday's agriculture debate, but it is wholly relevant to the debate today. Effective import controls to prevent the ingress of disease will not be achieved at bargain-basement costs. All the money that the Department is spending on controlling this disease will not achieve the confidence in this product of the consumer unless the market is protected from the infection of salmonella-bearing imported eggs. I do not believe that many consumers notice whether they are buying imported eggs. If they get salmonella poisoning from eggs, as far as they are concerned they are getting it from eggs, and eggs are eggs. It is no good asking them, "Are you sure that it was not an imported egg?" They will attribute it to a failure of the measures taken by the Government and the industry.
Let me say how glad I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and his Committee also focused on the importance of hygiene in the catering industry and in the home. People do not smell their own breath. If they get salmonella poisoning from an egg, the last thing that they will believe is that it is because they cracked the egg on a dirty draining board in case it leaked out, and that from that draining board—which had previously had raw meat on it and had not subsequently been cleaned with disinfectant or boiling water—the egg

821
picked up salmonella. They will be convinced that the salmonella must have been in the egg when they bought it. They may have beaten it with an egg whisk which had been lying on the draining board before being used. Why? Because the draining board is a convenient place to wash up.
Mr. Marland: It is where the cat sits.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Very possibly it is.
These are important considerations. I do not suppose that I am the only Member to receive letters from constituents who applaud free-range eggs but decry the Government for not preventing salmonella poisoning. What has become clear from the report, if it was not clear before, is the significantly increased risk of salmonella in free-range eggs, which are exposed to the droppings of wild birds which may themselves be infected.
Apart from that, as the report points out, if the eggshell is dirty with the faeces of the hen that laid it—which is less likely in the case of battery hens, because their conditions are designed in such a way that it does not happen—there is a greater likelihood that the eggs will be contaminated at the moment of breaking.
The report makes useful reading not only for Members of the House of Commons but for women's institutes and mothers' unions, so that the message about home hygiene—whether it relates to eggs or to many other forms of food—is at last really appreciated. It may not be glamorous, but it is necessary if the public expenditure that we are discussing today is to achieve its final objective.
Finally, let me draw attention to the cost of inspecting flocks. If blood tests are to be taken, that could well be very expensive. I imagine that a separate needle will be required for every bird, for the same reason that separate disposable needles are now used when different people are given blood tests or injections by their local general practitioners. If the test on one bird is not to give a false result resulting from the test on another, the procedure is likely to be very costly.
If the cost is borne by our producers, whose eggs will be priced out of the market, the United Kingdom produced eggs or the imported eggs which do not have to bear the cost? As the imported eggs carry a much greater risk of infection, is it in the interests of the consuming public for the cost of the tests to be borne from central Government funds, or should it be borne by the producer, with the result that people must eat untested imported eggs?
I think that the question answers itself, as important questions so often do if we put them clearly and logically. The message that must reach the Treasury from the debate is that a significant amount of increased public expenditure will be necessary if we are to protect the integrity of the food chain—from the food delivered to the producer to the birds producing the eggs, and subsequently to the shops where the eggs are sold and the homes or catering establishments where they are consumed.
Catering establishments are not just cafeterias. As I queued for 10 minutes yesterday to pay for my petrol at a motorway service station, I watched fascinated as for the whole of those 10 minutes the door of the refrigerator containing sandwiches was left open while a girl put in packets of sandwiches, removed the prices and re-priced—I hope that that was what she was doing—the sandwiches already inside. The door of the refrigerator, a cabinet, was open for all the time that I was there, and the
822
House will be interested to learn that there were egg sandwiches within. The final part of the food chain may be in a café or restaurant; it may be in a home; but it may also be in the self-service cabinets that are now to be found all over the place.
If we want value for money from the additional public expenditure involved in preventing the consuming public from becoming infected with salmonella, those are some of the aspects that we shall have to watch.
8.6 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I am happy to have the opportunity to congratulate the Select Committee and its Chairman on the speed with which they acted to limit the damage done to egg producers in the United Kingdom, and particularly in Northern Ireland, as a result of the crisis caused by the ill-chosen remarks of the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. That reported, headline-grabbing comment created unjustified fears among consumers and dramatic falls in egg consumption, to the loss of those throughout the United Kingdom whose livelihood was directly associated with egg production.
We should not forget that egg producers are also egg consumers. They have young children and elderly relatives who could be vulnerable, and they are unlikely to engage in any egg production practice that could threaten their livelihoods, their own health, that of their loved ones or that of consumers. I welcome the report and its recommendations. I feel reassured, as will my constituents, by the fact that no evidence was found to support the assertion that most egg production was infected with salmonella, whether that was taken to mean most eggs or most flocks.
Hon. Members have referred a good deal to food hygiene. If consumers cook eggs thoroughly for vulnerable groups—recognising that there is a small risk with uncooked eggs—and follow the chief medical officer's advice, I am confident that any risk of illness can be avoided. Experts agree, however, that salmonellas are impossible to eradicate, so it is important that every housewife—indeed, every individual who cooks in a kitchen or prepares food for sale—recognises the dangers that can be caused by the careless storage or handling of food.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that there is a part to be played by education and that young people at school should be taught in home economics about the necessity for hygiene in the home? Sadly, that subject is not included in the national curriculum.
Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Member for that very constructive intervention. Having been a teacher for many years, and having encouraged every boy in the first three years of his attendance at secondary school to gain experience in cooking and domestic hygiene, I feel that as adults those who have not had that experience will be greatly disadvantaged and perhaps—I hope not—there could be some risk to health due to the absence of first-hand knowledge of domestic hygiene. It is to be hoped that the Government will encourage an education programme not just for young people but to promote greater public awareness generally. I know, for example, that many people deliberately order cracked eggs for

823
baking and cooking. That is fine if they receive them fresh and use them immediately, but carelessly stored eggs provide an excellent medium for the growth of bacteria and people who allow shells to get damp, and so on, are creating a risk for those who may use food cooked with such eggs.
Reference has been made to the large number of eggs imported into Great Britain and the risk from foreign eggs. I shall not mention the sources that have already been mentioned, but I take the opportunity to remind the House that no case of salmonella enteritidis has been found in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, because the majority of eggs produced in Northern Ireland are exported, particularly to the rest of the United Kingdom, the salmonella scare had a very serious effect on Northern Ireland egg producers.
First, there was the effect on egg consumption in Northern Ireland, which fell dramatically. Despite the fact that no cases of salmonella were found in Northern Ireland, the publicity—much of which was well-intentioned—carried on after the damage was done, continuing to make the situation worse, and this had a significant detrimental effect on local consumption. Secondly, the scare in the rest of the United Kingdom resulted in a very substantial fall in demand. Indeed, the fall was so great that production in Great Britain was able to meet demand and there was no need to import eggs from Northern Ireland, so producers there were left with eggs that they could not sell. Local producers in Northern Ireland thus lost heavily as a result of the scare and, despite the Government's advertising programme and reassurance that the salmonella danger was greatly exaggerated, demand is still well below normal.
The intervention package introduced to help producers by taking eggs off the market and culling egg-laying birds did not have a great take-up—first, due to the short period of operation and, secondly, due to the fact that producers were not likely to kill young birds. Had the scheme been for older birds, the take-up would have been much greater.
Although there have been no cases of salmonella enteritidis in Northern Ireland, I am pleased to assure the House that there is no complacency and that the industry there has a working party involving the union and the Department of Agriculture, working together on codes of practice to tighten up the already high health standards in Northern Ireland. I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that the large quantities of eggs exported from Northern Ireland to Great Britain are not "foreign" eggs but very pure eggs and that Northern Ireland has the highest possible health standards and health record as regards our farm livestock and the food products that we export. Indeed, an opportunist might say that Northern Ireland egg producers should be aggressively marketing their eggs at a premium here on the mainland because I believe that people would be willing to pay a premium for the purity of the eggs supplied.
Since the scare, I have not altered my own habits—confident in the knowledge that the eggs produced locally in Northern Ireland are absolutely free of salmonella infection. I continue to eat hard-boiled, scrambled or lightly fried eggs. For those who have not tried it, an excellent tonic is raw eggs—provided that they come from
824
a good source—with a little brandy to give people a lift if they are feeling low. I shall probably need exactly that after I have finished here this evening.
'Tis an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and I am satisfied that after all the public discussion since the salmonella crisis erupted poultry meals will no longer be included in layers' rations. Myth or no myth, in my opinion such recycling within the food chain is offensive. I do not want ever to eat any such product, no matter how well sterilised the previous product was before it was fed to any farm livestock, and I hope no former animal protein will be included in livestock feed.
Northern Ireland producers have still not recovered from the damage done and I am disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to emphasise and re-emphasise widely that eggs produced in Northern Ireland were salmonella-free. Nevertheless, I commend all those responsible for the report and trust that the Government will act quickly to implement all the recommendations put forward so that full consumer confidence can be restored.
8.18 pm
Mr. David Curry: I join my colleagues in congratulating the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), on the way in which he handled our meetings.
This report raises three essential issues to do with the way in which the Government handle crises. I would like to focus upon the inter-relationship between when the problem is dealt with at an administrative level and when it emerges at the political level. We have to look first at the handling of the pre-crisis within the Ministry of Agriculture—the crisis I am talking about is the great debate of December—and the co-ordination of the response across two Ministries because two Ministries were centrally involved in this. Finally, we need to examine the crisis management during that short period in December and what followed it.
The key to the first issue, the pre-crisis situation in MAFF, is at what point the doubts being expressed about health and the safety of the product should be translated from the administrative to the political arena. Ministers do not walk into their office on Monday morning and say, "Well chaps, how many prosecutions have there been under the Zoonoses Order since last Friday?" They have to deal with such a crowding of events that they must depend upon being alerted when events which have been rolling on in the Ministry begin to emerge as a problem which warrants political attention.
The first question that the report asks is whether those warnings were effectively coming through to Ministers. Were the people in the Ministry who had been dealing with those matters for months, if not longer, alert to the political liabilities that were building up for Ministers? Under the British system we have ministerial responsibility. It is entirely right that a Minister should at the end collect whatever flak is appropriate. However, it is also important that there should be an effective upward flow of information. If the job of civil servants is to protect their Ministers, their job must also be to warn their Ministers of any problem.
I deduce from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and from the evidence given to the

825
Select Committee that the first time that the discussions reached a ministerial level was as late as November. For example, there had been no ministerial meetings with the industry before November. Before November there had been no plans to make codes statutory rather than voluntary. It must have been obvious before that that this was a sensitive issue and we are correct to criticise the slow pace at which matters evolved within the Ministry.
It is right to ask why that might have been. One reason must be because, in a sense, the Ministry of Agriculture is a Ministry apart. It spends a great deal of its time dealing with Brussels and the problems of the common agricultural policy. It has not been at the forefront of the great reforming drive of the past few years which has hit the headlines. It may not have become accustomed to dealing with politicised issues as may have become the case in other Departments.
It is equally true to say that there has probably been a weary déjà vu about problems of surplus and mountains affecting the Department. There must have been a weary repetition of the sort of problems that were constantly brought to the Minister's attention. Therefore, when there were warnings, whether they came from the Department of Health or internally within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, they were not acted upon urgently enough, or they were not understood or they were not pressed hard upon Ministers.
It is also true to say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is still fairly producer-oriented. I do not accuse Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was present earlier. Over the past few years the way in which the Ministry goes about many of its problems has changed fundamentally. However, the Ministry's origins mean that basic concern with producer interests is still deeply rooted within the Department.
In addition, the Government have set their stamp upon the notion that they are a deregulatory rather than a dirigiste Government. Therefore, I do not blame civil servants if they are reluctant about recommending to Ministers measures which might have a dirigiste stamp about them when they know that the inclination of their political masters is to move in the opposite direction.
That brings me to another difficulty that the report highlighted. Even if it had been agreed that action should be taken and measures enforced, the legal basis for that was inadequate. There were no prosecutions under the Zoonoses Order. One or two show trials would have been useful if only pour encourager les autres. That was not possible, and I am sure that that was because the advice would have been that there would be a danger of a judicial review and a defeat because of the legislation in train.
When the problem emerged in the political theatre, the action was prompt. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister because it was he who took the issue by the scruff of its neck, after which we saw rapid and effective action. My reproach is not directed towards the political level but towards the inter-relationship between the administrative and political levels.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was not the only Department involved. The Department of Health was involved. What do we know about inter-departmental communications? At what level were contacts made? Again I deduce from the evidence given that there were no ministerial contacts between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the
826
Ministry of Health at any early stage, but there must have been contacts between the Departments at other levels. At what level did they take place? They must have been at a senior level. There must have been such contacts. The Department of Health's anxiety must have been expressed within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So we come to the problem of the transmission of that concern at the point at which Ministers say, "Hello, we have a problem. We had better look at this. There is something here that does not feel quite right." I realise that in a sense that is a matter of political intuition, but it is a legitimate subject for concern.
Then we come to the crisis management of the famous events of December when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) made her comments about the safety of eggs in a pre-arranged television interview. I am a professional journalist; a television reporter. I paid my subs to the National Union of Journalists only a few days ago. What would I do if such remarks were made to me? This is a matter for conjecture. but I would get hold of a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to corroborate the statement. I do not know whether those involved were successful in getting hold of the Minister, but I know jolly well that they would have chased him. That is what I would have done. That would have been my immediate reaction.
What does the Minister do? If he has any sense, he says, "Hold your horses. Let me find out what she said". He then gets on to his Department who gets on to the Department of Health. The telephone wires go berserk. I am sure that the whole matter was conducted in a civilised way. It is merely my hypothesis that this was most likely to have happened. Representations would then have been made to discover what was said and to find out what was to be done.
The Department of Health then has a problem. It has a choice to make. One possibility is that it can go straight in front of the television cameras and say, "This is not true. This is wrong. We deny it. We argue with the statement." My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was on his way to Montreal at that point, so we are talking about an argument between junior Ministers. A public dispute between junior Ministers is not an edifying spectacle. Therefore, it is entirely correct that at that point the focus should have been upon seeking clarification of the remarks to try to nip things in the bud by retraction or some sort of explanation of the remarks.
Was such a clarification sought? I surmise that it must have been. Was it refused? I suspect that it must have been denied at that point. That failure to clarify meant that. the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the producers were then put in the position of refuting an allegation. There was no requirement to substantiate the allegation. That is contrary to everything that I have learnt, even as an amateur of the principles of English law where one is innocent until proven guilty.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health came to the House and told us what the situation was. The Government's chief medical officer was sent in to bat. In the absence of a clarification from the author of those remarks, we had a drama involving Hamlet without the princess. That was the key to the problem. When, later on, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South said that she stood by her remarks we

827
were going downhill all the way. The crisis management was extremely difficult in any case, but it got beyond control at a fairly early stage.
When we got over that hump and reached the position when it was necesary to put measures in place, we saw crisis management at its best. The Government acted responsibly and quickly and, as it proved, economically. That floor was put under the industry, albeit at a late stage, because of events, and it prevented what was a defeat from turning into a rout. From the figures that we have had today, we know that consumption is now significantly down. But that package was opportune and well constructed and it turned out to be economical as well. In congratulating the Ministry on doing that, our report is quite justified, just as it is justified in its criticisms where they have been made. I am sure that everyone will recognise the essential equilibrium of the balance at the heart of the report.
My conclusion is that, while we need not shift furniture around, we must make sure that the Department has an effective mechanism for the vertical transmission of information within it and also that, where Departments have to co-ordinate, they do so in an effective manner. The least good remedy would be to create yet another institution which would require co-ordination with yet more bodies.
The lessons from this experience are to make sure that those Ministries and other existing bodies operate effectively and that we do not attempt to solve a problem simply by an institutional rearrangement because, in the end, it is efficiency of the people that matters, not the geography of the institutions. It would be an entirely wrong appreciation of the problem if we went in that direction instead of recognising that it is the quality of the people that is essential to this debate.
The report is both apposite and balanced. I am pleased that we have been able to sign it, despite one or two reticences at an earlier stage in the procedure, and I am happy to join in the congratulations to the Committee's Chairman who has made such a good job of representing us here in this Chamber, as he has done throughout the debate.
8.31 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Select Committee in performing such an admirable public duty, the speed with which it conducted its affairs and presented its report and for its service not only to the House but to the public generally, both producers and consumers. I would also like to compliment the House on the responsible way in which, for the most part, this debate has been conducted, in that we have tried to draw the lessons from the whole salmonella affair.
I detected at an early stage that panic was setting in, following the remarks of the then junior Health Minister, because I went to a restaurant in the capital city of Wales, Cardiff, shortly afterwards and from the menu I saw that, for the first time ever, I could order a mixed grill with or without eggs. That showed me that the retail side of the trade in restaurants was panicking. What was remarkable was that the people who were actually buying the eggs were not panicking as much as people who were buying
828
them in the restaurants. Although the retailers were not prepared to buy eggs from producers, very often the consumer was perfectly happy to buy them.
One could see immediately the remark was made that producers would suffer. I declare an interest in that my son keeps a few hens. As he had decided that there might be a few pennies in it for him, we decided to carry out an academic exercise. We bought a little book and worked out a profit and loss account. My son suddenly realised that there was not a lot of money in eggs, that the margins were extremely low and that he would have to have a very large flock of hens before he could get a return and pay himself a decent wage. So he and I both knew, as soon as that remark was made and because we were aware of the very small margins for most egg producers, that they would be in deep financial trouble very quickly.
What was required at an early date was that confidence in eggs should be restored. The problem was that the Department of Health consistently refused to contradict the statement of the junior Health Minister. All that happened when the Secretary of State for Health came to the House was that he repeated over and over the view of the chief medical officer. Unfortunately, the public was still left with the view of the junior Health Minister and, unless there was a retraction of her statement, the public would still believe that there was a problem. Until there was an adequate retraction of that statement, we would continue to have problems.
When the Secretary of State for Health came to the House to respond to a private notice question a few days after the event, he adopted a rather cavalier approach to the whole affair, and I am afraid that the House itself in many ways adopted a cavalier approach. The House should remember that what we say here amongst ourselves is reported out there and that the people out there are concerned about things that go on.
When the Secretary of State appeared before the Committee to give evidence and was asked about the junior Health Minister's statement, he said:
"The statement on the Saturday interview, the material statement if you like, I do not actually have an opinion on because as I said, personally reading it I think it is ambiguous."
The public did not think that it was ambiguous; the public thought that it was a real problem. The Secretary of State was armed with briefings and with all the up-to-date information. He may, therefore, have considered that the statement was ambiguous, but the public did not think that it was. The Minister failed at that stage to contradict the statement; it might have breached collective responsibility. Yet his duty to the producer and the consumer should have meant that at that stage he put the record straight. So collective responsibility within the Government took precedence over the duty of the Government to present information to the public.
I want to compliment the Minister of Agriculture on the way in which he eventually handled the crisis. There is no doubt that market confidence had been lost and that, in view of their small profit margins, egg producers faced financial ruin. The Minister acted properly because he put a floor into the market. He acted responsibly and in the way one would expect a Minister to act, bearing in mind that he was trying to respond to a crisis which was not of his making. The industry itself was pleased with the way in which he eventually reacted.

829
What lessons do we learn from the crisis? In the way that the political side of it was dealt with, it should have been realised that the unfortunate remark, which was only later and partially retracted in a letter to the Select Committee, should have been retracted earlier, and the Minister should have been able to handle the affair at the Dispatch Box. We could then have ensured that the crisis would not deepen, as eventually it did. The Government should have accepted that responsibility.
The crux of the matter is underlined in paragraph 111 of the report, which says:
"We believe the public is entitled to expect the Government to take, and be seen to take, all reasonable measures to ensure the safety of food."
That clearly is the case and we need to underline it. But do we need a new Department to deal with this? My own view—I speak for no one else on these or other Benches in this regard—is that we probably do not. It is not the structures that are important, but the way that people in the existing Departments respond.
I take the point made in the report that there needs to be grater liaison and co-ordination between Departments. I feel pretty sure that the lesson of the debacle will have been learnt in both Departments and that from now on there will be more liaison and more discussion to ensure that it will not be repeated in future. I commend the report to the House because I believe that it is a responsible report and we should all learn from it.
8.39 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I begin by replying immediately to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who concluded that he did not consider that there was a need for any structural change in the organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That gives me the opportunity to reply to the specific question raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who asked what Labour policy was. The Minister will be desperately anxious to hear my answer because tomorrow morning he will have to reassure his advisers that, in the event of a forthcoming Labour victory, they will still be employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am happy to reassure him that we propose to retain the integrity of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, we propose to establish a food protection agency, an independent body answerable to the Cabinet Office. In direct reply to the question that the Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), of course the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be responsible for replying to parliamentary questions in exactly the same way as the Secretary of State for the Environment replies to questions on the Countryside Commission.
I turn to more general matters by saying how much I have enjoyed the debate. I have been present throughout the debate and heard all the speeches. There is no doubt that it has been a full debate and, by and large, it has been a well-informed debate in which nine members of the Select Committee and hon. Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom have spoken. It has been noticeable that there has been agreement across the Floor of the House on several points, which I shall identify, because the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), may draw some comfort from them and may wish to discuss them
830
with Chairmen of other Select Committees. I hope that the Minister will note them because there are some matters which he should consider within his Department. I offer them not as partisan criticism but as an honest attempt to assist the Chairman of the Select Committee and the Minister.
The first matter of agreement is the way in which all hon. Members have congratulated the Chairman of the Select Committee on the presentation of his report and hon. Members on the Select Committee have commended him on his chairmanship and on the way in which he conducted proceedings. The report is a splendid example of good English. It was easy to read and to understand and that has assisted our deliberations.
Secondly, we all recognise that there is a potential hazard in egg consumption. We recognise that the hazard is minimal, but if public confidence is to be maintained the highest standards must be seen to apply and in that respect the Government carry a major responsibility.
Thirdly, and following from that, if we accept that the Government have taken steps to ensure that the highest standards apply in Britain, many hon. Members have expressed a very real fear that imported eggs which will substitute for the disturbed market in Britain may well have been produced in less favourable conditions than those which apply to British egg producers. Obviously, that puts British producers and consumers at a disadvantage. The Minister has been asked several times what he intends to do about that. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gave the Minister a direct challenge. I do not expect the Minister to respond this evening, but I urge him to listen carefully to the real concerns that have been voiced. If he is to ensure that the protection that he is extending to domestically-produced eggs is successful, parallel measures must apply to imports. That point has united the House this evening.
Fourthly, Conservative and Opposition Members recognise that the cuts in research during the past 12 months were ill-advised and the Government have to reconsider the extent to which they are withdrawing funding, or the way in which they attempt to define market-led research and identify what research is in the common good.
Fifthly, at the beginning of the debate the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) spoke about the service which had been done to the Select Committee: system generally. I add my personal congratulations to the: Chairman of the Select Committee on the way in which he. conducted the affair of the missing hon. Member, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). No doubt we shall talk about her later. Clearly, a precedent has been established that hon. Members can be required to attend Select Committees. I am only sorry that the Committee did not come to the House and request the House to resolve that the hon. Lady be required to attend and answer to the satisfaction of the Committee. Having read very carefully her responses to the Committee and the questions that were asked but not answered, I felt that she was deliberately refusing to co-operate with the spirit of the questions. She has done the Select Committee system a disservice. To some extent, at least, that has been balanced by the way in which the Committee—with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—unanimously agreed to support the Chairman's request. That bodes well for the Select Committee system.

831
Finally, the Minister must accept criticism in the report directed against the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health. It is quite clear that when the Select Committee was reaching its conclusions partisan considerations could not have been uppermost in its mind because it had a Conservative majority. I am confident that it was not concerned with scoring political points but rather was concerned to learn the lessons of the events of the past 12 months, to ensure that the Government were aware of how the House of Commons perceived them and that the Government were sufficiently aware to prevent them from happening again.
As for the substance of the report, there is evidence that throughout the 1980s the Government were aware of the existence of a problem of salmonella enteritidis associated with eggs. They were certainly aware of hazards to human health posed by salmonella and therefore alarm bells should have been ringing during 1988 as the number of reported cases rose inexorably and dramatically. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised that matter with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, who pointed out the evidence on page 1 of the report showing the marked increase in salmonella infection.
It was the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South who unleashed the storm with her now infamous statement that
"most of the egg production of this country, sadly, is now infected with salmonella".
It is my personal regret that she is not present this evening. By her absence, she has shown further her lack of concern for the proceedings of the House and for the damage which she caused the British egg industry and to her Government. I wish to put on record that I wrote to the hon. Lady this afternoon, letting her know that I intended making some remarks about her conduct.[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has so perceptively noticed, she is not present. I understand that my hon. Friend has been engaged on other Commons business and has not been fully aware of our proceedings. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him shortly, but first I wish to place on the record one particular point. I refer to the conduct of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to place different interpretations on the statements made by the former junior Health Minister last December. However charitably we may do so, there is no mistaking the impact that her statement was bound to have on British consumers, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. Here was a Government Health Minister who deliberately and consciously cultivated the art of publicity, and who decided, deliberately and consciously, to draw the attention of the British public, via the media, to what the Government perceived to be health problems. Whether they were associated with smoking, diet, AIDS or hypothermia, the hon. Lady deliberately drew those matters to public attention by the use of colourful, extravagant language.
The hon. Lady, speaking as a Government Health Minister, said that
"most … production of this country, sadly, is now infected".
She did not say "some" production or "part" of the production, but "most" production. In her words, the majority of production was infected with salmonella. Last year saw a massive rise in salmonella poisoning, and the
832
public knew that it could kill. The public knew that there had been a dramatic rise in the incidence of salmonella poisoning throughout 1988 and it was small wonder that in December 1988, in the light of the junior Minister's statement, the public reacted as they did, and small wonder that the market for British eggs went through the floor.
In the early weeks of last December, the British egg industry suffered a 50 per cent. drop in consumption and, at times, an 80 per cent. drop in sales. Catastrophe loomed, redundancies were announced, and a whole industry was threatened. The Government had to act, and act they did—in a way that has brought commendations from the Select Committee. While we may have had our differences with the Government when their rescue package was announced and while, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields made clear, there were points of detail that we challenged, we unequivocally supported the Government's rescue package. The package won the commendation of the Select Committee and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening have also commended the Government on the way in which the package was designed and on the way in which it operated to put a floor in the market.
Nearly £20 million was allocated from public funds with the objective of putting a floor in the market. That £20 million was the immediate and minimum sum that the British public were asked to guarantee as the cost of the then junior Minister's gaffe. We know now that it was a gaffe. The Select Committee concluded:
"We found no evidence to support Mrs. Currie's assertion … That statement should have been immediately corrected. It was a failure of Government and not just of a single Minister, that it was not corrected."
The Government could not respond. They were ill-prepared to deal with the crisis. They failed to respond to earlier warnings. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health had inadequate arrangements for monitoring public health standards and they fought a semi-public battle for their respective empires. Most critically of all, they did not understand the salmonella problem. Inadequate information existed—and still exists—about salmonella's nature, extent, origins, method of transmission, and effects.
Unbelievably, the Government had cut the very research programmes that would have produced the answers. The Bristol research unit was to be closed. Staff of the state veterinary service had been cut by 20 per cent., and routine inspections of our food manufacturing industry by environmental health officers were a thing of the past. Against that background, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could not respond adequately because it would have been forced to acknowledge its ignorance. If the Ministry had done that, it would have been compelled to acknowledge also the actions that were perpetuating that ignorance. Here was a disaster waiting to happen, and it did so in the form of the junior Health Minister.
We understand now that the junior Minister was not the innocent victim of the National Farmers Union machine or a valiant battler against the secrecy of the Whitehall battalions. She was neither of those things. She was a silly woman, petulant when exposed as such, and arrogant in her dealings with the Select Committee. Had it not been for timing even more inept than the Ministry's own handling of the matter, when the hon. Lady revealed

833
that she stood to gain £100,000 from selling her inside story for publication, she might never have appeared before the Select Committee. If any right hon. or hon. Member had any doubts about the propriety or constitutionality of a Select Committee summoning a Member of the House of Commons to appear before it, they would have been dispelled by the histrionics displayed by the hon. Lady up to and on 8 February. It is to the greater credit of the Select Committee's Chairman and members that they resisted that provocation.
The Government are culpable on two counts. If two Cabinet Ministers knew of the inaccuracies of the 3 December statement, as they should have done from their briefings, they should have acted swiftly, unequivocally and emphatically in requiring a retraction and public apology from their errant colleague. Statements in the House distancing Cabinet Ministers from junior Ministers were inadequate. The decision to put up a paid public servant to try to distance the Whitehall machine from a public political statement was also inadequate. There was only one way in which that sin of commission could have been corrected—by the Minister responsible for making a public statement acknowledging that she was wrong, that her statement was wrong, and that the advice that she gave the British public was wrong.
The Secretary of State for Health's refusal to ensure that his junior Minister took the appropriate action and his public refusal to dissociate himself from his junior Minister and to dismiss her make him complicit in that sin of commission—[Interruption.] I am glad that I am striking a chord with my hon. Friends. I am not inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to intervene, but if he wishes to do so, I shall be happy to let him. It is clear that neither of the Ministers understood, and certainly did not indicate, that their concern for their political and office interests was more pressing than their concern for the public good.
During the mounting crisis, the Minister of Agriculture signally failed to take preventive or remedial action. He could have introduced routine monitoring of laying flocks, but he did not. He could have prevented the sale of eggs from flocks that were known to be contaminated, but he did not. He could have commissioned further research to gain greater understanding of the problem, but he did not. He could have closed processing plants that were known by him to be producing contaminated feedstuffs, but he did not. Nor did he prosecute persistent offenders as the law empowered him to do.
The Select Committee stated:
"It is a severe criticism of MAFF that a public health problem in eggs was required before they saw fit to act".
That is the conclusion that I invite the House to endorse. The Select Committee report concluded:
"We welcome those steps which the Government has taken during the course of our inquiry and expect that, with full implementation of the above recommendations, public confidence can be restored in the safety and purity of eggs."
I hope that it can be. I must say, however, that I place rather less faith in the Government's proclamation than does the Select Committee.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Would my hon. Friend accept that the steps taken by the Government have been directed exclusively at poultry farmers? The manufacturers of poultry farming equipment have suffered grave losses and a lack of orders and are facing
834
redundancies, yet the Government have consistently refused to do anything for that industry, which they have damaged in addition to the poultry farmers.
Mr. Davies: Yes. My hon. Friend mentions the consequences on manufacturing industry, which might be a constituency matter, resulting from the recession in the poultry industry. Far be it from me to encourage others to litigate, but I believe that legal cases are outstanding against the former Health Minister.
Mr. Cryer: That does not help now.
Mr. Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. I assure him that if the roles were reversed and I was standing at the other Dispatch Box and my hon. Friend was in his usual place below the Gangway, I should invite him to the Ministry in Whitehall place first thing tomorrow morning. I should say to him, as I am wont to do in these matters, "Bob, you just come along to the MAFF office at 9 o'clock in the morning and present that case to me, tell me how your constituents are suffering and what you expect me to do and I guarantee that the full resources of the Whitehall machine will swing into action behind your interests." I invite my hon. Friend to test the Minister when he replies to the debate to see whether he gets the reply that he now knows he would get from me if I were the Minister and not: a member of the Opposition.
The Minister never fails to trumpet the 17 initiatives that have emerged from that hive of activity which passes for a MAFF press office in Whitehall place. If there was one note of discord, it was heard earlier in the debate when my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was. challenging the Minister about the effectiveness of those 17 measures.
For the sake of accuracy, let us put the Government's position on record. They recognised the problem in December and said that they would introduce a financial rescue package to put a floor under the egg industry. That has worked and we have all commended the Government for it. But then they said that it could never happen again. They said that they would introduce a package. MAFF said so in early December. By a process of planted parliamentary questions, statements to the House and speeches in debates on this and other occasions, various spokesmen for the Ministry as well as their glossy press handouts have all said, "We have acted—we have introduced 17 new measures that will all fit together to ensure that all sectors of the poultry industry, from the processors of protein to the millers of food, to the breeders of laying flocks and those who are responsible for egg production, right down to the packers and those who guarantee the freshness of deliveries to the door will be tightly regulated and never again will the problem of salmonella occur." The Minister has stated that clearly and unambiguously in parliamentary answers and press releases. When he was challenged earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields he was happy to jump up and say, "We have the 17 initiatives, we have acted, what more can you expect." He flapped his wings but he did not quite take off.
On 18 January and again on 3 March, in reply to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, the Minister listed his comprehensive programme for action, being his Department's response to the salmonella in eggs affair. The details were less impressive than the presentation would have us believe.

835
The 17 measures included five guidelines, being voluntary codes of practice, for producers. Last year, statutory codes regulating the rendering of protein feedstuffs were in force. On several occasions Ministry inspections revealed that they were producing and distributing salmonella-infested faeces. On many occasions those plants were reinspected, but nothing was done. On a third inspection, 50 per cent. of those reinspected were found still to be producing infected feedstuffs.
The Ministry is empowered to prosecute. The regulations do not say that the Ministry should send an ADAS adviser for a quiet chat. They do not say that the Ministry shall simply advise. We hope that the Ministry will advise in advance, to prevent a problem arising in the first place, and I appreciate that a prosecution might not be undertaken in the first instance. But those concerned must be told, "People are dying from salmonella poisoning. A whole industry has been threatened by your actions. If we come back a second time and you are still producing infected feedstuffs, we will prosecute." I cannot understand how, on a third occasion, such plants could be found to be breaking the law yet there is a refusal to prosecute.
That happens with a statutory code. Now the Minister is saying that, of the 17 initiatives, five are voluntary codes. If he does not enforce a statutory code, what confidence can we have that these voluntary codes, without the backing of law, will be enforced? We can have no confidence at all.
Thus, five of the measures are merely guidelines. Five are orders, but they will have statutory force. We are now well into March and there is no sign yet of those orders. They have not yet been laid before Parliament. All the intitiatives of which the Minister has spoken and all the information that he has been trailing, through planted questions—and all the information that he gave to the Select Committee about these brave initiatives—have yet to appear. The five with teeth have not yet been laid.
How on earth can we, in debating the Select Committee's report, form a judgment when we do not even know what the orders will contain? It is all very well for the Minister to say, "We shall introduce orders to do this or that," but we are entitled to reserve our judgment until we see them and find out if they get the approval of Parliament. Until the orders have been debated and we have been able to assess their efficacy—indeed, until we know whether they have the approval of Parliament—we cannot assess their worth.
Of the 17 new initiatives, therefore, five are voluntary codes and five are orders which have not yet been laid before Parliament. It is not an impressive record, and it does not get better. Three of the 17 initiatives are changes in administrative procedures. The Government of the day have been empowered since 1975 to make such changes. Throughout the 1980s, when the problem of salmonella was building up—and critically last year, when the Government were receiving all the information from their advisers about the build-up of salmonella, about the 17,000 who had become ill and about people dying—the Government, and in particular the Minister, had no need to wait for a junior Minister at the Department of Health to blow the gaffe.
836
The Government did not have to wait for the floor to fall through the industry or for warnings from any of the independent bodies that have been maligned in this debate. They had the powers to act—by the stroke of a pen. Without recourse to Parliament they could have taken action.
The 17 measures are not adding up to much: five voluntary codes, five orders not laid, and three administrative measures that could have been taken previously. In addition, one order was in force in February, and one campaign has been launched to educate the public in the hygienic handling of food. That is not bad—we have got one out of 15 so far. The more observant of my hon. Friends will recall that we are dealing with 17 initiatives, not 15. That leaves two that still have to be accounted for.
Every day for the past week I have been to the Vote Office asking for a copy of the Zoonoses Order—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover asks, "What is that?" [Laughter.] That is what I heard, and I know that my hon. Friend would deprecate any suggestion that we should use anything but the most proper language. I asked the Vote Office for a copy of the Zoonoses Order; I asked the Library for a copy; I asked the Minister's own press department for a copy. They all said, "We do not know what the Zoonoses Order is."[Interruption.] Yes, that is what they said. Actually, they said, "We would like to give it to you, Mr. Davies, but we do not know what it is."
Just before this debate I was fortunate, through a friend who is also a friend of the Minister, to obtain a photocopy of the Zoonoses Order 1989, No. 285, which is not available to any other Member of the House or, incidentally, to the poultry industry which is supposed to be applying it. Apparently the order was made on 28 February, to come into force on 1 March. If we were charitable and assumed that the one-day debate did not reflect any degree of urgency on the Minister's part, if we were charitable and assumed that the Ministry actually knew what it was doing and had laid these orders as part of a carefully programmed campaign, we could believe what we have been told. The fact of the matter is that the Zoonoses Order 1989, No. 285, is not required; the Ministry already has power, under the 1975 legislation, to implement what it is now legislating for.
If we were to have any confidence in the Ministry's handling of the situation, if we were to believe that the Minister had learnt the lessons of the events of 1988, we could reasonably expect the 17 initiatives announced by the Ministry to amount to a little more than a few promises and one botched order that the people responsible for implementing it have not yet even received. So much for the Minister's much-vaunted 17-point initiative. That order—the only one with teeth—has not yet been tabled. It was supposed to be implemented on 1 March—a week ago—but it has not yet been tabled. Copies are not available, and no one in the poultry industry has yet had sight of it.
Hon. Members on the Government side are shaking their heads as if to suggest that what I am saying could not be true. I invite them—[Interruption.] If they are so unconcerned about these matters, it would be understandable that they should not appear for agriculture debates, but if they have come along to lend support to the Minister I should have thought they would at least have satisfied themselves as to the credibility of what the Minister is

837
doing on their behalf. I challenge them, so that they may so satisfy themselves, to go to the Vote Office—if they have sufficient confidence in their own Minister, if they believe in these 17 initiatives—and ask for a copy of the order. If they will not do so, we can only conclude that they assume that MAFF has not yet learnt the lessons of 1988.
If there is one conclusion to be drawn from this debate and from the Select Committee's report, it is not about the vanity of one junior Minister in the Department of Health, or even about the rivalry of two senior Ministers in the Department of Health and in the Ministry of Agriculture. It is about the inability of a great Department of state to respond to the conflicting pressures of producers and consumers. That presents a challenge to the Government. It is a challenge that they, and they alone, must meet because the health of the British consumer is at stake.
9.14 pm
Mr. Ryder: With the leave of the House, may I say that I greatly enjoyed the brief exchange between the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) when they were considering together the prospect of a future Labour Government in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly was a Minister and the hon. Member for Bradford, South was not. It is inconceivable that if a Labour Government were elected the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South would not be part of that Administration. I can see it now—Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolsover, the man who has never travelled abroad up to now. On second thoughts, it would be the hon. Member for Bradford, South who would be Foreign Secretary. After all, he has great experience of representing people in two Parliaments.
I have greatly enjoyed the debate. It has fully matched the fluency and clarity of the report by the Select Committee. I have already spoken in the debate. It is unusual for the same Minister to speak twice on an Estimates day, so I shall be brief.
At the start of the debate I stressed that I was not giving the Government's official response to the report. That will come later and doubtless there will be future opportunities to debate the question. We have heard well-informed and perceptive speeches from several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). We had a balanced and authoritative opening speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I have also been struck by the obvious interest and knowledge of several Opposition Members. The Select Committee is fortunate to have them as members.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly queried that 17 measures, already announced by the Government, have been introduced. The hon. Member for South Shields alleged originally that only two of those measures had been introduced. In an intervention I pointed out to him that that was not the case. We have introduced far more. Some are still to come, but I read out to him at least five or six
838
that we have introduced, and there are others. If he will put down a series of questions I shall be delighted to set out in detail precisely what we have done.
The hon. Member for South Shields was concerned about eggs that were allowed to enter the food chain from farms implicated in food poisoning outbreaks. I understand his concern. However, the position is not straightforward. In some cases the link between a farm and food poisoning was unclear. In others the owner followed the state veterinary service's advice to improve hygiene and reduce the risk of salmonella. Some slaughtered their flocks voluntarily and in some cases subsequent bacteriological examination yielded negative results.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, were concerned about imports. The port health authorities are sampling imported eggs. I understand that up to now they have all proved to be negative. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry observed, such sampling is difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton recognised in his informative speech, salmonella enteritidis phage 4 is an international problem and must be tackled at source on an international basis. That is why, as a Government, we welcomed the establishment by the EEC standing veterinary committee on 7 December of a sub-committee to look into this specific issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister has also initiated bilateral discussions with our EEC partners as well as with our United States counterparts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry inquired about eggs from broiler breeder flocks. If we had reason to believe that there was a problem in a broiler breeder flock, and eggs were being sold from that flock for human consumption, we would, of course, put restrictions on the flock to prevent the sale of eggs for human consumption.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who is not in his place, mentioned that the chief medical officer said in his evidence to the Select Committee that the level of contamination of eggs from Spain was between one in 100 and one in 1,000 and that, therefore, there was a risk to us from importing Spanish eggs. I understand that the chief medical officer was quoting an article from the Lancet that reported the levels detected in one or two flocks in Spain. We do not know whether that data is representative of Spanish flocks or eggs as a whole.
The hon. Member for Carlisle asked, too, about the proportion of food poisoning cases resulting from people returning from overseas. I understand that up to October that was 14 per cent. in 1988.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), whose contributions to these debates I always enjoy, talked about the relative merits of free-range versus battery eggs. As I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no conclusive evidence to show that one system is any safer than the other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove inquired about restrictions. Each case will be treated on its merits. Ministry veterinary surgeons will sample where salmonella infection is suspected on a house-by-house basis. If any birds in one house prove positive, all birds in that house will be slaughtered. If none is positive, none will be slaughtered. The veterinary surgeons will envisage killing out an entire farm only if all the birds are together in a single flock or if each separate house is found to contain infected birds.

839
The hon. Member for Caerphilly enjoyed himself, as he always does, when making his reply and teased us about the Zoonoses Order of 1989. I shall clarify matters for him, because he seemed uncertain about the nature of the order. Ministers have signed an order which came into effect on 1 March providing for compulsory slaughter and compensation where salmonella infection is confirmed in a poultry flock. As well as providing new powers, the Zoonoses Order of 1989 re-enacts the Zoonoses Order of 1975 and strengthens the requirements to report the results of tests that identify the presence of salmonella. The reporting requirement applies to any identification of a salmonella organism by a serological or any other examination either in a laboratory or elsewhere.
Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that that order has now been implemented. Will the Minister tell us when he intends letting us have a copy?
Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman has had any difficulty in obtaining a copy, I shall gladly take the first opportunity to put that matter right.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and the members of his Committee for providing a clear and fluent report that has enabled us to hold such a constructive debate. I look forward to hearing his concluding remarks.
9.25 pm
Mr. Wiggin: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is customary for there to be a very brief winding-up speech by the proposer of the business on a day such as this. I start by thanking all hon. Members for their kind remarks, which I take as very much a tribute to all the members of the Select Committee who contributed to the report.
I have considerable sympathy for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary concerning his remarks on the subject of secrecy in relation to food safety. The very thin dividing line between sensible caution and starting a scare poses a hard problem for him. Whatever happened on this occasion, it was not done properly and I hope that the lessons are seriously learned. He also mentioned the interesting problem of appointing to various committees the professional consumer. I hope that he will be very cautious before going too far down that road. We are all consumers and the concept that on every committee there has to be a consumer rather troubles me.
I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will forgive me if I treat their exchanges on governmental and Opposition lines as being just that and, in my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, leave them to settle their differences.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—I have to say how much nicer his constituency sounded when it was called Oswestry—unquestionably made one of the outstanding speeches of the afternoon. He pointed out that the Select Committee, as it progressed, had helped to establish parameters for all Select Committees in all their activities in the future. I am grateful for that acknowledgement. He also used the most splendidly delicate words in criticising his colleagues. I
840
hope that if I ever have to be criticised it will be by him, since no one uses the English language better or to greater effect.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Well, where is he?
Mr. Wiggin: He rightly concluded his remarks by pointing out that laws on the safety of food and feeding stuffs must be enforceable and must be enforced.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is, I know, an expert on birds—indeed, we have enjoyed his knowledge and company on foreign travel, when he has entertained us greatly with his deep knowledge—touched on the very difficult question of free-range eggs and batteries. I refrained from interrupting him, but I have to point out that there is no way in which human beings can adjudge the happiness or otherwise of the hen except by the very reasonable indicator of how many eggs it lays. Anyone who has ever studied this matter will find that, amazing as it may seem to us, the battery hen in its controlled environment produces rather more eggs than are produced by most other methods. However, it is not the job of the Select Committee to adjudge this most tricky matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) was almost alone in his criticism of the Select Committee report, although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who unfortunately has just left the Chamber, also voiced on Thursday some critical comments. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove that his attempts to cross-quote my remarks during the time that I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture were rather fruitless in that all his quotations were from things said before the discovery, or even the start, of this particular problem of enteritidis in chickens, which did not start until at least 12 months after I left the Ministry. I am particularly sorry about his changed view, since his earlier, rather enthusiastic support for poultry producers seems to have vanished.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) made some particularly kind personal remarks, which I much appreciated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who has been a most assiduous supporter and attender of the Committee, rightly made some important comments about hygiene in the kitchen. It is a recurring theme that hygiene in the kitchen is just as important as anything that might take place on the farm or in the production chain.
The hon. Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who are all members of the Select Committee, represent a new and extremely energetic entry on the Opposition Benches. I respect their political comprehension and am acutely aware of it because they helped to maintain an important balance on the Committee. I congratulate them on their assiduity, and I am sure that, shortly, they will all be Front Benchers.
In his—as usual—learned dissertation, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned the problems that will come for producers if animal health restrictions are imposed and no compensation is given. If that were to happen, farmers, producers and advisers would not come forward voluntarily to report disease, so

841
it would be passed on. I accept that point. I was pleased about my hon. Friend's appointment to the Agricultural and Food Research Council, to which I am sure he will make a great contribution. He will also help our contacts with it.
In his usual enthusiastic way, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) praised the intervention scheme—although I suspect that his remarks will prove as fatal for the microwave oven industry as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) were for the egg industry. If he finds that at his meeting in the Forest of Dean he encounters a number of Japanese gentlemen protesting about what he said, it will be his own fault.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who is always an expert on constitutional and procedural matters, referred us to the Standing Orders on the referral of Members to appear before Select Committees. May I remind him that the Standing Order that might have been invoked on this matter was passed in about 1688. He wondered whether an hon. Member, appearing as a witness before a Select Committee, had to say or contribute anything, but, happily, the sanctions that existed in 1688 no longer exist. I wonder whether he has pursued the matter to its intellectual end. When Sir Leon Brittan appeared before the Select Committee on Defence in similar circumstances, he refused to answer many questions without having sanctions imposed on him.
As to the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton that women's institutes would read the Committee's report with interest—the mind boggles. One imagines that, after tea and the singing of Jerusalem, the president would read excerpts from the Select Committee
842
report about salmonella in eggs. I think that things in Devonshire are different from those in my part of the world.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) rightly made some valid points about the suffering of producers in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that they have a clean bill of health.
With his usual assiduity and fresh approach, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) discussed the political executive interplay in an interesting speech which I am sure will be carefully studied by Ministers. The press department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is unlikely to be as wide awake on Saturday afternoons as he expects. The real world may be a little different from his suggestion.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) rightly commented on the narrow profit margins in the production of eggs. The evidence shows that that problem still prevails throughout the industry.
This has been an extremely worthwhile debate. I know that we are under pressure of time. I wish that we could have these debates more often. At the end of a fairly lengthy, and yet energetic investigation, it is helpful to be able to debate such matters on the Floor of the House without the constraints of secrecy entailed in the preparation of a report, and to receive valuable contributions from hon. Members who are not on the Select Committee.
With an important festival—associated with traditional fare—ahead, may I wish all those involved in this extraordinary matter a happy Easter?
The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and the Order /28 February].

Overseas Students (Funding)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
9.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): I am grateful to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for this opportunity to debate our policy on overseas students. The House has seen the evidence given to the Select Committee by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. So hon. Members already have a good idea of what we are doing in this area, why and how we are doing it, and what we aim to do in the future.
The Government are committed to bringing more students from overseas to study in Britain. In the current financial year we have spent more than £110 million to assist more than 22,000 foreign students to study here. Only four years ago, the figure was just over 17,000 students for an expenditure of £79 million.
Government-funded schemes have already helped to increase the number of overseas students studying in universities in Britain. By 1987 there were more overseas students on degree or postgraduate courses in the United Kingdom than in 1978; and 1978 was the previous peak year, before full-cost fees were introduced. At the level below degree courses the decline has not been reversed, but in the past 10 years there has been a marked improvement in higher education in developing countries—indeed, our aid programme has contributed to that improvement.
Before 1980, there was an indiscriminate subsidy for all overseas students. Now we target our expenditure to achieve pre-determined objectives. We have gained the flexibility to take on new objectives when they arise. For example, two years ago, the Overseas Development Administration set up the Sino-British friendship scholarship scheme, jointly funded with the Sir Y. K. Pao foundation and the Government of China. The FCO recently set up schemes for Hong Kong, and the ODA has introduced schemes for black South Africans.
We have also been able to respond to the challenge of glasnost, with scholarships for Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union financed in partnership with the Soros foundation and Oxford university. We plan more scholarship activity in eastern Europe over the next three years. We particularly aim to respond to the requests that we have had from eastern Europe for help with business studies courses.
We aim, too, to help to meet the challenge of 1992 with more scholarships for students from European Community countries, who have been coming to British universities increasingly in the last few years. We have just launched the Jean Monnet scheme, marking the centenary of his birth, with a number of scholarships for French students.
By far the largest part of our overseas scholarship expenditure comes from the aid programme. The vast majority—more than 85 per cent—of the students who receive assistance come from developing countries.
Recently the ODA has been targeting its technical co-operation and training programme awards more firmly on the development aid projects that it is financing. But it has also decided to route some of its money through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and awards scheme. That is because under the FCOSAS, like
844
the British Council fellowships scheme, the aim has been to select the leaders, the decision-takers and the opinion-formers of the successor generation. In addition, the ODA-funded awards must be in subjects relevant to the economic, scientific and social development of the recipient country. In this way we enable students to play the fullest role in helping development at home and in benefiting Britain's relations with that country.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that a criticism that can be levelled at the criteria used by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is that the choice of students on schemes is based first on British interests and only second on the interests of developing countries? Would it not be better if it were made much clearer that the interests of developing countries should come first and domestic interests second?
Mr. Eggar: I find it rather surprising that the hon. Gentleman should be surprised that, in making scholarships avaiable, we should not give a degree of priority to British interests, which is a key objective. All scholarship schemes financed by the Overseas Development Administration are discussed with host Governments and are agreed by the ODA and the Government concerned. I have already said that the ODA is increasingly focusing its scholarship expenditure on courses and degrees that are relevant to the particular development aid that it is giving the country concerned, so the scholarships are carefully co-ordinated.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that members of the Commonwealth are especially glad to receive scholarships not only in technical subjects but in administration at Government level? A Malaysian Minister said to me years ago that if someone goes to a British university it will affect him throughout his life. He said, "My wife went to an American university. She starts the day with coffee and reads the New York Herald Tribune. I went to a British university. I start the day with tea, I read The Times and my interests are wholly those of the Commonwealth and Britain." It is extremely important not to exclude the administrative layer.
Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. Only this afternoon, I had an interesting discussion with the Peruvian Minister of Health who was here for the ozone layer conference. He told me that he had done a postgraduate degree in medicine at Manchester university and that there were close contacts between that university and the health sector in Peru since his return. My hon. Friend's comment applies not only to Commonwealth countries, but to all countries. There is quite a high correlation between people who study here and those who retain ties of one kind or another with the United Kingdom. That is one of the significant justifications for our putting money into scholarship schemes.
The ODA has recently introduced a jointly-funded scheme specifically for Commonwealth developing countries. That was the personal initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member of Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) when he was Minister for Overseas Development. Known as the ODA shared scholarship scheme, it has 250 award-holders in the current year. The ODA contribution to their costs is L1-4 million and the rest is found by the participating

845
universities and polytechnics, which are free to raise a part, or indeed all, of the balance from private sector contributions.
We believe that private sector involvement in overseas scholarship activity is extremely important. If our scholarship schemes are to reflect British interests appropriately, their priorities must include those of industry, commerce and the financial sector. Everyone agrees that in bringing foreign students to this country we are making an investment in the future. But we look to the private sector to pay more than just lip service to that idea, which is why we have been placing increasing emphasis on jointly-funded schemes. We share the cost of funding with private sector partners and also with the receiving academic institutions—helping, incidentally, in the process, to build much needed links between those institutions and private sector companies. It is not just a matter of finance. It is also a question of involvement in, and commitment to, an enterprise that will bring long-term benefit to this country.
The FCO scholarships and awards scheme also has its jointly-funded component, made up of direct partnership with the private sector and with academic institutions. There are 17 such jointly-funded partnerships in operation under the FCOSAS at present, with 156 award holders this financial year, at a total cost to the FCO of just under £500,000. Last year, the scheme looked after about 80 students at half this year's cost. To give but one example, we have a joint operation with British Gas and Strathclyde university encouraging students from Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Turkey to come to study engineering, applied science and business administration.
Our diplomatic missions overseas have identified further partners for joint funding. We have just appointed an adviser on overseas scholarship funding, Mr. David Thomas, whose job will be to canvass support among private sector firms and foundations and the academic institutions. I hope that hon. Members will draw the scheme's availability to the attention of firms in their constituencies and elsewhere.
Government funding for overseas students, whether directly in terms of scholarships or indirectly in terms of support, has been a growth area over the past few years. That growth is set to continue, but our expenditure will be carefully targeted through a range of programmes that will give us the flexibility to achieve properly identified objectives. Since 1980 we have replaced indiscriminate subsidy with judicious selection, and that process will continue.
9.45 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition welcome the opportunity to discuss the subject of overseas students in the United Kingdom. We also pay tribute to the part played by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in pursuing the matter, although we were astonished that the Government's response to the Committee's fourth report did not even mention overseas students. That was an unfortunate lapse.
It is appropriate to remind ourselves, as the Minister did, of the real value of providing education for overseas students in the United Kingdom, which benefits both the students themselves and our country. We have a responsibility within the international community, and
846
particularly within the Commonwealth—as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) pointed out—to contribute substantially to education in the Third world. It is also helpful in developing our commerce and trade if decision-makers in other countries have been educated here and understand our system and our way of life. It is also of immeasurable value in diplomatic and political terms.
At my university of Edinburgh—my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), unfortunately, went to another university—we were proud to have provided education for Julius Nyerere and Hastings Banda, despite their different philosophies and ways of running their countries, as well as for many others who ended up running their countries and who recall their time at Edinburgh with fond memories which can reflect nothing but good on the whole United Kingdom. It was also an enriching and educating experience for British students to study alongside people from other parts of the world—although I hasten to add that I was not there at the same time as Julius Nyerere or Hastings Banda.
This is one of the most valuable forms of assistance that we can give to developing countries, particularly in certain appropriate and relevant courses. Some of the key courses, unfortunately, have suffered from Government policy in the past few years. I believe, however, that the original 1967 decision on differential fees was wrong in principle, and I strongly opposed it at the time—not here, but as president of the Scottish Union of Students. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton was vice-president, so he has moved up a bit since then. The really harmful decision, however, was the move to full-cost fees in November 1979. This was typical of the Government's policy—in a range of contexts—of putting expenditure cuts before principle. To be fair, however, it was condemned by a number of Conservative Back Benchers.
There was an immediate dramatic reduction in the number of overseas students, from 88,000 in the 1979–80 academic year to just over 56,000 by 1984–85. As the Minister said, there has been a recovery more recently, but we still have a much smaller share of an increasing global demand and there have been significant and unwelcome distortions in the pattern of institutions and in students' countries of origin. The number of overseas students at polytechnics, and particularly at colleges of further education, is still much lower than in 1978, according to the Department's own figures which were collated for the interdepartmental group working party on statistics. In Great Britain as a whole the number of colleges of further education fell by 75 per cent. over that period. It is no use saying that it started before full-cost fees because there were only marginal reductions at that time—the spectacular reduction has taken place since then. Unfortunately, many of those courses are in subjects such as agriculture, intermediate technology and other subjects most useful and appropriate for developing countries.
The distortion between countries is equally unwelcome. For example, there have been increases in students from Germany, France and particularly the Republic of Ireland, where students coming to Britain are subsidised in the same way as British students, and decreases in the numbers from India, Pakistan, Kenya, Zimbabwe and other developing countries. Indeed, the proportion of overseas students in the United Kingdom from OECD countries has risen from 18·4 per cent. to 24·9 per cent. while the proportion from developing countries has fallen from 82·

847
per cent. to 76·5 per cent. There has thus been a displacement and distortion which is unwelcome to the Opposition.
As the House knows, instead of students from overseas being allowed to come to Britain freely and pay the same subsidised fees as British students, they are now mainly dependent on scholarships from various sources, as the Minister said. It is important to recall, however, that it took three years of very forceful and powerful argument from diplomatic, educational and commercial circles, as well as from the Opposition and from some Conservative Back Benchers, before the then Foreign Secretary announced in 1983 what became known as the "Pym package".
Particularly significant was the work carried out by the National Union of Students, the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs—which I had a small part in setting up many years ago—and the Overseas Students Trust, all of which still argue strongly that there is a need for an increase in real terms in the amount spent on award schemes, and the NUS rightly wants much greater flexibility in the allocation of awards between different countries.
As I think most people in the House will know, the most powerful and comprehensive case for greater support was in the Overseas Students Trust's book "The Next Steps". I am getting like the Prime Minister in bringing visual aids into the House, but I am glad that I am not like her in other ways. The Government have accepted some of the recommendations—we welcome, for example, the small new scholarship scheme funded by the Department of Trade and Industry—but there is still no sign of the full £25 million extra that that report said was necessary. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today whether the Government accept the idea in that report that the overseas research students award scheme, ORSAS, should be extended to polytechnics. He might tell us whether they plan to set up the educational purposes award scheme for overseas students below research degree level and to expand the British Council's educational counselling service, all of which were recommended in "The Next Steps".
I pay tribute to the work of the British Council, whose vice-chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, is with us today. I hope that the Minister will say something about those particular recommendations.
If the present Government remain in office and continue their present policy, the future will not be rosy. As my countryman Robert Burns would have said,
"And forward though I canna see—I dread and fear".
I dread and fear because the Government's market philosophy is intruding more and more into universities and colleges and the search for overseas students. Already student recruitment fairs have started up in Brussels and Kuala Lumpur, setting up stalls and displays and giving away free carrier bags. At Kuala Lumpur there was a row between certain universities and the British Council which was rightly alarmed at deposit-taking in hotel bedrooms and promises of degrees within five years to students from Malaysia with the equivalent of O-levels. Competition is likely to be fierce because for many universities income from overseas students is vital to their survival. That kind
848
of market bazaar approach to the recruitment of overseas students was well covered in The Times Higher Education Supplement of 30 December.
Demographic changes within the United Kingdom will exacerbate the problem, with the number of 17-year-olds falling dramatically by about 30 per cent. by the end of the century. The two displacements that I described earlier towards universities and away from polytechnics and further education and towards developed countries and away from developing countries will be exacerbated by the market approach.
The Opposition would like to see a much better planned and co-ordinated Government approach to overseas students, with the complex and increasingly sidetracked advisory round table and the inter-departmental group streamlined so that the activities of the Department of Education and Science, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Agency, all of which have a legitimate interest in this, could be better co-ordinated with regular top level advice from academics and industrialists as well as from Government. The round table has not met for 15 months and I am told that the last meeting, under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), was more like an Oxbridge seminar—as one might expect, given the hon. Gentleman's background—than a business meeting. Unless there is some speedy solution to the Government-inspired dispute in higher education, the work of all our students will be in peril and overseas students will be particularly hard hit.
I mentioned earlier the work of the Overseas Students Trust. In its report, "The Next Steps", it pays tribute to the vital support and collaboration of the Fund for International Student Co-operation in producing the report and in its work generally. It represents the kind of public and private collaboration often praised by Government spokesmen, with the private funding to the trust complemented by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant to FISC. It was therefore with great dismay that I heard recently that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant to FISC is to end. We are due an explanation from the Minister which I hope he will be able to give later in the debate. There seems to be no reason for that decision unless it be that the excellent work of the OST-FISC consortium may have caused the Government some embarrassment so retribution has to be exacted. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that regrettable decision.
The importance of overseas students being educated in Britain has never been greater. Yet throughout the important area of the far east we are being overtaken by Germany, by the United States and, as in almost everything else, by Japan. The Japanese have pledged to increase their overseas student population from 10,000 to 100,000 within a decade—they understand the value of training overseas students in their country—and after four years of that decade their overseas student population is already 30,000.
Even in the Government's materialistic terms, overseas students are a good investment. We spend about £110 million of public money on scholarships, but it is estimated that overseas students spend more than £1 billion more than that in Britain, so even in the Government's materialistic terms they are worth while. The real value, however, is not in pounds and pence—1 nearly gave away my age by saying pounds, shillings and pence—but in our contribution to our fellow men. It is a moral commitment

849
to the countries that our predecessors exploited and which, through the world's financial institutions, we are still exploiting, and the benefit to the international community of the rapid spread of knowledge. I realise that the present Government do not appreciate the importance of those factors, but I give a pledge that the next Government will.
9.59 pm
Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is grateful for this opportunity to have a short debate on the funding of overseas students. As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has said, and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has also said—I hope that he will forgive me for being a couple of minutes late for the beginning of his speech, for rather obvious reasons which I suspect apply to a number of other hon. Members—this is a matter that has interested successive Foreign Affairs Committees. Under my prede—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates, 1988–89 (Class IV, Vote 3).
The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 31.

Division No. 118]

[10 pm

AYES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Amess, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Amos, Alan

Fishburn, John Dudley

Arbuthnot, James

Forman, Nigel

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Forth, Eric

Atkins, Robert

Fox, Sir Marcus

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Franks, Cecil

Batiste, Spencer

Freeman, Roger

Beggs, Roy

French, Douglas

Bellingham, Henry

Gale, Roger

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gill, Christopher

Bevan, David Gilroy

Glyn, Dr Alan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gow, Ian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gregory, Conal

Boswell, Tim

Ground, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hague, William

Bowis, John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Bright, Graham

Hannam, John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

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

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Harris, David

Burns, Simon

Haselhurst, Alan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hayward, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carrington, Matthew

Heddle, John

Carttiss, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cash, William

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Chapman, Sydney

Howard, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Churchill, Mr

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Conway, Derek

Howells, Geraint

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cran, James

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

Irvine, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jack, Michael

Day, Stephen

Janman, Tim

Devlin, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dover, Den

Key, Robert

Durant, Tony

Kilfedder, James

850

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rhodes James, Robert

Knapman, Roger

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Knowles, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Lee, John (Pendle)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lightbown, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lilley, Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

Lord, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Maclean, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sumberg, David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maude, Hon Francis

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thorne, Neil

Miller, Sir Hal

Thurnham, Peter

Mills, lain

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tredinnick, David

Mitchell, Sir David

Trippier, David

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Twinn, Dr Ian

Monro, Sir Hector

Viggers, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Needham, Richard

Waller, Gary

Neubert, Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wells, Bowen

Nicholls, Patrick

Widdecombe, Ann

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wiggin, Jerry

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wilshire, David

Norris, Steve

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Winterton, Nicholas

Page, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Patnick, Irvine

Wood, Timothy

Porter, David (Waveney)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Portillo, Michael

Price, Sir David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Raffan, Keith

Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. Michael Fallon.

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Renton, Tim

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Blunkett, David

McLeish, Henry

Buckley, George J.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Murphy, Paul

Cartwright, John

O'Brien, William

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cousins, Jim

Robertson, George

Darling, Alistair

Salmond, Alex

Dewar, Donald

Soley, Clive

Dixon, Don

Spearing, Nigel

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Vaz, Keith

Fisher, Mark

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Foulkes, George

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Galbraith, Sam

Hood, Jimmy

Tellers for the Noes:

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Loyden, Eddie

McAvoy, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1989 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other services.
MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Overseas Students (Funding)

  ESTIMATES, 1988–89 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending 31st March 1989 an additional number not exceeding 3,010 all ranks be maintained for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

  ESTIMATES, 1989–90 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1990 a number not exceeding 68,100 all ranks be maintained for Naval service.

  ESTIMATES, 1989–90 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1990 a number not exceeding 175,600 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 5,000 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 107,000 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 86,181 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 8,010 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

  ESTIMATES, 1989–90 (AIR) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1990 a number not exceeding 96,000 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 8,260 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 2,460 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1988–89
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,572,770,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1989, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 163, 164 and 226.

  ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1987–88
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £57,374,576·39, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1988, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 161.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing three resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates, 1988–89 and to Estimates, Excesses 1987–88, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

Overseas Students (Funding)
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
10.14 pm
Mr. David Howell: I was in the middle of a word at 10 o'clock, so to assist the Hansard writers I will go back to the beginning of the sentence.
My distinguished predecessor as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Anthony Kershaw, showed, with his Committee, an intensive interest in the funding of overseas students, and the Select Committee was concerned, in the 1980s, about the reactions and complaints of a number of countries around the world some time after the decision had been made to abandon the indiscriminate subsidy for fees.
The Committee concluded, and the House accepts, that this is one public investment that the Government really should be anxious to make overseas. It will enable tomorrow's technicians and shapers of policy, industry and society throughout the developing world and the great markets of Asia, which will be the dominant centre of the global economy in the next 10 or 20 years, to come to this country. They will go through higher education in our universities and other institutions, as well as take post graduate courses. That correct view has been held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because we have much to offer and much to gain from ensuring that there is a massive flow of overseas students coming through our institutions of higher education. We have the technical expertise and the skills to offer. Those are the heart needs of the aid and development process.
If I were pressed to say where the public and private resources could most usefully go over all the areas of overseas development, I would say rather less in grants and loans and rather more in technical assistance in training and skills and higher education provided to those who then help to shape and develop their own societies. We have much to offer. It is one of the key ways in which we can make our contribution to development in the world. We can also ensure that markets are kept open and that the climate for investment and enterprise is maintained across the planet.
We also have much to gain for other obvious reasons. One should not be apologetic. There will be benefits for out national aims and objectives, about which we should not be shy. A whole generation of people will come to our universities and other institutions of higher education. They will return to their countries and think in terms of our standards and skills, products and services. When they need them, they will look to this country. That must open up opportunities for us to compete in the markets of the world and to hold up our heads in the immensely competitive conditions facing us in the future.
That is precisely why our competitor countries, who also want their place in the sun and the 21st century, are greatly expanding their programmes to encourage students to come from overseas to their universities. It is fascinating to see the way in which a formerly closed country such as Japan, which was extraordinarily inward looking even five years ago, where one saw few overseas students, is now opening its universities and higher education to students. Japan is planning to bring in many overseas students through industry or Government support. A new Japanese empire is emerging. Not everyone necessarily welcomes it.

853
It is spreading, in economic terms, across the whole of south-east Asia and across eastern Asia, and it has reached many other parts of the world. It is on a scale and has a dynamic that no-one could have dreamed of 10 years ago. it has close links with Japanese standards and technical skills. It makes an ironic mockery of the pattern and history of the first half of this century, when nations such as Japan tried to grab by force, and often surrendered to force in these areas. Now these will be the dynamic and growing areas of the next 30 years. Thousands of students and would-be students are flocking to Japan's universities to learn the technical skills and patterns that will govern their decisions in later life.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Is it not a fact that, because of the rate of exchange, students find it much cheaper to go to the United States than to come here?
Mr. Howell: My colleagues on the Select Committee heard that point of view, but exchange rates go up and down. The cheap dollar has had some advantages but it is not as cheap as it was and it may grow stronger vis-a-vis other currencies. What my hon. Friend suggests has an effect, but it is marginal.
Against that background of the desire to have a healthy flow of overseas students, in the early 1980s, after the decision to remove indiscriminate fee support was taken, there was—this cannot be disguised—a substantial drop in the number of students coming here.
The predecessor Committee to the present Select Committee examined that issue and got the impression that the programme was going backwards. That Committee found, when travelling to places such as Hong Kong and Malaysia, some extremely outspoken complaints that vital links had been broken, and it was not immediately seen how they would be restored. However, the process of restoration has steadily been going on and gradually the numbers have risen again.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley gave some figures, but I did not immediately recognise them. No doubt they were right on the basis on which he used them, but it was not the basis on which figures were given by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Select Committee.
The Committee was told on 1 March that the number of foreign students in our universities now was considerably higher than in 1978—the previous peak. We were told that, the number is now 45,600 students in universities, whereas the previous peak was 38,900.
That is the good news. The less good news is that we were told that whereas in 1978 there were 22,000 in polytechnics, that had declined to 15,000. It was suggested to the Committee that that reflected, among other things, a changing pattern of demand from the developing countries. It was pointed out, for example, that a number of polytechnic and post-school institutions had developed at a great rate in the developing countries, in newly industrialised economies and in various parts of Asia, so that the demand for such educational places in this country had fallen.
It was pointed out that the demand for places in universities had risen and had apparently been met. The previous concern was that our universities were no longer providing places for thousands of people from overseas who would go home and carry with them what they had
854
learnt here—the values as well as the skills—and apply it to the development of their societies, industries and commerce. That concern must now be less because the numbers have not only picked up but have overtaken the previous numbers.
Those were all matters to which the present Select Committee returned briefly when looking at the Estimates a year ago, and the Committee commented on them in its fourth report. As is customary, a reply came from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, making observations on our report, but there must have been a slip-up because, although our report mentioned the finance of overseas students, the reply did not. This led to an exchange of letters—"Dear Geoffrey", "Dear David", "Dear Kenneth", "Dear David", and so on—all of which are printed in the Select Committee minutes of evidence, which have just been published. From these there flowed our decision to have a brief hearing, at which the numbers I have just given were elucidated. This indicates that things are on the mend—changing and improving.
The Secretary of State for Education wrote to the Committee. He was aware of our concern about overseas students and, in particular, about the question of what was happening all these years after the removal of the policy of indiscriminate subsidy for all overseas students. In his letter he said that he could see no grounds for any reconsideration of the policy. However, if one listens closely—this certainly applies to anyone who listened to some of the excellent evidence that was given to the Select. Committee—one can hear the distinct sound of gears being shifted. I believe that there is some change of emphasis. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has confirmed that that is so.
With the transfer of funds from the Overseas Development Administration to the scholarship award system under the FCO, we are witnessing a definite shift, which I think is welcome. I do not fully understand the precise intentions of the strategies, but it seems to me that it is a realistic recognition of the fact that the overseas students in our universities need to come not only from the least developed and poorest countries. This is not just a development programme in the most narrow sense; it is also a programme designed to forge links with, and open up opportunities in, semi-developed countries with the newly industrialised economies that I have mentioned. We have been told that we have more students from Hong Kong than ever before. We have more also from some countries—mainly in eastern Europe—where we have done very little business and had very little influence for half a century. These countries, in an intellectual and political sense, are miserably undeveloped. They will not like me for saying so, but by our standards they are. Anything that we can do to seize the new opportunities and move through the new doors and windows that must now be opening in the frozen Communist bloc, which has been virtually cut off from the trading system of the world for more than half a century, must be good.
If this change of Government policy, this shift of resources, together with the development of the FCO special award scholarship, leads in that direction, and if the expansion of the partnership between Government and the private sector in the provision of resources leads to more scholarships and awards for people from what, a long time ago, we called the iron curtain countries, that will be a very good thing.

855
In general, of course, the private sector is beginning to play a more vigorous part—working with the Government and indeed taking its own initiatives—in bringing people here for higher education. That must be a good thing. Of course, in that respect we are only following France—which does this on a major scale—Germany and Japan. The familiar pattern is emerging everywhere: the public sector and the private sector mobilising themselves to work together towards goals that are partly to do with public policy and partly to do with the expansion of commerce. They are working together, in new and very successful ways, to achieve what, just a decade ago, were believed to be social goals that could be pursued only at the taxpayers' expense.
All in all, there is a changing picture—perhaps "change of policy" is too precise—in the approach to bringing overseas students here. The numbers overall—and, again, we could have a debate about the precise basis—reflect a substantial rise in those coming to the universities, and a fall in those coming to the polytechnics. It is a pattern which is less alarming than perhaps it seemed a few years ago. The complaints may not have gone completely in Kuala Lumpur or even in Hong Kong but the justification for them is less. It has to be conceded that there is vigour and life in the programme, although I believe that some of my colleagues on the Select Committee will still rightly insist that we should keep an eye on the subject and that we could do better.
10.29 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has given what one might call conditional approval to Government policy. He was right to point out that it is not yet clear that the results of the cuts of the early part of the decade have been entirely restored in all sectors. The polytechnic sector is the obvious example. It is notable and disappointing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not see fit explicitly to deal with that in its response. I hope that in future, as a matter of principle and of expressing support for the concept of paying for students to come to this country, support will be visible in responses or documents initiated by the FCO itself.
The general view has been clearly evidenced by what has been said. Funding of students to come here, particularly from the Third and Fourth worlds, is one of the best signs of our commitment to development and one of the most positive ways in which we can give specific, up-to-date and pertinent help. My intervention in the Minister's remarks was to suggest that the Government should look more and more to ways in which we can use this policy to assist in our overseas development programme and less to benefit our own domestic prospects. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Member for Guildford when I say that I inferred the same from his speech. I am not suggesting that the policy should disappear, but I have a general concern that we do not adequately balance and prioritise between those two naturally complementary policies and that we tend always to put our interests above those of the countries from which the students come.
856
I wondered whether the Minister would take the opportunity of this debate to deal more specifically with certain matters. The minutes of a recent Select Committee meeting confirm that the Government plan to phase out the FCO's country and territory support schemes. That is what officials of the FCO said, and there is concern about the implications. For example, I should like to know that support for Cyprus, and for other territories and countries where there are no universities, will be continued to the same financial extent.
I understand that there is to be a transfer of schemes rather than the removal of schemes. None the less, the funding criteria are different. If the proposal is that there should be a transfer, as it were, from the specific budget introduced for countries such as Cyprus and Malaysia in 1983 by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Pym, to the main FCO special award scholarship budget, some of the advantages of the selective scheme for countries and territories with which we have a particular relationship will be lost. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the timetable and on the commitment to Malaysia, Cyprus, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. I understand that there is no doubt that the commitment to Hong Kong will remain.
A second specific matter with which the Minister might deal is whether it will be possible in the near future to extend the ORSAS scheme to polytechnics. The point was made from the Labour Front Bench that at the moment it is not possible. Here I declare an interest—there is no university in my constituency, but there is a polytechnic. That is not, however, why I raise the matter. It is because there is much growth in polytechnics in technical subjects such as engineering which seem to be beneficial. I therefore hope that ORSAS will be extended to polytechnics.
When I and two colleagues from the Conservative and Labour parties visited South Africa, we found that the scheme for funding the education of black South Africans was especially welcomed. If I can attract the Minister's attention, I would urge the Minister to consider whether it is possible to expand the black South African scheme further as it is much appreciated and needed. When my colleagues from the House and I were talking to church, political and educational leaders in southern Africa and especially in South Africa, it was notable that one of the ways in which we could best assist was in the training and teaching of members of the majority black South African community. I therefore urge the Government to give favourable consideration to the expansion of that scheme as I am sure that it has great potential.
Speaking perhaps more from the point of view of my educational responsibilities than from a foreign affairs interest, one of my concerns is that some of the changes in the totals of overseas students in institutions here look as though they may fundamentally affect the security of the overseas student programme within some institutions. For example, I note that the projections for University college, Cardiff—I am aware that the University of Wales has had financial difficulties—are that whereas in 1986–87 there were 1,442 overseas students, by 1991–92 the figure will be down by 368. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to look again at the way in which a large number of university institutions—I am not talking about polytechnics—will lose quite substantial numbers of overseas students. On the face of it, that does not appear necessarily to be justified. I understand that within the educational debate in Britain there are sometimes arguments for rationalising courses, but that does not necessarily mean that so many

857
institutions should be affected by reductions in overseas students. Overseas students do not just contribute their particular training needs and experience; but they add to the dimension of that university or institution of higher education. I can say that as someone who spent a year studying abroad and benefited greatly.
The Minister did not allude to the concerns expressed about the recent announcement of the imminent 10 per cent. increase in fees. I understand that one of its implications will be that from next year universities will be free to set their own student fees and that there will therefore be much more of a free market for fee setting. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on the expected consequences of that as at present there is a fixed regime and a more competitive scheme would clearly have many more unpredictable consequences.
I have a further concern, based principally on constituency experience, that there are still often inadequate support mechanisms for people who come here. That has various manifestations. I am concerned that there are disreputable institutions purporting to be good institutions of further education which have not yet been dealt with by the Education Reform Act 1988. To be honest, some institutions—especially language schools—fleece their students. No approval, either implicit or explicit, should be given to such institutions. I am aware that that is not the principal destination of the category of people about whom we are talking, but not insubstantial numbers of foreign students nevertheless end up in clearly disreputable institutions. That problem needs further attention, not just from the Minister's Department but from the Department of Education and Science. I am not being critical of that Department as the problem has not been ignored, but there are still such institutions recruiting unjustifiably.
The other problem brought to our attention in our mail and from the advice centres, especially in urban areas which have large numbers of ethnic minority communities, including large numbers of overseas students, is that sometimes it would be beneficial if the Home Office were less restrictive in its rules forbidding any sort of work experience. People who come here to study for a university degree or to take a higher education course would often benefit greatly from being able to combine some work experience with their studies. I am not suggesting that they should come here and then have a series of jobs, but they could do some form of work linked with their course, whether it he a sandwich course or some other type. I do not expect an immediate response, but I hope that the Minister, his colleagues and Home Office Ministers will consider the rules which, at the moment, often inhibit people who could benefit greatly from a slightly broader mix of experience, both academic and practical.
I hope that the Government will continue the course that the Chairman of the Select Committee has encouraged them to follow, and will increase the budget for overseas students and the number of countries and programmes which benefit from it. That is one of the most obvious ways of being seen to be committed to the proper and long-term development of less advantaged and less prosperous countries. We owe it to those countries to give of our academic and economic richness. I hope that the programme will be substantially expanded in years to come.
10.41 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: In tonight's previous debate the Select Committee on Agriculture congratulated itself on the fact that we could discuss a report which had been published only last week. We should express some satisfaction on the fact that we are debating now a subject on which the key document before the House was published only yesterday.
This has been, and continues to be, a helpful debate on what I regard as a vital subject. I wonder whether the Minister has considered why we are having it. Perhaps the principal reason is that the Select Committee's previous report was ignored by the Foreign Office in its reply, which I regret. I hope that the Minister will tell his departmental colleagues that they should not behave in that way.
I have long experience of departmental Select Committees and served on the Crossman Select Committees in the 1960s, when we had some pithy debates on Government action. In 1979 and 1980 I played a major part with Lord St. John of Fawsley, the then Leader of the House, in setting up the current family of Select Committees which I believe in passionately. They play an important part in the life of the House.
I hope that the Minister will tell his officials that, in future, they should learn to understand that Select Committees can bite—this one in particular is prepared to make its teeth meet. They should not impose a discourtesy on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee such as they did on this occasion. I make that comment as a warning and I hope that the Minister will tell his officials that the Select Committee members will not tolerate being treated like this in the future.
I especially want to applaud the specific foreign policy and developmental objectives which are set out in paragraph 3 of the paper presented to the Select Committee by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In view of some of the comments, most of which I strongly agree with, it is right to begin by applauding the Foreign Office's general objectives, which are to
"win influential friends overseas by enabling future leaders, decision makers and opinion forrners from all walks of life to study in the United Kingdom … help the development of manpower skills and resources in developing countries … promote the security and prosperity of the United Kingdom by cultivating good political and commercial relations with other countries."
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) earlier made an intervention on precisely this point. I warmly support what she said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) made the same crucial point. It seems to have been included in the Foreign Office's objectives.
Travelling abroad and observing the political and commercial life of other countries, one often discovers that—surprise, surprise—the people are using the methods and equipment of the countries in which they were trained. Educating such people is the best investment that we can possibly make. I well remember, in a previous incarnation, visiting Malaysia a few years ago. I vividly remember the resentment and ill feeling there.
I rejoice that the overall trend of expenditure on overseas students is increasing so dramatically. I congratulate the Foreign Office and the other Departments concerned on the figures, which are clearly set out on page 7 of the Select Committee's minutes of evidence. They are worth repeating to the House. The

859
amount spent on overseas students has risen from £79·65 million in 1985–86 to £111·41 million in 1988–89. At the same time, the number of award holders has increased from 17,918 to 22,757. That is a commendable increase, of which the Government are entitled to be proud.
I asked the Minister's officials a question in the Committee which proved difficult for them to answer then. After the public expenditure survey committee, last autumn, when the figures were discussed by all the Departments concerned—the ODA, the Foreign Office, the British Council, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Trade and Industry—the figures for the trend over the next few years must have been clear. An official helpfully told the Committee that, for the Foreign Office's part, we could expect an extra £10 million, involving an extra 1,000 students, in the next two or three years, over and above the 1988 figures.
It would help the Committee and the House to know the precise projections of expenditure and the number of award holders that may be expected in the next few years—the figures, in short, which are covered in the PESC and the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) asked a specific question about this; he had an advantage that I did not enjoy when I was in the Select Committee—a copy of the White Paper before him. The answer that he got was not very clear. I do not criticise that, but if the Minister could give us a clearer one it would help the Government's case, if nothing else.
A matter that I raised in the Committee and which has been mentioned by hon. Members this evening is the proportion of award holders who come from developing countries. That number is of crucial interest to the House. In general, we believe that the bulk of the effort should be directed towards these students. We were again given a most helpful answer, which is on page 12 of the Select Committee's report, and we were told that £93 million out of the £110 million goes to students from developing countries. We were also told that about 18,000 of the 22,750 students come from developing countries. That sounded fine and I was delighted to hear that figure.
However, the figure was somewhat blurred when, in reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, we were told that some of those students come from Hong Kong. I do not regard Hong Kong as a developing country and I wonder whether my hon. Friend will be kind enough to give us figures—and I have to put this in vague terms myself—for the amount of money and the number of students who come from real developing countries, rather than from countries such as Hong Kong. It is important that we should know the proportion that goes to the students for whom we believe help is most needed. I am not saying that we should not help students from more developed countries, but I am sure that we would like most of the help to go to the countries that need it most.
My final point is one that we discussed with the officials in the Select Committee and concerns the priorities given in developing countries to assisting people in training for the basic and essential vocations. I hope that the Government will do all that they can—in a tactful way, of course—to channel students who come here from developing countries into those studies that are most appropriate to the countries concerned. I do not need to
860
lecture the House on the fact that developing countries need, above all, to develop their basic industries, agriculture, education system and infrastructure, rather than some of the more fancy pursuits and studies which some students may be tempted to pursue. It was made clear by the officials that that is difficult and must be handled tactfully. I take that point, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that every effort is made by our posts abroad, who handle these matters in the front line, to channel the studies of students who come here into the pursuits and studies that are most essential for the development and future prosperity of the countries from which they come.
I have mentioned various points that I would like to have spoken on at greater length. However, if my hon. Friend would reply to them, I should be most grateful.
10.53
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I wish only to underline a few of the points that the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has made forcefully. He began by drawing the House's attention to the objectives that were stated in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office memorandum. The first was to "win influential friends overseas". I must tell the Minister that the Government's actions in the early 1980s did anything but win friendship overseas. The impact of the nature of their actions, the lack of consultation and the alienation and resentment they incurred in communities that naturally had friendships with Britain and, normally, with our Government was drastic.
In the Select Committee, we had to spend some time in looking at the patchwork of support, outlined in annex A, which is now given to students and which is, in some respects, an admission of the disastrous impact of the bull-in-the-china-shop policy that was followed in the early 1980s. Since then, we have rightly spent a good deal of time repairing the damage created by those early absurdities and the failure to consult, or to achieve a sensible evolution of policy rather than its destruction. In terms of objective number one—"win influential friends overseas"—we have, I hope, learnt the lessons of the early 1980s. The patchwork of available schemes includes the fee support scheme—known in our parlance as the Pym scheme—a damage limitation exercise designed to repair the damage caused by the initial decisions.
My second point concerns the Government's relationship to Select Committee reports. I am a recent convert to Select Committees, having become a member of one after more than 20 years in the House. I made a deliberate choice to leave the Front Bench, on which I had spent the best part of my parliamentary career in either government or opposition, because it was the only way in which to go on to a Select Committee. Having done so, I feel that it is extremely important for Governments to accept that enormous effort and often unanimous recommendations must be taken seriously. They must not be brushed aside, ignored or—as in this case—not even answered properly. I hope that, if it does nothing else, the debate will underline again the demand from those who serve on Select Committees that Governments should care about how they and their recommendations are treated.
My third point is this. Although it was the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale who actually

861
asked the question, we all wanted to learn not only how we were making good the damage of the early 1980s but how we compared with France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and others. The distinguished official appearing before us replied:
"I fear we do not have to hand any up-to-date figures, and if you really would like those I think we would have to offer to do that afterwards."
That is in paragraph 36 of the report.
We emphasise that we wish to follow that up. Almost all the Committee's members looked rather surprised that no such comparisons and monitoring were taking place. Miss Pestell went on—rightly—to point out the difficulties of making such comparisons, but I think that it is widely recognised that we are involved in a competitive game. Like the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I believe that we should ensure that students from poor Botswana are given the best possible support, as well as those from Hong Kong and the developing nations in which our distinguished Chairman has a particular interest.
We must believe passionately in giving support to the poorest countries. Students from Botswana should feel that Britain is still a home to which they can come to obtain skills and further their education, and a country such as ours has an intrinsic moral duty and responsibility to help. I was astonished that we were not watching our competitors, and that the information requested, quite properly, by the Committee had not been provided. I hope when the Minister replies he will reaffirm the commitment to produce a further submission to the Select Committee, so that we can have some further knowledge of these comparisons.
I should like to make a personal point, which illustrates something else that emerged from the evidence. No one wants to make comparisons with the early 1980s, but it is valuable, I think, to note that different types of students are coming to this country seeking different types of courses at different levels of education, and we cannot go back to the situation as it was between 1978 and 1981.
I am rather glad that things are changing. I once had the dubious privilege of being an examiner for the Cambridge board and at Christmas time A-level papers used to arrive from deepest Malaysia and, unbelievably, from Nigeria in the midde of the civil war, when, as I used to read in The Sunday Times, there was genocide going on. There were students scribbling away in missionary schools in the heart of Nigeria answering four A-level questions on the British constitution and history such as "Discuss the future development of the English parish council". I am delighted that, gradually, the Malaysians and Nigerians are developing an examination system free from nonsense of that kind. One detects the evolution of education systems in Africa and Asia and the removal of the nonsenses that occurred, as when I used to examine young A-level students on the English local government system. I am glad in some ways that the nations concerned are freeing themselves from that sort of curious relationship.
When I was "Minister for decolonisation", as I used to call myself, I preached the concept of re-engagement of relationships in modern terms, and I think that within the whole area of education of overseas students we can re-engage in a very modern sense with a large number of students from a large number of countries in different parts of the world.
11.2 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I have great pleasure in following the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). Such is the camaraderie of the Foreign Affairs Committee that I have to say that I agree with virtually every word he has said and certainly would not take him to task on anything.
Many figures have been bandied around tonight and, generally speaking, I have the feeling that we have lost out in terms of our potential in this field in recent years, and we are not attracting now those people that we could, and indeed should, have attracted. We are doing very well and all the figures commend themselves but, if one takes 1979 as a high water mark of successive Government's historical legacy, colonial legacy and everything else, it was an indiscriminate policy of subsidy, of benefits to every student, but there were many people who came here at that time who have subsequently gone elsewhere. Our eastern friends, as many hon. Members of the Committee know better than I, have gone to the United States; many middle easterners have gone to the United States; many Africans have gone to all sorts of odd places—if I may say so, respectfully—even to East Germany and the Soviet Union. That seems to me to mean that we have something to answer for, bearing in mind our potential.
I would like to say a few words, as have right hon. and hon. Friends, on the importance of this matter politically and economically. On the political front—and I say this after a lifetime of frequent contact with foreigners, to put it mildly—the country of education is usually the second country for life. That is an important fact that one must take hold of.
The other side of the coin is social obligation, a point made by the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I am pleased with the Government's southern Africa programme and may that continue. It is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support.
There are always two dimensions—the social and the political. Any Government must follow both sensibly. Let me give two examples, the second of which may be familiar to some hon. Members. My first example concerns developing countries. Temple-Morris's French is not very good. When he went to Algeria he was struggling. In Paris he understands better what comes back from his somewhat imperfect French. To cut the story short, it was a great relief, when the conversation turned to offshore gas, suddenly to find three, four or five young gentlemen who all came from Manchester—the polytechnic as well as the university, which has a bearing on the figures presented to the Select Committee—speaking with somewhat Lancastrian accents, or perhaps even worse, but something that I could understand better than the French. That will mean something to various colleagues of mine who have been to different parts of the world. Young men return to their own countries arid not only speak English and respond to things British but buy British equipment.
My second example is an extreme one in relation to the most developed countries. After a heavy day during the Select Committee's visit to Washington we had a mixed tea party with the Senate foreign relations committee. Out of some five senators who attended, no fewer than two were

863
Rhodes scholars. That was not in any small way why they took the trouble to attend. We do not want to miss both sides of the equation.
The policy of successive Governments up to 1979 was one, to use a disparaging term, of indiscriminate subsidy, or, to use a somewhat more encouraging term, of special terms for overseas students. At that time I said, and do so again, that I was unhappy with the decision that was taken. I lobbied Lord Pym during 1982–83 and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and award scheme were welcome. The selective basis is almost universally accepted, but it is the amount of money being spent on that basis that is important. I often wish that the Foreign Office, for all its eloquence before the Select Committee and in my general contact with it, had a budget to match its aspirations.
It is the Overseas Development Administration's budget that is providing the funds. In 1988–89 there was £83 million for 13,500 students, dwarfing anything that the Foreign Office is doing on the more political front. At the moment the Foreign Office budget is £16 million direct, going up next year to £20 million. But most of that increase of £4 million will again be ODA, not Foreign Office money.
There is a mistake here. I do not deny that those in command are, through the most elegant creative accounting, doing a good job within their power and ability. But I somehow get the impression that they have not got their head; that they cannot quite get out of the system that which they should do and that which the issue commands. We still have not got away from the slightly doctrinaire syndromes of 1979 and thereafter, which we must do.
Being doctrinaire on the other side for a moment, I would commend private sector involvement. There is nothing new in this. In my university days, many of our old companies with middle east interests had schemes which were far more imaginative and productive than those that we have at present. I hope that we can involve industry. I hope that the Foreign Office will preserve its dominance and its influence in the overall system, but there is much work to be done. The Department of Trade and Industry is now entering the stream. It is now coming in with—I can never resist referring to this—its peculiarly vulgar writing paper that it has decided to take on, and it is regaling everyone with the fact that it is to introduce its own schemes. If it can do so, all well and good, but British industry must be made to see the possibilities, and, from odd bits of evidence that we had, it seems to be a slightly uphill struggle. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can lead the DTI on this. When it comes to available money, the DTI's budget is far greater, even though at present its commitment is far smaller. I hope, nevertheless, that we can work together because there is much to be done, and our efforts in this direction will, in the end, prevent many people from going to America or elsewhere when they should be coming here.
As regards the future, the Foreign and Commonwealth budget—it always comes down to that—is very small. It must be fought for and, in my view, it is never fought for quite enough. Never has so little money been poured into the land of such great opportunity. That is something with which I dare say my hon. Friend the Parliamentary
864
Under-Secretary of State would thoroughly agree. So we must try to be behind him in his efforts, because I feel that the Department is trying its very best. I still think that what is at stake is comparatively unrecognised. We have enormous potential. Our country has much to give, and much more to give than at present it is permitted to give.
We must, therefore, have sufficient funding, and anything that can be done to that end I will certainly do.
11.11 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: Confining my remarks to just a few minutes makes me feel a little like people in Nigeria sitting examinations under the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) must have felt trying to work out how to answer a question on the British rate support grant in four minutes. It must have taxed their ingenuity. When I came to the Select Committee and looked at the complex list of Government support schemes for overseas students in the United Kingdom, the rate support grant seemed almost a doddle. The complexity of the various schemes seemed to test not only my colleagues and myself but also some of the officials who were endeavouring to explain them to us. That is why there were one or two difficulties about the answers to some of the questions that we put, but I am sure that all will be resolved in due course with supplementary memoranda.
One aspect to which I should like to draw attention today is grant transfer between the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the various criteria listed. I have no time to go into detail, but on page 17 of the minutes of evidence dated 1 March 1989 this was raised in questions which I and my colleagues asked. The criteria are clear—that ODA money is still being disbursed under the FCO programme to developing countries, and there is no leakage. Nevertheless, the criteria are worth examining in detail. For the sake of brevity, however, I merely draw attention to the comments made by the officials and reported on page 17 of the report.
The other interesting aspect is that, although the number of overseas students in the United Kingdom receiving Government support in the year 1988–89 given in the evidence is roughly 22,700, the total number of overseas students receiving higher education in this country is about 57,000, a figure given in a written reply to me on 6 March. So there is a very large number of overseas students in this country—and I welcome this—who are not dependent on Government grants. I hope that the number obviously attracted directly by institutions of higher education in Britain will continue to grow.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the political importance of encouraging students from countries with which we want to foster a long-term political relationship, and where for the first time we can determine the selection procedure for such students. This is particularly the case with various eastern European countries to which he referred. I entirely endorse his remarks. Given that we have stated that there are political objectives in the criteria that we use for FCO grants, we should use them in our long-term interests. I especially believe that eastern Europe, where there is an enormous thirst for British education, is vitally important.
The British Council is doing a first-class job in eastern Europe, which will improve now that it has been voted extra funds for that purpose, but although the British

865
Council is taking education to people in eastern Europe, some students must be brought to the higher centres of learning in Britain. I hope that the Government will consider increasing funds for that purpose. We should be making a long-term investment by bringing future leaders of other countries to this country, and the Foreign Office should recognise that financially more than it does at present.
I have tried to confine my remarks to the required time by not covering the many other matters to which I had hoped to refer.
11.15 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I shall make four brief points in the time that remains.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), I am very concerned about the transfers from the ODA budget to the FCO budget. I am particularly worried about the reason given by officials in evidence to the Committee—that the ODA could not select the candidates that it considered most appropriate to come to Britain to take up scholarships under its TCDC programme, and therefore it was transferring them to the FCO so that the FCO could select the right people for Britain to try to influence in terms of future relationships between Britain and other countries. Clearly that is a political, not a developmental, objective.
The evidence has shown that the Foreign Office and the ODA want to continue that practice, so there will be a serious reduction in the ODA budget. It seems to be quite wrong that the British administrators of the ODA's TCDC scheme are not influential in selecting the candidates to take up British scholarships. I ask the ODA to reconsider the position whereby British scholarships are awarded at local universities, thus depriving those who benefit from the scholarships of the experience of coming to Britain and benefiting from learning about its culture and its objectives, and making friendships which are likely to last a lifetime and influence their purchasing and other loyalties in future.
It is clear that we have a major task in offering scholarships to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We are not providing anything like sufficient money to promote scholarships from those countries to Britain, which I consider will play a crucial part in developing peaceful and productive relationships between Britain and the Soviet Union in the advantageous circumstances which are developing between our two countries.
I commend the DTI scheme, which should be got under way as quickly as possible and should concentrate on management, production and personnel management techniques which are lacking in most of the developing countries.
In transferring scholarships from the ODA to the FCO it is said that they are held in the poorest countries. When we asked in which countries they were held, the countries cited were Egypt, Brazil, China and Turkey. Although China is very poor, those are not countries we would normally think of as developing countries.
When we were able to offer scholarship places in our universities and technical colleges without asking for full-cost fees, we were influencing a much larger population of students in Commonwealth countries. We now offer cut-price fees to EEC students. I strongly believe that we should restore to the Commonwealth the privilege
866
of similarly benefiting from the EEC scheme, and that we should put the Commonwealth and the EEC on the same basis. We should certainly ensure that all our dependencies are on that basis. In that way, we shall be able to ensure the continuation of British influence and culture in many of the countries that we have traditionally supported.
11.19 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I am moved to speak by the reminiscences of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), when he recalled his student days spent with Dr. Banda and others. I recollect my own student days, when I shared a university with Mr. Tariq Ali—and also shared the occasional demonstration with him. Mr. Tariq Ali may have learnt something from those days—I know that I did. He could have bought the university, never mind needing a grant to attend it.
In the next room to mine at university there was a white South African, and two doors away there was a black Nigerian. That better sums up tonight's debate—the concept of people from two different parts of Africa bringing something to our country, and taking away something that—as I know from meeting them again—has lasted over the years. Most important of all, we learnt something from each other that might stand that continent in good stead in the longer term.
We have a good record, and we must build upon it. If there is any criticism of my hon. Friend it is that it is such a good story, but we want more of it. I hope that my few words serve to emphasise that message. It is right to target on student need rather than on just places, and to specify our aims in bringing overseas students to this country. They include winning friends and influencing people, helping developing countries, and assisting British trade. Another element, which has not been mentioned, is exporting English English. If we export English English as opposed to American English, or any other kind of English, that too will help our position in the world.
Mr. Foulkes: Only "English" English?
Mr. Bowis: I use the terra English English in the broadest sense, and I would include the best broad Scots, if that applies.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind a possible university of the Commonwealth and what that could do for English and for our relationships with other countries. My message is that, while we should certainly invite students from the Commonwealth and from Anglophone countries, we should do more in terms of trade and of exporting the English language to other countries of the world, including Francophone and Hispanic countries.
We must consider also the lands of central and southern America, of Indo-China, and of the middle east. That is what Japan does. There are few countries where Japanese is spoken, but Japan still has a reputation around the world. Similarly, we should not confine our efforts only to the English-speaking world.
I reinforce the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) concerning southern Africa. The scheme that operates there, which I have seen in action, is excellent. There are about 170 students under the present scheme. One thinks of the 2 million people in Soweto, and of those

867
in the camps around Cape Town. There is an enormous need for our support and education. I hope that my hon. Friend will expand that scheme. If he sets out to do that, he will have the support of the whole House.
11.23 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although the cultural, economic and educational benefits for our universities of accepting overseas students are well recognised, more must be done. Although there are now 48,000 students in our country compared with 38,000 in 1978, the United States with four times our population has 342,000 students, France, with about the same population has 133,000, and West Germany has 72,000. If we are to double the proportion of 18-year-olds in higher education in the next 10 years, the proportion overseas should also be doubled.
Although the 1979 exercise was more rushed than one would have liked, its implications were good to the extent that it rationalised higher education students. The figures show that between 1978 and 1985 the number of non-advanced students undertaking GCSE, CSE and FCE studies dropped from 23,000 to 5,000. At least that rationalisation has forced greater bilateral agreements between countries such as the United Kingdom and Malaysia and China. It is interesting to note that a consortium of northern universities and polytechnics already has a significant bilateral programme with Malaysia, especially for law students. The same applies to 60 universities and polytechnics which, backed by British Petroleum, Glaxo, ICI and Shell, are developing with Taiwan the equivalent of a consular education counselling service in Taipei.
The marketing of our university student places abroad must be far more professional than at present, and the university mission services overseas must be uprated, in conjunction with our educational institutions and universities. We must also target our aid in relation to university students abroad much more accurately. We tend to look towards the Commonwealth countries on the Indian subcontinent and in Africa, but only 1·5 per cent. of overseas students coming to this country are from the burgeoning continent of south America, with its economic and political opportunities. Indeed, the number of students from Venezuela and Brazil decreased significantly between 1979 and 1985. Our universities must adopt far more modular higher education courses so that students from abroad can jump on and jump off, although to be fair that line is already taken for retraining mature students.
We should also use far more private finance. It is disappointing that there are only 17 joint initiatives with the private sector. The Department of Trade and Industry's trade-related scholarships need to be upgraded. It is disappointing that there are only 83 of them at present. It is interesting to note that the Overseas Students Trust wanted an increase of £200,000 per year to £10 million per year. There is also far more to be done on the tripartite schemes that were mentioned in the evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is engaged in schemes, including those involving ICI at Oxford university and BICC with the Cranfield institute of technology. If more can be done
868
in that way, the £120 million of public funds that are used to attract overseas students to this country can be trebled or even quadrupled by private sector funds from industry.
11.27 pm
Mr. Eggar: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, could I say first to hon. Members and to members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that no discourtesy was intended to the Committee in omitting to pick up points made by the Select Committee. I assure the Committee that we shall watch this matter very carefully in future. I take the points made in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
The evidence for our oversight is that we believe we have a very good story to tell in relation to overseas students. We had no reason, and certainly no intention or wish, to disguise from the Committee what we were doing. The general support from members of the Committee and from hon. Members is evidence of their recognition of what we have been doing in the past three years.
I shall deal rapidly with as many questions as possible that have been raised during this brief debate. I undertake to reply in writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee, with regard to the points with which I shall not be able to deal during my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) remarked on the complexity of the schemes. I agree that they are complex. We have considered ways to simplify them and have concluded that various schemes used subtly together can meet most requirements in different countries. We want to concentrate on increased targeting, using our existing schemes. Perhaps in the future we shall narrow the number of schemes but we want to continue as we are for the present.
Several hon. Members spoke about the need to expand in eastern Europe. In this financial year, ending in April, we will have spent £167,000 in scholarship schemes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Next year we intend to spend £702,000. In other words, the amount is increasing rapidly and we intend to continue that trend.
Hon. Members commented on the transfer of ODA money to the diplomatic wing for use through the FCO scholarships and awards scheme. This is a good example of our deliberately selecting the most effective way of delivering scholarships to a number of aid recipient countries. The awards will be targeted on a number of countries of importance to Britain and on candidates of high quality who can and will make a real contribution in important areas of their own countries' development.
The ODA money—the transferred money—will be disbursed according to the provisions of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. This transfer does not mean a reduction in ODA programmes. On the contrary, the ODA has provided funds to the diplomatic wing in addition to existing money that is being spent by the ODA. In other words, it is a use of extra money that the ODA has transferred to the diplomatic wing.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke of the drop in the number of students at further education colleges. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) dealt effectively with that point. In most developing countries there has been a rapid increase in the

869
number of further education courses available, and it must be right that those courses should be followed in the developing countries. Students are then available to come and study at university or higher education level in the United Kingdom.
The reason for the delay in holding another round table was that there were comments about the structure of the round table following its last meeting. Consultations are going on with the NGOs and others to try to find a more satisfactory framework that would be more acceptable and productive from everybody's point of view.
The hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) commented on the overseas research students award scheme and questioned whether that might be extended to polytechnics. That is under review now and we must await the outcome of that review.
A number of hon. Members spoke about the EPS and ECS recruitment schemes. I am told that the Department of Education and Science believes that decisions on recruitment policies should be left to institutions. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided a small amount of pump priming money to get those recruitment schemes off the ground, in conjunction with the British Council.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) about the need for universities to improve their marketing techniques for overseas students. The comparison between the techniques used by American and British universities does not redound to the credit of our universities.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley spoke about the fund for international student co-operation, of which, I gather, he is an ex-employee. I wish to place on record our thanks to FISC and its trustees for the work that they have done over the years. We have completed a detailed review of FISC and we believe that there is no need for that body to continue its work, and we wish to redeploy the funds directly for other assistance in the student world. The grant will, therefore, end in 1989.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House commented on the fee support schemes. We believe that those schemes have fulfilled their purpose—
It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Order [3 March].

Croft House, Holywood, County Down
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
11.35 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to raise a matter of immense importance to my constituents. It is not just a local issue but a wider question involving the morality of a Government Department and the Eastern health and social services board in making a decision that runs counter to a decision and a promise of two years ago.
Two years ago the Eastern health and social services board announced that it intended to close Croft House, a home for the elderly. That decision came as a shock to my constituents and, indeed, to myself. Croft House has been a home for senior citizens for the past 38 years. A homely atmosphere and caring attention have been provided by dedicated staff. Most of the residents orginally lived in the Holywood area, where their relatives still live. As the residents are familiar with the environment, the move to a residential home was not as dramatic as it might have been had they been taken away from churches, relatives and friends who had given their lives a considerable degree of warmth.
It was not surprising, therefore, that a decision, in 1987, to close Croft House was challenged by the people of Holywood and by their elected representatives, including myself as the Member of Parliament. At that time there was no talk of a home for the elderly mentally infirm being built in Holywood or, indeed. anywhere else in North Down or Ards. Croft House was being closed because a report said that it would be too costly to make it satisfy all economic and technical requirements and that, consequently, it was too costly to run.
In its strategic plan for the period 1987–92 the board confirmed the need for residential accommodation for the elderly in the North Down and Ards areas. Protest meetings were held at that time, and eventually the board decided to replace Croft House with new purpose-built premises to provide 45 beds, on a site attached to Marmion children's home, which is in Church road, Holywood. This decision was welcomed by the people of the area, by those connected with the home, and by all who had the elderly people's welfare at heart. It was thought that it would bring the elderly people and the children from Marmion together in a very happy relationship and that that would make the elderly people feel part of the local community.
At a meeting of the Eastern health board on 26 March 1987 it was explained—I quote from the minutes—
"that … it had been possible to obtain a commitment from the Department of Health and Social Services to use the proceeds of this sale of Croft House together with an advance from the Department to allow a replacement 45 bed home for the elderly in the grounds of Marmion Children's Home to commence as soon as possible."
It was resolved
"to proceed with action to replace Croft House as soon as possible."
Work on the site commenced in November last year and progressed at a reasonable rate for two months, during which time the residents of Croft House, who knew that their home was to be closed in due course, came along to see the development of what they thought would be their new home, not far away.

871
But suddenly everything changed. In private, a proposal was put forward by officials of the board
"to redesign the elderly persons' home".
Those words are bureaucratic shorthand for "demolish what has been built and start again". On 26 January of this year the board agreed that the home "be so redesigned". That was to ensure that the new facility could cater for the needs of the mentally frail elderly. In other words, the solemn undertaking that had been given by the board two years ago to the people of Holywood, to the residents of Croft House, to the clergy in the area and to the public representative was broken by the board.
Suddenly, with only five days' notice, the board reversed the decision. It gave the people five days to make representations. Of course, privately officials gave instructions to the contractor to demolish what had already been built. That was before the board formally made the decision to abandon the replacement home for Croft House. Demolition was quick and sudden. The chairman of the board admitted that the community was taken by surprise. As an excuse for the quick action—the board having waited two long years—the chairman said that the matter required urgent resolution. Yet the director of social services admitted at a meeting which I attended that the issue had been considered by officials for a considerable time.
Despite the extensive and secret consideration by officials of the board, the public was not consulted and no attempt was made to postpone the building work even though for some time the officials knew that they might put forward a recommendation to the board to abandon the project and, better still, to reach a decision before the erection of the building had begun. I should have thought that there was a duty on public officials to be careful about public money.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the action that took place illustrates clearly just how little influence the elected representatives have when serving on boards in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Kilfedder: It proves what I have said all along, that it is high time the Government abolished the board and gave democracy back to the people of Northern Ireland so that we might get rid of the colonial type of Government which we have, with Ministers going over from England and the people having no say. They are invited sometimes to put their views, but when it comes to the bit, arrogance overrules local wishes. I have no objection to arrogance if it is matched with intellect and compassion, but sadly that is not so.
The present case is a perfect example. The officials of the board waited until the foundation of the building had been laid and the walls erected. How much money has been spent needlessly on design and construction costs? It is impossible to discover the amount from the board. My estimate—it is a conservative estimate if I dare use the word "conservative" in that context—is that as a result of its actions the board has cost the taxpayer in excess of £160,000. The board must be held to account for the money that has been thrown away.
I have spoken to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about the shameful waste of taxpayers' money, because it is the people who are paying. The Chairman of
872
the PAC has promised to give the matter his attention when I submit the papers to him. I propose to give a copy of the Official Report of the debate to him in due course.
The board has the temerity to castigate those who criticise its decision by saying:
"To proceed with the original design and build an elderly persons' home which is not needed would be a waste of public money."
If it is not needed, I would have thought that the officials would have known that before they started to erect the building, before the contract was handed out, and indeed before they commissioned the architect to design the building. All that money has been lost for ever. However, the officials appear to set themselves up as the guardians of the public purse on the basis of their experience and their having poured £460,000 of the taxpayers' money down the drain. The board states emphatically that the elderly persons' home is not needed, despite the fact that it is to replace Croft House, which is and has always been full, and despite the fact that it was the Eastern health board on 26 March 1987 that made the decision to provide the replacement building.
The board tries to put a brave face on its inconsistency and muddled thinking by stating that there is a need for a home for the elderly mentally infirm. If that be so, the need has not suddenly become manifest to the board. Officials must have been aware for some time of the requirement for accommodation for the elderly who suffer from dementia. Indeed, the board states that there are 80 mentally frail elderly people in the North Down area. I do not doubt that there are many who need such treatment. Some may now go down to Downshire, which is far away from their relatives. However, If that is so, why was the decision not made last year, the year before or the year before that to provide a home for the elderly mentally infirm?
That is not something new. The matter has been mentioned occasionally in the House, and I should have thought that the officials were aware long ago that a home was needed. When pressed on the issue, the board had to admit that, although it says that there are about 80 mentally frail individuals in the North Down area, it could identify only seven people who were mentally infirm in the Holywood area. However, even that number is in doubt and is challenged.
I make it clear that I believe that we need a home for the elderly mentally infirm. I am in favour of proper provision for the elderly who are mentally frail, but a home should be built between the two areas of heavy population, Bangor and Newtownards, so that it is accessible to relatives from both areas. I ask the Minister to respond to the plea from the people of North Down. The Government should agree to pay for the erection of a home that would serve patients from a wide area—perhaps North Down, Ards, Castlereagh and even further afield.
What has happened to the money that was raised from the sale of Cultra House, Holywood that was used for the elderly mentally infirm and was originally a gift from a private benefactor? I understand that that house was sold for about £800,000. Have the Government pocketed that money? Has the board put that money to other uses? It should have been kept for the building of a home for the elderly mentally infirm. Is it being used for that purpose?
The chairman of the Eastern health board stated that the board's commitment to the residents of Croft House will not be prejudiced by this new decision. What does that mean? If it means the same as the board's commitment to

873
build a replacement home for Croft House, it is worthless. What is more, it is a callous and cruel way to treat the elderly in Croft House.
It is well that the public in Northern Ireland—even though they may have no relatives in Croft House and may not live anywhere near Holywood or North Down—should be made aware of the indifferent and appalling attitude of the board in this matter. The board has offered to accommodate the present residents of Croft House in the new building that has been redesigned for the mentally infirm. If it can agree to do this, that effectively rebuts every argument it put forward about the urgent need for a home for many mentally infirm in Holywood. If the board accommodates the residents in Croft House, there will be only five places left for new residents. At the moment, Croft House provides accommodation for 25 residents and the replacement home was to provide 45 beds—the board's estimate of need for the area. The new premises for the elderly mentally infirm will provide 30 places.
What will happen to the hapless residents of Croft House? If the Eastern health board has its way, they will be installed in the new building, together with people who are suffering from dementia. It is shocking that the board should contemplate such a thing. In its annual report of 1987–88 it said:
"An EMI home caters for demented, elderly people whose confusion makes them unsuitable for ordinary residential care. It only takes one or two to become severely disturbed for the whole house to be disrupted."
Such a situation would be alarming for ordinary, elderly residents who are alert and lively. They would be distressed and upset if a severe disturbance, perhaps even an assault—I have heard about many in such homes—were to take place. That would be a recipe for the mental and physical deterioration and collapse of the residents.
In addition, the residents of Croft House would lose their freedom. They would all be locked up—the ordinary, elderly people as well as those suffering from dementia. What is coldly and cruelly called the "race track" would be provided for the inmates so that they could endlessly walk round it—but out they will not get. The ordinary elderly people in Croft House will not be able to get out without special permission.
I am trying to calculate when I began so that I can allow the Minister enough time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 17 minutes.
Mr. Kilfedder: I am much obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker. That means that I have another three minutes, because I believe that the Minister wanted 10 minutes.
Another excuse put forward by the board for abandoning its pledge to provide a replacement home for Croft House is the reduction in the waiting list for Croft House from 40 to 20. Private profit-making homes for the elderly are mushrooming all over North Down, and elsewhere in the Province; all their beds are filled, and more private residential homes are being built for profit.
If people are building such places, they must have calculated that there are plenty of people to fill the beds. In the circumstances, it would be foolish for the board to believe that fewer people want to reside in one of its homes for the elderly—I do not for one moment accept that it believes that. In fact, it will be a considerable time before those 20 on the waiting list are accommodated in Croft House.
874
I do not have time to go through all the other facts that I have before me. I shall precis them by saying that the population of North Down and the number of elderly people continue to grow. The board admits that the number of elderly people will increase by 4,500 by 1996 and those over 75 will increase by 8,500. It admits that. there is a need for places for the elderly. The state should. not opt out of providing places for the elderly in residential homes.
If the Government were to increase the old-age pension so that people could live in dignity in their own homes, they might be able to manage. However, each individual needs at least £5 per week more if he or she is to meet the increased cost of living. If the Government did not cut back on the money provided for the board to enable home helps to visit the elderly, perhaps more of them could stay in their own homes. I know of instances of elderly people being provided with help for half an hour a week. That is an insult. It enables the Government to say that they provide home help, but not much can be done in half an hour.
I make a final appeal to the Government to respect the wishes of the people of North Down and to examine the situation there. The solemn promise that was made should be honoured.
In the preparation of the new premises, the contractor demolished mature trees, and pulled out hedges to provide an alternative opening that was wholly unnecessary. More work and expense was thus entailed in providing the change of entrance. The builders had to re-wire and re-route electric cable for the road lights and erect a new electric light pole. The electricity supply to private dwellings facing the development had to be re-wired. All this additional trouble and cost was required to provide an opening to a new building that was unnecessary.
I ask the Government to hold the board to account and to ensure that its promise is honoured. If that does not happen, I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will hold them all responsible.
11.56 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has not left me long to reply after his eloquent speech of 23 minutes. He was wide in his condemnation of the Eastern health and social services board on which there are 34 members and which therefore includes a wide spread of professional, political and geographical interests. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) feel that democracy is not working as well as they would wish in the boards of Northern Ireland, perhaps the first thing they should do is encourage their friends to take their places again on the boards and stop their ludicrous boycott—
Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Needham: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 23 minutes.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to make changes, he should do something about that, as it is in his power to do so. He is well aware that since the decision to build a replacement for Croft House in 1987 a great deal has

875
changed. He is also aware of the rapid expansion of special housing schemes and the increase in private residential homes for the elderly in his constituency.
Since March 1987, a new sheltered housing scheme providing places for 37 dependent elderly people, with a resident warden, has been completed. Two further schemes providing an additional 160 places, supervised by three resident wardens, are also at an advanced stage. In addition, the Housing Executive has carried out major adaptations to 75 homes of disabled elderly tenants in North Down and Ards. Further major adaptations to the homes of another 16 disabled elderly residents are currently under way.
Accommodation in residential homes has also increased. In March 1987, the date of the replacement decision—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will stop shuffling his papers and listen—there were 17 statutory, voluntary and private residential homes for the elderly in North Down and Ards, providing a total of 447 places. Since then, 10 further private homes have been set up, providing a further 138 places. That is the clearest possible evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that there is proper co-operation between the public and private sectors and that old people can enjoy the widest possible choice.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the present position of the people in Croft House and commented that in 1987 the proposal was for 45 new places. Only 18 elderly persons in the area are currently assessed as needing admission to long-term residential care, and only two of those are down for Croft House. I am told that in those cases application has been made only within the past three weeks, so the evidence clearly shows that there was and is a need for the board to look carefully at the need for this home.
There is an acute need to help the elderly mentally frail and it was monstrous for the hon. Genteman to suggest that elderly people currently in Croft House would be pushed together with the elderly mentally frail. There has never been such a suggestion. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that everybody currently in Croft House will be looked after and consulted individually on the future position.
876
There are, at present, 60 mentally frail, elderly people living in the community and a further 30 in psychogeriatric hospital care who could benefit from care in a home designed to meet their needs, which is what Croft House will become. Such a facility does not currently exist in the Ards area and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should seek to make the suggestions that he did. He should reflect on what he said about the needs of elderly, mentally infirm people in his area.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the board made a decision in 1987 and, rightly, reassessed that decision at the end of 1988. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman puts his points to the Select Committee on Public Accounts it will wisely and sensibly come to the conclusion that it made more sense to spend £63,000—not £163,000 as the hon. Gentleman said, but he is never given to exaggeration when he does not need to be—when the cost of such a home would be £1·3 million. The need for places for the class of people to whom he referred is down to two, whereas the requirement for places for the elderly mentally infirm is 60. The board was right to make its decision. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in only one sense—that the board would have been wiser to make its decision before it let the contract and before the builder was on site.
I can understand the concern and the worry that the situation caused to residents of Croft House. It is crucial that all the residents there are carefully counselled and that their needs are individually looked after to ensure that they are properly cared for wherever they may go. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, those decisions will be taken by the board. Looking at the provision currently becoming available in the hon. Gentleman's area, I have no doubt that the residents will be found happy alternatives.
The Government are determined to ensure that elderly people who need to be in residential accommodation are looked after properly and that their condition is monitored properly. That is exactly what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and it will continue to happen while the Government are in control in Northern Ireland. We are determined to ensure that the needs of the elderly people of Northern Ireland are looked after sensitively and carefully.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report on the young offender wing at HM prison, Leeds, from the deputy director-general of the prison service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have now received the report which I asked the deputy director-general to prepare on the young offender wing at Leeds, with particular reference to the deaths of five young prisoners there in the past year. The report concludes that the deaths appear not to have been the result either of the way in which the prisoners were treated or of conditions on the wing, which are at least as good as those at comparable establishments. The report finds the prison service suicide prevention procedures are being complied with at Leeds prison, and argues that the situation would not be improved by simply removing the young prisoners at Leeds to another establishment. It does, however, make a number of specific recommendations aimed at preventing further fatalities. These include the installation of more sophisticated cell lighting to facilitate observation of inmates at night without disturbing them; the establishment of a suicide prevention management group at the prison; the training of more staff in suicide prevention awareness and techniques; the improvement of the reception area where newly arrived inmates are screened for suicide risk; and improved arrangements for communication between staff involved

  Proved offences of gross personal violence to or assault on a prison officer committed at Lindholme prison: by type of offence and punishment awarded. 1986 and 1987.

  Number of offences

  Offence and year

  Total offences

  Cellular confinement

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage or reduction of earnings

  Exclusion from associated work

  Forfeiture of remission

  Total punishments

  Gross personal violence to prison officer

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Assault on prison officer

  1986

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  6

  1987

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Attempted gross personal violence to or assault on prison officer

  1986

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

THE ARTS

  Manuscript Conservation
  Sir Philip Goodhart
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on his proposals for assisting the conservation of manuscripts.

  Mr. Luce
  I am glad to announce that I am setting aside up to £100,000 a year for the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92 towards the establishment of a national manuscripts conservation fund. This is in response to a
  456
  with young prisoners at Leeds. I accept these recommendations and am asking the governor and regional director to implement them as quickly as possible

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the income and expenditure account for the administration of citizenship applications for 1987–88.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the nationality fees income and expenditure account for the 12 months ended 31 March 1988.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has of the cost of opening one magistrates' court, staffed by a probation officer in the London area for two hours on a Saturday afternoon.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: This information is not readily available. But it is estimated that the average cost on a Saturday afternoon of a London magistrates court is £2,500.

  Lindholme Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by year and by grade of inmate, the number of offences by inmates at HM prison Lindholme, since it was opened of(a) gross personal violence to a prison officer, (b) assault on a prison officer and (c) attempts to commit such offences; and if he will give in his answer the penalty imposed on inmates found guilty of each offence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: All prisoners held at Lindholme are sentenced adult males. The readily available information relates to offences proved on adjudication and is given in the table.

  proposal from the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and the British Library, who are seeking matching amounts from other sources. The purpose of the fund is to provide financial assistance to record offices, libraries and other owners of manuscripts, documents and archives accessible to the public, where the need for special conservation beyond the applicants' normal resources can be demonstrated. Grants will normally match applicants' own contributions. If the expectation regarding matching by applicants and from other sources is realised, this will mean that up to £400,000 will be available for the

  457
  conservation of manuscripts in each year. The rules of the fund will be determined by its trustees who have yet to be appointed. The fund will be administered by the British Library's research and development department, to which all inquiries should be addressed.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Hon. Members (Courses)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take steps to devise with the Civil Service college together with the permanent staff of the House an induction course for new hon. Members.

  Mr. Luce
  Last year the college arranged two briefing seminars for hon. Members. They would be happy to arrange another if there appears to be sufficient demand to justify it.

  Payment Warrants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service why, pursuant to his reply of 20 February,Official Report, column 519, the three organisations referred to were asked to return their payment warrants; and why the four others were not so asked.

  Mr. Luce
  The structure of the vote for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service allowed payment to four organisations but not to the three asked to return their payment warrants.

ENVIRONMENT

  67 Tufton Street, Westminster
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date, after the previous lease had expired in June 1979, the renewed leasehold agreement between the Property Services Agency and Bourne Association Ltd., for the rent of 67 Tufton street, Westminster, commenced.

  Mr. Chope
  June 1979.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date, after the previous lease had expired in June 1979, a renewed leasehold agreement between the Property Services Agency and Bourne Association Ltd., for the rent of 67 Tufton street, Westminster, was signed.

  Mr. Chope
  The renewed leasehold agreement was signed in November 1980.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date, after the previous lease had expired in June 1979, a renewed leasehold agreement between the Property Services Agency and Bourne Association Ltd., for the rent of 67 Tufton street, Westminster, terminated.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not due to terminate until lease expiry in June 1999.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any agreement was made to 458
  exempt from the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the leasehold agreement made by the Property Services Agency for the rent of 67 Tufton street, Westminster, which expired in June 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  At no time was there any agreement which could have taken the lease which terminated in June 1979 outside the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date notice of determination of the leasehold agreement made between Bourne Association Limited and the Property Services Agency for the rent of 67 Tufton street, Westminster, was served on the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  October 1978.

  Dust and Noise (St. Stephen's House)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to initiate a full analysis of dust taken from all work areas, rooms, corridors and toilets in St. Stephen's house.

  Mr. Chope
  There is more dust than usual but this is unavoidable while major building work is under way on the adjoining properties. No useful purpose would be served by analysing the dust.

  Neighbour Notification
  Mr. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning authorities in England and Wales have a code of practice for neighbour notification.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department does not have this information.

  Housing
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy for those who cannot afford to buy or rent housing in the open market.

  Mr. Trippier
  Our policy is that affordable housing should be within the reach of all families. In particular we recognise the need to stimulate investment in the rented sector. This need not all be publicly owned and subsidised housing—housing benefit is available for poorer tenants who cannot afford their housing costs. But we accept the continuing need for some new investment in subsidised rented housing in areas of shortage. We are therefore encouraging private investment in housing associations and increasing public funding for the Housing Corporation programme by 80 per cent. over three years; and we have clarified local authorities' powers to pay subsidies to private landlords where this is needed to stimulate investment whilst keeping rents at affordable levels.

  Rents (Newham)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department treats as a reasonable affordable rent in the London borough of Newham.
  459
  Mr. Trippier
  This is a matter for the landlords and tenants concerned, and circumstances will vary. Housing associations are required to have regard to the Housing Corporation's tenants' guarantee, which says that they should set and maintain their rents at levels which are within the reach of those in low paid employment. Local authorities should have regard to the provision of section 24 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Waste Paper (Palace of Westminster)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are made for the collection and disposal of waste paper from the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  The collection and disposal of waste paper from the Palace of Westminster is carried out by a contractor employed by the Property Services Agency.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table of the numbers of registered homeless people for each housing authority area for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Acts reported by local authorities for 1985, 1986 and 1987 are published in "Local Housing Statistics" (issues No. 78, 82 and 86 respectively). Figures for the first and second quarters of 1988 are also published in issues No. 86 and 87 of "Local Housing Statistics"; figures for the third quarter appear in "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter of 1988. Supplementary Tables".

  Copies of all these are available in the Library.

  Housing (Birmingham)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will reply to the letter dated 24 January 1989 from the city of Birmingham housing department about the 1989–90 financial arrangements for five estate action schemes in Birmingham.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department's regional office will respond very shortly.

  Rating Assessment
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to ensure the harmonisation of the decapitalisation rates used for rating assessment in Great Britain.

  Mr. Ridley
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and I propose that, to assist the harmonisation of rating, we should use our powers to prescribe common decapitalisation rates to be used throughout Great Britain in the 1990 revaluation for properties valued by reference to the cost of construction. The evidence suggests that the rate should be set somewhere in the range 6 to 7 per cent., although a lower rate may be justified for certain educational and health care establishments valued on this basis. We shall be issuing a consultation paper shortly.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for amending the law on land compensation and compulsory purchase.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has today issued a consultation paper inviting comments by 21 April 1989 on various proposals relating to compulsory purchase and land compensation. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government have concluded their review of the compensation provisions applying to compulsory purchases for commercial purposes.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Government have given careful thought to the representations about the land compensation code made during the debates on the Channel Tunnel Bill and in a memorandum submitted by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association.

  Under the existing provisions, compensation is based on the market value of the land, taking account of any planning permission or hope value which attaches to it, but disregarding the effects of the scheme for which the land is being taken, except in so far as the actual or prospective development might have taken place apart from the scheme. It is generally accepted that in most cases this basis of compensation achieves a fair result since it gives the land owner the value which his asset would have realised on the open market in the absence of the proposed scheme.

  The main point raised during the parliamentary debates on the subject, and repeated in the joint memorandum, was that the code operates unfairly where the end use of the land is essentially commercial, since a commercial undertaking acquiring land without the benefit of compulsory purchase powers might be expected to pay the landowner a premium in order to secure the land for itself. Particular concern was expressed about the compulsory powers which remain with nationalised industries after they have been privatised.

  Land may be acquired compulsorily only where authorised by or under statute. The compulsory powers remaining with nationalised industries after privatisation relate only to the statutory functions of those industries and cannot be used to acquire land which is not needed for those functions. Each acquisition must be justified on its merits having regard to the statutory powers concerned. In these respects, compulsory acquisitions of land by or on behalf of private sector bodies do not differ from other compulsory acquisitions. The Government's view is that the market value of the land as assessed under the existing compensation provisions remains a fair measure of the loss to be compensated where any land is acquired compulsorily. It will be for Parliament to consider the scope and extent of any compulsory acquisition powers proposed in future legislation including private legislation to authorise particular developments for which land may need to be compulsorily acquired. However, it is the Government's view that compulsory powers should not be available to acquire land for incidental commercial development.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he is making to co-ordinate the European research into stratospheric ozone.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In October 1987 at a meeting of Ministers from a number of EC and EFTA countries, we suggested that co-operation on stratospheric ozone should be dealt with on a Europewide basis. We are pleased that following discussion by representatives of various EC and EFTA countries and leading European stratospheric scientists over the past year, our proposal has led to the establishment of a European stratospheric ozone research co-ordinating centre.

  The unit will be set up this spring in Cambridge and led by a British scientists Dr. Tony Cox of the UKAEA Harwell laboratory, Oxfordshire, who has an established international reputation in atmospheric chemistry. It will be located at the offices of the Natural Environment Research Council's British Antarctic survey and will operate in conjunction with a panel of European scientists to facilitate co-operation on stratospheric ozone research. The centre will be administered jointly by Cambridge university and the British Antarctic survey. We hope that a scientist from another European country will be attached to the centre to support Dr. Cox.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to initiate research into the methods of safe disposal of chlorofluorocarbons; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Department is assessing the production, use, recyclability and disposal of CFCs, with a view to defining areas where specific research may be justified. Meanwhile, any company with a project eligible for support under the enterprise initiative, including the research and technology initiative, should make full use of the assistance available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Less-favoured Areas (Submission)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the submission being prepared for presentation to the European Commission which covers less-favoured areas in the whole of the United Kingdom will be completed and forwarded for its consideration.

  Mr. Ryder
  We are now very close to completing work on the application of the required economic and demographic tests in the United Kingdom. I plan to put a case to Brussels for consideration very soon and will keep the House informed of progress.

  Belgian Trawlers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when information has been passed by spotter planes working in conjunction with fisheries protection vessels, that Belgian trawlers were fishing in forbidden or restricted waters; and if he will make a statement.
  462
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In 1988, two Belgian beam trawlers were observed by United Kingdom surveillance aircraft illegally fishing within the six-mile limit. In both cases the vessels were prosecuted and financial penalties were imposed by the courts.

  Information Services
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of his Departmental review of data with potential value to the information services industry, initiated after the circulation of policy guidelines on Government-held tradeable information in 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  An "information audit" has been carried out in the Department and a number of information systems have been identified as potential candidates for commercial exploitation. Further work is needed on these systems to assess their commercial viability.

  Porcine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current use of porcine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No product based on porcine somatotropin has received a product licence or is the subject of an animal test certificate issued under the Medicines Act.

  Red Deer
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take any action to prohibit farming systems for the intensive rearing of red deer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to prohibit such farming systems. However, I will ask the state veterinary service to check on welfare should any system of continuous deer housing be employed.

  Salmonella
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list which of the 17 measures referred to by him in the Official Report, at column 933, on 21 February, are new measures to be enacted and which of them are within existing legislation;

  (2) if he will give the dates and circumstances when any of the 17 measures referred to by him on 21 February, Official Report, column 933, have been used to deal with salmonella enteritidis.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on Friday 3 March at columns 373–74. All 17 measures, many of which are already in operation, are intended to contribute actively to combating salmonella enteritidis.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the licensing of bovine somatotropin.
  463
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The licensing of bovine somatotropin, as with any other veterinary product, will be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Medicines Act.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his proposals for the future funding and manpower of agricultural research and development, particularly in relation to(a) the Agricultural Development advisory service and (b) the Agricultural and Food Research Council.

  Mr. Ryder
  As announced in November 1987, planned expenditure on R and D by Agriculture departments will be reduced by £5 million in 1989–90 and by a further £5 million in 1990–91. The 1988 Autumn Statement announced a further £5 million reduction for 1990–91 and an additional £9 million for 1991–92. Together, these reductions amount to a total of £24 million by 1991–92, which is equivalent to £30 million at full economic cost. However, there will be an increase in the strategic research funded from the agriculture, fisheries and food programme of £2 million in 1990–91 and a further £3 million in 1991–92.

  Final decisions on the future level of Government funding of agricultural research and development will not be taken until after consultations with the industry on the funding of near market research are completed. Those consultations will also be an important factor in determining future staffing levels of the Agriculture Development and Advisory Service on research and development. I shall keep the House informed of decisions taken to adapt our facilities and manpower to the policy on near market research.

  The Agriculture and Food Research Council receives funds from my Department and through the science budget which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science who is also answerable to this House for all matters related to the council.

  Mackerel
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the issue of klondyking licences in the mackerel fishery of the south-west of England.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have recently issued one time-limited klondyking licence valid until mid-March. The vessel concerned has a relatively limited processing capacity. Last year six vessels were licensed to klondyke in this fishery. Before issuing licences I take full account of the views of interested parties. In the case of the licence I have issued, I concluded that, especially in view of the proportion of mackerel landings which has gone for fishmeal, a limited klondyking operation was fully justified. It should have no damaging effects on the mackerel stock, bearing in mind the conservation measures which apply, including the extended south-west mackerel box.

  Sea Defence, Aldeburgh
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current position on grant aid for the Anglian water authority's proposed sea defence scheme for Aldeburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am delighted to announce that approval has now been given to the Anglian water authority's outline proposals for a £4 million sea defence scheme at Aldeburgh. My officials have written to inform the authority.

  The area around Aldeburgh is highly prized for its environmental features which include a heritage coast and an environmentally sensitive area. As well as preventing flooding to people, land and property, the improved sea defences will afford protection to valuable conservation, amenity and recreational interests.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  AIDS
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the research conducted by Dr. Robert Gallo in the United States of America relating to the identification of the human B-lymphotropic virus as a possible co-factor necessary for HIV to cause AIDS, is being assessed as part of his AIDS research programme.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The AIDS research programme funded from the science budget is run by the Medical Research Council and it is for the council to make scientific judgments on the content of the programme. I understand that British research has included the possibility that human B-cell lymphotropic virus (human herpes virus 6) might be a co-factor necessary for HIV to cause AIDS. The initial results do not support the contention.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research has been carried out into the formulation known as AL 721 active lecithin as a means of de-activating the HIV virus.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Medical Research Council is not conducting such research. I understand that studies that have been carried out under the other auspices have produced conflicting results on both the safety and the activity against HIV of this formulation.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to sponsor trials into the application of AL 721 active lecithin as part of the AIDS research programmes, in view of evidence of its potential for protection against viral activity via the enhancement of cell membrane defences.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The AIDS research programme funded from the science budget is run by the Medical Research Council and it is for the council to make scientific judgments on the contents of the programme. I understand that the council plans no trials of AL 721 active lecithin. Preliminary results should shortly be available from a small trial under other auspices.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines he has issued as to
  465
  the composition of local education authority standing advisory committees on religious education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The basis composition of standing advisory councils on religious education (SACREs) is laid down by the Education Reform Act 1988. The Department has recently issued a circular explaining the new requirements for religious education and collective worship in schools, including those for SACREs, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the organisations which have formally responded to the "Top-Up Loans for Students" White Paper.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received formal responses from th following organisations:

  APT—The Association for Lecturers in Higher Education

  Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association

  Association for Student Counselling

  Association of College Registrars and Administrators

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Graduate Recruiters

  Association of Heads of Polytechnic Student Services

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of University Teachers

  Association of University Teachers, London Committee Brighton Polytechnic

  Brighton Polytechnic (Department of Economics and Social Science)

  Bristol Polytechnic Students' Union

  British Dental Association

  British Medical Association

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

  Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

  Christ Church College, Canterbury

  Church of Scotland, Department of Education

  City of London Polytechnic

  City University

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Committee of Directors of Polytechnics

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom

  Conference of Awards Officers of London and the Home Counties

  Conference of Scottish Centrally-Funded Colleges

  Conservative Collegiate Forum

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Council for Professional Supplementary to Medicine

  Craigie College of Education

  Currie High School, Midlothian

  Derbyshire LEA

  Dorset Institute Students Union

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  Engineering Employers' Federation

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Essex LEA

  Family Welfare Association (Educational Grants Advisory Service)

  Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge

  Gateshead LEA

  General Synod of the Church of England Advisory Council for the Church's Ministry

  Glasgow College

  Glasgow College Students Association

  Hampshire LEA

  Harrow LEA

  Hatfield Polytechnic Students' Union

  Heriot-Watt University

  Heythrop College Union

  Imperial Chemical Industries plc

  466

  Imperial College Union

  Incorporated Society of Musicians

  Inner London Education Authority

  Institute of Education Union Society, University of London Kent LEA

  King's College, London Union

  King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry of King's College London

  Lancashire LEA

  Law Society

  Liverpool LEA

  London Boroughs Association

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  Manchester LEA

  Medical College of Saint Bartholomew's Hospital

  Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth

  Methodist Church Division of Ministries

  Napier Polytechnic

  Napier Polytechnic Students Association

  National and Local Government Officers Association

  National Architecture Students Association

  National Association of Head Teachers

  National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education

  National Institute for the Deaf

  National Union of Students/Union of Students in Ireland, Northern Ireland Region

  Newcastle upon Tyne LEA

  Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic

  Norfolk LEA

  National Union of Students

  National Union of Students, Bristol

  National Union of Students, Nottinghamshire Area

  National Union of Students, West of Scotland Area Open University

  Paisley College of Technology

  Plater College, Oxford

  Polytechnic of Central London

  Portsmouth Polytechnic Students' Union

  Professional Association of Teachers

  Queen Mary College Union

  Queen's College, Birmingham

  Rotherham LEA

  Royal Academy of Music Students' Union

  Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults

  Saint Georges Hospital Medical School Union

  Socialist Educational Association

  Society of Education Officers

  South Bank Polytechnic

  South Bank Polytechnic

  Students' Union

  Staffordshire LEA

  Thames Polytechnic

  Trades Union Congress

  United Reformed Church

  Universities of Scotland: Standing Conference

  University College, London

  University College, London Union

  University College Middlesex School of Medicine Students' Union

  University of Aberdeen

  University of Bath

  University of Bath Students' Union

  University of Birmingham Guild of Students

  University of Bradford

  University of Bristol

  University of Cambridge

  University of Cambridge Graduate Union

  University of Cambridge Students' Union

  University of Dundee

  University of East Anglia

  University of Edinburgh

  University of Edinburgh Student Advisory and Counselling Service

  University of Edinburgh Students' Association

  University of Glasgow

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  University of Kent at Canterbury Students' Union

  University of Leeds

  University of London

  467

  University of London Union

  University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  University of Oxford Students' Union

  University of Salford

  University of Salford Students' Union

  University of Southampton

  University of Stirling

  University of Strathclyde

  University of Ulster Students' Union

  University of Wales

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  University of Warwick

  University of York

  Wesley House, Cambridge

  West Sussex Institute of Higher Education Students' Union

  Westfield College Union Society

  Yorkshire and Humberside Association of Educational Guidance Services for Adults

  ILEA
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is the current intention to provide revenue support grant for education services in the inner London boroughs when they assume responsibilities for the Inner London Education Authority in April 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1990–91 central Government grant will be available for distribution among all local authorities in England, including the inner London boroughs, to support expenditure on all the services for which they are responsible.

  1988–89 comparison GRE v RER budget expenditure1

  LEA

  Budget Expenditure

  Education GRE2

  Overspend

  Overspend

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  ILEA

  997·87

  635·21

  362·66

  36·3

  Newcastle

  89·83

  71·19

  18·64

  20·8

  Manchester

  163·41

  133·45

  29·96

  18·3

  Waltham Forest

  80·18

  66·02

  14·16

  17·7

  Haringey

  77·46

  63·96

  13·51

  17·4

  Liverpool

  173·62

  144·94

  28·68

  16·5

  South Tyne

  53·14

  44·52

  8·62

  16·2

  Hounslow

  71·18

  60·19

  10·99

  15·4

  Walsall

  97·17

  83·36

  13·81

  14·2

  Ealing

  102·95

  88·64

  14·32

  13·9

  Salford

  74·55

  64·53

  10·02

  13·4

  Sandwell

  108·23

  93·70

  14·53

  13·4

  Barking

  47·61

  41·36

  6·25

  13·1

  North Tyne

  61·76

  53·84

  7·92

  12·8

  Gateshead

  62·57

  54·55

  8·02

  12·8

  Wakefield

  100·32

  87·97

  12·35

  12·3

  Hillingdon

  70·90

  62·23

  8·67

  12·2

  Knowsley

  62·24

  54·75

  7·49

  12·0

  Wigan

  105·38

  92·71

  12·67

  12·0

  Rochdale

  73·12

  64·42

  8·70

  11·9

  Richmond

  38·54

  34·01

  4·53

  11·8

  Croydon

  99·21

  87·71

  11·50

  11·6

  St. Helens

  65·97

  58·34

  7·63

  11·6

  Bury

  57·18

  50·61

  6·58

  11·5

  Bradford

  175·14

  155·55

  19·59

  11·2

  Derbyshire

  298·14

  264·91

  33·24

  11·1

  Newham

  88·03

  79·20

  8·82

  10·0

  Somerset

  132·71

  119·51

  13·20

  9·9

  Wirral

  110·74

  99·73

  11·01

  9·9

  Cumbria

  150·30

  135·40

  14·90

  9·9

  Coventry

  106·07

  95·93

  10·14

  9·6

  Avon

  266·62

  241·31

  25·31

  9·5

  Harrow

  63·64

  57·68

  5·95

  9·4

  Brent

  96·38

  87·57

  8·81

  9·1

  Doncaster

  95·67

  86·93

  8·74

  9·1

  Calderdale

  65·10

  59·19

  5·91

  9·1

  Sheffield

  161·13

  146·69

  14·45

  9·0

  Leeds

  214·16

  196·08

  18·09

  8·4

  Veterinary Education
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the Riley committee's report to the University Grants Committee which recommends the closure of the Glasgow veterinary school.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) at column 397.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of the local education authorities which, in 1988–89, are expected to spend more than their grant-related expenditure assessment in respect of education; what the amount of such excess spending for each authority will be in cash terms and as a percentage of their total expenditure on education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rumbold
  The only consistent forecast expenditure available at this stage is from budget returns submitted by authorities on the form RER last year to the Department of the Environment and is therefore provisional: it is given in the table. The expenditure figures include some capital items and specific grants which do not appear within the grant related expenditure assessment.
  469

  LEA

  Budget Expenditure

  Education GRE2

  Overspend

  Overspend

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  Cleveland

  199·00

  182·46

  16·54

  8·3

  Durham

  184·76

  169·63

  15·13

  8·2

  Rotherham

  85·71

  78·72

  6·99

  8·2

  Hertfordshire

  302·06

  277·78

  24·28

  8·0

  Merton

  45·68

  42·04

  3·65

  8·0

  Tameside

  68·30

  62·92

  5·39

  7·9

  Humberside

  276·51

  254·83

  21·67

  7·8

  Havering

  71·50

  65·97

  5·53

  7·7

  Nottinghamshire

  308·36

  286·08

  22·28

  7·2

  Bedfordshire

  170·32

  158·02

  12·30

  7·2

  Northumberland

  92·68

  86·14

  6·54

  7·1

  Sutton

  47·23

  44·07

  3·15

  6·7

  Kingston

  36·59

  34·26

  2·33

  6·4

  Kirklees

  130·73

  122·49

  8·24

  6·3

  Isle of Wight

  34·58

  32·46

  2·12

  6·1

  Wolverhampton

  90·20

  84·79

  5·42

  6·0

  Gloucestershire

  150·69

  141·85

  8·83

  5·9

  Barnet

  82·88

  78·28

  4·60

  5·6

  Oxfordshire

  150·71

  143·10

  7·61

  5·0

  Northamptonshire

  177·21

  168·37

  8·83

  5·0

  Stockport

  86·05

  81·76

  4·29

  5·0

  North Yorkshire

  203·06

  193·43

  9·63

  4·7

  Cambridge

  187·48

  178·69

  8·79

  4·7

  Essex

  446·37

  425·83

  20·53

  4·6

  Leicester

  275·63

  263·18

  12·45

  4·5

  Lancashire

  431·32

  412·64

  18·67

  4·3

  Wiltshire

  161·08

  154·94

  6·14

  3·8

  Cheshire

  305·34

  293·74

  11·60

  3·8

  Barnsley

  65·95

  63·51

  2·45

  3·7

  Surrey

  261·09

  251·51

  9·58

  3·7

  Shropshire

  125·31

  120·75

  4·57

  3·6

  Enfield

  80·65

  78·29

  2·36

  2·9

  Bexley

  63·96

  62·18

  1·78

  2·8

  Trafford

  65·30

  63·54

  1·76

  2·7

  Bucks

  194·82

  189·58

  5·25

  2·7

  Oldham

  70·36

  68·51

  1·85

  2·6

  Staffordshire

  304·03

  296·29

  7·74

  2·5

  Dudley

  88·08

  85·95

  2·13

  2·4

  Warwickshire

  144·91

  141·48

  3·44

  2·4

  Bromley

  76·14

  74·56

  1·58

  2·1

  Redbridge

  63·97

  62·66

  1·31

  2·0

  Suffolk

  166·77

  163·67

  3·10

  1·9

  Dorset

  152·84

  150·16

  2·68

  1·8

  Sefton

  86·44

  85·14

  1·30

  1·5

  Hampshire

  420·49

  415·53

  4·96

  1·2

  Devon

  256·60

  254·39

  2·21

  0·9

  Bolton

  82·74

  82·16

  0·58

  0·7

  Solihull

  61·10

  61·09

  0·01

  0·0

  1 Provisional information based on form RER. The expenditure figures include some capital items and specific grants which do not appear within the grant related expenditure assessment.

  2 Block grant is unhypothecated and based on GRE assessment for all services, and local authorities have discretion on how they spend across services.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total annual expenditure on education by local education authorities in each year from 1981–82 to the present, in cash and real terms; whether such figures of total annual expenditure include amounts from sources such as reserves and balances; and if he will make a statement.

  £ million

  Total recurrent

  Mandatory awards3

  Total capital

  Total

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  Real terms

  1981–82

  8,896

  12,005

  770

  1,039

  406

  548

  10,072

  13,592

  1982–83

  9,598

  12,088

  669

  843

  456

  575

  10,723

  13,506

  1983–84

  10,102

  12,169

  734

  884

  469

  565

  11,305

  13,618

  1984–85

  10,525

  12,068

  744

  853

  501

  575

  11,770

  13,496

  1985–86

  10,912

  11,871

  710

  772

  530

  577

  12,152

  13,220

  1986–87

  12,061

  12,697

  703

  740

  574

  604

  13,338

  14,041

  1987–881

  13,222

  13,222

  761

  761

  562

  562

  14,545

  14,545

  1988–892

  14,214

  13,378

  803

  756

  619

  580

  15,636

  14,716

  470
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is provided in the table. The figures for total recurrent spending include movements in and out of reserves. These are not separately identifiable for education spending.
  471
  1 The 1987–88 figures incorporate a distribution by sector of total expenditure on education.

  2 The 1988–89 figures incorporate a provisional distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on their budgets.

  3 Includes payments to public sector higher education institutions as reimbursements of fees for EC students.

  Cash prices for the earlier years have been repriced to 1987–88 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  The capital expenditure figures include expenditure which local authorities have financed from receipts arising from the sale of capital assets and from other sources.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total annual amount of grant-related expenditure in respect of education in each year from 1981–82 to 1989–90, in cash and real terms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The total (the total for grant related expenditure does not include specific grant paid in aid of education expenditure) of grant-related expenditure for education, including school meals, in the years from 1981–82 to 1989–90 is set out in the table.

  GREA for education

  £ million cash

  £ million at 1987–88 prices

  1981–82

  9,081

  12,254

  1982–83

  9,893

  12,460

  1983–84

  9,997

  12,043

  1984–85

  10,306

  11,817

  1985–86

  10,727

  11,670

  1986–87

  11,344

  11,943

  1987–88

  12,623

  12,623

  1988–89

  13,472

  12,680

  1989–90

  13,833

  12,399

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to his Department on the amounts of annual expenditure on education by local education authorities, including expenditure from sources such as reserves and balances; and if he will make a statement.

  1987–88 comparison GRE v RER revised outturn expenditure1

  LEA

  Revised outturn expenditure

  Education GRE2

  Overspend

  Overspend

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  ILEA

  987·38

  593·48

  393·89

  39·9

  Haringey

  82·22

  60·70

  21·52

  26·2

  Manchester

  167·57

  125·43

  42·13

  25·1

  Brent

  104·70

  81·03

  23·67

  22·6

  Waltham Forest

  78·80

  62·53

  16·27

  20·6

  Newcastle

  84·72

  67·26

  17·46

  20·6

  North Tyne

  61·67

  51·00

  10·68

  17·3

  Liverpool

  166·52

  137·70

  28·82

  17·3

  Hounslow

  65·67

  55·49

  10·19

  15·5

  Richmond

  36·74

  31·71

  5·02

  13·7

  Ealing

  96·01

  82·97

  13·03

  13·6

  South Tyne

  49·41

  42·70

  6·70

  13·6

  Knowsley

  59·39

  51·48

  6·90

  13·3

  Walsall

  89·83

  78·46

  11·36

  12·6

  Sheffield

  159·41

  139·30

  20·10

  12·6

  Wigan

  100·08

  87·56

  12·51

  12·5

  Barking

  44·52

  39·62

  4·90

  11·0

  Cumbria

  143·10

  127·38

  15·72

  11·0

  Rochdale

  67·77

  60·51

  7·26

  10·7

  Gateshead

  58·34

  52·20

  6·14

  10·5

  Salford

  69·14

  61·88

  7·26

  10·5

  Wakefield

  92·68

  83·41

  9·27

  10·0

  Bradford

  161·88

  146·02

  15·86

  9·8

  Harrow

  59·34

  53·56

  5·78

  9·7

  Croydon

  91·69

  82·89

  8·80

  9·6

  Derbyshire

  275·04

  248·80

  26·23

  9·5

  472
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Detailed outturn information for local authority expenditure on education is submitted to the Department of the Environment by local authorities on the revenue outturn (RO1) and capital outturn (CO1) forms. The latest year for which full information is available is 1986–87. LEAs are currently submitting RO1 and CO1 forms showing education expenditure in 1987–88. Local education authorities also provide information on their budgeted expenditure on the return of expenditure and rates (RER) form. This is used as the basis for estimating local authority education spending where actual information is not available. The revenue forms do not separately identify education expenditure financed by reserves. The capital forms do enable authorities to show the receipts arising from the sale of capital assets.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of the local education authorities which in 1987–88 spent more than their grant-related expenditure assessment in respect of education; what was the amount of such excess spending for each authority, in cash terms and as a percentage of their total expenditure on education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures for local authorities' expenditure on education are taken from the revised outturns of expenditure as notified by the authorities to the Department of the Environment on form RER. These outturn figures are not necessarily identical to authorities' final education expenditure. The expenditure figures include some capital items and specific grants which do not appear within the grant-related expenditure assessment.
  473

  LEA

  Revised outturn expenditure

  Education GRE2

  Overspend

  Overspend

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  Coventry

  99·59

  90·09

  9·50

  9·5

  Sandwell

  97·54

  88·38

  9·16

  9·4

  Calderdale

  61·14

  55·63

  5·51

  9·0

  Barnet

  79·60

  72·54

  7·07

  8·9

  Isle of Wight

  31·97

  29·19

  2·78

  8·7

  Somerset

  121·81

  111·25

  10·56

  8·7

  Bury

  52·03

  47·62

  4·41

  8·5

  Hillingdon

  63·59

  58·23

  5·36

  8·4

  St. Helens

  60·11

  55·09

  5·03

  8·4

  Avon

  245·21

  225·01

  20·20

  8·2

  Wolverhampton

  87·12

  80·07

  7·05

  8·1

  Nottinghamshire

  292·09

  268·70

  23·39

  8·0

  Doncaster

  90·11

  82·94

  7·17

  8·0

  Cleveland

  185·31

  171·68

  13·63

  7·4

  Tameside

  63·56

  58·97

  4·58

  7·2

  Newham

  79·30

  73·70

  5·60

  7·1

  Durham

  171·51

  159·64

  11·87

  6·9

  Leeds

  200·69

  186·87

  13·82

  6·9

  Bedfordshire

  157·41

  146·64

  10·76

  6·8

  Kingston

  34·21

  31·90

  2·32

  6·8

  Humberside

  256·75

  239·85

  16·91

  6·6

  Havering

  66·79

  62·93

  3·86

  5·8

  Northumberland

  85·49

  80·68

  4·80

  5·6

  Kirklees

  120·74

  114·07

  6·66

  5·5

  Cheshire

  289·74

  273·82

  15·92

  5·5

  Leicester

  260·32

  246·06

  14·26

  5·5

  Wirral

  99·47

  94·17

  5·30

  5·3

  Gloucestershire

  139·52

  132·77

  6·75

  4·8

  Hertfordshire

  277·41

  264·07

  13·34

  4·8

  Rotherham

  77·35

  73·87

  3·48

  4·5

  Sutton

  42·94

  41·13

  1·81

  4·2

  Stockport

  81·05

  77·64

  3·41

  4·2

  Oxfordshire

  139·95

  134·59

  5·36

  3·8

  Northamptonshire

  161·25

  155·09

  6·16

  3·8

  Lancashire

  400·56

  386·15

  14·41

  3·6

  Merton

  41·12

  39·71

  1·41

  3·4

  Barnsley

  62·50

  60·45

  2·05

  3·3

  Redbridge

  59·84

  57·98

  1·86

  3·1

  Bexley

  60·75

  58·93

  1·82

  3·0

  Cambridge

  171·06

  166·08

  4·98

  2·9

  Shropshire

  115·55

  112·50

  3·05

  2·6

  North Yorkshire

  184·82

  179·95

  4·87

  2·6

  Enfield

  74·58

  72·84

  1·74

  2·3

  Surrey

  241·20

  235·58

  5·62

  2·3

  Essex

  408·55

  399·31

  9·24

  2·3

  Buckinghamshire

  179·78

  175·75

  4·03

  2·2

  Warwickshire

  136·28

  133·27

  3·01

  2·2

  Oldham

  65·75

  64·32

  1·43

  2·2

  Sunderland

  86·78

  84·92

  1·86

  2·1

  Wiltshire

  147·41

  144·32

  3·08

  2·1

  Staffordshire

  285·13

  279·42

  5·71

  2·0

  Bromley

  71·80

  70·54

  1·26

  1·8

  Suffolk

  154·56

  152·58

  1·98

  1·3

  Sefton

  81·59

  80·57

  1·02

  1·3

  Dudley

  81·74

  81·03

  0·71

  0·9

  Trafford

  60·27

  59·78

  0·48

  0·8

  Hampshire

  391·25

  388·48

  2·78

  0·7

  Dorset

  140·23

  139·51

  0·72

  0·5

  1 Provisional information based on form RER. The expenditure figures include some capital items and specific grants which do not appear within the grant related expenditure assessment.

  2 Block grant is unhypothecated and based on GRE assessment for all services, and local authorities have discretion on how they spend across services.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of the local education authorities which in 1986–87 spent more than their grant-related expenditure assessments in respect of education; what was the amount of such excess spending for each authority, in cash terms and as a percentage of their total expenditure on education; and if he will make a statement.
  474
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures for local authorities' expenditure on education are taken from the revised outturns of expenditure as notified by the authorities to the Department of Environment on the form RER. These outturn figures are not necessarily identical to authorities' final education expenditure. The expenditure figures include some capital terms and specific grants which do not appear within the grant-related expenditure assessment.
  475

  1986–87 comparison GRE v. RER revised outturn expenditure1

  Revised outturn expenditure

  Education GRE2

  Overspend

  Percentage overspend

  Local education authority

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Inner London education authority

  952·47

  541·28

  411·19

  43·2

  Haringey

  82·18

  56·07

  26·11

  31·8

  Manchester

  157·14

  112·50

  44·64

  28·4

  Brent

  97·05

  72·71

  24·34

  25·1

  Newcastle

  80·24

  60·27

  19·97

  24·9

  Waltham Forest

  70·20

  56·99

  13·21

  18·8

  North Tyne

  55·85

  45·54

  10·31

  18·5

  Liverpool

  154·08

  125·74

  28·35

  18·4

  Richmond

  35·36

  29·02

  6·33

  17·9

  South Tyne

  46·98

  38·80

  8·18

  17·4

  Hounslow

  59·74

  49·84

  9·90

  16·6

  Knowsley

  57·14

  47·71

  9·42

  16·5

  Sheffield

  151·22

  126·44

  24·77

  16·4

  Newham

  77·94

  65·47

  12·47

  16·0

  Barking

  41·45

  35·10

  6·34

  15·3

  Ealing

  88·14

  76·52

  11·62

  13·2

  Gateshead

  54·49

  47·55

  6·93

  12·7

  Rochdale

  62·24

  54·52

  6·72

  12·4

  Wigan

  89·62

  78·80

  10·82

  12·1

  Derbyshire

  251·23

  221·23

  30·01

  11·9

  Walsall

  81·18

  71·76

  9·42

  11·6

  Cumbria

  129·77

  114·81

  14·96

  11·5

  Bradford

  146·73

  129·98

  16·75

  11·4

  Wakefield

  84·69

  75·06

  9·63

  11·4

  Harrow

  54·64

  48·43

  6·21

  11·4

  Avon

  227·54

  202·44

  25·10

  11·0

  Calderdale

  55·79

  49·76

  6·02

  10·8

  Salford

  62·80

  56·10

  6·70

  10·7

  Sandwell

  89·46

  79·97

  9·50

  10·6

  Croydon

  83·64

  75·00

  8·63

  10·3

  Coventry

  91·08

  81·74

  9·34

  10·3

  Notts

  267·61

  241·34

  26·26

  9·8

  Doncaster

  82·68

  74·59

  8·09

  9·8

  St. Helens

  55·20

  50·09

  5·11

  9·3

  Humberside

  238·76

  217·01

  21·75

  9·1

  Havering

  63·10

  57·42

  5·68

  9·0

  Isle of Wight

  29·17

  26·55

  2·62

  9·0

  Barnsley

  59·51

  54·27

  5·23

  8·8

  Cleveland

  168·90

  154·14

  14·77

  8·7

  Bury

  46·70

  42·72

  3·98

  8·5

  Cheshire

  265·25

  243·16

  22·09

  8·3

  Tameside

  58·14

  53·34

  4·80

  8·3

  Wolverhampton

  78·57

  72·20

  6·37

  8·1

  Hillingdon

  57·23

  52·66

  4·57

  8·0

  Leeds

  182·42

  168·41

  14·01

  7·7

  Barnet

  72·88

  67·32

  5·56

  7·6

  Leicester

  237·50

  219·69

  17·81

  7·5

  Northumberland

  77·04

  71·35

  5·69

  7·4

  Rotherham

  71·09

  66·08

  5·01

  7·1

  Somerset

  106·61

  99·41

  7·20

  6·8

  Bedfordshire

  141·00

  131·63

  9·37

  6·6

  Northants

  148·41

  138·90

  9·51

  6·4

  Bexley

  56·42

  52·90

  3·52

  6·2

  Hertfordshire

  252·07

  236·44

  15·63

  6·2

  Sunderland

  80·48

  75·51

  4·97

  6·2

  Durham

  153·20

  143·76

  9·44

  6·2

  North Yorkshire

  170·31

  160·70

  9·61

  5·6

  Kingston

  30·43

  28·74

  1·69

  5·6

  Lancashire

  365·31

  345·89

  19·43

  5·3

  Buckinghamshire

  163·64

  155·23

  8·41

  5·1

  Gloucestershire

  125·32

  118·89

  6·42

  5·1

  Cambridge

  155·39

  147·63

  7·76

  5·0

  Redbridge

  55·04

  52·37

  2·67

  4·9

  Staffordshire

  263·99

  251·18

  12·81

  4·9

  Shropshire

  106·23

  101·08

  5·15

  4·8

  Stockport

  73·51

  70·04

  3·48

  4·7

  Dorset

  129·85

  124·00

  5·85

  4·5

  Oldham

  60·18

  57·54

  2·64

  4·4

  Wiltshire

  135·00

  129·13

  5·87

  4·3

  Sutton

  38·97

  37·28

  1·69

  4·3

  Essex

  374·93

  358·97

  15·96

  4·3

  Suffolk

  142·37

  136·66

  5·71

  4·0

  Bromley

  66·40

  63·79

  2·61

  3·9

  Enfield

  68·17

  65·49

  2·68

  3·9

  476 477

  Revised outturn expenditure

  Education GRE2

  Overspend

  Percentage overspend

  Local education authority

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Kirklees

  106·33

  102·30

  4·02

  3·8

  Surrey

  221·36

  214·14

  7·22

  3·3

  Wirral

  87·93

  85·23

  2·70

  3·1

  Dudley

  75·25

  73·14

  2·11

  2·8

  East Sussex

  132·25

  128·72

  3·53

  2·7

  Oxfordshire

  124·25

  121·04

  3·20

  2·6

  Hampshire

  358·78

  349·66

  9·12

  2·5

  Merton

  36·78

  35·92

  0·86

  2·3

  Warwickshire

  122·48

  119·63

  2·85

  2·3

  Sefton

  73·90

  72·38

  1·52

  2·1

  Devon

  216·95

  212·82

  4·13

  1·9

  Trafford

  54·90

  54·14

  0·76

  1·4

  Bolton

  70·85

  69·97

  0·87

  1·2

  Norfolk

  161·58

  159·90

  1·68

  1·0

  Berkshire

  176·42

  174·70

  1·72

  1·0

  Solihull

  52·89

  52·46

  0·44

  0·8

  Birmingham

  276·68

  275·02

  1·66

  0·6

  Cornwall

  103·29

  102·83

  0·46

  0·4

  Notes:

  1 Provisional information based on form RER. The expenditure figures include some capital items and specific grants which do not appear within the grant related expenditure assessment.

  2 Block grant is unhypothecated and based on GRE assessment for all services, and local authorities have discretion on how they spend across services.

WALES

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement of progress on the introduction of information technologies to facilitate internal communications in his Department and the provision of information to the public concerning those areas for which he is responsible; and if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in these fields.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department makes use of information technology (IT) in a number of ways to improve internal communications. For example a video-conferencing system links our Cardiff and London offices, and data and documents are transferred by facsimile, remotely located word processors and electronic mail systems. Advanced desk top publishing techniques are used in the production of many departmental publications which are available to the public. These uses of IT have been developed in accordance with my Department's IT strategy which sets out how IT may best be used to support the business aims and priorities of the Department. We will continue to make the fullest possible use of emergent technologies.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list under each region expenditure programme and at constant prices his Department's expenditure in each of mid, south and west Glamorgan and Gwent for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is not available in the form requested. Total expenditure on programmes within my responsibility is not broken down on a county basis.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish in the Official Report details of the
  478
  total lengths of Welsh rivers in each of the water authorities classifications 1 to 4 for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Grist
  River quality surveys are carried out once every five years. Over the last 10 years, therefore, figures are available only for 1980 and 1985, and these are set out in the table. The next survey is expected in 1990.

  Classification

  Lengths kilometres

  1980

  1985

  1A

  2,573

  2,418

  1B

  1,237

  1,377

  2

  506

  523

  3

  301

  256

  4

  12

  26

  It should be noted that exact comparison of these figures is not possible, as the lengths of rivers included in successive surveys has altered.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of recorded incidents of river pollution, the number of related prosecutions and the number of convictions in Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 26 May 1988. I have asked the chairman of the Welsh water authority to write to the hon. Gentleman in respect of the remainder of the last 10 years.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the provision of development aid both directly and through non-governmental organisations to Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the Government's observations (Cm 432) on the first report from the Foreign Affairs Committee (Session 1987–88)
  479
  "Famine in the Horn of Africa". The response to paragraph 101 of the report contains a statement of the Government's policy on provision of development aid to Ethiopia.

ENERGY

  Electricity Industry (Safety)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps his Department is taking to ensure that adequate safety measures are enforced by private companies in the electricity industry after the phasing out of the inspector department in April.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no intention of phasing out the Department's engineering inspectorate which has responsibility for enforcing the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988. These regulations are designed to secure the safety of the general public against risks associated with the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The provisions of these regulations will apply to the privatised electricity supply industry.

  Fluidised Bed Technology
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what consideration he has given to providing matching financial support to the £5 million offered by Ahlstrom of Finland to ensure the continuance of the British Coal topping cycle gasifier and pressurised fluidised bed combustion plant at Grimethorpe;

  (2) what is his policy towards Government investment in integrated gasification combined cycle power generation technology;

  (3) what is his policy towards Government investments in circulating fluidised bed coal combustion technology;

  (4) what is his policy towards Government investment in bubbling fluidised bed combustion coal technology;

  (5) if his Department or consultants to his Department have made any study of the benefits of using fluidised bed combustion technology for power plants to reduce carbon dioxide releases and help reduce greenhouse gas build up.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Integrated gasification combined cycle, bubbling fluidised bed combustion, and circulating fluidised bed combustion are alternative means of consuming coal in an environmentally sensitive way in order to produce heat or to generate electricity. A considerable amount of public sector funding has been directed at the development of these technologies. It is for private sector companies and the energy industries to evaluate these methods of power generation against the more conventional forms of coal combustion, and to exploit their potential accordingly. My Department is studying carefully the British Coal request for Government support of research at Grimethorpe into the topping cycle concept.

  "Energy Paper 56", which was published in July 1988, is a comprehensive appraisal of advanced coal-based power generation systems. This report considers the advantages and disadvantages of several technologies, including variants of fluidised bed combustion, and provides an indication of their potential for reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the work of the Energy Efficiency Office.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The next step in the work of the Energy Efficiency Office is a new programme to be called best practice, beginning on 1 April 1989. Its aim will be to advance and spread best practice in energy efficiency in industry, commerce, housing and the public sector. Further details are given in a leaflet available from the Energy Efficiency Office. Copies of this leaflet will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The current energy efficiency demonstration and research and development schemes will close for applications on 31 March 1989. Projects accepted up to that date will however be supported to completion, and the Energy Efficiency Office will continue to promote the lessons learned from successful projects.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications have been received to date under the regional enterprise grants scheme; and how much has been awarded in grants under the scheme.

  Mr. Atkins
  The regional enterprise grants scheme commenced on 1 April 1988 and by 28 February 1989, a total of 2,197 applications had been received from businesses in Great Britain. Grant worth a total of £9·3 million has been offered in 1,102 of these cases.

  SIB (Chippenham) Limited
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when his Department was first appraised of any concern about the operation of the companies based in Chippenham, Wiltshire, trading as Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. or SIB (Chippenham) Ltd.

  Mr. Maude
  In December 1986.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if there are any proposals to change the 1988–89 running costs limit for the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The running costs limit for the Export Credits Guarantee Department in 1988–89 (class V, vote 5) has been reduced by £4,000 from £38,758,000 to £38,754,000. This decrease is offset by a corresponding increase in the running costs limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) and reflects the transfer of costs for recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 competition 1988.

  Films Order
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to lay the Films Order.
  481
  Mr. Maude
  I have today laid before the House the Films (Exclusivity Agreements) Order 1989 which will come into force on 3 April. Except for minor amendments, this will follow articles 4 to 6 of the draft order, published in August 1988. The order does not include articles addressing the delay in release of popular films, because it is now clear from the representations received and recent developments that there has been a marked and welcome increase in competition in the cinema exhibition industry as well as a further increase in cinema attendances.

  If the benefits of increased competition do not materialise, it remains open to me to take further action under the Fair Trading Act.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Teachers
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contacts he has had with the Professional Association of Teachers in recent months; what issues have been discussed; and what plans he has for further meetings with the association.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: I met representatives of the Professional Association of Teachers on 8 February 1989. The issues discussed were the relationship of the association with the Department of Education, education reforms in Northern Ireland, and discipline in schools. I have no specific plans for further meetings with the association.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to change the terms of the current prohibition on the sale of arms to Iran.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 18 January.

  Vaclav Havel
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Czechoslovak Government on behalf of Vaclav Havel.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have already raised this issue with the Czechoslovak Government and will do so again as necessary.

  Prisoners of Conscience
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list countries to which he has made representations on behalf of prisoners of conscience in each year for which information is available.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no year for which this information is readily available. It could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sharpeville Six
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his reasons for making representations to the South African Government on behalf of the Sharpeville Six.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In the case of those sentenced to death in South Africa, we consider making representations only in cases that are clearly political, and where there are strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We do so exceptionally, and when all other avenues have been exhausted.

  Mr. Charles Bester
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review his decision on the Charles Bester case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his reasons for refusing to make representations on behalf of Mr. Charles Bester to the South African Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) on 21 December 1988.

  Chemical Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has given consideration to the results of the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the drafting of proposals from the United Kingdom for a parallel international chemical weapons non-proliferation and disarmament treaty.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Where appropriate, we draw on the experience gained in the negotiation and implementation of existing arms control agreements, including the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

  However, we do not believe that a chemical weapons non-proliferation treaty along the lines of the NPT would effectively remove the threat of chemical weapons. With other states we are, therefore, pursuing an effectively verifiable global convention, completely prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or retention, and transfer of chemical weapons.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iran
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and Iran.

  The Prime Minister
  Our position on all the issues involved was explained fully to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on 21 February.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she is taking to co-ordinate departmental action to provide secure accommodation for all homeless people.
  483
  The Prime Minister
  All appropriate Departments are being consulted as part of the current review of the homelessness legislation.

  Government Information Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will set out the duties of the head of the Government information service and the Minister to whom he is responsible.

  The Prime Minister
  The head of the Government information service has a general responsibility for its leadership and well-being. He is available personally to help Departments, who are responsible for the day-to-day management of their own information staff, on both general and individual management problems. He has a general responsibility for recruitment, training and career development policies. The head of the Government information service is responsible to the head of the home Civil Service for these duties, and, through him, to me.

  Broadwell, Rugby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Broadwell, near Rugby.

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

  Engagements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended the closing session of the ozone layer conference. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Office (Profile)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the brief "the Scottish Office and its activities" issued in June 1988; whether he still intends to appoint consultants in terms of that brief to raise the profile of the Scottish Office; what is the intended budget for this project; when such an appointment will be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am giving careful consideration to the nature of any commission which might be given to consultants in the light of the brief issued in June 1988 and the responses to it; and I shall make my conclusions known in due course.

  Procurators Fiscal
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State far Scotland how many reports submitted by the police to procurators fiscal were marked "no proceedings" in each fiscaldom in Scotland for the whole of 1987 and 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: The number of reports submitted by the police arid other reporting agencies to procurators fiscal which were marked "no proceedings" in each fiscaldom in Scotland for the whole of 1987 and 1988 is as follows:—

  1987

  1988

  Aberdeen

  3,604

  1,536

  Airdrie

  487

  640

  Alloa

  251

  343

  Arbroath

  177

  229

  Ayr

  1,350

  1,344

  Banff

  145

  93

  Cambeltown

  91

  67

  Cupar

  207

  265

  Dingwall

  241

  270

  Dornoch

  69

  48

  Dumbarton

  842

  809

  Dumfries

  280

  273

  Dundee

  848

  1,082

  Dunfermline

  1,263

  1,325

  Dunoon

  187

  196

  Duns

  137

  188

  Edinburgh

  10,903

  4,933

  Elgin

  760

  688

  Falkirk

  1,626

  1,976

  Forfar

  87

  37

  Fort William

  270

  122

  Glasgow

  19,772

  18,514

  Greenock

  1,046

  762

  Haddington

  825

  606

  Hamilton

  2,184

  4,271

  Inverness

  859

  655

  Jedburgh

  144

  238

  Kilmarnock

  1,351

  1,530

  Kirkcaldy

  1,399

  1,217

  Kirkcudbright

  89

  33

  Kirkwall

  80

  78

  Lanark

  213

  574

  Lerwick

  110

  129

  Linlithgow

  409

  575

  Lochmaddy

  11

  8

  Oban

  138

  123

  Paisley

  2,277

  2,654

  Peebles

  56

  47

  Perth

  1,670

  1,641

  Peterhead

  515

  647

  Portree

  66

  56

  Rothesay

  71

  39

  Selkirk

  315

  268

  Stirling

  675

  466

  Stonehaven

  238

  199

  Stornoway

  65

  36

  Stranraer

  178

  194

  Tain

  242

  250

  Wick

  196

  223

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of reports submitted by the police to procurator fiscal were marked "no proceedings'. for the whole of 1987 and 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proportion of reports submitted by the police and other reporting agencies to procurators fiscal which were marked "no proceedings" for the whole of 1987 and 1988 were 16·69 per cent. and 14·97 per cent. respectively.

  Rents
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he treats as a reasonable affordable rent in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Rent-setting is a matter for the landlord concerned, having regard to a range of factors including the nature and size of the property, and to conditions in the particular segment of the rented market which the landlord seeks to serve. Affordability is an important factor, but it cannot be determined mechanically and will vary according to the circumstances. Financial assistance, available to tenants through housing benefit and to housing association and public sector landlords through grants and subsidies, is designed to create the conditions in which the requirements of both landlord and tenant in terms of affordability can be met.

  Training
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to assist training in Greenock and Port Glasgow with a view to ensuring that jobs go to local people.

  Mr. Lang
  The full range of Training Agency training programmes is available in Greenock and Port Glasgow to assist local people in competing for jobs in the local labour market. The creation of the Inverclyde enterprise zone will generate greater economic activity in the Greenock and Port Glasgow area, leading to increased employment opportunities. However, it is a matter for individual employers to decide whom they will employ.

  Housing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy for housing those citizens who cannot afford to buy or rent houses in the open market.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The policies which the Government are pursuing, including the allocation of substantially increased resources both to the housing association movement and to local authorities for capital expenditure on housing, together with the deregulation of the private rented sector, are designed to increase the availability of housing to let particularly at rents within the means of those in lower paid employment. The housing benefit system is available to assist those who are unable to meet their housing costs.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received about payment of the community charge by agricultural workers and their spouses in tied housing.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of inquiries and representations from Members of Parliament and individuals about this issue.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many agricultural workers in tied housing by district in Scotland will have to pay the personal community charge.
  486
  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to give financial assistance to agricultural workers in tied housing over the payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 18 February 1989.

  Crofters
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to allow crofters to take full advantage of the farm woodlands and woodland grant schemes for plantings on common grazings.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has indicated that, if the various crofting interests can agree, he will give sympathetic consideration to proposals for a private Member's Bill which would allow crofters to participate in these schemes through planting on common grazings.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Legal Departments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to establish a Select Committee to oversee the work of the Government's legal departments.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No.

  Parliamentary Pension Fund
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what has been the Treasury contribution to the parliamentary pension fund, expressed as a percentage, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Exchequer contributions to the parliamentary pension fund expressed as a percentage of total contribution income of the fund are as follows:

  Exchequer contribution as a percentage of contribution income

  Year

  Percentage

  1987–88

  166·7

  1986–87

  69·7

  1985–86

  76·7

  1984–85

  76·7

  1983–84

  76·7

  1 Provisional—subject to audit.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Single European Act
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact that the Single European Act will have on his Department's operation of domestic policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Single European Act will have no direct impact on the operation of domestic social security policy. Although the Act introduced qualified majority
  487
  voting in the Council of Ministers, instead of unanimity, for certain decision concerning the establishment of the internal market, unanimity still applies to any measures concerning the free movement of persons, or the rights and interests of employed persons, which are the aspects of relevance to the Department.

  Girocheques
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reviews are taking place in dealing with the payment of pensions and benefit girocheques.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Developments in money transmission systems are constantly monitored with a view to considering improvements to the methods of paying social security benefits.

  Public Service Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his best estimate of the number of widows of post-retirement marriages with public servants who do not receive a widow's pension;

  (2) what would be the cost of extending the payment of widow's pensions to all widows of post-retirement marriages with public servants.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the numbers of widows of post-retirement marriages of public servants before 6 April 1978 was not required to be held. I regret that an estimate of the cost of extending the payment of widow's pensions to all widows of post-retirement marriages of public servants could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  "Working for Patients"
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what specialties the 100 extra consultants posts mentioned in the White Paper "Working for Patients" will be engaged.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We will shortly be writing to regional health authorities to invite them to submit their proposals for the 100 additional consultant posts referred to in "Working for Patients". Authorities will be expected to target their proposals on the specialties and districts in which the longest waiting times are experienced. The specialties will be general surgery, traumatic and orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, urology, otolaryngology, opthalmology and general medicine.

  Cryptosporidia
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what information he has on the incidence of illness related to the organism, cryptosporidia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The public health laboratory service's communicable disease surveillance centre first received reports of cryptosporidium infection from laboratories in England and Wales in 1983. Sixty-one reports were received that year. Since then annual totals have been 876 (1984), 1,874 (1985), 3,560 (1986), 3,277 (1987), 2,757 488
  (1988) and 633 in 1989 to the end of February. The increase from 1983 to 1986 reflects to a great extent increased reporting resulting from development of techniques to identify the organism in the laboratory and increasing awareness of the association of cryptosporidium with diarrhoeal illness. The figures for 1988 and 1989 (first eight weeks) are provisional.

  AIDS
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what continued observation there has been in the United Kingdom of the babies and others contaminated with SV40 in the late 1950s; and what proportion of those people now have AIDS.

  Mr. Mellor
  There has been no separate continued observation of those people in the United Kingdom who might have received vaccine contaminated with SV40. We have relied on the results of studies in the United States of America.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the results of any experiments conducted during preventive vaccination programmes have shown the human leukocyte type antigens (HL-A) in the immune response, both humoral and cellular, to be clearly linked to specific bacterial and viral antigens.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am not aware of any experiments conducted during preventive vaccination programmes to investigate HLA and bacterial and viral antigens.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the two large studies referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Erewash, 25 July 1988,Official Report, column 139, conducted in the United States of America on the contamination of polio vaccine by SV40 in the late 1950s and early 1960s referred to AIDS or carcinogenicity.

  Mr. Mellor
  AIDS had not been identified in the human population at the time the studies referred to were undertaken. The studies were directed to look for evidence of carcinogenicity in the population exposed to SV40.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effort has been made to identify SV40 genomes in people with AIDS.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have been asked to reply.

  No work has been done in the United Kingdom to identify SV40 genomes in people with AIDS, since there is no evidence that it gives rise to any untoward effects in normal individuals.

  Dentists
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when technical discussions with the British Dental Association on a new dental contract last took place; when he expects formal negotiations on a new contract to commence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) on 2 March at column 317.

  Autism
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department provides(a) for autistic societies and (b) for research into autism: and if he will make a statement.
  489
  Mr. Freeman
  The Department grant aided the National Autistic Society by £10,000 a year for 1985–86, 1986–87, and 1987–88, and in 1987 made an additional special grant of £5,500. Since May 1987 the Department has spent over £60,000 on a descriptive study of the current education, treatment and handling of autistic children and adults.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning the future of the chiropody service within the district of Easington.

  Mr. Mellor
  Chiropody services will be provided independently by Durham, Sunderland and Hartlepool health authorities following the introduction on 1 April 1989 of revised management arrangements for health services in Easington.

  Health Services (Hartlepool)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate the level of chiropody and nursing services to be provided for patients transferring from Durham to the Hartlepool health authority; and if the extra funding for these services will be allocated pro-rata to the appropriate department.

  Mr. Mellor
  The level of chiropody and nursing services provided for patients transferring from Durham to Hartlepool health authority will be the same as that provided before the transfer and patients should not see any change. Funds will be transferred to reflect this existing level of service.

  Community Health (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations have taken place with staff of all disciplines following the Northern regional health authority's reorganisation of community health services in the Easington district.

  Mr. Mellor
  A schedule of proposed transfers was sent to every individual member of staff and to all relevant staff organisations. Discussions then took place with individual staff members and local representatives of the staff organisations prior to final decisions being made about transfers.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the National Health Service of employing(a) a consultant, (b) a registrar, (c) a junior doctor, (d) an A-grade nurse and (e) a G-grade nurse.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  (a) Consultant

  41,800

  (b and c) Junior Doctors:

  Senior registrar

  30,000

  Registrar

  26,200

  Senior House Officer

  23,500

  House Officer

  18,200

  (d) A Grade Nurse

  8,600

  (e) G Grade Nurse

  17,900

  490
  Notes:

  1. Figures include basic pay, employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions and exclude London Weighting and London Supplements.

  2. Figures are for 1988–89 England and Wales and are based on estimates of paybills for Nurses and estimates of average contracted hours for junior doctors both costed 1988–89 pay rates.

  3. Figures for consultants exclude Distinction Awards.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the average costs of(a) a tonsillectomy, (b) herniotomy, (c) an appendectomy, (d) a double hip-joint replacement and (e) a coronary graft by-pass.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest cost estimates are as follows:

  £ 1987–88 prices

  Tonsillectomy (tonsils and adenoids)

  360

  Herniotomy (inguinal hernia)

  710

  Appendectomy

  n/a

  Total hip replacement

  2,390

  Coronary artery by-pass graft

  3,580

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the cost of(a) a kidney dialysis machine, (b) optical laser equipment, (c) a lithotripter and (d) a CAT scanner.

  Mr. Freeman
  The costs of these items of medical equipment vary according to the type and use to which each is put.

  However the following gives an indication of the likely range of costs in each case:

  (£000's)

  (a) Kidney dialysis

  6–13

  (b) Optical laser

  12–52

  (c) Lithotripter (ESWL)

  500–800

  (e) CAT Scanner

  330–500

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether in the light of the possible relationships between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutsfeldt-Jacob dementia he intends introducing reporting procedures for the latter.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) on 27 February at columns 89–91. Active consideration is being given to the Southwood committee's recommendation about reporting cases of Creutsfeldt Jacob dementia.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the dangers to human health of vaccines from bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle.

  Mr. Mellor
  The comments in the recent report by the working party chaired by Sir Richard Southwood that there may be a remote theoretical risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy being transmitted to patients by the use of injectable medicines derived from bovine material, have been carefully considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The committee agreed with the working party that any such risk from injectable medicines
  491
  including vaccines is both theoretical and remote. We have accepted this advice. As a purely precautionary measure, further guidance on good manufacturing practice in this area is about to be issued to manufacturers of all medicines including vaccines.

  Benefit Claims
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will extend the rules to make sure that people whose application forms for help with National Health Service costs have been awaiting the outcome of a review of the relevant statutory instruments will not be disbarred from claiming a refund although it is longer than one month since the relevant expenditure occurred;

  (2) when he will make a revised statutory instrument covering claims for help with National Health Service costs; and how many applications for help with National Health Service costs from people with non-dependent people living with them are being stockpiled at Newcastle, awaiting such an instrument;

  (3) why the agency benefit unit in Newcastle dealing with claims for help with National Health Service costs is unable to deal with claims relating to people who have non-dependents living with them.

  Mr. Mellor
  The agency benefits unit has stockpiled 9,809 cases involving non-dependants because they are awaiting permission from this Department not to make inquiries of local authorities in cases where housing benefit in the form of rent rebate or rent allowance is payable. This request is being given urgent attention. Sympathetic consideration will be given to any claims for refunds outside the one month time limit where claims for help have been delayed at the agency benefits unit.

  Amendment of the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1988 will be necessary to give effect to the Government's intentions when making these regulations.

  Milk
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been reported in each of the past five years for which figures are available of salmonellosis or cympylobacter infection resulting from drinking or consuming untreated milk or milk products supplied by dairy farmers direct to consumer or consumed within the dairy farmer's family.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  Salmonellosis

  Campylobacter

  1983

  200

  85

  1984

  315

  79

  1985

  54

  178

  1986

  323

  24

  1987

  34

  332

  19881

  22

  None

  1 Provisional.

  Waterborne Diseases
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the source of the present outbreak of cryptosporidium in Oxford and Swindon;
  492
  (2) if he will make a statement on current procedures for dealing with outbreaks of disease associated with public water supplies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 28 February 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning on 2 March at column 286.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the requirement to spend 20 hours in a surgery over five days, at hours convenient to patients, as outlined in "General Practice in the National Health Service—A New Contract", will apply to general practitioners with more than one surgery site; whether the time travelling between site will be taken into account; whether set hours will be required at each surgery site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The detailed implementation of the policies set out in "General Practice in the National Health Service: A New Contract", including the arrangements for surgery hours, will be the subject of consultation between my officials and the British Medical Association's general medical services committee.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a detailed breakdown of how the new standard capitation fees for general practitioners used in the examples contained in the document "General Practice in the National Health Service—A New Contract" have been arrived at.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 1 March 1989]: The new capitation fee levels used for illustrative purposes in appendix F of "General Practice in the National Health Service—A New Contract" have been calculated to give effect to the Government's policy, set out in paragraph 7.3 of "Working for Patients", that capitation fees should form at least 60 per cent. of a GP's income. The average standard capitation fee per patient has, therefore, been notionally increased from £8·81 to £11·85. For the purposes of the examples it has been assumed that the increased proportion of income represented by capitation will be paid for by redistributing funds from out-of-date fees and allowances, such as seniority payments and group practice allowance. When the new remuneration system is introduced from 1 April 1990, the level of fees and allowances will have been increased by the 1989 and 1990 awards and by the increased investment in family practitioner services announced in "Promoting Better Health".

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Senior Principals (Salaries)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the salary of a senior principal of the Civil Service(a) including the contributions to the superannuation scheme and (b) net of such contributions at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Brooke
  A grade 6 (senior principal) civil servant on the scale maximum is paid a national rate of £27,087
  493
  per annum and, in common with other civil servants, a pension contribution of 1½ per cent. of pay is made towards the cost of family benefits.

  Relocation
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered relocating any of the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise establishments for which he is responsible in Luton.

  Mr. Brooke
  Both the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have in hand the serious and substantial relocation reviews referred to in the answer I gave on 9 February, 1989, at columns 751–2, to my hon. Friend, the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), but at present neither has specific plans to relocate activities either to or from Luton.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in their central records on strip searches of persons to identify them in future by sex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. There is no reason to record such information.

  ERNIE
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the total administrative costs per annum of running ERNIE.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: The total administrative cost of running the ERNIE prize draw operation was £1·7 million in the financial year 1987–88.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the money taken by the purchase of premium bonds is spent on(a) administration and (b) prize money.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: None of the money taken by the purchase of premium bonds is spent on administration or prize money. The administrative costs of running premium bonds, which amounted to £20·5 million in 1987–88, is paid from the Department for National Savings vote. Prize money, which totalled £139 million in 1987–88, is a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The prize money is calculated as a percentage of the value of all eligible bonds in the prize draw. In 1987–88 this was 7¾per cent. per annum to 31 July and 7 per cent. per annum from 1 August.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff in his Department provide advice to companies on good industrial relations practice.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Provision of advice to companies on good industrial relations practice is the responsibility of the 494
  independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Precise information is not available in the form requested but information on the estimated proportion of resources allocated to advisory work is set out in the ACAS annual report, copies of which are in the Library.

  Industrial Safety
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what evidence is available to him on the possible long-term effects on the health of local residents evacuated during the fire involving chemicals at BDH Poole on 21 June 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am not aware of any evidence of significant long-term health effects and there is no reason to suppose that any such effects will occur.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, whether he has any plans to change the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974 so that reports similar to that prepared following the fire at BDH Poole on 21 June 1988 are made public.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A substantial account of the fire at BDH Poole on 21 June 1988 was attached to the Health and Safety Executive's news release of 17 October 1988 and it contained all of the facts necessary to inform the public fully of HSE's investigation and conclusions. The internal report included in addition personal information, comments and opinion which it is not helpful or appropriate to make public.

  I have, however, asked the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to consider whether there is scope for any improvements in the present arrangements for informing the public of health and safety issues.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for ensuring that any improved safety measures required by the Health and Safety Executive in industrial premises are implemented in existing as well as new premises.

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive already updates guidance on a regular basis to ensure that advice on improved safety measures is widely available for application in existing and new industrial premises. New guidance documents are publicised in press notices and referred to by inspectors, where relevant, during their visits.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect the amendment of directive 82/501/EEC on major accidental hazards of certain industrial activities as published in EEC Official Journal L336, 7 December 1988, will have in preventing fires similar to that at BDH Poole on 21 June 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The amendment (88/610/EEC) to directive 82/501/EEC will be implemented in Great Britain by means of a further amendment to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984. These regulations, like the directive, aim to prevent major industrial accidents to people and the environment and to limit the consequences of any which do occur. One of the main effects of the amendment will be that many warehouses of the type involved in the fire at BDH Poole storing hazardous substances will be brought within the scope of these important major hazard controls.
  495
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to extend the amendments to the Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 to a greater range of premises as promised in column 1001 of the Official Report for 1 November 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  By 1 June 1990. This is the implementation date for EC directive 88/610/EEC, which amends the "Seveso" directive 82/501/EEC. This amending directive will be implemented in Great Britain by the amendment to the CIMAH regulations to which my hon. Friend refers.

TRANSPORT

  Single European Act
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact that the Single European Act will have on his Department's operation of domestic policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government's policies since 1979 have provided the liberalised transport conditions necessary for the country to take full advantage of opportunities offered by the Single European Act.

  British Rail Investment
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require British Rail to earn a net real rate of return of at least the Autumn Statement's current forecast rate of return of 12 per cent. in respect of all new investment projects including the proposed high-speed rail link to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail needs to demonstrate that all investments by its commercial sector are capable of producing a commercial return: this would include any high-speed line to the Channel tunnel, should it be financed by the board. The discount rate used to test investments is agreed between British Rail and the Department and is currently 7 per cent. It reflects the Treasury's required rate of return which is intended to ensure that commercial public sector investment programmes (such as British Rail's) provide a rate of return which is broadly equivalent to that which could be achieved in the private sector. The required rate of return was set in 1978 and is currently under review.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement of progress on the introduction of information technologies to facilitate internal communications in his Department and the provision of information to the public concerning those areas for which he is responsible; and if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in these fields.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  An information technology steering committee oversees the cost effective development of the Department's information technology and communications strategies. The Department will continue to build on the existing uses of information technology and communications network, to expand the use of modern office facilities and to improve the provision of information to the public in areas such as statistics and driver and vehicle licensing.
  496
  Recent examples include the development of systems at the DVLC, Swansea to give staff ready access to central databases and thus enable them to deal better with inquiries from the general public about driving licences, vehicle registration documents, etc; in the statistical field, more extensive and rapid analyses of information have become possible and desktop publishing methods have reduced the time taken to publish results; similar improvements are being sought in the publication of research reports by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, who are increasingly using video to illustrate the results of their work.

  North Report
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the North report on road traffic law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The proposals we announced on 7 February to reform road traffic law in the light of the North report have been widely welcomed. There has been general agreement about the need to simplify the law and influence driver behaviour. The measures proposed form part of our drive to cut by one third by the year 2000 the present toll of 5,000 dead and 300,000 injured each year on Britain's roads.

  Further work to implement the proposals is being taken forward in consultation with all the interested bodies who have a part to play.

  Coastal Waters (Pollution)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether surveillance aircraft were undertaking regular patrols at the time of the oil pollution in the English Channel in January; if it has yet been possible to identify the cause; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  An aircraft of my Department's marine pollution control unit was carrying out a routine Channel navigation surveillance patrol on 27 December 1988 when an oil slick was sighted. Patrols on 30 December and 5 January 1989 were mounted in direct response to further pollution reports received.

  Samples of beached oil and oiled bird feathers have been analysed by the laboratory of the Government chemist to determine whether they had a common source. The initial findings have proved inconclusive and a more detailed analysis is now being carried out.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has undertaken to assess the economic cost to the nation of congested traffic flows on both road and rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not calculate the costs of congestion on roads and rail in total because of the difficulty of defining the base case against which congestion would be compared. However, it is our policy to reduce the economic costs of traffic congestion by cost-effective rail and road schemes in which the relief of traffic congestion on roads and the reduction in overcrowding on the railways are taken into account in the assessment of benefits. Planned spending on new
  497
  construction and improvement of motorway and trunk roads over the next three years amounts to some £2·6 billion (excluding VAT), an increase of 40 per cent. on the three years ending 1988–89. British Rail investment is at its highest level since the 1960s, with over £3·5 billion planned for the next five years, including investment in additional rolling stock to relieve overcrowding. We have also undertaken the central London rail study, which has identified options for relieving congestion.

  East Midlands Line
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the case for electrification of the east midlands line of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received another four representations since my answer to a similar question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 14 November 1988 at column 467.

  Merchant Navy
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to arrest the decline in the number of cadets entering the British Merchant Navy.

  Mr. Portillo
  A scheme for providing financial assistance towards the costs of training future Merchant Navy officers has been set up under the powers in section 26 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988.

  This scheme is beginning to show encouraging results and the cadet intake at colleges has almost doubled to 279 in the current academic year.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British seamen are in the Merchant Navy at the present time.

  Mr. Portillo
  At 31 December 1988 the numbers of seafarers registered with the Merchant Navy establishment was 22,629.

  Container Ships
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision has been made for adapting container ships with sea sheds and heavy duty flatracks to carry dry cargo in military operations.

  Mr. Portillo
  Container ships need no adaptation to carry heavy duty flatracks, which are widely used commercially. Only minor adaptation is needed to permit container ships to carry sea sheds. No provision has been made by the United Kingdom.

  East London Rail Study
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the geographical limits of the east London rail study; and if the terms of the study will be to examine the links from Stratford to docklands.

  Mr. Portillo
  The study is examining the best options for improving access from central London to docklands and other Thames-side areas of the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. It will include examination of links from Stratford to docklands.

  Sea Pollution
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign-owned vessels polluted United Kingdom territorial waters in each year since 1974; on how many occasions in each year the relevant flag administrations were asked to consider prosecutions and on how many occasions in each year were prosecutions instigated by the relevant flag administrations.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions since 1979 when his Department has made representations to the maritime transport authority of a foreign state concerning alleged infringement of international or pollution conventions by a ship registered in that state while at sea in waters under United Kingdom surveillance and jurisdiction.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of reported oil slicks in United Kingdom territorial waters in which foreign owned vessels were the possible source are as follows:

  Numbers

  1985

  2

  1986

  1

  1987

  1

  1988

  5

  The figure for 1988 reflects the extension of United Kingdom territorial limits from three to 12 miles. Figures prior to 1985 are not readily available.

  Four of the reported incidents have been referred to the competent authorities in the relevant flag states for investigation—one in 1986 and three in 1988—but to date we have not been advised of any prosecutions that may have been instigated. Oil sample evidence in another case is still being analysed, prior to referral. In the remaining four incidents the evidence did not justify asking the flag states to investigate further.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislative proposals to enable legal action to be taken against the owners of foreign vessels which cause pollution within United Kingdom territorial waters in the British courts if no action is undertaken by the relevant flag administration.

  Mr. Portillo
  No, the concept would be contrary to the fundamental principles of United Kingdom criminal law and not practically possible. However, I am satisfied that the recovery of clean-up costs from the polluter represents a significant sanction.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken by his Department in respect of paragraph XVI, 29 of the ministerial declaration of the second international conference on the protection of the North sea.

  Mr. Portillo
  Nationally, procedures have been strengthened to ensure that all reports received by my Department of suspected operational violations of pollution regulations are transmitted to parties to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on port state control to ensure that ships alleged to have committed an offence are inspected when they call at an MOU port. At United Kingdom ports, a full inspection of suspected offenders is carried out in accordance with port state control procedures.
  499
  Internationally, contracting parties to the Bonn agreement, who are responsible for receiving reports of oil pollution, are liaising with parties to the MOU on port state control to ensure that there is close co-operation between their respective activities, that all ships suspected of an operational violation are rigorously inspected, and that where the circumstances warrant it, evidence is collected in accordance with procedures recommended by the International Maritime Organisation.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department will be represented at the meeting in May 1989 of parties to the memorandum of understanding on port state control.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department will be represented at the meeting of the port state control committee by an official from the marine directorate.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will identify the constraints preventing his Department from initiating a prosecution for an oil pollution offence against the master of a foreign-flagged vessel in his capacity as an agent of the vessel's owner.

  Mr. Portillo
  The master of a ship does not act as an agent for the vessel's owner. Under criminal law, service of a summons on the master does not serve summons on the owner. Prosecution of the master can only be in his capacity as master; he cannot be made a surrogate of the owner.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many detections and prosecutions of operational violations under the Marsol 73/78 convention have taken place.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the final paragraph of my answer to him of 10 January at column 625.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State of Transport whether any steps have been taken to help those whose property is damaged by uninsured drivers in the light of the new regulations requiring motor insurance policies to cover liability for property damage.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A new agreement with the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) came into force on 31 December 1988, to coincide with the introduction of the new regulations. Under the agreement the MIB pay compensation to people whose property is damaged by uninsured drivers, as well as those who suffer personal injury. The MIB have produced a leaflet giving information about the new arrangements. We greatly welcome these new arrangements with the insurance industry to give better protection to the victims of road accidents. Copies of the new agreement, and of the short MIB leaflet will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Transport Tribunal
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who holds responsibility for the administration of the transport tribunal.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The responsibility for the transport tribunal currently rests with the Department of 500
  Transport. The Prime Minister has agreed that it would be more appropriate for responsibility to fall to the Lord Chancellor's Department. A transfer of functions order giving effect to this will be made shortly. It will come into effect from April. No changes in the arrangements For appointments to the tribunal are involved.

  Cross-Channel Ferries
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirements are placed by his Department that it shall be the duty of cross-Channel ferry operators that, prior to sailing, the operational capability of public address systems shall be tested and proved to be audible for routine and emergency advice to passengers; and what action is taken in the event of reports being lodged that technical break-up and background noise make such advice indecipherable to passengers.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: The procedures adopted by the ferry operators to bring the passengers attention to emergency instructions in accordance with advice issued by the Department's marine directorate should ensure that the system is in frequent use and good order.

  The systems are thoroughly tested at least once a year by surveyors. All reports of difficulties with PA systems are thoroughly investigated by marine surveyors.

  Leg Protectors
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what report he has received on the field tests being carried out on motorcycle leg protectors; when he intends to publish it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: An extensive programme of test work is still being carried out. The findings will continue to be made public.

  An in-depth study of motorcycle injury accidents carried out by the TRRL suggests that some 70 per cent. of motorcyclist casualties sustain some form of leg injury.

  I believe that major motorcycle manufacturing firms recognise the urgent need to improve motorcycle safety. There is increasing concern worldwide over the risks of motorcycling. The United Kingdom represents only a small part of the global market for motorcycles; there is a limit to the contribution any one country can make.

  We are keen to see all road users respect each other and use the roads safely. We are also keen to see road users protected as far as possible from the consequences of crashes.

  The prime responsibility for designing secondary protection in cars and motorcycles must be with the manufacturers and their designers.

DEFENCE

  Trident Submarine
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to place the order for the third Trident submarine, SSBN07.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to place the order for a third Vanguard class submarine.
  501
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The formal response from Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. to the tender invitation for the construction of SSBN07 was received by my Department on 19 February. It is planned to place the order for the submarine later this year.

  Lance Missile
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met a representative of the United States Department of Defence to discuss a follow on to the Lance missile.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met a representative of the United States Department of Defence to discuss a follow on to the Lance missile.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met a representative of the United States Department of Defence to discuss a follow on to the Lance missile.

  Mr. Younger
  I last met Mr. Carlucci at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee in Brussels on 1 December, when a range of subjects of mutual interest were discussed, including modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties took place over Britain in 1988.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties took place over Britain in 1988.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties took place over Britain in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  A total of 151,291 military low-flying training sorties were flown in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1988.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will conduct a departmental inquiry into military low flying in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the joint study with his West German counterpart on reducing the impact of low-flying training to be completed.
  502
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the joint study with his West German counterpart on reducing the impact of low-flying training to be completed.

  Mr. Neubert
  In due course.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Commander-in-Chief Allied Air Forces Europe on measures to reduce low flying in Europe.

  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Commander-in-Chief Allied Air Forces Europe on measures to reduce low flying in Europe.

  Mr. Neubert
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.

  Warsaw Pact (Offensive Operations)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Warsaw pact has reduced its capability to conduct large-scale offensive operations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Warsaw pact has not reduced its capability to conduct large-scale offensive operations since, as yet, there has been no movement rearward of the relevant manpower or equipment. Even if all the reductions recently announced by the Soviet Union and other Warsaw pact countries are implemented the Warsaw pact forces will still enjoy a considerable superiority in Key offensive weapon systems, such as tanks and artillery, in the central region.

  Soviet Union (Naval Threat)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Soviet naval threat in the northern Atlantic has reduced in the past year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No, we do not consider that the Soviet naval threat in the northern Atlantic has reduced in the past year. Modernisation of both the Soviet northern and Baltic fleets has continued. New, increasingly sophisticated submarines and surface ships have entered the Soviet naval order-of-battle, more than offsetting the vessels from older classes which are being scrapped. The Soviet navy is now better placed than ever before to conduct wartime operations in the northern Atlantic.

  Conventional Forces
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will discuss with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues proposals to achieve a lower level of conventional forces in Europe, incorporating parity with the Warsaw pact over the whole range of such forces and dual capable forces.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will discuss with his NATO colleagues proposals to achieve a lower level of conventional forces in Europe incorporating parity with the Warsaw pact over the whole range of such forces and dual capable forces.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will discuss with his NATO colleagues proposals to achieve a lower level of conventional forces in Europe incorporating parity with the Warsaw pact over the whole range of such forces and dual capable forces.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will discuss with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues proposals to achieve a lower level of conventional forces in Europe incorporating parity with the Warsaw pact over the whole range of such forces and dual capable forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Proposals for the negotiations on conventional forces in Europe were discussed by NATO Ministers at their meeting in Brussels on the 8 and 9 December 1988. Close consultation on all aspects of the negotations will continue.

  US Bases
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further information he has on United States proposals to build new, and upgrade existing nuclear vaults at their bases in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further information he has on United States proposals to build new, and upgrade existing, nuclear vaults at their bases in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further information he has on United States proposals to build new, and upgrade existing, nuclear vaults at their bases in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 3 March at column 357.

  Reserve and Auxiliary Forces
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in expanding the reserve and auxiliary forces.

  Mr. Neubert
  The combined strength of the volunteer reserves, not including the Ulster Defence Regiment, stands at almost 84,500. This represents an increase of over 28 per cent. since 1979 when expansion measures were first set in hand. Over that period the strength of the TA has increased by 13,500 and the HSF has added a further 3,000. Comparable increases in the strengths of other services are RAux AF and RAFVR, 1,330 and RMR, over 400. In addition, the RNF has raised its strength by about 400 since the decision was taken to expand it in 1984.

  United States National Security Adviser
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State For Defence what plans he has to meet General Scowcroft, the United States national security adviser, to discuss defence matters.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet General Scowcroft, the United States national security adviser, to discuss defence matters.

  Mr.David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet General Scowcroft, United States national security adviser, to discuss defence matters.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now reconsider his policy towards the modernisation of short-range nuclear weaponry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 29 November 1988 at column 567.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. George Younger
  I last met the German Defence Minister at the Anglo-German summit in Frankfurt in February. We discussed a range of issues including the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Norway to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Norway to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Norway to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Norway to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.
  505
  Mr. Younger
  I last met Mr. Hoist during the Defence Planning Committee meeting in Brussels on 1 December when a range of subjects of mutual interest were discussed.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the circumstances in which United Kingdom nuclear weapons may be used against(a) a non-nuclear state and (b) another nuclear nation.

  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the circumstances in which United Kingdom nuclear weapons may be used against (1) a non-nuclear state and (2) another nuclear nation.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the circumstances in which United Kingdom nuclear weapons may be used against(a) a non-nuclear state and (b) another nuclear nation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Denmark to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Denmark to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Denmark to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. George Younger
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the United Kingdom's NATO allies on proposals to modernise short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has frequent meetings with his NATO colleagues, during which a wide range of issues affecting the defence and security of the Alliance are discussed, including the need to modernise short-range nuclear weapons.

  Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.
  506
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).

  RAF Officer and Aircrew Selection Centre
  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding the proposed transfer of the Royal Air Force officer and aircrew selection centre from Biggin hill to RAF Cranwell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  My Department has received representations from both the local and departmental (non-industrial) trades union sides whose members are affected by the transfer, from the London borough of Bromley council, from local branches of the Aircrew Association and Royal Marines Association, on behalf of Belgian pilots based at Biggin hill during world war 2, and from members of the public.

  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on whether, following the transfer of the Royal Air Force officer and aircrew selection centre from Biggin hill to RAF Cranwell, suitably qualified personnel will be available in the Cranwell area to undertake the required work.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not anticipated that there will be any difficulties recruiting suitably qualified staff in the Cranwell area.

  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the arrangements which he intends to make in order to ensure the retention of the Air Training Corps unit at RAF Biggin hill following the transfer of the officer and aircrew selection centre to RAF Cranwell.

  Mr. Neubert
  All options available to retain the Air Training Corps unit at RAF Biggin hill will be considered.

  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of the redundancy payments to be made to those civilian personnel at Royal Air Force Biggin hill who will not be moving to RAF Cranwell following the transfer of the Royal Air Force officer and aircrew selection centre from Biggin hill.

  Mr. Neubert
  Until such time as the intentions of the individual members of the staff are known it is not possible to estimate the likely cost of redundancy payments.

  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use is currently made of the Royal Air Force officer and aircrew selection centre at Biggin hill for flying aptitude and medical tests by Army and Royal Navy
  507
  personnel; to what extend such facilities would continue to be used by these service personnel following the transfer of the centre to RAF Cranwell; and if he anticipates the provision of additional facilities at any other location for these tests.

  Mr. Neubert
  In addition to its own selection task, the Royal Air Force officers and aircrew selection centre at Biggin hill annually undertakes about 400 aptitude tests and aircrew medical examinations for prospective Army pilots, and flying aptitude tests for about 750 pilot and observer candidates for the Royal Navy. Facilities will continue to be offered to the other services when the centre is transferred to RAF Cranwell.

  Procurement Expenditure
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relative priority in terms of procurement expenditure his Department gives to(a) the British Army of the Rhine and (b) warships for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relative priority, in terms of procurement expenditure, his Department gives to(a) the British Army of the Rhine and (b) warships for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to re-consider procedures for defence procurement expenditure.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our procurement procedures are kept constantly under review. Substantial benefits are being achieved by greater use of competition and by insistence on fixed prices, payments linked to achievement milestones and other incentive measures.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many firms are now on the defence contractors' list; how many of these are small firms; and what were the comparable figures for 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The number of companies currently on the defence contractors list is approximately 9,800. The comparable figure for 1986 was some 8,100. Information on the number of small firms within these figures is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the transfer to foreign ownership of those parts of companies engaged in activities affecting national security.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Changes in the ownership of a defence contractor are considered by the Department on a case-by-case basis. Part of the MOD's consideration includes national security issues. The MOD is able to make certain specific provisions in respect of United Kingdom companies in foreign ownership where it is necessary to restrict access to classified equipment or information.

  Iraq
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the defence export sales organisation has made of the potential value of current Iraqi requirements for armaments.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the defence export sales organisation has made of the potential value of current Iraqi requirements for armaments.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the defence export sales organisation has made of the potential value of current Iraqi requirements for armaments.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the defence export sales organisation has made of the potential value of current Iraqi requirements for armaments.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have not judged it appropriate in the present circumstances to carry out such an assessment. We continue to keep the guidelines on the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq, announced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29 October 1985 Vol. 84, column 454, under constant review in the light of the ceasefire, and developments in the peace negotiations.

  United States (Members' Visits)
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what briefing is given by his Department to right hon. and hon. Members who visit the United States of America.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend would be happy to consider any request for briefing from hon. or right hon. Members undertaking visits to the United States of America.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the policy of the West German Government towards the procurement of radar for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the procurement policy of the West German Government in connection with radar for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are in frequent contact with the West German Government on all aspects of the European fighter aircraft programme, including the selection of the radar. It remains the objective of the four participating Governments to achieve maximum commonality.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent decisions he has made in respect of procurement of a radar system for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the European fighter aircraft project with his West German counterpart; and if he will make a statement.
  509
  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 7 February at column 146.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for development of joint European defence procurement, especially in the field of the next generation of fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the interest of achieving value for money and improved interoperability, the United Kingdom actively promotes co-operation on European defence procurement, both with other countries on a bilateral basis and through the independent European programme group, which we currently chair. The European fighter aircraft project is an excellent example of the collaborative programmes in which we are involved.

  Defence Products Company (Takeover)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in relation to a business with defence products which it is currently not allowed, for security reasons, to sell to West Germany being taken over by a West German company.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Changes in the ownership of a defence contractor are considered by the Department on a case-by-case basis. Part of the MOD's consideration includes national security issues. The MOD is able to make certain specific provisions in respect of United Kingdom companies in foreign ownership where it is necessary to restrict access to classified equipment or information.

  Unreliable Equipment
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual cost to his Department of unreliable weapons, aircraft and military equipment.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual cost to his Department of unreliable weapons, aircraft and military equipment.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual cost to his Department of unreliable weapons, aircraft and military equipment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).

  Arms Control
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in formulating a United Kingdom contribution to NATO's comprehensive concept on arms control.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made by NATO Defence Ministers in discussions on the overall concept; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The task of producing a report on the comprehensive concept of arms control and disarmament falls to the North Atlantic Council in 510
  permanent session. Both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have contributed fully to this exercise throughout. When Alliance Foreign Ministers met in Brussels on 8–9 December 1988, they received a written report on the further development of the comprehensive concept. They reviewed the state of work, welcomed the progress achieved to date, and called for a complete record by the time of their next meeting later this year.

  Heliborne Forces
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of NATO's ability to match the Warsaw pact threat from heliborne forces.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of NATO to match the Warsaw pact threat from heliborne forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 3 March at column 356.

  Estimates
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next "Statement on the Defence Estimates" will be published.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next "Statement on the Defence Estimates" will be published.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next "Statement on the Defence Estimates" will be published.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next "Statement on the Defence Estimates" will be published.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In due course.

  Obsolete Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many obsolete nuclear warheads have been scrapped by Her Majesty's Government as a consequence of the NATO Montebello agreement.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many obsolete nuclear warheads have been scrapped by Her Majesty's Government as a consequence of the NATO Montebello agreement.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many obsolete nuclear warheads have been scrapped by Her Majesty's Government as a consequence of the NATO Montebello agreement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 3 March at column 357.

  Mine Warfare
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the mine warfare modernisation programme; and when he expects to place orders for the next four vessels of the SRMH type.
  511
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Further orders for single-role minehunters are planned, but no decisions have yet been taken on the size and timing of orders. The Government have plans to maintain the United Kingdom's defensive mining capability, which is currently represented by the Royal Navy's ground mine. An update programme for these mines is in progress.

  Disarmament
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received advocating a defence policy of unilateral, bilateral and multilateral disarmament.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received advocating a defence policy of unilateral, bilateral and multilateral disarmament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has received 32 letters and 18 postcards regarding general disarmament matters since last year's summer recess.

  Battlefield Nuclear Weapons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to United Kingdom armed forces to fight on a battlefield upon which nuclear weapons are used.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to United Kingdom armed forces to fight on a battlefield upon which nuclear weapons are used.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to United Kingdom armed forces to fight on a battlefield upon which nuclear weapons are used.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to the United Kingdom armed forces to fight on a battlefield upon which nuclear weapons are used.

  Mr. Neubert
  The United Kingdom armed forces are trained to fight in a variety of battlefield scenarios.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the secretary general of the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends meeting the Secretary General of the Western European Union; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary General of the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend next intends to meet the Secretary-General of the Western European Union on the occasion of the ministerial Council of the Western European Union in April 1989. They will discuss a number of issues of mutual interest.

  Reciprocal Unilateralism
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received advocating a defence policy of reciprocal unilateralism.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received advocating a defence policy of reciprocal unilateralism.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received urging him to adopt a defence policy of reciprocal unilateralism.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).

  Monopoly Suppliers
  Mr. Neil Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he seeks to obtain value for money in those sectors where there is a monopoly United Kingdom supplier.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our policy is to seek the best long term value for money in our purchases and to use competition wherever possible to achieve this. Where there is a monopoly United Kingdom supplier it may be possible to seek competition from overseas. In those cases where overseas competition is not possible we aim to negotiate taut contract conditions with the prime contractor and ensure that there is the maximum competition at the sub-contract level.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the accuracy of Mr. Gorbachev's estimate of the Soviet chemical weapons stockpile as 50,000 tonnes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy for wives and families wishing to accompany service men posted to the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Neubert
  Most service men in the Falkland Islands are on four or six-month tours and are required to serve unaccompanied. The small number of personnel on 12-month tours are encouraged to take their families with them and are provided with married quarters.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the level of Soviet troops in Europe of the recent withdrawal of such troops from Afghanistan.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet forces withdrawn from Afghanistan comprise a complete army of four fully manned and equipped divisions, one of which is an airborne division, and a large number of other units. The
  513
  whole force amounts to some 110,000 personnel. It is not clear whether any of the troops withdrawn from Afghanistan have been or will be transferred to the European theatre. The Soviets have given us no indication of their intentions.

  Stocks
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of(a) spares, (b) food, (c) ammunition and (d) all other stocks held by his Department at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information cannot be provided in the exact form requested without disproportionate cost. For management purposes, stocks are categorised by equipment range or commodity. The value of stocks of spares held within each category is, however, not separately maintained.

  The assessed total value of stocks held by MOD in major depots as at 31 March 1988 amounted to a total of £10,249 million, the breakdown of which, by supply management category, is as follows:

  £ million

  Ammunition and armament stores

  3,109

  Food

  13

  Fuel (including lubricants)

  114

  Clothing

  127

  General stores

  273

  Technical stores

  6,604

  Medical stores

  9

  10,249

  The figures do not include the value of stocks held in units and establishments forward of the main stores depots, details of which are not maintained centrally.

  Representations (Trade Unions)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on responding to representations on defence matters from trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on responding to representations on defence matters from trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on responding to representations on defence matters from trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We receive frequent representations from the trade unions on matters affecting their members employed in the Ministry of Defence and these are handled in accordance with the normal Civil Service consultative procedures. Representations on defence matters are handled in the normal way as they arise.

  Soviet Union (Nuclear Forces)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to whether the Soviets are continuing to modernise their strategic nuclear forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet Union continues to modernise its strategic nuclear forces. On land an 514
  additional 200 SS-25 inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are expected to become operational within two or three years. The ten-warhead SS-24 ICBM has been deployed, both in silos and on rail-mobile launchers, and a modified version of the SS-18 heavy ICBM is entering service. At sea, five Typhoon and four Delta IV nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), carrying the multiple-warhead SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), are now operational, and a fifth Delta IV began sea trials during 1988. The SS-N-21 sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM) is now operational.

  In the air, a new strategic bomber, the Blackjack, has entered service; it can carry the AS-15 air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) as well as bombs and air-to-surface missiles. The AS-15 entered service in 1984 and is already deployed on the Bear H bomber, of which 70 are operational.

  Soviet Air Capability
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the threat posed by Soviet air capability to the United Kingdom home base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For details of the continuing development of the Soviet Union's air capability, I refer my hon. Friend to the "Statement on Defence Estimates 1988" (Cm. 344-I), in particular chapter 6 and the essay entitled "The Conventional Balance". The Soviet air capability which could pose a threat to the United Kingdom is kept constantly under review. Details of such assessments are classified.

  West Germany
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Defence Minister of the Federal German Republic; and what matters he plans to discuss.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend expects to meet the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany at a meeting of WEU Ministers next month. In the normal way a range of matters of mutual interest will be discussed.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West Germany counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany at the Anglo-German summit on 20–21 February 1989. A range of matters of mutual interest was discussed.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further plans he has for the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further plans he has for the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines.
  515
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further plans he has for the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 9 May at column 2.

  France
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the French Defence Minister; and what he will discuss.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend met M. Chevenement last week and, although he has no immediate plans for a further meeting, he expects to have a number of opportunities to discuss matters of mutual interest in the course of 1989.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what successes have been achieved in defence exports during the past year.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been achieved in defence exports during the past year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The success achieved by our defence manufacturers in the past year, maintains Britain's position as a major world exporter of defence equipment.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the policy considerations which underline his refusal to publish figures on an individual company's defence exports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has never been the practice of this or previous Governments to publish figures on individual companies' defence exports for reasons of commercial and customer confidentiality.

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

  Mr. Neubert
  I expect to visit RAF Upper Heyford when the full study into the costs and implications of realigning the runway at the base has been completed, which I hope will be shortly after Easter.

  Nuclear Defence Policy
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government intend to change their policy on nuclear defence.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to change their nuclear defence policy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no such plans.

  Estate Management
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to improve the management of the defence estate.
  516
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to improve the management of the defence estate.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the announcement in May 1988 of changes in the relationship between the Property Services Agency and other Government Departments, the Ministry of Defence has resumed overall responsibility for the management of its estate. Bringing together responsibility and accountability within a single Department will enable us to manage our estate more efficiently and cost-effectively. We regularly review the utilisation of our land and property holdings to identify areas which are surplus or may become surplus to requirements and a number of major studies are currently taking place with a view to further rationalisation measures.

  Contracts
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for his policies on competition and value for money on defence contracts of a situation where the United States prime contractor and the United Kingdom prime contractor are one and the: same company.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our procurement strategy is intended to achieve the best possible value for money. We place our prime contracts as a result of competition wherever we can, but when this is not possible we aim to negotiate taut contract conditions with the prime contractor and ensure that there is the maximum competition at the sub-contract level.

  TGWU (Policy)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations on defence policy he has received from the Transport and General Workers Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on 3 March 1989 at column 356.

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Warsaw pact has changed its military doctrine over the past year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Recent public statements by Warsaw pact leaders have stressed the defensive nature of the pact's military doctrine but its armed forces continue to maintain a capability far greater than that required for solely defensive purposes. We look forward to the implementation of measures, such as reductions in the strength of the pact's armed forces and in the defence spending of its members, that would indicate a genuine shift to a defensive doctrine.

  Senior Staff
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's senior staff of grade 5 or over are employed(a) outside and (b) in the south-east of England.
  517
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The numbers of the Department's senior staff, at grades 5 and above, employed(a) outside the south-east of England is 102, and (b) in posts in the south-east of England is 285.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the number of, and the duration for which, type 23 frigates are expected to be at sea without an integrated computer command and control system being in operation.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the number of and the duration for which, type 23 frigates are expected to be at sea without an integrated computer command and control system being in operation.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the numbers of, and the duration for which, type 23 frigates are expected to be at sea without an integrated computer command and control system being in operation.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the number of, and the duration for which, type 23 frigates are expected to be at sea without an integrated computer command and control system being in operation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the statement which I gave to the House on 28 February 1989.

  Naval Procurement
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement upon his policy on the United Kingdom contribution to naval procurement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government will continue to pursue a substantial procurement programme to meet the requirements of the Royal Navy in the most cost-effective way.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is towards his Department's involvement with private security firms.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The use of private security firms in guarding establishments is an option open to MOD in those cases where their use can satisfy certain security criteria, and where it achieves better value for money.

  Falklands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to bring into the public domain all records within his Department relating to the Falklands war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Territorial Army
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last had discussions regarding the Territorial Army with the Chief of General Staff.
  518
  Mr. Neubert
  The process of consultation on service matters is a continuous one, both through the formal Defence Committee structure and official channels. In addition my right hon. Friend and hon. colleagues take up a number of invitations to visit Territorial Army conferences and units. In this way the Territorial Army has been the subject of much discussion, reflecting the importance that we attach to the vital role it plays in the defence of the nation.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force pilots have left within 10 years of qualifying as pilots in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of RAF pilots who left within 10 years of qualifying as pilots in each of the last three years are:

  Number

  1986

  20

  1987

  49

  1988

  91

  Soviet Military Strength
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of Soviet nuclear military strength in short-range missiles and artillery west of the Urals; and what evidence he has of any reductions during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to figure 19 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" (Cm. 344-I), which shows a total of 1,400 missile launchers and 6,800 nuclear-capable artillery pieces. Athough the Soviet Foreign Minister announced in January that there were to be some reductions in the numbers of short-range nuclear forces in Eastern Europe, these reductions have not yet taken place, and they will involve only 24 missile systems and about 220 artillery pieces. The Warsaw pact retains an enormous advantage in such short-range systems.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Britain's Polaris force remains fully operational and effective with at least one submarine on patrol at all times. Trident remains on programme to enter service in the mid-1990s.

  Merchant Vessels (Emergencies)

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the figures for the availability in March 1989 of British merchant vessels suitable for naval deployment in time of emergency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures for March 1989 are not yet available. The number of vessels available on the United Kingdom and dependent territory registers at 31 December 1988 in the categories required for defence purposes was as follows:
  519

  Number

  Fishing vessels (including large stern trawlers and offshore support vessels)

  348

  Product tankers

  120

  Break bulk cargo vessels

  162

  Cruise ships

  5

  Roll on-roll off ferries

  69

  Tugs

  91

  Counter-mine Operations
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to convert offshore support vessels for the purpose of counter-mine operations in time of emergency; and if he will make a statement.
  520
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No, but we keep such matters under review.

  Nuclear Strategy
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South of Thursday 2 March on nuclear strategy,Official Report, column 254, if he will identify the paragraphs which contain the requested information.

  Mr. Neubert
  The essays referred to in my reply of 2 March should be read in toto.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Water: Storage Levels
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they now consider that there is no cause for concern about water levels in storage reservoirs and groundwater in the southern half of the country, and that no action is needed to provide against a possible dry summer.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, at this late stage of the winter, there is cause for some concern about the level of water resources in parts of southern and eastern England due to the exceptionally dry months prior to February 1989. In most cases, reservoir levels are satisfactory, but groundwater levels are lower than usual in parts of Southern, Anglian and Thames Water Authority areas. Water companies in these areas report similar conditions. Appropriate action rests with the water undertakers, but arrangements have been made for them to keep my department closely informed.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full Answer and for the detailed report from the regions that he sent me. That showed that rainfall during the past winter had been exceptionally low and that in the southern half of the country for the three months November, December and January it was at a record low for the whole of the century. Is my noble friend satisfied that the inquiries that he has made have alerted the water authorities and water companies to the possible danger of drought this summer if we have dry months, and that they are now taking the necessary precautions?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am happy that the water authorities are fully apprised of and fully realise the current situation regarding some shortage of water in the southern half of the country. We have so far received applications for three drought orders. We are informed that some water undertakers are embarking upon publicity campaigns to encourage economy in water use. A few undertakers are carrying out work such as drilling of new bore holes to augment their water resources. Overall, the situation is being closely monitored.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, how will the Minister resolve the potential conflict of interest which will happen under privatisation? As I understand it, under the existing system it is to the benefit of the water authorities to encourage people to conserve water, whereas under privatisation, especially with meters, they will be paid according to how much they sell.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, under a condition in the model instrument of appointment, the Director General of Water Services will receive information on the levels of service provided by the water supply companies. That information will show whether it is necessary to augment sources. The provisions of the Water Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable the director general to protect the interests of consumers by ensuring that adequate water resources are provided.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in view of the fact that there has been scarcely any snow in Scotland, will the Minister say what steps, if any, are being taken by Scottish water authorities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that Scotland does not present a serious problem at the moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is there any truth in the reports that a water grid is to be constructed between the French and British mainlands to assist the French water companies to sell more French water?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, certainly not to the best of my knowledge.

Parole System: Carlisle Report
2.41 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have reached any conclusions regarding the report by Lord Carlisle of Bucklow on the parole system in England and Wales.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has invited those interested to comment on the report by 10th March. We shall consider the position in the light of the comments which we receive.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that I am relieved to know—if I understand his Answer correctly—that an article by Sarah Helms in the Independent on 24th January to the effect that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, had been found to be unacceptable to Ministers and had been shelved is incorrect? Does he agree that the report proposes a more equitable combination of custody and supervision in the community than the present parole scheme and is likely to reduce the prison population and the rate of re-offending? Are those not strong arguments for accepting at least those parts of the noble Lord's report?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the article to which the noble Lord refers is one which I myself have not read. However if it gave the impression which the noble Lord received, it was in error. The report has not been shelved; we are considering it. We have invited comments before deciding exactly what proposals to

1357
put before Parliament. The proposals which my noble friend has made make a difference to the existing custodial and release systems and the effects have to be considered.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the committee, which I had the honour to chair, found that many of the criticisms which led to the setting up of the committee by the Home Secretary were fully justified? It was our unanimous view that if confidence—particularly judicial confidence—is to be restored in the parole system those proposals should be implemented at the earliest possible moment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can fully understand my noble friend having a somewhat proprietorial belief in his proposals. We shall consider them and see what should be done about them. I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining that the doubts we had about the system in the first place were confirmed. He would be the first to understand that before introducing any radical changes, even after such a distinguished report as has been received, we need the comments of others.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, has just said: that both Parliament and the Home Office will undoubtedly derive benefit from a debate on the issue in this House? Although debates are matters for the usual channels, is the noble Earl aware that we have been pressing for one through the Government Chief Whip? I hope that as a result we shall soon have some indication that we shall be able to debate the contents of an extremely important report.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained, he is only too well aware that this is a matter for the usual channels. If he has been unsuccessful in pressing my noble friend then I can only suggest that he should press him a little harder. I have no doubt that my noble friend has heard with accuracy what the noble Lord has said, but I cannot guarantee that there will be a debate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has a proprietary interest in his report, will he acknowledge that all of us who are interested in prison and parole matters share the feeling of proprietorship? Will the Minister therefore please assure the House that after the consultations have taken place to which he very properly and understandably referred, it is likely that the Government's response will be sooner rather than later?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, always enjoys asking difficult questions. I can assure him that there will be a response from the Government. Whether it is sooner or later than the noble Lord wishes must be a matter for him to decide when the announcement is made.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the frequency with which the subject of parole has been raised in this House, would it not be a handicap for the Government if they did not have the advantage of hearing a discussion of the Carlisle Report in the House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that the Government could only benefit from a discussion about my noble friend's report. I am bound to reiterate that when the discussion will take place is not a matter on which I could pontificate. But I have no doubt that my noble friend the Chief Whip has heard the observations of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as well as those of the noble Lord, Lord Harris.

Namibia: UN Forces
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the number of United Nations forces required to implement Resolution 435 in regard to the independence of Namibia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we support the recommendations in the United Nations Secretary General's report of 23rd January, which were approved unanimously by the Security Council on 16th February.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister tell us why the United Nations force is to be reduced from 7,500 to about 4,500? It was considered that 7,500 was the appropriate figure at the time when Resolution 435 was passed. Is the noble Lord aware that already, before these elections take place, there is mobilisation of pressure groups, lobby groups and propaganda groups? They are led by South Africans and by the South African administrator general within Namibia. That could lead to a very ugly and probably unfair situation when the elections take place unless there is thorough supervision by the United Nations.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we agree with the Secretary General that the proposed reductions to which the noble Lord refers will not prejudice the smooth and efficient implementation of the plan. The Secretary General has retained 7,500 as the ceiling for UNTAG's military component and has increased the number of police and military observers. The terms of the United Nations plan provided that actual numbers deployed should depend on the United Nations Secretary General's assessment of the current situation on the ground.
As regards ensuring fairness of elections, I am aware that certain allegations have been made. Implementation of the plan is a matter for the Secretary General himself. We know that he and his staff are doing their utmost to ensure that the elections to be held are both fair and free.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that if the Secretary General makes an appeal for further forces to secure the borders and to ensure that fair elections are carried out, Her Majesty's Government will support the action and seek to persuade our allies and friends on the Security Council to agree to increase the number of troops? Furthermore, can the noble Lord tell the House the position with regard to the withdrawal of South African and Cuban troops from the area? Is the withdrawal proceeding as it should?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that of course we accept that the Secretary General must be given the resources he needs to fulfill his mandate. If genuine problems arose, we would consider promptly and sympathetically any request made by the Secretary General. The South Africans have significantly reduced police levels in the territory and have disbanded the counter-insurgency police unit. They have also undertaken to reduce the combined strength of the South African defence forces and the South-West African territorial forces to 15,000 by 1st April. That is quite encouraging.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, what about the Cuban forces? Have they been entirely withdrawn from the area?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there was an agreement that that should be the case. As I understand it, if they have not already gone they are well on the way to going.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the present administration in Namibia has done rather well in the difficult process of getting out from under Resolution 435? That resolution must rank among the most idiotic efforts ever put forward by the United Nations. As a result of antics under Resolution 435, the United Nations blue beret in Namibia has much the same effect as a red muleta in a bullring.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly do not agree with the noble Lord in either of those suppositions. Security Council Resolution 435, dated 29th September 1978, is more or less brought into effect by the later Resolution 632 of 16th February, which describes precisely how it should operate. We should support them both.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Cuban forces have not gone, and that the agreement is that they will be withdrawn some time after 1990?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was not aware of that fact put in quite the way the noble Lord has addressed it. But I shall certainly examine the position.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of the United Nations peacekeeping force is British? Is he aware that some of us on this side of the House at any rate are delighted that we have some forces to send?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the element that we are going to provide is a signals unit. Initially it will consist of a group of about 70; later, I believe, that group will consist of 162 members. They will fly out on Friday.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister tell both sides of the House that Cuban forces have never been in Namibia? Cuban forces were in Angola, not in Namibia. The Minister has not answered my original Question. Why is it that a decision has been taken to reduce the forces from their original complement? I think back to the time of the Rhodesian election in 1980. I recognise that in Namibia 70 per cent. of the population live in rural areas, but 94 per cent. of the population is black. The South Africans have promoted that small section of the community which is white, who were the poor Afrikaners sent there by Smuts many years ago. They are now organising themselves to resist the conclusion of United Nations Resolution 435. Why has that been done?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the recommendations of the United Nations Secretary General were based on the observations of a United Nations reconnaissance team which visited Namibia and were also made in the light of the positive developments in the region which have taken place since 1978, notably the agreements of 22nd December reached between Angola, Cuba and South Africa.

University of Glasgow Veterinary School
2.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are examining the consequences of the proposed closure of the University of Glasgow Veterinary School.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the review of veterinary education chaired by Sir Ralph Riley was commissioned by the University Grants Committee. It has been issued for consultation. It will be for the Universities Funding Council, which replaces the UGC on 1st April 1989, to take decisions on the report's recommendations in the light of the comments received.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Does he agree that the cramped accommodation which is occupied at present by the school can be rectified and should not be a reason for removing what is widely regarded as a centre of excellence?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the review looked for a suitable site in Scotland for a veterinary school with an intake of up to 85 students. It judged that expansion might more easily be achieved at the Bush estate in Edinburgh. Moreover, the report noted the wide range of other relevant research associated with the University of Edinburgh.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am already on my feet.
Noble Lords: Lord Mackie!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I was up first.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I think for once the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, was a little quicker on his feet.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his sense of fair play. Is the Minister aware that there is a serious shortage of British vets? Is he further aware that there is an increase in the number of vets coming to this country from Europe and that therefore any threat to close either Glasgow or Cambridge veterinary schools can only exacerbate an extremely serious situation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has a point there. In my last answer I was purely stating the views expressed in the review. That in no way implies that the UFC will either accept or reject those views.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Glasgow veterinary school has 35 acres available for development on a single site? Is he further aware that, with regard to the school being a centre of excellence, it has the largest amount of commissioned research—£15 million worth—of any veterinary school in the United Kingdom? All the evidence points to the fact that the development of Glasgow would be of infinitely more value and probably cheaper than the development of a joint school at Edinburgh.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure that point will be taken into account by the Universities Funding Council.
Lord Blease: My Lords, as no university courses in veterinary education are available in Northern Ireland, is the Minister aware of the acute consequences for the 130 Northern Ireland veterinary students competing for places in Great Britain, if this proposed closure of the University of Glasgow veterinary school takes place? Is the Minister further aware that about 30 Northern Ireland students obtain places at the Glasgow University veterinary school which is considered more suitable to the veterinary training needs of Northern Ireland as regards students' travel, financial arrangements and other arrangements? Will the Minister give his earnest attention to this matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of the numbers quoted by the noble Lord, as he was kind enough to let me have that information earlier today. I shall certainly make sure that the Universities Funding Council takes that matter into account too.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1979 the number of veterinary surgeons in the state veterinary service has gone down by 23 per cent., that the inspection of abattoirs for animal welfare and for hygiene purposes has gone down by 15 per cent., and that we now have a European Community draft regulation which is intended to remove frontier controls on the movement of livestock and meat? All that is likely to increase the demand for veterinary work. With all that in mind, should we not now consider an increase in the supply of veterinary practitioners, as opposed to the closure of the veterinary schools at Glasgow and Cambridge?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that question is slightly outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. I can only repeat that all these matters will be taken into account by the UGC before it makes a decision.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Glasgow veterinary college carries out some very important work on the AIDS virus and has a worldwide reputation? What will the world think if this very famous school closes?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is obviously a consensus of views in the House this afternoon. I am sure that the UFC will read the exchange with great interest.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what is the difference between the roles of the Universities Funding Council and the University Grants Committee? He said a moment ago that the University Grants Committee was to make the decision. If it is to make the decision it will have to do so on 30th March when it holds its last meeting. What is the role of the new funding council in this matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps I made a mistake. I said in my original Answer that the review was commissioned by the University Grants Committee. The process of consultation is going on at this moment and should be completed by the end of March. It will be for the Universities Funding Council, which replaces the UGC on 1st April, to take a decision on the report's recommendations. No doubt that will be done at the first appropriate moment.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, was the committee appointed by the UGC because it was short of cash? What was the reason? Does the Minister agree that the phrase, "and the scope for rationalisation", in the committee's remit was asking it to make cuts?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord why the Riley Report was commissioned. I do not have that information with me.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the noble Viscount's attention to the wording of the Question, which is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are examining the matter and

1363
presumably, whether they have any views. He has mentioned many other bodies but has said nothing about the position of Her Majesty's Government. Since it is universally recognised that that particular school is a centre of excellence, are we to assume that Her Majesty's Government have no interest whatsoever in the survival of a centre of excellence?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the report was not commissioned by the Government but by the University Grants Committee, as I have already said. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made use of the consultation period for making his views known to the chairman of the UGC, Sir Peter SwinnertonDyer, who explained that no conclusions have been reached on the substance of the report. Other of my right honourable friends have also made their views known.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that veterinary science departments are the most expensive per student of any in the universities, even including medical schools, and heaven knows that is saying something? Is it not reasonable therefore that two veterinary science departments within 30 miles or so of each other should become a collaborative enterprise? Whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, perfectly reasonably argues, the centre should be in Glasgow rather than Edinburgh I leave to the judgment of those who know Scotland better than I. Nevertheless, does the noble Viscount agree that such amalgamation is in line with the policy of trying to rationalise expensive departments and that the elimination of the veterinary science school at Cambridge is one example of that?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, whether or not I agree, I believe that it would be unwise of me to make any comment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, further to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is it not the case that the closure of the veterinary schools at Glasgow and at Cambridge would reduce the number of veterinary schools in Britain from six to four? In the present circumstances is it not placing too great a burden of responsibility on the new Universities Funding Council to leave the decision with the council? Should not he and his right honourable friends in the Government decide to take part? In view of 1992 and the single market and all the implications of the Channel Tunnel, is this not a great national issue which is too great for the UFC to decide?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord has a very good point. I have already said that my right honourable friends have taken part and are taking part in the debate. However, it will still be for the UFC to come to a decision in due course.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with the greatest respect, that is an inadequate and rather contradictory reply. Is the Minister now saying that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, in concert with the Minister of Agriculture, who is also closely concerned with the
1364
matter, will take the decision and that it will not be left to a subsidiary body such as the UFC?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords. I have said that it will be a decision for the Universities Funding Council having taken into account all the consultation that has been taking place in the past two months, including the exchanges in the House this afternoon.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is not correct in assuming that I wanted to concentrate the two Scottish schools in Glasgow? Is he further aware that if one puts two good schools together the result will not necessarily be as good as the original two?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think that I should act as referee.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the questions we have heard imply that the Universities Funding Council is likely to be irresponsible in arriving at its decision? Are there any grounds for implying that?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not know what is behind some of the questions put this afternoon. The Government have complete faith in the ability of the Universities Funding Council to take the right decision after due deliberation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not like to pursue the matter, but the noble Viscount will be aware that it is stated in the education Act that the Universities Funding Council has an advisory role to the Secretary of State. A number of the questions are motivated by the desire of many of us to ask the Secretary of State to fulfil his duty and look after the national interest. Will the Minister convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State—and I think that he has already said that he will—that we expect in cases such as this that he will take decisions in the national interest?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, last year in the course of consideration of the Education Reform Bill your Lordships' House decided that universities throughout Great Britain should be funded through the Universities Funding Council. The Scottish sub-committee of the UGC has been invited to comment on the report. We hope that the Scottish committee of the new council will be given the same opportunity before the council reaches a decision.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister saying that there is no way in which Parliament is able to question or challenge the decision of the Universities Funding Council? The way in which university education develops is a matter of great concern: surely we have a right to ask questions and receive answers.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is exactly what has been happening this afternoon.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 11 [Assisting in retention or control of terrorist funds]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 15, at end insert—
("Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a lawyer from accepting money in respect of his costs.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitate to give the impression to the House that the amendment I am about to move involves professional self-interest. It does not. It relates to the position of somebody who is charged with being in possession of terrorist funds. Clause 11(1) of the Bill covers other matters relating to improper connections with terrorist funds. I shall use shorthand for the purpose of the amendment and talk in terms of possession of terrorist funds.
Unless we clarify the position, somebody charged with being in possession of terrorist funds could be refused legal aid because he would be returning possession of funds. That would in all likelihood disentitle him to legal aid. The lawyer he approached for advice would have to say that he could not act for him because he had been charged with being in possession of terrorist funds, which probably covered all that he had. The lawyer could possibly be committing a crime himself if his costs were paid from terrorist funds. In those circumstances the man has no chance of obtaining proper legal advice.
I am sure that that is not the intention of Clause 11(1). However, the Law Society authorises me to say that it is anxious about the position. That is why I have put down the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will acquit the noble Lord of moving an amendment in which he has not only a proprietorial interest but also a financial one. The question is whether Clause 11 would penalise a solicitor who received his costs from his clients from what turned out to be terrorist funds. I know that that alone would acquit the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of any financial interest.
The noble Lord feared that the solicitor would be committing an offence and that the money could be forfeited. I think that those fears are unfounded. The offence is concerned with an arrangement whereby another person's control or retention of funds is facilitated. The solicitor himself could not be committing that offence by simply receiving his costs. If anyone is to be convicted in those circumstances, it would be the client—if indeed the money were terrorist funds. But the money could not be forfeited in any proceedings under Clause 11 if the solicitor were able to satisfy the court that it would not be used for terrorism. There is full protection for third parties in those circumstances under Clause 13(5) of the Bill. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that his fears are unfounded.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I noted that the noble Earl said, with his usual modesty and moderation, that he thought my fears were unfounded. Is he
1366
saying categorically that the fears are unfounded? If that is what he is saying even though it is not written in the Bill, I do not propose to take up the time of the House any longer, but it would help me if he would care to revise the words with which he opened his remarks.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House, I can only say that I cannot possibly tell the extent of the noble Lord's fears. However, I can say that my belief is that—The noble Lord shakes his head, but he has asked me an impossible question. He has asked whether I can say that his fears are unfounded. I do not know what his fears are. I can only tell him that what I believe to be his fears are in fact unfounded and that a solicitor who gives professional advice is entitled to be paid his costs. Only the funds that belonged to another person would have to be forfeited, but a solicitor is entitled to his costs.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thought that I had expressed my fears in the wording of the amendment and my reasons for it. However, I do not intend to take up the time of the House any longer. I interpret the Minister's remarks to mean that the amendment is unnecessary because it would be perfectly proper for a lawyer, without committing any offence, to do what I was trying to cover in my amendment. With that assurance from the noble Earl—his assurances are always accepted by the House with great favour—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Clause 14 [Arrest and detention of suspected persons]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert ("A circuit judge (or in the case of Scotland a sheriff)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, 12, 14, and 20 to 24, which, as noble Lords will see, take up most of the amendments on the Marshalled List.
It will be recollected that when we last debated this measure the Committee endeavoured to wrestle with the trying problem of a case called In Re Brogan and Others. Perhaps I may be permitted to tell the House, in just a few words, what that decision was about.
The European Court of Human Rights dealt with a case in which a man accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act had been kept in custody by the authorities for a period of seven days or more. That had happened without the person so detained being charged and without any judicial process taking place in which he was or could have been a party. In view of an intervention made on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, let me make it abundantly clear that that court, which, as I humbly reminded him, is a court of justice—we were signatories to the Convention on Human Rights—absolved Her Majesty's Government from any culpability with regard to the breach of the convention concerning the period of detention. The seven-day period was not in itself

1367
objectionable in the conditions provided for under the convention.
As regards the court, the sole matter at issue in that context was that no judicial process had been brought into existence, so that for a period of up to seven days the man was held in detention without charge. That was purely an executive act carried out by the Secretary of State.
I ventured to put before the Committee an amendment which made it obligatory to go ex parte before a magistrate or, in the case of Scotland, a sheriff. The amendment provided that a constable, or someone of a rank above constable, should have to go ex parte before a justice of the peace or, in Scotland, a sheriff and explain on oath why he wanted an extension beyond the 48 hours, be it for the remaining five days to make it up to seven days, or whatever. The judicial process would thus be fulfilled.
My amendment ran into criticism which, I am bound to admit, was justified. The first criticism took the form of a plea by a noble Lord whose wife is a magistrate and who, on her behalf—as I understood it—said that she would be quite incapable of understanding an application of that kind. I am sure that the noble Lord underestimated the intelligence of his wife who is no doubt a very able justice of the peace. However, it was said that this was too important a matter for a justice of the peace.
The other criticism was that the matter should not be dealt with at as low a rank as constable. So I went away to think and received some considerable assistance to my thoughts from the very worthy organisation known as Justice. Noble Lords will know that many eminent lawyers serve on that body. They produced an amendment which went back to the idea of the magistrate and the constable, but they worded it in a very much better and more comprehensive way than I had done in my original amendment.
However, bearing in mind those two criticisms—I shall deal with a third criticism in a moment; namely, that it should be a higher judicial authority than a magistrate and a higher rank than a police constable—I put down within the framework of Justice's amendment an amendment which noble Lords will have seen on the Marshalled List. It provides not for a magistrate but for a circuit judge, or, in the case of Scotland, a sheriff. It also provides that the person swearing the information and making the application should be of at least the rank of inspector of police.
I thought that I had then covered the two main criticisms, but there was a third criticism which came, most understandably, from the Minister. The burden of his complaint about the amendment—I do not in any way say that he otherwise accepted it—was that the difficulty that the Government faced in dealing with In Re Brogan was that one did not want to reveal to the person concerned the evidence that had so far been adduced by the authorities or show him the gaps in the evidence that might so far have been revealed in the process of examining a detainee.
I have tried hard, together with Justice, to get over
1368
that difficulty, as your Lordships will see in this amendment, by providing that the information which has to be laid before the circuit judge (and the application of course is one of which the accused will have notice and at which he will be entitled to be represented) are (a) the grounds on which the person to whom the application relates has been detained—that merely is answered by, "He is suspected of being a member of a terrorist organisation", or whatever, or being in possession of arms or documents by way of propaganda of which he should not be in possession; and (b) the reasons for believing his continued detention to be necessary.
I have limited the information to those two points. The reasons for believing his continued detention to be necessary are quite obviously matters that do not affect the authorities in regard to their finding out whatever they wish to find out. All they have to say is, "We want the man to be detained for a further period of so many days because he has so far failed to reply to any of the questions we have put to him. He has been non-co-operative", or whatever may be the case. I hope that I have dealt with the lacunae in the amendment that I put to the Committee at the previous stage.
Noble Lords may wonder why I am putting this down at Report stage when the Minister has said that the Government were considering this matter. It required much consideration and the Government had not yet made up their mind. I shall tell the House frankly why. At the very outset, at Second Reading of this Bill in the other place the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill talked about the difficulties that faced the Government and his department with In Re Brogan in regard to derogation from the convention. He said in so many words—but I assure the House that I accurately paraphrase what he said—that this was obviously something that must be dealt with before the Bill left that House. Then the Secretary of State—I have no doubt for good reason—made it known at the very last stages of the Bill that he was not in a position to deal with In Re Brogan or the question of derogation generally before the Bill left the other place and that it might very well be, and indeed I think he almost certainly stated that it would be, that the matter would not be dealt with before the Bill hopefully became an Act and was on the statute book.
That cannot be right. The situation of In Re Brogan was known when the matter came before the European Court of Human Rights. That is not a process by which a hearing takes place in a couple of weeks. The difficulty was known for a considerable period. The obligations under the convention, to which we are a signatory, were known ever since we signed it. The provisions of this Bill were well known for quite a while to those who are responsible for the Bill now coming before your Lordships' House.
To leave the matter in vacuo is wrong for the following reasons. First, your Lordships are entitled, in my humble submission, to say that you will not allow this Bill to leave this responsible House without tackling a problem which is part and parcel of this Bill and all that it provides for, namely, the right to detain in certain circumstances, which all of us acknowledge must be there—the courts acknowledge

1369
that that is perfectly right—without providing for a proper judicial process. This House above all Houses in my view is entitled to know that we are not lightly in breach of a convention and are not lightly in derogation of a solemn convention into which we have entered.
For the life of me I cannot see why thoughts in March 1989 are any less good thoughts than they will be in May, June or July 1989, after all the consideration that could have been given to this matter, and the consultation that could have taken place in Ireland and elsewhere. It is because of my feeling, first—and I put it this way with humility on behalf of those I represent on these Benches, but I believe in other quarters of the House too—that when we have a responsibility as legislators we fulfil it and we meet problems head on and try to solve them and do not just delay them. Secondly, I do not think that the House lightly wishes to take a derogation from a solemn convention. Thirdly, if it does nothing else, this amendment makes the Government say what is wrong with an amendment which now fulfils the conditions which I did not fulfil last time in the view of some of those who spoke at Committee stage; namely, the rank of the judiciary to decide this matter, the rank of the police officer who lays the information, and, lastly, the shield—in so far as one can supply a shield—with regard to the detainee being given information that he should not be given in the interests of the authorities which are trying to protect us under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as we are at Report stage, and as I have been involved to a small extent in discussions in your Lordships' House on previous Bills and renewals of the previous Act, I should apologise for having been absent from the earlier stages of this Bill. That arose through absence abroad and through illness at home.
We should all be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for bringing forward this series of amendments. Since the case of In Re Brogan I have been in correspondence with the Secretaries of State in both the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office on this precise matter. I further wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about this question of review of such cases by a judge rather than the Secretary of State himself. The noble Earl was kind enough to say in his reply that he thought what I had suggested was worthy of examination and I am grateful to him for that.
It seems to me to be a great improvement if we can have a judicial review rather than an executive review. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has taken a great deal of trouble to get right the exact procedure. It would be helpful if in replying the Minister could tell us the effect of this amendment in terms of numbers of days during which a person can be detained without charge. There may be an initial period of 48 hours. Then we have heard mention of five days. Does that add up to seven days, or could it perhaps be longer? The European convention, as interpreted by the court in the case of Brogan, put the limit at about five days. Obviously one hopes that the period during which people can be held without charge can be kept to a minimum, but at the same
1370
time one recognises that elaborate police inquiries may have to be made that may involve the police forces of more than one country or jurisdiction. Having said all that, perhaps I may support as strongly as possible this series of amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly on this amendment. On the last occasion I was not persuaded that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was right. I did not like the idea of justices of the peace becoming involved in this process. The noble Lord has taken account of my concern and that of others by introducing the circuit judge, which is a major improvement. If the Government are to act on Brogan, as I very much hope they are, I consider that in many respects the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is probably the approach that the Government will have to adopt. I take that view because I can seen no other way in which one could take account of the decision of the European Court without moving in the direction of an ex parte application of the kind that the noble Lord has recommended in the amendment.
On the last occasion I said that I thought that there were problems associated with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I also recognised that these are immensely difficult questions. I consider that they require very careful thought indeed, otherwise our response to terrorist operations could be endangered. However, I found the noble Earl's reply at the end of that debate very persuasive. He may recall that I asked him whether he could indicate if the Government would announce their decision by the Summer Recess which gave the noble Earl the opportunity to say that he very much hoped so. But noble Lords will recall that he gave no such undertaking. I found his reply rather depressing.
My noble friends and I have gone through the Lobbies with the noble Earl on every occasion there has been a Division on this matter. We have supported the Government, rightly in my view, in their determination to maintain the exclusion order provisions and we are firmly in favour of the right of detention for periods of up to seven days. But we also take the Brogan decision extremely seriously. I hope that the noble Earl will give us some reason to hope that the Government are moving towards a decision in this matter and that it will be announced very soon to Parliament.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has put down this amendment: on the same subject as he did at Committee stage. The noble Lord has struggled with the problem which besets us all. He has genuinely tried to find a way round it and for that I am grateful to him. He has admitted that there is a problem, which indeed there is. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, agrees that it is an immensely difficult problem. I do not want to underestimate the size of it nor would I wish to give to your Lordships the feeling that the Government are not taking it seriously or are dragging their heels over coming to a decision.

1371
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had suggested that there would be an announcement before Second Reading. What he said was:
"We can decide to derogate under the convention in respect of the exercise of these powers, as provided for in Article 15 of the Convention; or we can introduce a judicial element into the procedure…the [European] Court recognised the difficulties of judicial control over decisions to arrest and detain suspected terrorists."
My right honourable friend also said that the Government are examining the problem with an open mind. He said:
"I shall bring forward our proposals, as the House is entitled to expect before the Bill leaves this House."—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/88; col. 211.]
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is entirely right and justified in drawing attention to what my right honourable friend said. He said it in good faith thinking that it would be possible.
When it came to trying to decide exactly what should be done and the negotiations and discussions which would have to go on, the problem became more difficult. On the 22nd December my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said:
"In the time available since the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment on 29th November we have begun work on these difficult issues and have entered into discussions with the judiciary…these have persuaded us that a further period of reflection and consultation is needed before we can bring forward a firm and final view. We will, of course, inform the House as soon as that view is reached."—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B; 22/12/1988; Col. 235.]
That is what the position has been since the Bill was in another place. I should inform your Lordships that a great deal of care and attention is being given to the problem. We have not yet found what we believe to be the correct solution. The reason is that when a recommendation is made like this my right honourable friend the Home Secretary cannot just say that we will alter all our procedures. We have to find a way round this and have proper negotiations. It is only when we come to the correct result that it is proper for the Government to make their proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, there must be a great deal of care about it because this Bill is against terrorism. If we come to the wrong conclusion and as a result do not manage to restrict terrorism in the way the Bill provides, then we shall have made an error.
I ask the House to wait until my right honourable friend, with all the expertise and care at his disposal, is able to bring forward a recommendation before we put something into the Bill. It is perfectly possible and I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to put something into the Bill. But if we did that and then found in retrospect that it was wrong, we should have made an error which might turn out to be against our efforts against terrorism.
I make this point just for clarity. The description by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of the Brogan case was not quite accurate. The men were not detained for periods of seven days or more. Two were detained for just over six days and two others were detained for just over four days. The maximum period of detention under the existing law and under Clause 14 is seven days in all; that is, two days and then up to
1372
five days more with the authority of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he asked me at Committee stage whether my right honourable friend would be able to make a statement by the Summer Recess. I understand his desire. I should like to be able to say yes, he will, but I cannot give an undertaking as to time. It may be before the Summer Recess. This matter is being given a great deal of effort and attention. It would be difficult and probably foolhardy if I were to say that I can guarantee that my right honourable friend will come up with a decision by a certain date. I ask your Lordships to bear with me and understand that this difficult subject is giving my right honourable friend considerable cause for thought.
I explained at Committee stage the difficulties which stood in the way of our coming to Parliament with a response to the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had made. I find it difficult to say when my right honourable friend will be able to produce his response. I cannot say today when that response will be brought forward, but I assure your Lordships that all those who are concerned with this matter are treating it with considerable urgency and importance. We are endeavouring to resolve it as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, outlined the effects of his amendment, as he always does, with great clarity. Under his amendment there would be a court hearing, but it would not be in open court. The detained person would not be present at the hearing but he could be legally represented. The police would have to give the judge the grounds on which the person had been detained and the reasons why they believed continued detention to be necessary. Those reasons would be made known to the detained person or to his representatives.
There are difficulties with such a scheme because, for example, the information which is then available to the police may not be of the kind that they can reveal, even in the restrictive setting envisaged by the amendment. They are precisely the kind of difficulties that we are examining.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is generous and understanding. When I say that they are the kind of difficulties that we are examining he will realise that that is so. If the police are to give to the judiciary the reasons why they wish to detain the person further, they will also have to give to his representatives knowledge which they do not wish to release. They would not wish to release that information because they are trying to curtail terrorism.
I regret to say that today I am unable to be more helpful to the noble Lord and to the House than I was in Committee. The debate has served to highlight the difficulties which we face in introducing a judicial scheme for extending detention. I shall ensure that my right honourable friend is seized of the concerns which your Lordships have expressed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I should like to ask a question about numbers. Under previous Acts the number of people detained for more than 48 hours has been small and, in the

1373
nature of things, it is likely to remain small even when this Bill is enacted. Does the Minister therefore agree that the number of cases likely to arise can be dealt with by one judge sitting in chambers in Belfast, plus one other judge sitting in London on occasions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a matter of detail. The principle is important. The principle which I have tried to explain to your Lordships—and it is one that causes concern—is that under the amendment it would be necessary to explain not only to the judge but also to the defendant's representatives the reasons for requiring further detention. As soon as one has done so, one has released to the representatives of the detained person information which is vital.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there are very few occasions on which I have felt sorry for the Minister. The reason why the occasions have been so few is that his ability and courtesy are so well known to this House that one finds him to be a most formidable spokesman for the Ministry that he decorates.
On this occasion I am sorry for the Minister because the ineptness which the reply appears to show in the Government's ability to think, consider and consult is manifest to all Members of your Lordships' House.
I repeat that the Government have been aware of this matter ever since they signed the convention. I am not here to make it easy for any terrorist. I am here, together with my noble friends—and I know that I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and his noble friends—in order to do everything that we can to assist the Government to apprehend terrorists and ensure that they face justice. The accent is on justice and fulfilling the obligations into which we have solemnly entered.
I could understand consideration being given to the problem between the time when the matter first went to the European Court of Human Rights and November when the Home Secretary spoke. The noble Earl was kind enough to quote his words on Second Reading. The Home Secretary then said in definite terms that this was a problem (derogation or the other solution) which would come before the other place before the Bill left that place.
That forecast for thinking and action by the Government was not kept. Let us say that it was not kept for good reason. There was the interval between then and the matter coming before your Lordships' House. The matter was raised on Second Reading and still there were no thoughts from the Government. The matter was raised again in Committee and a constructive amendment was tabled before your Lordships, however defective. One hopes that the defects have been remedied and this amendment on Report is the result.
What is the problem faced by the Government? It is perfectly simple. Do you derogate, in which case one faces the issue? From these Benches I am not saying that we should not support the Government in such a decision. At the moment I take no view on the matter because I have no ability to do so on behalf of my party. I say here and now that the matter would be given sympathetic consideration because a
1374
decision had been reached. We should say, "There are provisions for derogation, we take advantage of those provisions and we derogate. We are not a Government who fumble about with human rights and come to no decision. We are not a Government incapable of taking legal advice and knowing what our procedures are within a matter of months. We have reached a decision".
Alternatively, it is a judicial process. What other judicial process is known to any of us, other than to go before the lowest form of the judiciary? In saying that, I intend nothing derogatory of that worthy band of justices of the peace, but they happen to be the lowest form of judiciary. We rise above that to a circuit judge, who is the only alternative. If it is said that it cannot be a circuit judge but it must be a High Court judge which is what the Government say, we should consider what other alternatives there are.
The Government dither and say, "In regard to the Bill, let it go through. The European Court does not know the answer even yet. No one else knows the answer to the problem. We do not have it yet. We in the United Kingdom cannot make up our minds as to whether we want a judicial process or whether we derogate". That must be wrong.
As a measure of protest, if nothing else, against the dithering way in which this vital matter is being dealt with, and with no undertaking from the Minister in answer to the frank question again put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I have no alternative but to divide the House.
3.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 149.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fitt, L.

Amherst, E.

Flowers, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Attlee, E.

Galpern, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Glenamara, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L

Bottomley, L.

Grey, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Grimond, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Hughes, L.

David, B.

Hunt, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Dickinson, L.

Hylton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ely, M.

Jacques, L.

Ennals, L.

Jeger, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ezra, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Falkland, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Killanin, L.

1375

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Rochester, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Listowel, E.

Rugby, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Russell, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Seebohm, L.

McCarthy, L.

Serota, B.

Macauley of Bragar, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McNair, L.

Stallard, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stedman, B.

Mayhew, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mellish, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Northfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ogmore, L.

Underhill, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Willis, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winstanley, L.

Raglan, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Fortescue, E.

Allerton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Alport, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Arran, E.

Goold, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Atholl, D.

Greenway, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Bauer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blatch, B.

Harvington, L.

Borthwick, L.

Havers, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brookes, L.

Hives, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Holderness, L.

Burton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caldecote, V.

Ironside, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jessel, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Killearn, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Chelwood, L.

Kitchener, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Knutsford, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Liverpool, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Long, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Loudoun, C.

Cox, B.

Lovat, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Luke, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lurgan, L.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Manchester, D.

De Freyne, L.

Manton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller. ]

Margadale, L.

Dulverton, L.

Marley, L.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Middleton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

1376

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Norfolk, D.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Norrie, L.

Selkirk, E.

Northbourne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Shannon, E.

Onslow, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Orkney, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strange, B.

Pender, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Suffield, L.

Porritt, L.

Swansea, L.

Portland, D.

Terrington, L.

Quinton, L.

Teviot, L.

Radnor, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Reay, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Renton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Renwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rodney, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Romney, E.

Wise, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wolfson, L.

St. Germans, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.56 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Provisions supplementary to s.14]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, line 45, at end insert—
("(10) Section 61(1) to (8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (finger-printing) shall apply to the taking of a person's finger-prints by a constable under subsection (9) above as if for subsection (4) there were substituted—
"(4) An officer may only give an authorisation under subsection (3)(a) above for the taking of a person's fingerprints if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to assist in determining—

(a) whether that person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 applies; or

(b) whether he is subject to an exclusion order under that Act;

or if the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that person's involvement in an offence under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section and for believing that his fingerprints will tend to confirm or disprove his involvement."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8, 11, 25 and 26 are linked together. The Government have brought forward these amendments in response to concerns expressed in the Standing Committee in another place about the criteria for the taking of finger-prints from persons detained under the Bill. The right honourable Member for Warley West suggested that the powers for finger-printing terrorist suspects could without much difficulty be brought closer into line with those in Section 61 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. My honourable friend the Minister undertook to consider this suggestion further. On reflection we agree that this would be a very reasonable addition to the Bill. Your Lordships will see that there are separate amendments to Clause 15 and Schedule 5, dealing respectively with detentions under Clause 14 and detention at ports. In each case the effect is to apply Section 61 of the 1984 Act, with necessary modifications. There are, in addition, two consequential amendments, to Clause 28 and Schedule 8. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, to show how much more reasonable I am than the noble Earl, I agree with his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Commencement and duration]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 18, line 17, leave out ("and 28 to 30") and insert ("28 to 30 and 33K').
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9,10,16,17,18 and 19 are all grouped together. Your Lordships will recall that we introduced into the Bill at Committee provisions to cope with insolvency and forfeiture. We have brought forward a number of amendments to these provisions, mostly of a technical and drafting nature. Although they are not all linked, it may be for the convenience of the House if they are considered as a group.
The most important of these amendments is Amendment No. 19. The provisions currently in Schedule 4 do not give insolvency practitioners in the islands, or a country which has been designated under the Bill, the same rights to deal with property which would otherwise be subject to a forfeiture order as an insolvency practitioner in the UK. We believe this could cause difficulties when we come to negotiating with other countries on terrorist finance. Amendment No. 19 puts this right. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are dependent upon this.
Amendment No. 16 is a technical amendment, which makes appropriate provisions in insolvency cases in Scotland, and also corrects drafting defects in respect of England and Wales. Finally, Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are purely drafting. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope the House will not think that I am out of order in raising a point concerning the insolvency provisions which is not definitely in line with the amendment itself. The point has a relationship—I am trying awfully hard to bring a relationship into existence—in the sense that insolvency practitioners from another country are to be put into the same position in certain respects as insolvency practitioners in this country. Therefore, one is entitled to speak for one moment about the position of insolvency and insolvency practitioners in this country.
In Committee I ventured to utter a doubt as to whether the Committee and the Minister were not allowing in the original provisions of the Bill, as amended in Committee, the sort of activity in an insolvency that none of us would want to see. In other words, where funds are forfeited and handed over to an insolvency practitioner, in the event of the bankruptcy of a terrorist or someone assisting a terrorist and having in his possession terrorist funds, one can imagine all sorts of possibilities which are not particularly pleasant.
First, if one makes the position in insolvency a rather easier one for the expenditure of terrorist funds on improper purposes that would be opposed by all of your Lordships, and indeed by myself. Therefore, what is to stop somebody who is in that
1378
position declaring himself to be insolvent as a result of the claims made and the forfeiture that has taken place? Then, in the process of the insolvency, all kinds of spurious claims could be put forward to the insolvency practitioner who may or may not owe a duty to the Government and who may or may not owe a duty to bring the matter before the courts. Brothers, cousins and nephews—all of us who have practised the law have known enterprises of this kind—come forward by way of being creditors, having lent money, being owed money, and so on.
Therefore, in Committee I asked whether we were giving more protection than we intended in the case of terrorist funds. I knew that the answer would be that this is exactly the same as we provided for in the case of drug funds; if I may use that expression. There is a difference. A creditor in regard to someone carrying on business may well not know that the person concerned is in fact also carrying on the heinous business of trafficking in drugs. He may be a genuine trade creditor who falls for the idea of someone who owns a very wealthy-looking car or who occupies a wealthy-looking house. We are dealing with people of that nature. We are dealing with a person acting as a channel for terrorist funds or who is holding terrorist funds, and so on. I should have thought that that is a very different situation. So I raised the matter and the Minister courteously said that it was an important point and that he would like to have an opportunity of considering what I had said.
With his usual grace the Minister has written to me in the intervening period. I know I have his permission to read out a portion of the letter that is relevant. It is very short and states:
"We had indeed thought about this in preparing these amendments. Such a creditor"—
he is speaking of a creditor who may be an agent for a terrorist organisation—
"would obviously have to identify himself to the insolvency practitioner. Since the assets for distribution in the insolvency include property in respect of which a forefeiture order was made under clause 13 of this Bill, a creditor with terrorist connections will be taking a big risk if he comes forward. He may well be committing an offence under the Bill. The insolvency practitioner will under clause 12 be able to disclose the matter to the police and, if they have good reason to be suspicious, they can draw on the powers of investigation in Schedule 7 in order to ascertain the facts and to institute proceedings if necessary.
I hope this is helpful."
I know that the Minister was endeavouring to be helpful and I am grateful to him for his kindness in writing to me. But I am not happy. I referred to this in Committee. I am not happy, first, because this does not cover the relative, the great friend who comes forward with an IOU, and so on—the insolvency practitioner who is in no way supervised under this Bill by anyone acting on behalf of those who forfeited the original funds. I am unhappy, also, that there is nothing which presumably allows the Government to have any further rights in regard to admitting claims to this money, which may well go back into terrorist hands. As I understand it, there is no way of dealing with the funds so forfeited after the money has been handed over to the insolvency practitioner whoever he may be, however patriotic he may be, however skilful he may be and however much he may or may

1379
not want to bring in the police or other authorities. I know that he would have to be a professional man and I hope therefore that he would act with due propriety.
I have no amendment before your Lordships. All I am doing on this occasion, because I am genuinely worried about what could be a gap, is repeating something, possibly in more detail than I did in Committee at rather a late hour, so that my remarks are on record. I hope the Government will see fit, before the Bill reaches its Third Reading, to produce certain safeguards so that the money, when passed to the insolvency practitioner, can still have the finger upon it of some government representative or other authority to see that nothing improper is done with the money and, if there are still claimants, that the insolvency practitioner has to account, as it were, to the forfeiting authority. Obviously I want to give the Government the opportunity to bring forward such safeguards between now and when the Bill is passed. That is the sole reason why, I hope helpfully, I have raised the matter on this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for explaining his concern. He raised an important point in Committee. I have considered it and I thought that my answer was helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he thought my answer was helpful, because I thought it was too. I understood the problem, so I thought, which is not easy when dealing with insolvency matters. I am sorry that the noble Lord remains unhappy. I could hardly say that his unhappiness is misguided because that would be churlish, but I do not think that it is substantially founded. However, I will read what the noble Lord said and I will again write to him after further consideration.
It is important, however, to make this point. If a person comes up as a creditor in an insolvency case he is perfectly entitled to go to the practitioner and say that he is owed money. If in fact that person is not a bona fide creditor but is a terrorist he would be subjecting himself to interrogation because the practitioner would want to know why he was owed the money. If it transpired that he had exposed himself as a terrorist the insolvency practitioner would be obliged to tell the police. Therefore, it is unlikely that a person who is a terrorist supporter will actually go to a practitioner and ask to have back funds which he knew were of terrorist origin in the first place, because that is the reason why they had been taken.
If the police suspect that money may go back to the terrorist they can forbid the transaction and seek restraint. The insolvency practitioner can take the directions of the court under various provisions in the Insolvency Act 1986. I shall certainly read what the noble Lord has said. I am quite prepared to believe that I am wrong and if I am I shall write to the noble Lord and try to clear up his doubts.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am much obliged.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 18, line 20, after ("provisions") insert ("or different purposes").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when discussing the previous one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Short title and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 19, line 36, leave out ("Part I of Schedule 4 extends") and insert ("section 15(10), Part I of Schedule 4 and paragraph 7(5A) of Schedule 5 extend").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Supervision of Detention and Examination Powers]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 26, line 31, leave out ("intention to deport") and insert ("a decision to make a deportation order").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Forfeiture Orders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 34, line 41, leave out ("such property") and insert ("property to which the forfeiture order applies").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 19:
Page 47, leave out lines 41 to 48 and insert—
("(6) In any case where—

(a) by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above any property ceases to be subject to a forfeiture order in consequence of the making of a bankruptcy order or an award of sequestration, and

(b) subsequently the bankruptcy order is annulled or the award of sequestration is recalled or reduced,

the property shall again become subject to the forfeiture order and, if applicable, any ancillary orders.
(7) If any property referred to in sub-paragraph (6) above is money, or has been converted into money, then—

(a) the court which ordered the annulment, or which recalled or reduced the award of sequestration, shall make an order specifying, for the purposes of paragraph (b) below, property comprised in the estate of the bankrupt or debtor to the amount or value of the property in question; and

(b) the property so specified shall become subject to the forfeiture order, and any applicable ancillary orders, in place of the property in question.").

Page 48, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert—
("(iii) by any person appointed or directed to deal with any property by an order under paragraph 11(1) above; and").
Page 49, line 23, leave out ("the Insolvency Act 1986") and insert ("the 1986 Act").
Page 49, line 33, at end insert—
("Insolvency practitioners in the Islands and designated countries
33A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for securing that an Islands or external insolvency practitioner has, with such modifications as may be specified in the order, the same rights under this Part of this Schedule in relation to property situated in any part of the United Kingdom as he would have if he were an insolvency practitioner in that or any other part of the United Kingdom.
(2) An order under this paragraph may make provision as to the manner in which, and the conditions subject to which, an Islands or external insolvency practitioner may exercise the rights conferred under sub-paragraph (1) above; and any such order may, in particular, make provision—

(a) for requiring him to obtain leave of a court as a condition of exercising any such rights; and

(b) for empowering a court granting any such leave to impose such conditions as it thinks fit.

(3) An order under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases.
(4) The power to make an order under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and, in relation to property situated in England and Wales, shall be so exercisable with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In this paragraph—
"Islands or external insolvency practitioner" means a person exercising under the insolvency law of a relevant country or territory functions corresponding to those exercised by insolvency practitioners under the insolvency law of any part of the United Kingdom;
"insolvency law" has the meaning given by section 426(10) of the 1986 Act, except that the reference to a relevant country or territory shall be construed in accordance with this paragraph;
"relevant country or territory" means—

(a) any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man; or

(b) any country or territory designated as mentioned in paragraph 10, 20 or 30 above.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Port and Border Control]:
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 24 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 54, line 20, at end insert—
("(5A) Section 61(1) to (8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (finger-printing) shall apply to the taking of a person's fingerprints by a constable under sub-paragraph (5) above as if for subsection (4) there were substituted—
"(4) An officer may only give an authorisation under subsection (3)(a) above for the taking of a person's fingerprints if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to assist in determining—

(a) whether that person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 applies;

(b) whether he is subject to an exclusion order under that Act; or

(c) whether there are grounds for suspecting that he has committed an offence under section 8 of that Act." ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 were taken with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Consequential Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 67, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) In section 61(9)(6) after "(b)" there shall be inserted the words "except as provided in section 15(10) of, and paragraph 7(5A) of Schedule 5 to, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act I 989,".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 5 [National membership scheme: contents and penalties]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
("(aa) for its implementation in stages, following an investigation and report by the administrator on the best method or methods of achieving a phased and orderly introduction of the scheme;").
The noble Lord said: The grouping means that we need not spend much time on Amendment No. 44. That amendment, along with Amendments Nos. 65, 86, 87 and 89, were included with the paving amendment, Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List, when we opened the Committee stage. As a formality at this stage, I beg to move Amendment No. 44.
Lord Hesketh: I wish to say a few words before we pass on. I accept that this amendment and the other amendments, Nos. 65 and 86 to 89, follow on Amendment No. 1 which stood in the name of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and on which the Committee has already voted. Naturally we shall not object to their being moved formally today.
However, there has been some confusion about the precise effect of this group of amendments. It may be helpful if I set out briefly our understanding of the position. It is our belief that taken together these amendments make the phasing of the scheme compulsory. This is not the moment to debate the issue, but I believe that the Committee would like to be aware that I intend to discuss this point further with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, with a view to bringing forward amendments at the Report stage which give effect to what I believe were expressed as the wishes of the Committee; that is to say, that the Secretary of State should be obliged to consider taking into account advice from the administrator whether there should

1383
be a phased introduction of the scheme but that it should not be mandatory for him to implement the scheme in stages.
Furthermore, Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 have repercussions for the Bill that go much wider than the proposals that they can have intended. In bringing forward amendments on phasing we shall need to consider what to do about these amendments too.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I believe that my noble friend is saying that, if the words mean what I interpret them to mean, he does not find them in any way unacceptable. He has a feeling that he might be advised that the words will not mean what I have interpreted them to mean. I am as convinced as ever that my interpretation of the words is as I explained at an earlier stage. I shall be delighted to meet my noble friend to discuss any details as to an actual word that will come to mean the same thing. Beyond that, I believe that accepting the amendment at this stage would be the best way of proceeding.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In the short speech that the noble Lord has made I do not believe that there is much doubt as regards what Members of the Committee were voting on on the last occasion. I am mildly mystified that anyone has any doubts concerning what we voted on. I very much hope that an attempt will not be made through the processes of negotiation to negative the effect of the decision which the Committee took on the last occasion. I must warn the noble Lord that we are extremely watchful and suspicious about what is going on.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is helpful of the Minister to speak as he has done. He has not spoken in an aggressive way. I believe that he has given voice to what was said after the Committee stage—certainly in another place—by some of his ministerial colleagues. What is most unfortunate is the gloss and the interpretation that have been put on by his ministerial colleagues immediately after the passage of the amendments.
When the Minister dealt with this matter at the Committee stage he had no doubt about it. He said on 20th February at col. 413:
"These amendments seek to make mandatory the phased introduction of the membership scheme".
That was his view, which I respect. It was put to the Committee, which rejected his advice and supported the amendments.
I note very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said. We are not at the stage where we are literally scrapping about. We are trying to make progress through the Bill and to get it out of this Chamber and into the other place. The Bill will be something that will run and run. If the Minister is to have consultations with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and his political colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I have no objection to that. As he knows, I have offered myself for consultations at any stage that may be suitable to him in order to discuss the generality of the amendments and to see whether there is any common ground.
I wish to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are mindful of the fact that, though it is
1384
hoped that the Bill will be non-political, some people may see political significance in various victories and defeats. The only aspect that will suffer victory or defeat is the name of football, and the people who support it. I very much hope that all Members of the Committee who take part in these debates will bear that very much in mind.
Lord Brightman: When I heard the debate on 20th February my clear impression was that the intention of the amendment was that the staged introduction of the scheme was to be discretionary and not mandatory. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said at col. 402 of the Official Report of 20th February:
"My amendments insist that when other considerations are taken into account they bear in mind the possibilities of the advantages by applying the regulations in sections. If they with their special knowledge and all the information that they will receive from their inquiries say, 'It is a nonsense and we believe that these measures should be implemented together and it would cause harm to do otherwise' then I am not altering their powers".
If the amendment stands as drawn, the staged introduction will be mandatory and not discretionary because the clause will read:
"The scheme must include provision for its implementation in stages".
I suggest to the Committee that, to carry out the intention of the amendment, the clause should read:
"for its implementation in stages, if thought fit".
It would then be clearly discretionary. Had I spotted this point in time I would have put down an amendment to the amendment. But as I did not, I felt the appropriate course for me to take was to say a word on the matter and to perhaps lay down a marker which could be picked up at Report stage.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble and learned Lord has raised a consideration which I thought would be left until we had completed the Committee stage. The question of whether or not the scheme can be deemed to be mandatory must take into account the final powers of the Secretary of State. The noble and learned Lord will find nothing in the amendment which in any way interferes with the final powers of the Secretary of State. It can mean only that both he and the special committee must take into account the possibility of it being beneficial to apply the scheme in stages rather than as a whole.
My noble friend made his offer with good will and I should like to think that he wants to arrive at the same conclusion as I do. We want the words in the Bill to mean what we think they mean. After our discussions I am certain that we can provide for that. At this stage I feel that it would be better to approve the amendment as debated with the first amendment and see what develops from that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: There has been a great deal of public misapprehension about the amendment that was passed in Committee on 20th February. Shortly after that, to give one example, I had a debate on television with the chairman of Luton Town Football Club, who is a Member of another place. The whole discussion was based on the assumption, until I tried to correct it, that the amendment laid down that Parliament was to insist that the scheme

1385
would be introduced division by division. No reading of the amendment that we passed could legitimately be interpreted in that way.
I hope that with this amendment, which stresses the function of the administrator and of an investigation, the public belief that that is what we were trying to force through on 20th February will be destroyed and that the real purpose of that amendment and of this one—to open up the whole matter to investigation before implementation—will be seen to be what we are asking the Government to agree to.
Lord Hesketh: I should never be able to exemplify as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has done the position the Government have taken on the matter. I would not even attempt to do so. I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls understands that this is done with the best of intentions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sure that we are all reassured about the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, and I look forward to the outcome of the discussions. I noted that the noble Lord warmly welcomed what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, although what the noble and learned Lord said was exactly the opposite of what the noble Lord said during the Committee stage of the Bill. The noble Lord said at col. 413 of the Official Report of 20th February:
"These amendments seek to make mandatory the phased introduction of the membership scheme…They would make it a requirement on the Football Membership Authority to investigate and report to the Secretary of State into ways of achieving this. Amendment No. 65 would provide that, as part of this process, the Football Membership Authority would have to examine basing the phased introduction of the scheme on the criteria of ground capacity, present club membership",
and so on. What we have is the Minister warmly welcoming the speech of the noble and learned Lord, who is saying precisely the reverse of what the noble Lord said.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, of course. The noble Lord's words have only to be examined for one to recognise that there is a total contradiction in the position. However, there are to be discussions. We wish them well, but I repeat that we shall look carefully at the outcome to see that the Government are not trying to negative a clear decision of this Chamber.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before we proceed, the Minister may wish to consider carefully that, although properly the dicussions will take place with those whose names were attached to the amendment, it might be for the benefit of the Committee and of the Bill if he widened those discussions to include one or two others whose views might be helpful. I leave that suggestion with the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of descriptions of person specified in the scheme in such circumstances and subject to such concitions as are so specified;").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 61. Clause 5 covers some of the detail with which the FMA will have to deal. It lays down that the scheme must include certain provisions. Another part of the clause says that the scheme may include other provisions. Amendment No. 45 seeks to move subsection (3)(c) from the part of the Bill where the scheme may include other provisions to the part of the Bill where the scheme must make provisions. That is a crucial point.
What the football authorities and the FMA say will make very little difference because the Secretary of State will have powers under the Bill to accept, amend or reject any scheme which is put before him. He will also have power to dismiss the FMA or to change it. As with many pieces of legislation, at the end of the day it is not Parliament but the Secretary of State who is all powerful.
What does my amendment seek to do? It is worth taking a little time to explain it because it is a linchpin on which other aspects and other amendments lie. The amendment says:
"providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of descriptions of person specified in the scheme in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as are so specified".
The Minister will take no exception to that drafting because it is a straight pinch from subsection (3)(c) on page 4 of the Bill.
We are moving from the discretionary into the compulsory. In other words, when the FMA meets we want to see it make provision for a range of categories of people. The Minister may very well say that he takes no exception to that, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State has the stop-gap of being able to accept, reject or amend any aspect of the scheme when it is put to him.
At this stage I should like to remind the Committee that the Minister, in what he has said in another place, has rested very heavily as have his ministerial colleagues here, on the report of the working party of the Minister for Sport. So we have a scheme which at the moment makes no exceptions, but the Minister has said—and I certainly accept his word because what he said in this respect makes sense—that the case could be advanced for exempting some categories of people from the obligation to be a member of the scheme.
So what we will be doing for some considerable time, is arguing and, I hope, persuading the Minister in some instances, perhaps by force of argument or by weight of vote, to put on the face of the Bill that certain categories of people who currently are treated no differently from anyone else, ought to be removed from the obligation to be a member of the scheme.
I should like to turn to page 11 of the Minister's working party report. This is a paragraph which I think sets it all out. Paragraph 14 is headed "Exemptions from Membership," and reads:
"The working party believes that consideration of possible exemptions from membership should start from the premise that exemptions should be allowed only if there is a very good reason for them and if arrangements can be made to ensure that they do not create an unacceptable loophole in the scheme."
I certainly accept that, although the Minister and his supporters may very well use the argument that any break in the totality of the scheme will provide loopholes. We already have the assurance of the Minister that he could see a break in the scheme for certain categories.
So I hope that I have at least persuaded the Committee that this amendment is crucial. We do not want this to be left to the FMA. A great deal is left to the FMA. What we want to say to the FMA is that we want a scheme which includes exemptions for a number of categories, always against the background that noble Lords opposite may very well ask, "What does that mean in reality?" I am saying that if the Secretary of State does not like what this House does by trying to exclude certain categories, and if the FMA produces a scheme for that, then the Secretary of State will amend the scheme accordingly.
This is one of a number of matters on which noble Lords will have an opportunity to express an opinion. That is the way in which I shall be asking noble Lords to move on a series of amendments. We raised earlier in this Commitee stage the point that when the Secretary of State has approved the scheme he should bring it back to Parliament and have it approved or disapproved by the House. The Government do not like the possibility of Parliament saying to the Secretary of State, "You have got it wrong". So we are saying to the Secretary of State, "If you do not trust Parliament, will you trust the good sense of the FMA, the people on whom you will be keeping a close eye, the men and women, primarily from the Football League and the Football Association, who will be on the FMA?"
We are asking him to trust those people who know football better than any Minister or perhaps any other person in this Committee. They are the people whose livelihood depends upon football, who have worked for it, who have played for it and who are involved in it. Not least, there are the supporters. We are asking the Secretary of State to accept from the FMA that there are certain exemptions from the scheme that are sensible.
I have not sought to argue about exemptions perse, but they are all laid out. Some of them are approved obliquely by the Minister's working party, though some are not. But whether or not this amendment is accepted, we will still be arguing the case for the exemptions. This amendment seeks to put a little more stiffening into the possibility that those exemptions will be carried into effect. I say that mindful of the debate we have already had about what was meant by the earlier amendments.
It is quite clear that there is a long way to go in getting the Bill through this House and through another place. Even after that, when the FMA is
1388
established and the Secretary of State begins to work, there will still be a long way to go. But I am inviting the Committee to approve this amendment, because for the first time this House is saying to the Minister and to the FMA that there are groups of people who ought not to have to bear the burden of paying money, of having an obligation and perhaps of being guilty of an offence which could lead to a term of imprisonment, when by trying to get into a ground they are proved to have not been in possession of a valid card, etc. There are many groups of people who, in my view, ought not to carry that burden. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: As my noble friend said, we are here dealing with the whole issue of exemptions and it might be worth just having a general debate about this issue, because it goes to the heart of the complaint that a number of us were making when this Bill was last before the Committee, that we are not clear what is the Government's thinking about this matter. I remember all the issues that were raised last time of foreigners, of Scotsmen, of Irishmen living in Manchester and goodness knows what, and of the possible chaos that all this could cause, unless exemptions and requirements for membership of a scheme were made clear and the Government's thinking was announced in advance on the issue.
I speak, as I did last time, about the Wembley situation. This is crucial to this amendment. I want first to make clear, which was not made clear on the last occasion, that Wembley was not consulted in the drafting of this Bill. I find that incredible, and even more incredible because the Minister was asked quite directly by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton at col. 449 of the Official Report of 20th February:
"Has Wembley been consulted? What are its views? Once the Bill becomes an Act, will the FMA and the administrator have the power to devise their own scheme"?
When the Minister came to reply—I saw him take advice on it, to be as helpful as he could—all he said at the top of col. 451 was:
"Wembley Stadium are keen to see that sensible provisions are made and the discussions between them and my right honourable friend will continue with the formation of the FMA".
That was not an answer but it was indirectly, and I am sure unconsciously, misleading. It seemed to indicate that there had been real discussions with Wembley. I can say that there have not been, as I understand it from the general manager of the stadium. This is quite incredible, given the breadth and depth of the problems that Wembley will have to face. I am very sorry that the noble Lord did not make more clear when he replied to the debate that there had not been real consultations with Wembley. However, let us go on from that point.
The Minister himself, at an earlier point on 20th February, had made clear that in respect of Wembley there would be need for a considerable number of exceptions. He said:
"In particular, it is not realistic to expect everyone attending an international match in this country, including foreign nationals supporting their teams, to join the membership scheme. We accept that international matches raise unusual issues. There is not only the problem of foreign nationals living abroad and visiting this country for the match. I understand that a significant proportion of those who

1389
attend international matches at Wembley may be people who never go to domestic matches".
The Minister was building up his own case and saying that there would have to be a number of exceptions. He then most intriguingly said:
"This does not mean that everyone attending a match will be required to join the scheme. It does mean that if there are to be arrangements for people to attend such matches other than as members of the scheme, those arrangements must be as secure as possible".—[Official Report, 20/2/89; cols. 443–444.]
The Minister said that there would have to be exemptions and so I join my noble friend in saying that they should be mandatory. We should all know in advance that places such as Wembley will be protected and will not have to carry out some straitjacket of a scheme—those are not my words; they are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, who I am sorry is not here today because I shall refer to what he said on the last occasion—without some exemptions and an understanding of the problems that will occur.
The Minister listed some of the people who visit Wembley—the foreign nationals visiting this country, and the people who do not attend any other matches. There are the guests of Wembley who include the Royal family. Do they have to be members of a scheme to get into Wembley? Do not they need to be covered by some mandatory exemption? It is one of the great occasions of the year. All kinds of people who are not members of the scheme go. They are welcome, and they adorn the proceedings at Wembley. Furthermore, there are the people who own boxes at Wembley who never go near the pitch and can therefore never create a disturbance. The heart of the Bill's intentions is to prevent disturbances. The owners of boxes and their guests will also have to be exempt. I could continue with the list.
There should not just be a mandatory subsection relating to exemptions; the Government should now tell us what is in their mind so that Wembley—which, I repeat, has never been consulted—will know what is in store for it and can begin to make realistic plans.
I come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I repeat that I am sorry that he is not here. I supported him at the previous Sitting of the Committee, when he said that the Government should introduce some escape means into the Bill. The Government should say that there will be locations and occasions when it would be best to allow a locally agreed scheme to take the place of the Bill. I make the simple point that Wembley is capable of reaching agreement with the police and the local authority as to the means of controlling what happens at that ground. Wembley is doing its best to build up that relationship. In view of all the complications that will arise in exempting so many people, would it not be better to have an escape clause of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley? It should be something which allows some locations, once they have a good local scheme, to escape from the straitjacket, as he called it.
The Minister might say that that all could be done under the Bill as drafted, because of course under Clause 1(2) the Minister will have to designate the places to which the Act will apply. That subsection provides:
1390
"'Designated football match' means any such match of a description for the time being designated for the purpose of this Part by order made by the Secretary of State or a particular such match so designated".
Subsection (3) provides:
"An order under subsection (2) above may designate descriptions of football matches wherever played or when played at descriptions of ground or in any area specified in the order".
Will the Minister say that Wembley could be considered as never being designated by using the power contained in Clause 1? We should all then be out of trouble and Wembley could produce its own sensible scheme in consultation with the local authorities and the police. I am asking the questions that we all asked last time. Please may we have some clarification of the Government's thinking, because until now places such as Wembley have only been able to see chaos on the horizon?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Perhaps I may jump from Wembley to Dunfermline. About 45 years ago I attended a match at Dunfermline Athletic. I lived there and supported the local club. I was pushing a pram in which was my nine-month-old son. This is the right age to start to learn about football. I am aware that Dunfermline is in Scotland and therefore does not come within the terms of the Bill; but, as we are talking about the principle of exemptions, I should like to know whether, when I come to be pushing a pram with my great-grandson in it—I should now be more likely to be pushing a pram at Carrow Road, Norwich—he will need to have a membership card.
What has been unforgivably neglected by the working party, and in what has been said on behalf of the Government in this place and throughout the country, are the efforts that have been made by numerous football clubs to clean up hooliganism inside and around their grounds. I shall refer, first, to a club which I mentioned at a previous Sitting of the Committee—Manchester United.
There was a time when I, as a supporter of Manchester United, was ashamed of the record of the Manchester United fans. Today, I can go to Old Trafford with my grandson—I am still waiting for my great-grandson!—in absolute safety. One reason for that is that Manchester United, like other clubs, has opened family enclosures. They bring people into the ground. I remember going to Old Trafford on the Saturday before Guy Fawkes day. The club had brought firemen and people dressed in fancy uniforms to talk to the children about the dangers of firework night. That is one example, but it is not the only one. Many football clubs have deliberately set out to become family centres. The family enclosure method has been widely adopted. If I take my grandson to Old Trafford under the scheme, he will have to have a membership card. There are many families where a son and daughter go to matches on alternate weeks. If the family is large, has every child to have a membership card?
I turn from Old Trafford to the club which I now support, having moved to Norwich—Carrow Road. Norwich City is a club with a family atmosphere. Every Saturday when Norwich City is playing at

1391
home, I sit not among the old -fashioned football fans with whom I grew up, with the cloth caps, pipes and walking sticks. I sit among families; mothers, fathers, sons and daughters of all ages. I have seen no trouble whatever.
The important issue which we are debating is whether there shall be the principle of exceptions. Those exceptions have been listed and I wish to persuade the House that many of the clubs whose matches I have attended—I do not know them all—have recognised today that hooliganism could be fatal to football. It has been very largely driven out of their grounds.
As I said at the previous Committee stage, hooliganism could increase outside the grounds if frustration was caused by the use of the membership card. But inside the grounds there are places for certain categories of people such as the disabled. In my experience, every Football League ground in this country has a place for the disabled. Does anybody suggest that the disabled will create violent trouble? Football grounds are now attracting more and more women and children—girls as well as boys.
Is there not then a case for an age-limit? Is there not a case for gender exceptions? Although some of us have been accustomed at rugby grounds to female streakers, I know of no football ground where any female has been involved in violence. Therefore on the principle of the exceptions laid down in the amendment I should have thought that both common sense and a knowledge of football supporters in the country today would lead us to take into account the valiant, constructive and social efforts which most clubs in the country have undertaken over the past few years. Therefore the least the Government can do is what my noble friend Lord Graham suggested—to make it mandatory that there should be exceptions. We can discuss the details of the exceptions later. But there is no doubt in my mind that those of us who are football supporters know that there must be exceptions if the Bill is not to ruin the support which association football has in the country.
The Earl of Onslow: I think it was Groucho Marx who once said that he did not wish to be a member of a club which would accept him as a member! I feel that I am slightly in that position because I actually agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I am totally on the side of my noble friend on the Front Bench in that I believe the object of the Bill is to isolate and prevent as much as possible the extraordinarily unattractive hooliganism which has attached itself to football matches. For want of a better word, I shall call those people who commit the hooliganism the "yob classes". That is a fairly commonly used expression.
It seems to me that there will be a certain amount of inconvenience in buying one of the membership scheme identity cards. Therefore we should excuse all members of society who are not by their nature members of the yob classes. I do not think that any Members of the Committee will know my Great Aunt Thea, who is 100 and ipso facto she cannot be a member of the yob classes. Therefore as an old-age
1392
pensioner she should not have to buy an identity card.
I wrote to my noble friend last week asking him in advance whether he could find out the number and type of people who had been convicted of football hooliganism offences and who were not males between the ages of 15 and 40. I strongly suspect that every single football hooliganism offence has been committed within that age group. Therefore it would seem eminently sensible that those people should be forced to buy an identity card. It seems infinitely less sensible to force my great aunt, my nephew, my niece or any women to do so. I am outrageously sexist here because on the whole women are not aggressive, except when they bend your ear because you have just come into the house with dirty shoes or something similar. But that is different; it is just housepride. It seems to me silly that old men should be forced to have a card because normally they have had the aggression knocked out of them years before.
If the Government want the scheme to work—and I should like it to work—it should be confined to all 92 Football League clubs, not to the England-France or the England-Scotland international matches. There should be no exceptions for the league. The scheme should be confined to those likely to commit the offence. It is unfortunate to inconvenience people against whom no charge has been laid; by all means inconvenience the group of people against whom a charge has rightly been levelled. That is why I support some form of exception and that is why an amendment is down in my name to confine the scheme to those people. However, there should be some form of exception, which must be a universal group exception, not an exception on the grounds of place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in support of his amendment was very well placed and strong. I should have added my name to it since he added his name to my amendment if I had not satisfied myself that Clause 5(3) already deals with the matter as he would have wished. The subsection says:
"The scheme may make provision"—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: "May".
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I shall deal with that. The subsection says that the scheme may make provision for people who are not members of the scheme to be allowed in. I prefer "may" in that subsection for this reason. I do not think that Parliament is the right body to lay down the detailed description. The people to do that will be the special committee which we are setting up and which will have an expertise that we do not possess. They will be able to take all the circumstances into account and I should expect them, with their special knowledge of the practical organisation of football grounds, to know those who should be excluded from the scheme and those who ought not to be excluded.
Our decisions will be pretty much hit and miss. Some will favour the disabled having a special dispensation; others children under 10 years old; and yet others women, and so on. The chances are that sections in all those categories could at some time or

1393
another be a problem. That is why I believe that the expert committee should lay down the details of who will be included or not included in the scheme.
I was impressed with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in support of his amendment. If he has the opportunity to continue the discussion on it, I wish him to tell me how it would differ from Clause 5(3), apart from the "may" and "must". Does it mean that he does not agree with me that the specialist committee ought to have the power eventually to make the vital decision as to which people should be exempt, if we are to allow exemptions? The clause already makes such a provision.
5 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I wish to support the amendment. A person who does not normally attend football matches will not know whether a particular ground has made such a provision, or whether it has decided not to. If it turns out that he has gone to a ground that has not made the provision, under subsection (2) merely attempting to get into the ground would render that person liable to an offence.
Lord Hesketh: This is the first in a series of amendments dealing with the possibility of exemptions to the national membership scheme. I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I take this opportunity to set out the Government's general position on exemptions and on the way in which the Bill should deal with them. Before I do so however let me say at once that it is my intention to accept Amendment No. 45.
But we must put the question of exemptions in its proper context. People are not going to achieve a great advantage if they are exempt from the scheme. Membership of the scheme is not a burden. It is a means of ensuring that everyone who goes to football matches in future can do so without fear of violence, and without being subject to obscene or racial abuse. It is the law-abiding spectators who will be the members of the scheme. The only people whom we really want to exclude from membership of the scheme are soccer hooligans. They are the people whom we want to keep away from football grounds, and excluding them from membership of the scheme will achieve that objective. This is a crucial point. Membership of the scheme will confer real benefits on those who enjoy it. Their membership cards will be read quickly and efficiently by the electronic readers at the turnstiles—with the right technology in place. If the clubs take a positive approach to membership and market it effectively—as some clubs with existing membership schemes do now—members may become entitled to discounts at local shops, to other commercial opportunities; and to information about the club itself.
But, above all, members will enjoy the benefit of being able to watch a football game in peace because the hooligans have been excluded. The Government have always accepted that there were practical reasons for certain limited exemptions from the membership requirement of the scheme. That is why we included what is presently Clause 5(3)(c) of the
1394
Bill. But there is no benefit in seeking to exempt large categories of people from membership if the categories are drawn too widely. We run the risk of creating loopholes through which hooligans, perhaps people who have even been banned from membership, can sneak their way in. We also create a whole new problem of checking that people who claim to be exempt are who they say they are. I hope that my noble friend Lord Onslow will forgive me if I mention his Amendment No. 53 in this context.
I am not suggesting for a moment that there will be a serious problem of checking that women are women, but his amendment also proposed to exempt men aged 40 or over. If we had such an exemption, a club would have to check that everyone who claimed to be over 40 was over 40. People would have to provide evidence of their age. That would be a much more certain route to long delays and confusion at the turnstiles than our proposals which, with the appropriate technology, will lead to no additional time being taken up in entering the ground. As I said earlier, we accept that there is a practical case for making certain limited exemptions. But it is not in the interests of those for whom exemption is needed that the net should be drawn too widely.
I turn now to the amendments which the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Mishcon, have proposed. I have said that I accept Amendment No. 45. It moves the paragraph already in the Bill concerning exemptions from the list of matters for which the scheme may make provision into the list of those for which it must make provision. This amendment leaves the question of who is to be exempted and all the details to be dealt with in the scheme itself. But it makes it mandatory that there should be exemptions. I am happy to accept this amendment and Amendment No. 61 which is linked with it.
The other amendments which the noble Lords have proposed on exemptions involve a very different approach. They propose that exemptions for a wide range of groups should be written into the Bill and offer detailed definitions of the groups to be exempted. I have accepted Amendment No. 45. I shall listen with interest to comments on the detailed amendments which we come to next. I do not believe however that it would be helpful to write into the Bill detailed definitions of the groups to be exempted. It will not help the Football Membership Authority in drawing up the scheme if we allow it no flexibility about the way in which the exemptions are to operate.
As the Committee is aware, the football authorities have said that they wish to take up the Government's proposal that they should run the Football Membership Authority. They are the people to make detailed arrangements in such a way as to allow for the range of circumstances of all the 92 League clubs. That should be done in the scheme and not in the Bill.
I am, however, willing to consider the possibility of an amendment to the Bill to refer by name, but not in detail, to the strictly limited groups for which the scheme will need to make exemption, subject to the terms and conditions to be specified in the scheme. I shall listen to the arguments to be advanced on the

1395
amendments to follow, and we shall consider the possibility of bringing forward an amendment of our own on Report. I should emphasise that we believe that the categories of exemption should be strictly limited and should be identified for practical reasons.
We shall consider the possibility of an amendment that would specify exemptions for disabled people in designated areas, recognising that some clubs have such areas for use by disabled people. It would be practically difficult for certain disabled people to enter grounds through a turnstile. We shall consider an amendment to specify exemptions for guests of the club to whom the club would issue temporary membership cards valid for one match only. The clubs would take responsibility for the guests.
It would be in the interests of the clubs to make sure that these arrangements are satisfactory. The licence that they will need to admit spectators to designated matches may be at stake if their arrangements are not satisfactory. Guests of the club could include, for example, organised school parties and foreign visitors. The terms and conditions of these exemptions would be left to the scheme, for the Football Membership Authority to draw up. But these are groups for which we accept there are good practical reasons for the exemptions. It is in this context that I accept Amendments Nos. 45 and 61.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We all welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the first of these amendments. It is always wrong to be difficult in circumstances of this kind. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, found it necessary to make a few observations about the merits of the scheme, I am sure he will not be surprised that it is necessary for some of us to comment on what he said.
Without trying to raise some of the issues which we had the opportunity of discussing on Second Reading, I must tell the noble Lord right at the outset that none of us on these Benches, and this applies to quite a few Members of the Committee sitting behind the noble Lord, really believe that there will be a massive change in the public order situation within football grounds as a result of the passage of this Bill.
I have already indicated that there is a very substantial number of senior police officers who share that view. Indeed, they go further. They say there is, in their judgment, a likelihood of increased public disorder outside football grounds as a result of the passage of this Bill. So much for that element of the argument. Will the noble Lord be good enough to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who raised a number of specific questions about Wembley stadium to which the noble Lord has not replied? I very much hope he will choose to do so because Wembley stadium is of course the ground on which our great national matches are played.
The Government have not thought it fitting to consult Wembley in any detail. I find that astonishing. A number of fundamental questions arise here, some of which were discussed on the first day of the Committee stage. Let me add another issue that was put to me by the Wembley stadium authorities. It is the question of the interface between this Bill and the Sunday observance Acts. As the
1396
noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will be aware, there is an obligation on Wembley stadium, when a match is played on a Sunday, to have a free gate. People have the opportunity of entering the ground without any form of payment. That is a statutory obligation. How will this requirement on Wembley stadium be varied to take account of the passage of this Bill? These questions could have been discussed between the Government and Wembley stadium months ago. But the Government chose not to do that. I think that is quite deplorable.
So much for the moment for Wembley. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to clear up some of those questions in a few moments.
I should like to ask him just one question. I was not clear what he meant when he dealt with Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. He said, and I agree, that it would be very difficult to make an exception for men aged 40. How would you be able to prove their age? However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, indicated, in most circumstances it would not be particularly difficult to determine who was a man and who was a woman. Was he indicating that he was prepared to consider the amendment of the noble Earl if it was redrafted? The number of women who are involved in riotous activities at football grounds is remarkably small. If the Bill is to be a serious piece of legislation rather than a meaningless public relations exercise, I very much hope that the Minister will give a clear indication as to whether the Government would be prepared to accept the noble Earl's amendment if it was redrafted.
I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated that they are prepared to accept this amendment and an amendment in relation to disabled people. I hope that they will go a great deal further in order to make the legislation far more sensible than it is at the moment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should like to begin by saying that the Minister has made a very good start in his response to the amendments which have been tabled. He has taken the steam out of what could have been a major confrontation.
He has referred constantly to his confidence in the ability of the Football Membership Authority to take right and proper decisions. Yet, under the Bill the Secretary of State, not Parliament, reserves the right to override those wise and experienced people if the decisions are not considered to be right.
The Minister accepts that there should be provision for exemptions from the scheme. Previously that was not mandatory, and in our view that is a major concession. We and those outside the Chamber will take some comfort from that concession. The arguments that we shall deploy in favour of writing those exemptions on the face of the Bill have not been dreamed up by individual Members of the Committee from all sides of the Chamber. They are based upon their own experience or have been put to us by those who seek to represent such groups outside the Chamber. It is not simply a question of 150 or 250 Members of your Lordships'

1397
Committee following the issue with a great deal of attention; millions of people outside the Chamber are examining, through the media, the Government's attitude to the Bill. The Government are entitled to see how the scheme develops but I should like to feel that in making the concessions which he has announced the Minister is listening very carefully and responding to what has been said in your Lordships' House and outside.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, wondered why the Minister had poured cold water on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. He recognised the difficulties in respect of the age limit. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 53C in the name of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon which addresses that issue head on. It refers simply to "female persons" who are spectators and thus removes one of the problems. When we come to debate that amendment the Minister will have an opportunity to give his views.
In relation to Wembley, I believe that the Minister is doing a gross disservice both to himself and his colleagues. He ought to be able to speak much more positively about the Wembley nexus. That point arises under Amendment No. 71, and it may be more appropriate at that stage for the Minister to say why he either accepts or does not accept the amendment—the Minister nods his head.
Our attitude towards the amendments is that in all instances we should be very happy to withdraw them in toto once we have made our case. We are obliged to make the case because there are people outside this Chamber who feel deeply about the matter. However, if the Minister were to tell us that there is a better way of achieving our objective or that he intends to bring forward a comparable amendment at a later stage we shall not press for a Division. I can see sense in the Minister wanting to consider further an all-embracing amendment which would not go into detail but would refer to a group of categories.
The Minister said that those groups could include the disabled, guests of clubs, foreign visitors and school parties. Ipso facto he is also saying that there are not likely to be other categories, although he has not ruled them out entirely. However, at the moment the Government's position appears to be that amendments which would allow exclusions from the scheme for such categories will be looked on with favour. We shall need to see how matters develop. All those amendments will be debated separately tonight and the case for them will be made. If the Minister says in connection with those amendments, as he said 10 minutes ago, that he intends to bring forward an amendment at a future stage, we shall not press the amendments. There would be no sense in doing so until we see what the Minister has in mind.
I believe that that is all we can say at present because the Minister has not so much taken the wind out of our sails—and that would have been a great achievement—but has pre-empted some of the strong arguments that we would have presented. If that is the spirit in which he intends to approach our attempts to make the scheme more acceptable, the Committee will be indebted to him and his colleagues.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the amendment is withdrawn I wonder whether the Minister can help us with the Wembley Stadium issue.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, if he felt that I had not covered the question of Wembley Stadium. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, because the reason why I did not cover the issue of Wembley Stadium was that I did not want all the amendments to be grouped together. That would have been the effect if I had tried to respond to all the amendrnents which will be dealt with later this evening in Committee. I did not respond to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, at that stage because I felt that the issue was dealt with under Amendment No. 71 and we might finish up debating all of the amendments in a rather loose and unorganised way within the first amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will understand the reason.
Lord Northfield: I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful and I accept what he said. However, I wonder whether he can see that that places me in a dilemma. If he refuses to accept Amendment No. 71, that means that we should have pressed him further at this point to say something more about exemptions.
If one looks at the list of people which the Minister, my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have said would need to be exempted at Wembley, and a scheme has still to be applied to Wembley, the situation is almost unmanageable. There will be so many exemptions that there will be a danger of chaos at the turnstiles.
The aim of the Bill, which is to keep out the hooligans, may well be frustrated by people who, if they do not have a card, learn how to work the list of exemptions to their advantage. It would be helpful for the noble Lord to say whether he accepts that all the people whom we have listed will need exemption or whether it is better, as he seemed to say, to try to name one or two places. He used the word "name" in his speech. He said that the Government would accept the naming of some possible exemptions, but I did not know whether he was referring to people or places. Is it part of his case that Wembley could be suggested for naming by the Committee?
Lord Hesketh: I could reply to Amendment No. 71 now, but we are in danger of getting ourselves into a difficult position and losing control of the order of events.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, the Minister, in answering the debate, mentioned what was in the Government's mind on the question of exemptions. He did not include the gender exemption. Is that a deliberate exclusion or one that he would now like to add to the list of possible—I do not say mandatory—exclusions? Is that in the Government's mind? Are they considering it as he said they were considering the other categories that he listed?
The Earl of Onslow: As this partly involves my amendment, I would much rather that we dealt with amendments in the normal way—namely, one at a time—rather than getting into a muddle. I believe that my noble friend has offered to answer everything as completely as possible, so let us leave matters in that order.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of persons holding a ticket of admission to the premises at which a designated football match is to be played, being sponsors or the representatives of sponsors of sporting events at those premises or the directly or indirectly invited guests of such sponsors in respect of whose behaviour those sponsors are made responsible;").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 46 concerns the first group of people who might wish to attend a match and whom I invite the House to exclude or exempt from being members of the scheme. The magic words in the amendment are:
"being sponsors or the representatives of sponsors of sporting events at those premises or the directly or indirectly invited guests of such sponsors in respect of whose behaviour those sponsors are made responsible".
Sponsorship in football is very big and important business. Certainly the larger, more powerful, wealthy and successful clubs perhaps enjoy and exploit it—"exploit" is a kind word—more than others. There is not so much sponsorship available for the smaller, less fashionable clubs. Nevertheless, there is, almost without exception, some form of sponsorship in all the league clubs.
Perhaps I may simply quote what Manchester United has said to me. Some people may say that Manchester United is not typical, but it is typical of what I call the large, successful clubs. In a document which I believe was sent to every Member of the House, it states:
"Football at top club level has long ceased to be merely a game. It is a multi-national business, a fact which is supported by the type of companies which use the 103 private boxes and executive suite areas which cater for over 1,000 patrons. Those responsible for entertaining clients from both home and abroad would not do so if the atmosphere in and around the stadium was anything like that described by certain sections of the media".
I believe that I am grateful for what the Minister said earlier, although I cannot be sure until I see his exact words. As I understand it, the Secretary of State could be sympathetic to action in regard to these cases in which a club or individuals can be seen to be responsible and to be taking the proper steps.
I am a director of the Enfield and St. Albans Cooperative Society, which is one of the sponsors of Spurs. As such, one might say that it is the prime contact in the matter. The people who go to matches as our sponsored guests are directors, employees and customers or members of the society. I should imagine that we are no different from anyone else. Having visited Spurs more than once—I do not want to say that I am a regular attender, but I have been there more than once; indeed many times—I cannot believe that those who have the good name of their company or group at stake and whose guests often go
1400
only on one occasion would want to do other than to make sure that their guests behaved—to put it in the vernacular—as impeccably as possible.
However the Minister cares to handle it and whatever he cares to say, I shall not press the amendment if he is able to say something to the effect that this is the kind of group that can be defined more easily than we have defined it. I honestly believe that this is a crucial element in considering the impact of the Bill on the viability of football clubs at the top level where sponsorship perhaps plays a greater part than further down the football club hierarchy. Even such clubs as Manchester United, Spurs, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal and others that are quite properly talked about as being in the top flight can be cruelly affected if there is disenchantment among those who use football matches in the same way as other sporting events are increasingly used. Bluntly, if those people who spend a great deal of money to entertain their guests find it irksome, difficult and sometimes distasteful to take their guests to a fine football match—they are not always local guests but may sometimes come from abroad—they will look for other less onerous means of extending largesse than attending a football match.
This is the type of amendment and group to which the Minister could very well nod his head. I shall understand if he does not wish to accept the amendment, but I certainly want to listen carefully to why he may believe that the type of group to which I have referred is not acceptable in any amendment that he may bring forward later. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I very much hope that the Government will indicate that they are prepared to accept not necessarily this amendment but one with a similar approach.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who was not a member of the Government at the time, of a past episode relating to this question. Some years ago the Government brought in an entirely well intentioned Bill to control the consumption of alcohol at football grounds. Much of the Bill was perfectly sensible but quite a bit was remarkably foolish, particularly the approach regarding executive boxes. On that occasion a number of noble Lord pointed out the disastrous effects that that could have on sponsorship by companies of some of the smaller football clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who then represented the Home Office, refused to make any concession and they were voted down. Subsequently the arrangements were changed following an inquiry into that and related matters presided over by a High Court judge.
I hope that we shall not go down the same path again. On that occasion I believe that we were right to say that there was no conceivable case for applying the law to executive boxes. People in executive boxes do not become involved in riots at football grounds. That was true then; it is even more true now. Therefore, if we are talking seriously, as I am sure we are, about a public order situation, there is no case whatever for insisting that there should be no

1401
exclusion for guests and the categories specified in Amendment No. 46.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to Manchester United. Two and a half weeks ago there was a midweek match at Manchester attended by 55,000 people. I asked the police how many arrests there were. The answer was two. They were outside the ground and they were drunks. That relates only to one match, but one of the biggest attendances at Manchester United this season. If that throws doubt on the sense of the broad approach of this Bill, as it does, it seems to me even clearer that the classes of people whom we specify in Amendment No. 46 should be excluded from the Bill.
What point is there in making guests of club directors, or guests of a commercial company that is sponsoring an executive box for the club, come into this bureaucratic nightmare of the Football Membership Authority and all the rest of it? It is a clearly defined category. These people give immense help to clubs in the Third and Fourth Divisions. It is a question not simply relating to Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur and so on but to some of the small clubs in the Football League. Those clubs in my view are likely to be seriously damaged by this Bill.
I urge the Minister to indicate that the Government are prepared to exclude this category of people. If he says that the amendment is not phrased properly, I am perfectly prepared—as I am sure is the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—to accept the point. If the Government accept our general approach in this matter, we shall be happy to welcome a government amendment at Report stage dealing with this issue. I very much hope that the noble Lord will make a concession on this question.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment makes it a mandatory requirement for the scheme to provide that sponsors or the representatives of sponsors of sporting events or their directly or indirectly invited guests for whose behaviour the sponsors would be responsible should be exempted from the scheme. I hope that I made clear the Government's position on exemption during our discussions on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lords. We certainly accept that the scheme must provide for exemptions and we have demonstrated that by accepting Amendment No. 45 of the noble Lord. I have offered to consider spelling out on the face of the Bill certain categories of exemption—the registered disabled in designated areas of the ground being one. The exemption arrangements for these categories must be tightly drawn. Many noble Lords will share our concern that exemptions should not be so wide that they present the hooligan with an open invitation to beat the system.
I have some fears on this count about the wording of this amendment. I accept of course that sponsors of football clubs or particular matches play a very important part in the game. The money that sponsoring clubs put into clubs is vital. Of course we accept that. But nothing in the scheme need adversely affect sponsors or their relationship with the club.
1402
Naturally clubs will wish to look after sponsors' interests and I can see force in the argument that sponsors should not have to meet all the requirements of membership.
Many sponsors will wish to join the scheme. It is likely that some clubs, and the companies sponsoring them, will wish to develop their association through the membership scheme. Many employees of a sponsoring company might be only too pleased to join the scheme, especially if the company and the club have worked out some deal that is advantageous to them.
I mentioned earlier that we would consider making provision in the Bill for guests of the club to be exempted from the scheme. I think that this provides the best means for dealing with sponsors and their guests under the scheme. The clubs will issue temporary membership cards and will take responsibility for the behaviour of their guests.
I am bound to say that I cannot see how any such arrangements could be extended to include indirectly invited guests of the sponsor. If I am right in thinking that this means that the exemption arrangements should provide for any sponsor's guest to be free to invite a guest or guests of his or her own, then I have real doubts about it. I can see great scope for legal wrangles about the definitions and all too much room for possible abuse of the scheme. Nor would I be happy about providing on the face of the Bill for the sponsor to be held responsible for the behaviour of his directly or indirectly invited guests. The Bill after all does not provide for sanctions against sponsors.
What we need is for the FMA and the clubs to be able to agree arrangements for sponsors and their guests under which they will be able to attend matches as guests of the club. The club will be responsible for the behaviour of any guest to whom it issues temporary membership cards. The appropriate body responsible for ensuring that club guest procedures are properly applied, and that the arrangements work satisfactorily, is the club itself. If the temporary membership arrangements were abused, the club might then be subject to penalties under the scheme or in relation to its licences.
Rather than exempt sponsors and their guests from the scheme, a better way of ensuring that the scheme takes full account of their interests and their relationships with the clubs is for the club where appropriate to invite sponsors and their guests to matches as guests of the club. The temporary membership arrangements under which the club would be held responsible for the behaviour of its guests would apply. In this way I think that all the interests—those of the club, the sponsor and his guests and, it is important not to forget this, the security of the scheme itself—are best served. I hope that the noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: In his reply the Minister indicated that there appeared to be some support from sponsors and clubs for the scheme. For my sins I have been in close contact with the clubs of Manchester City, Manchester United and Leeds United, and I find no such support.

1403
Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. Is there one case on record where a person attending a football match as a guest of a sponsor in an executive box has had to be arrested by the police for his conduct? I have to tell the Minister this. Knowing people such as Sir Matt Busby and Martin Edwards, chairman of Manchester United: Peter Swales, chairman of Manchester City: and the chairman of Leeds United, the last thing that they would wish to do is even to take a remote chance that they were inviting someone who could in any way create the problem of a disturbance. The people who rent these boxes are very carefully vetted. Under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, these people would be deemed to be potential criminals who might perhaps invite someone outside the law. I believe that the Minister ought to think again. He certainly has not convinced me.
Do I understand the Minister to be saying that in order to accept the amendment in spirit the Government would be prepared to say that if the guests of all those boxes were approved guests of the club they would not need entrance cards? Is that what the Minister is saying? Before one could accept that suggestion, we on these Benches would have to learn much more about what such a proposal meant. Is he saying that a club could give blanket approval so that if people who take the seasonal rental of boxes for business reasons to entertain guests—and that has become an accepted part of funding football—were given the protection of the club, they would not need the ID card? That goes a little way towards what we are discussing.
I have found no evidence of any support for this from clubs who rent boxes for sponsorship by business and commercial concerns. We shall have to hear a little more from the Minister on this subject before I am convinced that that is the road to go down.
Lord Mellish: As one who has a little experience, I thought that the Minister's speech was very conciliatory. He went a very long way towards saying that he understood the point of view and that he was prepared to consider it. That is how I understood him. One cannot ask for more than that from the Government Front Bench of the day. I would be very willing to accept that assurance.
I hope that my own position is all right. I am president of Millwall Football Club. Do I have to join the scheme?
Lord Hesketh: I believe that, as an officer of the club, the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, would be excluded. I must first make one point very clear, that we are not suggesting for one moment that there would be endless riotous assembly in respect of executive boxes. The position of the Government is quite straightforward: that the scheme will become more and more complicated with more and more exemptions. We are not trying to suggest that there is something worryingly wrong with executive boxes. Far from it. I must make that clear. The noble Lord was right in his assumption. The proposal is that the temporary membership scheme should apply and the
1404
responsibility will be taken on board by the club itself.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. The Minister went as far as he could. It is not my intention to press the matter to a vote, but we are left with a number of questions. We have another opportunity for clarification between this stage and the next.
The first thing I want clarified is that if the people covered by the amendment are to be subject to a temporary membership card issued by the club, that means that they are not members of the football membership scheme. That is the first significant point. A club does not want people in this category to feel that they have to join that club with the £5 or £10 membership fee, with the suggestion that they might have to queue up on the morning of the match. I am thinking aloud to the Minister.
Let us take it that Luton decides in its operation of the scheme that it will have vetted its sponsors. As my noble friend Lord Dean has said, no club worth its salt will be cavalier in giving sponsorship or executive box status to people with whom it is not comfortable. There will be a good relationship between the club and the people who are pleased to have this facility. The club will be giving people the facility to have a box to entertain 10, 20 or 30 guests, and the club will be prepared to take from the sponsor a list of its guests and to tell it that they are happy with the men and women they have invited. The sponsor will be on trial and will be responsible for the behaviour of his guests.
I appreciate what the Minister has said but, if that is the way it is to work, other people besides the Minister and I must sit round the table to put the flesh on the bones. If that is how the scheme is to operate for executive boxes that may be acceptable.
I believe the Minister said that we did not want any aspect of exemption to be used as a loophole to get round the Bill. We must be clear that there are people in football who will take seriously their responsibilities to the Government and to the game. If there were a dreadful incident which stemmed from a loophole being abused by somebody who was careless, that would damage the image of football, the good name of the sponsor and the club in general. We must ensure that everyone will be careful.
As the Minister has said, it will be down to the FMA to work out the details of this as well as other schemes. It is amazing how at one time the FMA was to have a lot of power, influence and authority and at other times it will not. If I could be satisfied that it is the Minister's view that the nitty-gritty of working the scheme will be left to the good sense of the FMA, and that the Secretary of State will not say afterwards that he likes one bit and another, I should be happy. But if the Minister is to say: leave it to the FMA and then, when it is done, he reserves the right to change it, I should not be so happy. We are trying to give the FMA more idea of what Parliament wants.
Someone said earlier in the debate that we do not want to spell out every aspect of the Bill at every stage. We are not trying to do that but as Parliamentarians, we all have some responsibility as has the Committee. We must take advantage of every

1405
opportunity to say what we want. The opportunity is before us now. This stage of the Bill will never come before us again because the Report stage and Third Reading have certain constrictions. Once the Bill leaves this Chamber the opportunity will have gone.
I have had many letters from many people and Members of the other place will have lots of approaches from their constituents. Nearly every constituent lives somewhere near the ground of a major football team. There will be a great deal of pressure from constituents with a view one way or another. We must not shirk our responsibilities to tell the Minister, without carrying this to a Division, how we want to see it operating.
Once more I echo the words of the Minister in anticipating the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who asked about his own position as a president. In Amendment No. 47, which we have yet to reach, we are concerned with directors and officers of a body corporate. That is where Lord Mellish would come in. If the Minister is suggesting that Amendment No. 47 will be accepted—that was the inference behind what he said—I look forward to moving Amendment No. 47 when I have withdrawn Amendment No. 46.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of persons holding a ticket of admission to a room in the premises at which a designated football match is to be played from which the match may be directly viewed and to which the general public are not admitted, being—

(i) persons concerned in the management of the premises or in the organisation of the match; or

(ii) directors or officers of a body corporate which is so concerned; or

(iii) the directly or indirectly invited guests of those persons, directors or officers in respect of whose behaviour those persons, directors or officers are made responsible;").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 47 is designed to persuade the Government to accept the amendment or to allow the record to show that they agree that there are groups of people, as set out in Amendment No. 47, who in our view should be relieved of the responsibility of being members of the FMA. I shall spell out the three categories. The first group involves persons concerned with the management of the premises or in the organisation of the match. We mean those people who helped to run the club, the management. There are those who know football far better than I do, and one is always amazed at the number of people who are affected. In the document that I received from Manchester United I was amazed at the number of people needed at every football match to run the turnstiles. There are no full-time professional turnstile operators, but those people need to be exempted from the scheme. There are other people, those who make the tea, those who sell programmes, security staff and others.
The next category involves the
"directors or officers of a body corporate which is so concerned."
Those clearly are people like the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and other Members of your Lordships' House who are presidents or patrons of football clubs. There are others of equal distinction in another place who come into that category. The Minister has been a director of a football club. He knows that it is not all sunshine. There are financial worries and concerns about the position of the club. We believe that people who carry that responsibility ought to be relieved of FMA membership.
The third category involves
"directly or indirectly invited guests of those persons, directors or officers in respect of whose behaviour those persons, directors or officers are made responsible."
I believe that that is in line with the Minister's earlier comment about sponsors and indirect sponsors in executive boxes. If the Minister tells me that he has in mind the later amendment dealing with the exemptions and making specific references to the groups which I have mentioned, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: I suspect that in his reply the Minister will say that the best way of dealing with the matter is to define guests of the club, as he did in relation to Amendment No. 46. If so, is he prepared to accept an amendment to put that on the face of the Bill, or is he saying that it is to be left to the FMA to define it?
I should be grateful for a clear indication. Is the Minister prepared to accept an amendment to cover the term "guests of the club", similar to his reply to Amendment No. 46?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not believe that there is any need for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is giving an excellent example. He is being open-minded and helpful and the response from the Minister is in keeping.
I should like to repeat my opinion that, as regards the exemptions where we are giving examples of what should be viewed with sympathy, it is not the Minister whom we wish to leave in but the Committee which will work out the scheme. Its members will be experts and will have a practical knowledge of the game, which people outside do not have. We wish to listen to their advice in the form of the various amendments.
In that regard my noble friend has been most helpful. Can he indicate where his sympathy lies with the general points that are being made, so that when the football committee makes its decision it will be able to take heed of the view expressed by Members of the Committee and the Government?
The general atmosphere that has so far been engendered this afternoon will be helpful to those who matter; they are members of the commitee which will work out the scheme. Heaven knows! it will be difficult enough. I should like to urge my noble friend to play his part so that when members of the football committee read the proceedings of this Committee they will know exactly what is required by the Back-Benchers (who express a view as a result of their contact wth football clubs) and the Government

1407
(who wish to ensure that the general principle behind the Bill is not diluted).
Lord Harris of Greenwich: When we were last in Committee on the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, indicated the fact that he would introduce a substantial amendment dealing with the Football Membership Authority. We welcome that.
The debate that has taken place so far indicates the fact that other Government amendments may well be tabled at the Report stage of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that a number of noble Lords have been involved in discussions outside the Committee and that we shall require a reasonable period between the tabling of any Government amendments and the Report stage. It will be the last opportunity for your Lordships to have a detailed discussion of the merits of the measure and we may wish to table amendments to the Government's amendments.
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the importance of the Government making clear their position as early as possible. We can then consult those in the football authorities and others with whom we have had discussions. Therefore, when the Report stage is reached, we shall have had reasonable time in which to consult such people.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, appealed to the Committee to leave the matter to the experts, as he did in respect of Amendment No. 45 which was accepted by the Government. The experts are to be members of the authority about which we know little because it does not appear on the face of the Bill. If one assumes that the Government have the same approach towards the authority as they had towards the administrator of the scheme—and who now appears in the Bill—it appears that the Bill provides that the Secretary of State will have absolute discretion to accept or reject the scheme. There will be no parliamentary process of any kind, save laying the final scheme before Parliament. That is an abuse of parliamentary procedures on an epic scale. For that reason we cannot accept any such approach as "leave it to the experts".
The Bill affects the civil liberties of a large number of people in this country. In our judgment it is necessary for Parliament to debate the exclusions so that the Bill is not so widely drawn as to affect an unnecessarily large number of people.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe it to be perfectly reasonable that employees, directors and so forth need not be members of the scheme. However, I hope that my noble friend will resist the proposal put forward in the amendment as regards "indirectly invited guests".
Indirectly invited guests of a temporary programme seller could easily fall into the category of one's old chum, the "yob" classes. It is they whom we wish to keep out, so surely they should be excluded. The term "indirectly invited guests" leaves too vague the border between who can be excluded and who cannot. An indirectly invited guest of a junior employee is someone to whom I suspect we must apply the scheme.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would mean that each club would be required to provide a room where club directors, officers or others concerned with the management of the ground or organisation of the match, or their directly or indirectly invited guests, would be able to attend designated matches by producing a ticket for the room from which they would view the match but from which the general public was denied entry. The person inviting the guests would be responsible for the guests' behaviour.
I hope that I have made clear to Members of the Committee where the Government stand on the policy of exemptions. We have accepted the fact that exemptions should be a mandatory feature of the scheme. We have undertaken to consider placing certain categories of exemption on the face of the Bill.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, one of those categories is that of guests of the club. That category appears to provide the necessary scope for the FMA and the clubs to agree sensible arrangements for guests and club directors and for officers, as proposed in the amendment. We envisage that clubs will be able to issue temporary membership cards to their guests. The club will be held responsible for the behaviour of the spectators concerned. If the arrangements were abused—for example, if someone banned from membership of the scheme was able to exploit the temporary membership arrangements to attend a designated match—the club may be subject to penalties under the scheme or in relation to its licence.
I believe that that represents the best way of accommodating guests, directors, or officials within the framework of the scheme. Special arrangements will not be necessary in respect of club officers and employees. Clause 1(5) defines an authorised spectator—that is a spectator authorised to attend a designated match—as a person who is a member of the scheme or who is authorised by the scheme to attend. It exempts those who attend matches principally in order to provide services; for example, club employees, caterers, policemen and ambulancemen.
As regards the directors of football clubs, I am not at all convinced of the need to make provision for their exemption from the scheme. I envisage that club directors will wish to join the scheme. Indeed, I believe that they will wish to be among the first to do so.
I hope that I have said enough to convince Members that, rather than introduce specific exemption arrangements for the occupants of the kind of room at the ground covered by the noble Lord's amendment, it will be much better to make the appropriate categories of spectator guests of the club itself. In that way we can ensure that the scheme is not open to abuse, that the hooligan cannot cheat the system but at the same time the clubs can look after their own interests. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord said something which may be helpful to the Committee and perhaps he will forgive me if I ask for further clarification. We have

1409
before us a whole string of amendments which are essentially concerned with the rights of the casual spectator. Can the noble Lord tell us whether either full or temporary membership can be taken out on the day of the match?
Lord Hesketh: The answer to that is that that is certainly possible, but of course the controlling factor on that will be the convenience of the club involved. It is impossible for the Government to give a categoric assurance on that but it is technically possible and I am sure that it will be possible in the event.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If I understand the Minister correctly, in dealing with this amendment he relies on what he said earlier; namely, he envisages that among the exemptions which the Government favour, bearing in mind that it is up to the FMA, is an exemption for clubs to issue temporary admission cards to guests for whom they will take responsibility.
Let us be clear what that means, as I see it. It will be in the hands of a club on any given match day where a match is played in a designated football area to issue tickets to those with whom the club feels it can be comfortable and for whom it will take full responsibility. I know that the Minister quite properly said that one must be careful about abuse. However, I am not talking about abuse here or loopholes or about people laughing and saying, "We got away with it". I very much take the point that one does not wish to see someone at a match who was ejected, arrested and convicted of an offence. He will be breaking the conditions of the penalty imposed and no one will be more aggravated than the club to find it has been hoodwinked by a person who has gained entry by the back door.
I do not intend to press this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely right. We seek an opportunity to come back with our amendments because that is another form of consultation. However, it is right and proper that people outside this Committee will wish to have an understanding of what the Government seek. They will tell us what they think of what the Minister said—and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense. They will tell us whether it is sensible and workable. Although at the end of the day we, as parliamentarians, reserve our right to say what we think, we are guided by the reaction of people outside who have to judge how it will work given the possibility that the Bill will become an Act. I believe that what the Minister said is prima facie helpful in this matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Lord, Lord Graham, sits down, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, can assist us on the point about temporary cards. We should much appreciate guidance from him on that matter because it is obviously of great importance to the football authorities.
Lord Hesketh: I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, refers particularly to whether or not there is a limit on numbers. The reason I referred earlier to
1410
the FMA is that in this amendment and the preceding one there is a particularly appropriate example of where the FMA should make the decision rather than having it on the face of the Bill. The reason is that we have talked about the commercial relationship between football clubs and their sponsors. That is a very personal relationship between the club, the sponsor and or commercial figures. For that reason, the decision on whether there should be a limit will be made by the FMA. I believe that is particularly appropriate because as the FMA is run by football it will decide on an issue which is particularly important with regard to football, namely, the commercial application when one talks about executive boxes, which provide a very substantial amount of cash to the clubs. There must be a limit otherwise one might end up with every card in the ground being a guest card. For that reason, the FMA is the best body to decide that limit.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: But of course the Secretary of State and not the FMA will decide the issue—to use the words of the noble Lord. That is the point which concerns us. There clearly have been a number of provisional decisions made within the noble Lord's department about what should be the essentials of this scheme. No doubt the FMA will be asked to look into those questions and make its recommendations. However, it will not decide the issue, which were the words used by the noble Lord. His right honourable friend will make the decision and Parliament is deliberately excluded from any rights in the matter thereafter. That is why we are pressing the noble Lord because if we do not press him today we shall have no other opportunity to do so. That is the first point.
Secondly, the noble Lord will recall what I said about the Report stage of the Bill and government amendments. I hope that he will be able to say something about that because we do not wish to have a number of complaints made on Report that government amendments have been tabled so late that we have not had an adequate opportunity of consulting the football authorities and others who have an interest in this Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: That speech carries with it many dangers. I come back to the point where the noble Lord and I disagreed a few moments ago. To denigrate the FMA in the way his speech does—
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think it does. We know that the ultimate power is in the hands of the Secretary of State if he wishes to use it. Of course that is right and I understand that. That is why I argue that the steps taken so far should not interfere with the ultimate powers of the Secretary of State.
To go further, as the noble Lord seems to—and I hope he does not because we have been partners on a number of matters until now—and to give the impression that the FMA will not have influence and power because the Secretary of State will have made up his mind quite outside anything which it may recommend, is dangerous. I believe that we should be

1411
reasonable on this. We should approach the matter on the basis that the FMA—a meeting of experts which is why they are appointed—understands the practicalities and will give an objective and practical suggestion when this machinery is set up. If the Secretary of State wishes to veto what the FMA has done, then he can do so; but the chances are that he will not want to do that. There is no sign that the Secretary of State wishes to take on the full responsibility of determining who sets up those various narrow points.
I approach this matter very clearly. The FMA is an authoritative body with knowledge and the power of influence. I guess that the number of occasions when the Secretary of State will use the ultimate power to override the recommendations of the FMA on practical points will be very few, if at all.
I agree absolutely with the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, as I said; and I agree with the point of view put by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, when one carries that to the point of suggesting that the Secretary of State has the ultimate and full power and that the FMA has none at all, then I believe that we are defeating the real object behind it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In responding to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, my point was to question his use of the words "decide" and "determine". Of course, the Football Membership Authority will decide nothing. It will only decide to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. That is what it will decide. However, thereafter it is entirely and exclusively a matter for the Secretary of State. Parliament, I repeat, will have no further rights in this matter whatever. I regard that as quite intolerable. Certainly I do not for a moment question the public spiritedness of people on the FMA, but at the moment we know very little about that body except that the Government have indicated that they intend to bring forward an amendment on Report. That is why I press the Government yet again to give a clear indication that they will publish those amendments in good time so that we can consult all those who will be affected.
Earl Russell: I support what my noble friend has just said. I did not hear him say anything that I could take as denigrating the FMA. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said about its potential expertise in this matter.
Our concern on these Benches is that we should know before this Bill goes through exactly what we are being asked to approve. The temporary membership provisions in this area are quite frightening. Unless we understand what they are, I do not see how we can know whether we are for the proposal or against it.
Lord Underhill: So far I have remained silent on this amendment and I have appreciated the conciliatory attitudes of the Minister and those who have put forward the various amendments. I also appreciate that we are to take these amendments one by one to see what is the Government's attitude and I believe that that is the right course to adopt.
1412
However, I feel that we should go further and ascertain from the Minister how the Government visualise the relationship of the FMA to Parliament. Surely that is a most important point which has been put forward by a number of noble Lords on this amendment. Can the Minister say how he visualises the arrangements between the FMA and Parliament?
Baroness Phillips: I too have remained silent—rather an unusual role for me. We are constantly hearing about the FMA, the new magic body. I can discover only one reference in the Bill, which is to the licensing authority. Who are the people who will sit on this magic body? Will they be operating under the old pals' act?
The Government should be warned. They are putting forward very unpopular legislation. Their support is slipping due to certain events. The Government have upset the farmers and a number of other people. They should be warned that they will be judged on the way in which they deal with this very unpopular Bill. If the Government can be seen to be taking logical steps in relation to the designated guests it will be a plus in this unpopular piece of legislation.
I have been too long in Parliament to like the idea of leaving responsibility to a body when we do not even know its membership or how it will be constituted. We know very little about it except that it is constantly referred to as the almighty provider of rules and regulations. Perhaps the Minister will be a little more forthcoming on who is to sit on the FMA. It is only referred to in Clause 10. We want to know much more about it as it is to determine certain important matters.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: First, I give an assurance to the Committee, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I accept entirely that we must provide reasonable notice of Government amendments at Report stage. I am happy to give that assurance.
We are drifting slightly off the amendment but I must reiterate the Government's position at the outset. The Government want football to run football. We propose that the league and the FA will run the FMA. That is why in my earlier remarks I said that I thought it important—particularly in relation to this and the previous amendment which were pertinent to the relationships of the clubs themselves—that the scheme was a good example of something that should be run by the FMA for football and by football, and not by the Government.
The Government's view is that the FMA, being run by the league and the FA, will produce a scheme with which everyone will be happy. I do not envisage the problem arising where the Secretary of State says that he is not happy with the scheme. I am certain that the football authorities will produce an entirely satisfactory scheme with which the Secretary of State will be extremely content.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The final sentences of the Minister will be reassuring to the embryo FMA. I should like to believe in the Minister's confidence that its decisions, in the best interests of football, will be seen by everyone else, including the Secretary of State, as the best decisions. However, the Minister must be aware that there is at present some slight friction between the Minister and the league and the association on making progress. I said "slight friction" and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, looked aghast as if that were an impossibility.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord said that I looked aghast. Is it not a fact that the league and the FA have written a letter saying that they are eager to co-operate and to participate? The noble Lord acknowledged the existence of that letter. All of us who have shown an interest received a copy of that letter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord will find that he has taken that statement slightly out of context—indeed, I would say more than slightly out of context. The football authorities made it quite clear that they detest this Bill. They are referring to the situation which would arise if the Bill receives approval by both Houses of Parliament, which they have been pressed remorselessly to do by Mr. Moynihan.
I welcome what the noble Lord said about the admirable relationship which will exist between the football authorities and the Minister. Unfortunately it appears to contradict slightly the increasingly feverish denunciations of the football authorities by Mr. Moynihan in the months preceding this debate today. It is astonishing that we now hear that there is to be tranquillity and goodwill from a group of people that Mr. Moynihan and his colleagues have been denouncing at every opportunity.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who, by intervening, allowed me to find the letter from the Football Association to the Minister. I believe it would be helpful to quote from it. One sentence states:
"We should make it clear that we still have reservations about the efficacy of your proposals"—
that is reservations about whether or not they will work. There are doubts and those doubts are contained in the report of the working party which states:
"The president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association told the Prime Minister that they disputed strongly the necessity for the scheme."
In other words, at the first opportunity to say something they say, "We do not like the idea of a scheme". The next time the opportunity is taken to say, "We do think that it will work". Do we accept that as a good basis on which to make progress? The next quote from the letter is also interesting and I put this point to the Minister:
"We are sure you will agree that until the Football Spectators Bill has passed certain points in its Parliamentary progress and until the responsibilities of the Football Membership Authority have been debated by Parliament, it would be rash of us to make irreversible plans or to commit ourselves to significant expenditure."
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may briefly interrupt the noble Lord, and it is not because I do not agree. We have the substance of the membership authority in Clause 10. We are now dealing with a different amendment. It seems sensible that we keep vaguely to the point that we are discussing. I know that it is a novel idea in Committee, but can we try it as a new idea?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In his first speech tonight the noble Earl went straight to an amendment that we were not discussing. I know that he can teach us all a few tricks, but that I can forget what has happened over the last few hours is not one of them. I take the point and the long night is approaching. There are other stages in the Bill. This letter will bear not only re-reading by myself but also requoting by me as selectively and helpfully as possible. I believe that the Minister has gone as far as he can as regards this amendment. We rest on the premise that the people covered by this amendment may very well be those who are accepted by the FMA as worthy of having issued to them a temporary card for which the club is responsible. Those outside the Committee will hear what we have to say. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of persons holding a season-ticket for use at the premises at which a designated football match is to be played who have previously held such a season-ticket for at least one football season;").
The noble Lord said: I am advised by the Football League and the Football Association that they look upon this amendment as crucial to the financial viability and the welfare of football in general. This amendment is seen by them to be very important indeed. We are looking at the nexus in football with the season ticket holder. I have done a little research but, like all research, it is not complete. I am told by the Football League that in excess of 30 per cent. of those who attend football matches are season ticket holders. That does not mean to say that they attend every match or that they are members season after season. I hope the Committee will accept that in seeking this information I simply asked what was the percentage. They said that it was 32 per cent.
Then I sought another illustration for a matter that I believe will be helpful. I went to Tottenham Hotspur, as the Committee would expect me to. There I was told that they have a total of 10,448 season ticket holders. The Minister knows that that is three times the size of the attendance at many league matches. I believe that the Committee needs to understand that we are talking about a group of people who must love football very much because they pay dearly for it. I am not saying that they pay exorbitantly but they lay out a good deal of money. For example, a season ticket for the current year with Spurs costs £254·88p and I believe that figure includes VAT.
For that sum they can watch 25 First Division matches and one or two others. They are obviously people who have the money to pay and who want to pay. In this context prima facie they are people whom you would not expect to misbehave either in their boxes, their seats or in the ground. In speaking to this amendment, the Minister has to tell us whether he has evidence of wild activity by those who carry season tickets. We are trying to exempt as many groups of people as possible for whom, sensibly and without abuse, we can make a case.
The Minister said that he wishes to break the link between violence and soccer. We categorise that as hooliganism. My noble friend Lord Stoddart will be making a case later for the exclusion of women. We have been arguing earlier about groups of people for whom we say there is no evidence that they contribute to some of the statistics that we dispute in any event. The Minister has also to take on board the fact that we are talking about people who have already joined a membership scheme. They have had to fill in a form and, in certain instances, they have had to submit photographs. They have to send in their money and they have to give their name, address and telephone number. I do not know whether a membership scheme card which may be approved later, would carry as much or even more information than that. The card itself has not been designed and the Chamber has not discussed it. We have not discussed what should be on it or to what uses it can be put.
As regards season ticket holders there is a very powerful case. I sought the views of Watford Football Club. I received a letter from Eddie Plumley who is their chief executive. I asked him for some idea of the number of season tickets issued. He said that until just recently their average attendance was 12,881. They have issued 4,442 season tickets. That works out at marginally better than 32 per cent.
I hope the Minister will not say that if you exclude one-third of the people who attend a football match that blows a very big hole in our scheme. I say to him that if that one-third has an unblemished record—and I maintain that in the context of hooliganism season ticket holders have such a record—I have not got to make a case for excluding them, but the Minister has to make one for including them. On the evidence I do not believe that he can. I hope not to be accused of elitism or separatism. A football fan is a football fan. The people who are able to enjoy the facilities of a season ticket are no better supporters of their clubs than millions of others who may be unable to afford or may not want a season ticket.
I say to the Minister that by virtue of the decisions of the Football League every football club in the land already operates under what are called ground regulations. They are very very strict and they are for everyone. I wish to read out one or two of them that I believe are most important. Regulation 17 says:
"All persons entering this Ground are admitted only subject to the above Ground Regulations and the Rules and Regulations of The Football Association and The Football League. Entry to the Ground shall be deemed to constitute unqualified acceptance of all these Rules and Regulations".
This is not a second reading point but a point of
1416
detail. I must accept because the Minister speaks sincerely and from experience in these matters that if he genuinely believes that there is a problem that needs to be tackled, then I am saying that whatever the solution season ticket holders are not part of the problem. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I have explained the Government's general position on exemptions. While we accept that there should be mandatory provision for exemptions in the scheme—I have undertaken to consider placing specific categories of exempted spectators on the face of the Bill—I have also explained our concern to ensure that whatever exemption arrangements are made under the scheme they should be tightly drawn. I know that many Members of the Committee share our concern that exemptions must not be allowed to become a series of loopholes in the scheme and open invitations for people to beat the system.
I have grave doubts about the amendment on that score. It would make it a mandatory requirement of the scheme that anyone who has been a season ticket holder for at least one football season should be exempt. There can be no question that a group of this nature and size cannot be exempted from membership. Any such exemption arrangement would be far too wide and would create an unacceptable potential loophole in the scheme. Anyone can become a season ticket holder. It would not be possible for the individual club to undertake the kind of checking processes which we envisage the FMA carrying out in respect of applications under a national membership scheme, and we could not rely on possession of a season ticket as a gurantee against hooliganism. Exempting season ticket holders would create an inviting loophole for hooligans to exploit.
I am not suggesting for one moment that many season ticket holders are hooligans. But if we exempt season ticket holders from the membership requirement we will be inviting hooligans to buy season tickets in order to avoid and evade the rules of the scheme. The cost of a season ticket would certainly not deter many committed hooligans. As drafted the amendment goes further than this in the damage that it might do to the scheme. It would allow a convicted hooligan who had been banned from membership of the scheme to buy a season ticket and resume going to matches as if his conviction and disqualification had never happened. This is not acceptable.
Once again the implication of the amendment is that people should be excused from having to join the scheme, but it is precisely the law abiding regular spectators, the season ticket holders, who will benefit most from the scheme and from the protection that it provides against hooligans. For this reason, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I say in the most amiable spirit that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, sounds rather like a junior Minister in the immediate postwar Labour Government defending one of the more ill-judged and detailed economic regulations imposed by that Government. We are told that there must be no loopholes and that there are risks of the firm line

1417
being broken at some stage. It is a great tragedy for this and many other reasons that the late lain Macleod is not alive to make a speech taking this Bill apart and taking apart the whole structure of the argument. The noble Lord is doing the best he can in intolerably difficult circumstances with the appalling briefs which have been served up by his officials to justify the contents of the Bill.
What did the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, say? He asked whether evidence exists to show that people who have purchased season tickets have become involved in acts of violence. It is a simple question. The noble Lord went through his brief and made no effort to answer it. Is there an answer? Is there any evidence of a major public order problem? He then went on to say that the provision must be tightly drawn, that there must be no loopholes and that there must be adequate checking of the names—all this to justify this extraordinary bureaucratic procedure. It is astonishing that a government of the right of centre should be introducing such a procedure.
The noble Lord has only one question to answer. Have the police been asked to submit reports to the Government on how many season ticket holders have been arrested in acts of violence? What is the evidence? I hope that on that specific question the noble Lord will be able to reply.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister has given sympathetic and cogent answers on previous amendments but I think he has failed to do so in respect of this one. My noble friend Lord Graham referred to the 10,000 season ticket holders at Tottenham Hotspur. I have not checked the details but I think the noble Lord will find that Manchester United has far more season ticket holders. Some clubs have waiting lists. It is not the easiest thing in the world to become a season ticket holder at a well supported football club. People apply year after year and are turned away. At some clubs people have to wait until others die in order to become season ticket holders. I cannot conceive of someone queueing to pay £250 to become a football hooligan. The Minister suggests that somebody will be waiting in the wings to sign a cheque for £250 just to become a football hooligan on a Saturday afternoon.
The Minister will have to do better than that in arguing that this amendment is unworkable. He has not made a case in answer to my noble friend Lord Graham. I should like him to deal with my point about paying £250 to become a football hooligan. I do not see it happening at all. I do not think it is on.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend's mood on this amendment is different from his mood on the other amendments with which we have dealt so far. It is very sad. I can understand why he cannot accept the words of the amendment. There are many reasons why the words may not fit in. I expected him to say that because that may have been the advice he was given. However, the wholesale refusal to recognise the distinction between a season ticket holder and the ordinary member is surprising.
1418
Could he not be a little more constructive? The noble Lord, Lord Graham, explained how one becomes a season ticket holder. One has to till in a form with particulars of one's address, one's business telephone number and so on. Would it not be possible for the form to be amended so that it would answer all the questions that are asked in order to obtain a certificate? Could not the answering of one fulfil the other? I am certain that the clubs would be happy to go to a great deal of trouble to have a season ticket form which incorporates all the knowledge of the membership form.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, at the beginning of the debate is an important one. The income from season tickets is an important part of the income of a club. We want to have successful football clubs. This is an important source of income. We should not give the impression that we want to discourage season ticket holders just because some might be hooligans. Perhaps it could be put on the season ticket form that if a spectator is convicted of a breach of the peace the season ticket will be withdrawn. I am certain that the clubs would agree to that. Such a spectator would lose both his season ticket and his certificate if, by remote chance, he was excluded from the ground.
I hope that my noble friend will be a little more considerate. By all means say that the words in the amendment will not do, but can he not give the impression that if the clubs can find some way of giving the same information on the season ticket form that is necessary for the normal certificate form, that will meet the requirements of the Bill; and that if a season ticket holder deviates from those conditions he will have both his season ticket and certificate withdrawn? That would surely meet my noble friend's concerns and would give the clubs a chance to maintain their finances.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may answer the small but important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He asked about records. The police do not have records concerning the relationship between conviction and season ticket holders. I accept the point entirely, in exactly the same way as I pointed out to the Committee our view regarding sponsors' and executive boxes. We are not worried about sponsors' boxes and executive boxes. I am sure that no one is worried about the season ticket holders. It is the principle of making the scheme work and having everyone within the scheme that concerns us. That is why we believe that it is impracticable to exempt, as this amendment hopes to do, all those who are holding a season ticket and have held one for a year preceding. I personally have nothing but admiration for the season ticket holders who support their clubs. However, it is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has pointed out, that in certain clubs they represent 30 per cent. of the gate. It is a huge block to exempt.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, as did the noble Lord, Lord Graham, drew noble Lords' attention to the fact that it would cost £250 to become a soccer hooligan. The average price of a season ticket at Spurs is £200, at West Ham it is £135, at Wolves—as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls will no doubt

1419
know—it is only £40; and at Halifax Town it is £37—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: For 25 matches.
Lord Hesketh: That is the information which I have. And tremendous value for money that represents! The noble Lord, Lord Harris, drew attention to the fact that, like some early post-war junior Minister, I referred to loopholes. All I can say is that this amendment will not be a loophole; it will be leaving the farmyard gate open.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: But why does it matter if the barn gate is open (as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said) if the people concerned are not involved in acts of violence? I asked the noble Lord whether he had information from the police or from some other body which indicated that there was a propensity, so far as concerned these people, to become involved in acts of violence. The noble Lord frankly replied that there is no evidence at all because the police have never felt it necessary to maintain records. Why have they not found it necessary? It is because there is no relationship at all between these people and acts of violence.
The amendment is drawn in an even more restrictive form because it obliges the person who is to be excluded from the scheme to have been a season ticket holder for the previous season as well. So the likelihood of people of this category being involved in acts of violence is trivial.
The Government's attitude becomes more and more perplexing. In many of the clubs in the lower divisions of the Football League there is negligible violence already. On the basis of what club chairmen have said to me what is also clear is that there are few, if any, examples of violence among season ticket holders. What the noble Lord is saying is "All that is absolutely irrelevant, because in order to have a beautiful, bureaucratic scheme which satisfies us we insist on them being part of the scheme". It no longer is a question of whether there is violence. It is "We are now becoming in love with our own scheme". This is the Government's attitude.
I say to the noble Lord—and I say it in a spirit of no ill whatever—that everybody on both sides who has spoken on this amendment has urged the Government to reconsider this question. I do not ask the noble Lord to make any commitment, but I urge him to discuss this matter with his colleagues in the department to see whether some form of amendment in this area could be devised. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Graham, nor I would insist on the precise terms of this amendment, and we would be perfectly open-minded to any suggestion from the noble Lord. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether on the basis of that he will at least undertake to consider the arguments—no more than that—between now and Report stage to see whether we can get some area of agreement?
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Surely if we exempt season ticket holders it creates the difficulties that my noble
1420
friend on the Front Bench mentioned. Equally it follows that if you are applying for a season ticket you are also almost applying for membership. So I cannot see what the argument is about. The point is simply that if you fill in a form saying "Please may I have a season ticket?" they will send you an identify card anyway. So I cannot see how you can possibly have an exemption or what is the necessity for an exemption. My noble friend is right on this score. I do not know whether that will be any comfort to him.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If what the noble Earl is saying is that there is no difference between applying for a membership identity card and applying for a season ticket, you are applying twice—
The Earl of Onslow: You are not.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If you can get a season ticket by applying for membership of the FMA, that is a surprise to me. What you have are people who pay £250 at Spurs and at Halifax they pay £40 for 25 matches—that is £1·25 per game—to be guaranteed a place. I have not seen Halifax play lately so I do not know whether it is value for money. But the Minister has been given a piece of paper with some words written on it which he has faithfully read out. Let us hope the information was correct.
But we have this ludicrous situation that there is a group of people who are attending football matches and the Minister has said, "I have no evidence that they as a group are violent or are hooligans. But in order to make sure that I have a scheme which is as all-embracing as possible, whether it is true or not"—and the Minister cannot tell us whether or not it is true—"they will be included". The Minister has said that he wants to leave a lot of details to the FMA. If we thought that one of the things that the FMA would be free to put into its scheme was exemption for season ticket holders, I would be happy. I am not saying that it should; but if the people who know football and know the calibre of the people we are talking about believe that from the integrity aspect they ought to be exempted, I accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked a direct question. I am not in the business of testing the view of the Committee. If there is a chance that the Minister and his colleagues will look at this amendment without commitment, we shall not press it. If they are not prepared even to look at it, then obviously the Committee will share my view that the amendment ought to be tested.
Lord Mellish: The attitude of the Government today is entirely different from that adopted a week ago. It is no longer rigid and so stern that, no matter what you say, you are talking to yourself. The Minister has done us the privilege of lifting his head away from his brief and is talking now as a Minister should talk, as well as listening.
He made one point to me today that matters a great deal. I want to get it on the record and I hope it will go out to those who support my view. This Government have said that football must be run by football. Here I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Harris

1421
of Greenwich, with great respect to him. I do not expect this Government or any other government to write in, or to accept, amendments exempting this one, that one and every other one that you can talk of and say, "They shall be exempt". If they do that, we shall have a Bill so huge that it will be ridiculous. That is the point of having a specialist committee because you must allow people who know something about football to say who shall be exempt. I speak with a lot of experience. If you ask for this to be written in, you are asking for madness. Take it to the vote and I bet that you lose. I for one will not vote for the amendment. I am sure that you will lose and you will get nothing at all.
We are now getting concessions. This Government are not being as rigid as they were. They are now saying that they understand. The first idea was of a national membership scheme which included everybody, wherever they came from. That is not their view now. They are now saying, quite rightly, that football has to be run by football. That being so, we ought to say to the Government "All right". The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has been putting the case very well indeed. These amendments are down for discussion, and we have had some assurance from the Government. Also the expert committee will read the report of this debate.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Rubbish!
Lord Mellish: If the noble Lord says that that is rubbish, what I say is take it to the vote and see what happens.
Lord Northfield: The noble Lord was not in the Chamber and he did not therefore hear the Minister say that the Government would not accept the proposal even if football recommended it. He said that the Government are against allowing season ticket holders to be exempt. He has said that no matter what football recommends the Government will not accept it.
Lord Mellish: I have a simple view. I am closely associated with the running of football. A person has to apply for a season ticket. It does not come from heaven. If one applies for a season ticket it is certain that the club involved, if it is part of the scheme, will send the application for the membership scheme. Is that asking too much? The person can send both forms back.
Lord Northfield: Let him say it.
Lord Mellish: It does not matter whether he says it or not. What he says does not matter. That is how the scheme will operate. This is not a party political matter. We are talking about the best interests of football. The Minister has already said that football is to be run by football people. If that is to be so, that is all I am asking for.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may put the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, right. He was kind enough to refer to me. The statement he has made is entirely
1422
inconsistent with what was said earlier, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, pointed out. Football is not going to run football. I am astonished that the noble Lord believes that it will.
Lord Mellish: It is now. It was not going to do so a week ago.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The Secretary of State will run football. Everyone concerned must accept the reality of that. The Football Membership Authority can make recommendations. There will then be argument and discussion, but in the final analysis football will not make the final determination. It will be the Secretary of State who will do that.
Lord Mellish: If the football specialist committee, which is being set up under the Bill, makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State—whoever that may be—and he turns it down, that Secretary of State will be stark, raving mad.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Prime Minister thinks so too.
Lord Mellish: I do not think that the Secretary of State will do that. I happen to have had 37 years' experience not just in government but in opposition. If one sets up a specialist committee and ignores its advice one is asking for trouble the like of which one has never seen. The Government know that as well as anyone.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not doing justice to the case that we are trying to put. We are trying to get through Parliament a Bill which will make a contribution towards ending hooliganism. The ruler will not be the Secretary of State. I said on Second Reading that this is one of the few Bills that I have seen where the Government are prepared to hand over a power which they normally retain. Parliament normally adds to the statute book and the Government are responsible for seeing that the law is carred out from A to Z.
Having once established the principle that we must do something about football hooliganism, the Government have said that they recognise that they do not have the practical knowledge to carry out the day-to-day control. It is the Government who have written into the Bill that they will set up a Football Membership Authority made up of footballers who will work out the details that must be applied.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, was right to hook onto the phrase used by my noble friend. The Government want footballers to manage football. That is what I want. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made out a good case. The way he presented the point about the separation of season ticket holders was good. I do not accept that the words of his amendment are necessarily the right ones, but the spirit is right. If he possible can, I should like my noble friend to say that they will see whether the

1423
application for the certificate can be incorporated in the application for a season ticket so that one and the same thing would do both jobs. In all our legislation someone is the long-stop. It is unfair to describe the Bill as being completely under the control of the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: It is rare that I have ever been known to say anything categoric, but I can assure the Committtee that the Secretary of State has no intention of running football. The Government would love to exempt season ticket holders. They are probably best described as the backbone of the game. However, those in the working party who considered the scheme said that if we exempt season ticket holders we are removing such a large proportion of the people that we might as well not have the scheme. If one takes the position, which the Government do, that the country wishes to have a scheme and to do something about football hooliganism, the scheme must have universality.
The last point I want to answer is about the identity card and the season ticket holder. If the Smart Card is selected as the appropriate technology, it is possible for that card to incorporate the season ticket within the membership card. For the reasons I explained earlier, I am afraid that I cannot make any commitment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has not deviated. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is right. The mood now is different from the mood on the first amendment, because the Government were beaten on the first amendment. That is why they are listening. They are sensitive to defeat. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that I have been generous in appreciating what he has done so far. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and I have known and respected each other for a long time. We are looking at this matter differently.
The FMA will he made up of the Football League and the association. The working party was not the league or the association. If it had been, its report would have been different because it would have started with a preconceived premise—it would not agree with the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and I are saying that football should decide the detail of the scheme. I am prepared to accept that, but the Minister is not because he said that it is possible that it would produce a scheme which would not fit his view of what the scheme should be, never mind the reality.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and I are in some difficulty. He shares my view that the Minister should say sufficient to enable me to withdraw the amendment; but he has twice been categorical and said that he is not prepared to say one word of help on the amendment. I also accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. He has told me what will happen to the amendment when it is pressed to a vote. Let us see.
6.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Alport, L.

Mayhew, L.

Amherst, E.

Meston, L.

Blease, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Buckmaster, V.

Nelson, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northfield. L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Raglan, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hylton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wise, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Arran, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Goold, L.

Astor, V.

Grantchester, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray, L.

Barber, L.

Greenway, L.

Bauer, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bethell, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Blyth, L.

Havers, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hemphill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Burton, L.

Henley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Holderness, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hood, V.

Colwyn, L.

Hooper, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cross, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Joseph, L.

Davidson. V. [Teller.]

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Kimberley, E.

Dundee, E.

Kitchener, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Knutsford, V.

Elton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Faithfull, B.

Lawrence, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Liverpool, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Long, V.

1425

Loudoun, C.

Rees, L.

Lurgan, L.

Renton, L.

Lyell, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Manton, L.

St. Germans, E.

Margadale, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Mottistone, L.

Shannon, E.

Mountevans, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thurlow, L.

Orkney, E.

Trafford, L.

Pender, L.

Tranmire, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Quinton, L.

Weir, V.

Radnor, E.

Wynford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

Reay, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of persons in receipt of a retirement pension from the Department of Social Security:").
The noble Lord said: When the Minister gave us an indication of possible exemptions, I did not detect that he said anything helpful about old-age pensioners. The amendment deals with retirement pensions. The reason why we are moving it is because the Government have adopted the view that people are guilty until proved innocent. There is one group of people who already, in my view, have been found guilty until they are proved innocent—season ticket holders. Now we have another group of people, old-age pensioners. The case which the Government have sought to put to Parliament and the country is that there is a relationship between violence and soccer. They have produced some evidence to support that, but the evidence has been challenged not least by football supporters and the football clubs.
When the Minister was invited to tell us what evidence he had in respect of the season ticket holders mentioned in the previous amendment, he had to say that the police were unable to give him a breakdown. Previously he has been very happy to quote police statistics globally about arrests, ejections and so on. It is a great puzzle to many people that the Minister is proving to be inflexible, even though I believe that he would argue that it is damaging the concept of the Bill. If he and I are at one in that we want to exclude from football grounds not only hooligans but potential or suspected hooligans—provided there is evidence of that—then we shall make progress. I want the Minister to tell us on what evidence he includes old-age pensioners. He will be invited later to tell us on what evidence he includes other categories.
I have a letter from the Aldershot Football Club to my honourable friend in another place, Harry Barnes, giving a breakdown of the ejections from the ground during the previous year. The list is very
1426
detailed: failing to comply with a police officer's direction in response to ground regulations 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. I have a list of those regulations and the offence is quite clear. There is also listed: jostling or interfering with the comfort of spectators; obscene gestures; being drunk; assaulting a police officer; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; entering a designated sportsground while subject to an exclusion order; use of obscene language; taunting opposing supporters; entering the ground without paying an entry fee; possession of an air horn. All those details can apparently be assembled and are available.
When it comes to age, what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said was a truism, that to the best of his knowledge there was little or no evidence that people above the age of 40 figured largely or even to a very remote extent in the statistics.
I made my own inquiries, albeit of two modest authorities—the Football League and the Football Association. I asked them whether they could help me as regards old-age pensioners. They cannot do so. When one considers old-age pensioners, one must take two other factors into consideration. One is cost and the other is convenience. Members of the Committee, and certainly many other people, may not regard cost or inconvenience as relevant factors. But I envisage that at the Spurs ground and many other grounds people will find the inconvenience and the irritation of the need to apply for membership of the scheme not only an offence in their eyes but as something not to be put up with. They will consider that if that is necessary to get into a football match, they will not do it.
I am not making a heavy point about cost, except when the Minister argues, as he will do, that there need be no cost at all because the information can be sold commercially. We shall have something sharp to say about whether or not that is one of the prime reasons for the whole scheme. Perhaps the scheme is not so much concerned with keeping out hooligans as with providing something out of which someone will be able to make not just a fast buck but a fast and regular buck. The Minister looks a little puzzled at my daring to make the aspersion that some people will make money out of an identity card scheme. The Minister will know that that aspersion is not too far fetched.
I am asking the Minister why the elderly are included in the membership scheme. The Minister may say there is a difficulty in definition. I readily agree with that. While some people look older than their years some look younger than their years. When some people mention their age one sometimes says, "You could have fooled me." But at Spurs, for example, if one is applying for membership of the scheme which is restricted to the under-sixteens, it is necessary to send one's birth certificate. Spurs have a scheme at the moment whereby the elderly enjoy certain facilities. If someone wishes to be a member of that scheme, he must either send in his pension book or take it in. So those things are not impossible to do. It is a question of having the will to do them. We are testing the Minister. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the Minister is prepared to say that he and his noble friends will consider, when they are

1427
drafting their list of exemptions, the possibility that the elderly—I define that simply as those in receipt of the state pension—may be exempted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope that my noble friend will listen to this proposal with considerable sympathy. After all, we can give people free trips on the buses if they are over 65, so I do not see why they have to buy an identity card for a football match. Old-age pensioners are certainly not likely to go around waving brickbats or kicking people in with leather boots, or go rushing down the street hurling bricks through shop windows. They are not members of that group of people about whom we are seriously worried. I do not expect to see this provision on the face of the Bill, but I sincerely hope that when the FMA produces its regulations which exclude old-age pensioners, my honourable friend will not see fit to turn this provision down. There can be no question of difficulty of identification as there are things called pension books.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I wish to speak on this amendment. I must disclose a personal interest, as indeed most Members of this Chamber would have to do. My point is quite simple. This amendment would be quite easy to operate because the great majority of clubs have a special rate of admission for old-age pensioners. Norwich City, for example, provide seats for old-age pensioners for £4. That applies to many clubs. Surely the Government, with all the necessary information behind them, can accept this amendment. I hope they will. If they do not, the whole scheme will become derisory.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I, too, wish to declare an interest. Apart from being a season ticket holder, at 74 years of age I totter down to my local football club with my neighbour who is 78. I cannot imagine either of us getting over the barricades and committing hooligan acts. To reject this amendment would be nothing less than bureaucratic. Before I was a season ticket holder, I used to go in the 4,000 seat stand. That sounds a curious thing to say. In that stand there were no reserve seats. When I looked around me, I used to see many old-age pensioners enjoying the match at reduced prices. They used to sit in special areas. If the Government do not like the wording of this provision, they should nevertheless agree to consider it. They should realise that very few people over 65—I would say none—are going to commit acts of hooliganism.
Lord Hesketh: I have explained the Government's general position on exemptions. We accept that there should be mandatory provisions in the scheme. We shall consider putting specific categories of exempted spectators on the face of the Bill. It is essential, however, that these should be strictly limited, as I have said before, because of the danger of wide-ranging exemptions and also because in this case there is a possibility of confusion and chaos at the turnstiles.
This amendment would provide for the exemption of people in receipt of a retirement pension from the
1428
Department of Social Security. I recognise of course, that it is unlikely that retired people would become involved in acts of hooliganism, far from it. But I do not recognise that retired people will suffer in any way if they become members of the scheme. Membership is not a burden. It is a means of ensuring that everyone who goes to football matches in future can do so without fear of violence or threatening behaviour. It is the law-abiding spectators who will be the members of the scheme. The only people whom we really want to exclude from membership of the scheme are hooligans.
This is a point that I have made before. Membership of the scheme will confer benefits on those who enjoy it. There may be commercial benefits if members are entitled to discounts at local shops and other things. Above all, members will enjoy the benefit that they can watch football games in peace because the hooligans have been excluded. I see no reason why we should seek to deny these benefits to retired people. Exemption is not itself a benefit. It is something that we will look at for practical reasons. But the practical consequences for retired people may be far from desirable.
I am afraid that it would be necessary consequentially for there to be some form of check on another form of identification, other than the card that will exist within the scheme. Checking is bound to cause a delay. There are 10.5 million people in this country who are over pensionable age. That is 20 per cent. of the total population. I do not know what proportion of football spectators are pensioners, but if it is anything like the proportion they represent of the population as a whole, it would clearly be a very sizeable group indeed.
Clubs could not deal with the problem by simply allocating one or two turnstiles to retired people. For one thing, the queues at those turnstiles would be much worse than elsewhere. For another, turnstiles at many grounds give access only to certain parts of the ground. It would be most unfortunate to force retired people to queue up and watch the game separately from younger relatives or friends.
These are crucial points and so I will repeat them. It will be open to the clubs and to the FMA to make no charge for membership for the elderly, if they so wish. It may also be possible for them to have a simplified application arrangement for the elderly, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned existed at Tottenham Hotspur. I accept, of course, that old people may find it difficult to meet the cost of a membership card, low though I hope that cost will be. But there will be nothing to stop the clubs or the Football Membership Authority making cards available free to retired people or to other groups, such as the unemployed if they so wished. I also accept that it might be appropriate for a simplified application procedure to be available for retired people, if that would be helpful.
There are several ways in which the scheme can be of help to retired people but exempting them altogether is not one. Membership of the scheme will be an advantage for people attending football matches; not a burden on them. I see no reason why retired people should be denied the benefits and

1429
exposed to the inconvenience that a separate checking arrangement might involve.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, drew a parallel with a free bus pass for a pensioner. The difference is that the bus pass denotes a benefit to the pensioner; the scheme we are introducing denotes a benefit to the whole of football. Therefore we want to keep pensioners within the scheme so that they benefit from the protection which we are trying to achieve with the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Until I heard the noble Lord plod through that brief I had always assumed that he had a sense of humour. However, if he had he would have burst into hysterical laughter at the quality of his own argument. I have rarely heard such nonsense from the Government Front Bench on this or any other issue.
What is the noble Lord suggesting? Will there be horror among old age pensioners that they are to be excluded from the benefits of the scheme? No doubt there will be large-scale demonstrations with old age pensioners rioting outside the Department of the Environment. They will carry banners reading, "Why have we been excluded from the scheme?"Does he not recognise that that is fantasy? Did he not say when offered that absurd brief by his officials, "I cannot say that in the House of Lords; they will laugh at me"?
The noble Lord went through the immense benefits of the scheme: it would be quite wrong to deny them the privilege; they would be deprived of the so-called commercial benefits (whatever they may be); they will be able to watch in peace and tranquility as a result of being members of the scheme. They will have exactly the same amount of peace and tranquility if they are not members of the scheme because pensioners do not commit the criminal offences which lie behind the introduction of the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, quite rightly said that the majority of those people who commit offences at football matches—and outside football matches, on Friday and Saturday nights in public houses—are young men between the ages of 15 and 30. The number of people of pensionable age likely to be involved in any acts of violence is minuscule. Yet they are to be dragged into the scheme without any intelligible argument having been put forward, save one. That is, presumably, the objective of making the membership lists as long as possible so as to make them commercially attractive to the sponsors.
That is one good argument which I offer the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. However, it is not one that he will introduce in this debate. He will repeat points of a degree of foolishness, which, I must emphasise, I have never before heard in this Chamber from a member of any party sitting on the Government Front Bench. I very much hope that in the later stages of the Bill, if he is offered nonsense of that kind, the noble Lord will tell his officials to get somebody else to read it out for them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. What the Minister
1430
has just said exposes the hollowness of the scheme as it stands. I have been listening in peace and tranquility to the arguments on the various amendments dealt with so far. In virtually every case the Minister has replied that of course there will be no trouble from that particular group. There will not be any trouble from the directors, nor from their guests, nor from the guests of high grade employees of football clubs. The Minister has agreed that season ticket holders do not constitute a threat. It is understood that they are well behaved and pay a reasonable amount for their season tickets. Their names are on record in the clubs. He also agrees that no retirement pensioner is going to leap over fences to smash somebody on the nose or stab them with a knife.
If one considers the proportions that those groups represent one finds that season ticket holders constitute about 30 per cent. of football attendances. If one accepts the Minister's own figures about the proportion of the population who are retirement pensioners, one comes to 20 per cent. Assuming that the same ratio will apply to those who go to football matches, the total is 50 per cent., at least, of very law-abiding football spectators. Then of course there are the women, and we shall come to them shortly.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, please.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I know that my noble friend is very partial to the human race, of both sexes.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I meant that in the nicest way.
If one adds the 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of women who attend football matches and who have never caused any problems through violence one has now reached 65 per cent. Add to that the children who attend and do not commit acts of violence and one is very near 100 per cent. All those people, who the Minister has agreed constitute no problem at all, have to apply and pay for a football membership identity card and belong to the scheme simply and solely because of the activities of ·09 per cent., if the figure is as high as that, of those who attend football matches. That is not good enough, is it?
I know that the Minister is committed to the scheme. I know that the Government are committed to their silly scheme. Nevertheless, if they are committed they ought to listen to the reasonable arguments for exemptions which have been put forward in Committee this afternoon. Of all the exemptions suggested so far, this must be the most reasonable. We ask the Minister to listen to the arguments not only from this side of the Chamber but also from his own side of the Chamber and to show a modicum of concern for that section of the population.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to be so unkind to my noble friend but I think that his answer left a considerable amount to be desired. The object of the Bill is to make sure that hooliganism at football matches is reduced to an absolute minimum. We

1431
know the hooligans; they are males between the ages of 15 and 30.
I accept that there are difficulties in excluding certain groups of people because they meld with others. However, old age pensioners, as has been stated frequently, do not commit acts of hooliganism. They tend to be the more respected members of society. They are also easily identifiable. For the life of me I cannot see the slightest benefit to them from having to buy an extra ticket. Surely my noble friend can see that. I am on his side on the use of the identity card to stop as much hooliganism as possible, which we know is deeply offensive to most people, especially to old age pensioners. However, the answer he gave made one despair, and he had been doing so well.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Let me try to encourage the Minister do do even better. If he stops where he is, we shall have the same kind of impasse as before. I do not want him to say that he is prepared to take away this amendment and look at it to see whether he can accept it; I want him to tell us that he is willing to take it away, without commitment, and study what has been said in the debate. That is one side of the argument; it is the other side to say, "I am not even prepared to entertain the possibility that I or my advisers might be wrong".
The Minister can listen to people from all around the Chamber and certainly to colleagues on his own side. I say to all my colleagues in the Committee, with great respect: This is not a party issue. The Government will not fall if you decide that an old-age pensioner can get in to see Newcastle United or Spurs without going through the rigmarole of obtaining a ticket. You will not damage the Prime Minister's credibility unless she herself wishes to make this an issue of credibility. You are looking at how you can make a scheme work and be credible; in other words, sensible in the eyes of the people involved.
I wish to make two points before I sit down. When I pick up a national newspaper and look at the events that have occurred over the last weekend, I see no references to groups of old-age pensioners who have been involved in violence. I have here a newspaper cutting the heading of which states:
"youths clash with police in chip shop brawl".
The article goes on:
"A police van was overturned and several officers were injured when more than 100 youths fought outside a chip shop in one of a series of brawls over the weekend … On Saturday night, police arrested 15 people at a series of incidents around Weston-super-Mare and in Cambridgeshire, a police car was damaged and two officers injured after clashes with 120 youths at St. Neots".
That is the kind of incident that happens rather than incidents involving rioting football fans, aged between 15 and 40. There is no mention of such incidents. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that one is more likely to find hooligans in the age category 15 to 40.
We simply say to the Minister that the task is not as onerous as he makes out. I have here an application form for Fulham Football Club. It refers to specially reduced terms for old-age pensioners. The club has managed to adopt a scheme which
1432
differentiates for old-age pensioners. I also have an application form for Huddersfield Town Football Club which refers to ticket applications for adults, children and old-age pensioners and provides for reductions. I have yet another application form for Notts County Football Club which refers to standing prices for adults, juveniles, junior magpies and old-age pensioners. I have similar forms for Spurs and Manchester United.
With no disrespect to the Minister, I honestly believe that a great deal has been happening in those clubs that the Minister's advisers either know about and have ignored or not told him about. What is happening in football is not what the Minister and his friends have told us. This is what is happening: the clubs are dealing with the problem of trying to be kind to our senior citizens. What is wrong with that?
I make the Minister a genuine offer: is he prepared to allow me to withdraw the amendment against the premise that he will, without commitment, look at what has been said? He need not even say that he will come back with something at the next stage; he need say only that he will write to me. That will leave us to take action. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if he is prepared to say that he will look at what has been said, but if he is not—and I shall not rise again—I shall press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Hesketh: The proposers of the amendment have presented an attractive argument which slightly misrepresents the Government's position. Perhaps I might explain their argument in this way: quite rightly, pensioners are a special group of people in this country and because of that the result of the Bill is in some way an imposition upon them. That is neither the case nor the position from which the Bill started out.
The Bill started out as a response to a problem and the scheme in the Bill is an answer to that problem. It may not be the whole or best answer, but it is the only answer on offer. The object of the Bill is to make the scheme, when it is introduced, a success. Those people who consulted on the best way of making the scheme work said that, if it were to have a chance, exemptions must be strictly limited. The difficulty with this amendment is the same as with the previous one. I should love to be able to say that the Government would like to agree to it, but we believe that, like the last amendment—in this case, we are talking about an amendment which involves 20 per cent. of the population—it will make the scheme fail. We are trying to introduce a scheme that will protect the weak more than any other group. The object is to introduce a scheme that works. It is for that reason—not for some flint-hearted reason—that I resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has made not the slightest effort to answer the point made by his noble friend Lord Onslow. He did not even refer to the argument during his remarks. I find that remarkable.
The noble Lord told us two things. First, 20 per cent. of the population are old-age pensioners; so

1433
what? What has that to do with the matter? The real question is a different one: do our old-age pensioners become involved in violence at football matches? That is what we are discussing. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is not to create a scheme; it is to deal with violence at football matches. The first question that we should ask is whether old-age pensioners are involved in violence at football matches. The answer is no; they are not, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, pointed out. What was the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, to that? His answer was that the scheme will fail if those people—none of whom is involved in violence—are excluded from the scheme. But why will it fail? Can he give us one coherent reason why it will fail?
In his earlier speech the noble Lord told us, "There are all sorts of problems. We are very worried about old-age pensioners being made to queue up". That anticipates an interesting argument which we shall have later about the length of the queues that will be involved when people present their FMA cards or smart cards. I am told by the police that there is a real prospect of substantial queues.
As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, pointed out, old-age pensioners have a clear method of identification—an old-age pension book. There could quite easily be separate entrances for old-age pensioners as there used to be at football matches and as there still are in some cases. What conceivable administrative problem is involved in that?
The noble Lord. Lord Hesketh, went on to say, "I am very worried about what would go on inside the ground", but what would the problem be? If a police officer or security guard asked someone, "Do you have a right to be within the ground?", the person concerned would show either his scheme membership card or his old-age pension book. Such people would not have to be segregated in different parts of the ground unless the club itself wanted that.
I make this appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, in a spirit of reason and, I hope, with a fair degree of good will. When he makes such declarations as "The scheme will fail without that provision", he must give arguments rather than simply exchange pieces of rhetoric of that kind. We should be grateful if he would justify the conclusion that he has reached, which appears to many of us to be extremely far fetched.
Lord Hesketh: I draw the Committee's attention to the Second Reading debate in which many speeches were made concerning the confusion and complication of entering a ground with just one card.
With regard to a point with which we shall deal later, and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, let us accept the argument made by many Members on this side of the Committee. The implication that we shall now introduce a second form of identity to enter a ground means, by definition, that it will become more complex and difficult to enter the ground.
As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the alternative is to have a special gate or number of
1434
gates at a bigger ground for old age pensions. That will eliminate for them the choice of where they wish to go in the ground because it will have to be a defined area.
Lord Underhill: Has the noble Lord any evidence from the football authorities of the number of clubs that do not have special gates for old age pensioners and young children? Has he any evidence of anywhere where old age pensioners who go through a separate turnstile are made to go in a certain part of the ground? I am certain that he has no evidence whatever to back those two statements.
Lord Hesketh: Of course I do not have any evidence because we are talking about the future when the scheme comes into play rather than the current state of affairs. It would be under a new regime.
Lord Underhill: I am sorry to intervene again, but clubs will not withdraw their special turnstiles for old age pensioners if this new scheme comes in. That system will still operate.
The Earl of Onslow: Once the principle of exemptions has been conceded—which it has—one automatically has to have separate entrances or some method whereby a choice is made by somebody manning a turnstile. Once that concession has been made it follows that it is easy to make any number of exemptions. It follows as night follows day. There can be no argument on that.
Therefore I can see no difficulty whatever in identifying a block class of people. I admit that there is a great difficulty in differentiating between people who live in odd or even numbered houses in a street, or something silly like that, where the type of person is very similiar. But one has a very readily identifiable group called old age pensioners to whom the state quite rightly gives enormous privileges. But it is not prepared to allow them to go to football clubs without having this identity card.
Lord Hesketh: Again, those are seductive arguments from my noble friend Lord Onslow. However, a case is being made that: denies the existence of the problem and why we have the scheme. There is a complete difference of opinion. We believe that the scheme and the membership of the scheme is a protection and not an inhibition.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: How can it be a protection? The noble Lord must not use empty rhetoric without explaining what he means. What form of protection is involved if an old age pensioner has to be a member of the scheme? How are the interests of the old age pensioner improved? That is the question that I should like to ask the noble Lord. I should be grateful if he would answer it.
Lord Hesketh: Protection is provided very simply on this basis. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce a scheme that will rid the game of hooliganism. That by definition will protect those who are members of the scheme.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord is simply repeating points that he has made earlier and which have singularly failed to convince a single noble Lord in any other part of the Chamber. It has been pointed out to him by myself and others that the fact that one makes an old age pensioner join this scheme cannot possibly make him any safer because old age pensioners as a group do not riot at football matches. The point could hardly be clearer. Yet every time we have this rhetoric from the noble Lord without any justification for the stance that he is adopting.
Lord Hesketh: I must answer that. I have conceded—everyone has conceded—from the very start that no one was saying that any old age pensioner had been or ever was seen rioting. On the principle of protection—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, may not like it—the objective of the scheme is to reduce hooliganism. We believe that the best protection lies within the context of the scheme. That is why we feel that it is a benefit and not a disadvantage as it is being portrayed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has dealt as fully as he can with the arguments. I say that sincerely. He has responded to the points that have been made to the best of his ability on the advice that he has been able to receive.
However, the Minister for Sport has said more than once that the objective of the scheme is this. The possession of the card is necessary if a disturbance takes place and there is trouble. If someone is involved in the trouble, at least he will have a membership card on him with all his details, because he will have entered legally. The authorities can nab him. I can; understand that position. One can have a football ground full of people without any identity cards and if there is no trouble that is all right. However, if there is some trouble then the people involved in it have to prove who they are.
We are led to believe from the evidence of our own eyes that old age pensioners do not get into trouble. They do not need a card. All they need to have is a form of identity that they are old age pensioners—for example, their pension book or something else. If they go into the ground as an old age pensioner and they have forgotten their card they are in the same position as anybody else who gets in. We shall come later to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on what happens in the Manchester United/Arsenal situations where something has to give. One has to allow a lot of people in without looking at their cards. That is perfectly safe provided there is no trouble. We are speaking of a group of people—old age pensioners—whose record shows that they do not get into trouble.
I have made the Minister two offers tonight. I shall make him one that he cannot refuse. I shall not press this amendment to a vote, not least because I am very good at arithmetic. However, while withdrawing this amendment we are urging the Government and their advisers to think very hard about how they can meet the points that we are making. The time can be well used between now and the next stage.
1436
I understand the constraints on the Minister to say no more than he came prepared to say. However, there are many unhappy faces behind him. He does not see them. If they are to be driven into a Lobby simply to support the Government on issues of this kind then I believe that it diminishes the quality and worth of our decisions. There are few people who might be driven into the Lobby on the other side who could justify a belief that in 1990 it would be right and proper in this free land for old age pensioners to pay money and go through the procedure of carrying a card to watch something that they have seen all their lives. We are talking of people who have stood on the terraces at matches during the past 50 years. In the case of my noble friend Lord Wallace it has been during the past 60 years. He is proud to call himself president of the Capital Canaries. These people have attended matches for over 60 years, yet they have to go through this business.
I am sorry that the Minister has been unable to be more accommodating. He has been helpful at other stages during this evening. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, unless we have some concession on this matter between now and the next stage we may well find other means of bringing the amendment back before your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: I suggest that the Committee stage be now adjourned and begin again at 8.50 p.m.
(The Sitting was suspended from 7.49 to 8.50 p.m.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being membes of the scheme, of persons who are registered as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944;").
The noble Lord said: With this it may be convenient for the Committee if I take Amendment No. 53D. The Minister and his advisers will have noticed that Amendment No. 53D is a little more expansive in its definition of the disabled. The Minister referred to a willingness in a future amendment to write on the face of the Bill the kind of exemptions which we feel the FMA could usefully incorporate. He referred to the disabled, for which I am grateful. Thousands of people outside will also be grateful.
The purpose of the amendment is to try to exclude from the full rigours of the Bill a group of people for whom there is no evidence of their being remotely involved in the kind of violence which quite properly the Minister feels needs to be tackled, although we on this side of the Committee do not feel that it is being tackled in the best way.
Not all clubs have designated areas for the physically handicapped. For example, I have an excellent book here called Help: Football and the Community which was issued by the Thames Television "Help" programme. It brings together the facilities available in a number of grounds. For example, at Aldershot for disabled supporters a small number of wheelchairs are admitted by prior

1437
arrangement. At Arsenal wheelchairs are accommodated in the disabled section on the lower tier of the cast stand and commentaries are available for the blind. At Brentford, wheelchairs are accomodated in the disabled section where commentaries are available for the blind. At Chelsea wheelchairs are accomodated within the east stand complex where toilet facilities are also available. At Charlton Athletic wheelchairs are accommodated and commentaries are available for the blind. At Crystal Palace wheelchairs are admitted through the Park Road entrance free of charge and accompanying helpers may obtain seats for £2.
I do not want to weary the Committee because I am sure the Minister is well aware of this booklet. It is a disparate situation—it is not uniform. Some disabled groups of supporters are better looked after by their clubs than others. But we believe that the amendment is sensible. We do not want to see the scheme ending up by discriminating between clubs instead of between people. In other words, some clubs have good facilities and others do not.
I should like to say a little about the physically handicapped who require a special entrance. They cannot go through the turnstiles, which cause problems. That needs to be investigated. Then there are the blind and the mentally handicapped. I acknowledge that if it is the Minister's intention simply to refer to this in one or two words and then to leave it to the FMA, much consultation will obviously need to be undertaken. I should like to hear the Minister confirm to the Committee my understanding of his earlier helpful remarks that he hopes that the FMA will consult meaningfully with the various bodies such as the League for the Blind and other organisations that have special knowledge.
I have no detail of the numbers involved. I have been to Millwall, Watford and Spurs in the last few weeks to familiarise myself with background material for the Bill. All those clubs had some provision for the disabled. I await with pleasure what the Minister may be able to tell us. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I am against the Bill. I make no secret of the fact. Also for obvious reasons I am a great supporter of the disabled, which the Committee may feel is a very strange reason for me to be against the amendment. Many years ago when my noble kinswoman was actively partaking in international paraplegic sport, I remember going to the games where a certain country in South America sent a very strong team of people in wheelchairs who, to everybody's amazement, won everything. All was revealed at the end of the week at the celebration party. The athletes who had been competing in wheelchairs all week threw their wheelchairs away when the dancing started and danced the Samba and the Conga like mad.
I am not suggesting for one moment that a crowd of yobbos will borrow wheelchairs to get into a ground and start rioting from there. But I should point out that the disabled prefer to be treated like normal people as far as possible. I do not see why they should miss out on the great advantages of this
1438
wonderful scheme like the poor old-age pensioners. It seems to me that they are being discriminated against if the Government accept this. I think that that is a bit much. I am all for genuine cases being able to get in in their wheelchairs. I think it is a good idea if they have to go through special entrances, and I am all for that. But I hope that my noble friend will consider this very carefully and not give carte blanche to all the disabled who, as I have said, like to be treated like normal people. I do not want to see positive discrimination in that way so that they do not have to do things that normal people have to do.
Lord Gisborough: I wonder whether my noble friend can enlighten me about one matter. Now that subsection (3)(c) has been included with subsection (2) as being an obligatory provision, does that not cover all the cases about which we are talking? Surely that means that the provision must be made for anybody, such as the disabled, by the football club. Is it not a waste of time going through all these individual cases?
9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 50 and 53D will provide mandatory exemption for people registered disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and will extend the exemptions to people registered under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 who are registered blind and who are in receipt of mobility or attendance allowances.
I have every sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment. The Minister for Sport's working party which reviewed the principles of the scheme last summer considered the issue and recommended that exemption arrangements should be agreed for disabled people in designated areas with special access. We agree that that would be a sensible way forward. I have therefore agreed to consider spelling out on the face of the Bill that that exemption provision must be made in the scheme for disabled people in designated areas. It will be for the Football Membership Authority to draw up the appropriate arrangements for ensuring that the exemption procedure works well to the benefit of both the disabled and the club and that it is not open to abuse.
I make no apology for repeating the argument that it is the members of the national membership scheme who stand to benefit from it and not those who are exempted by it. Exemption will sometimes be desirable for good practical reasons, and that is particularly relevant for disabled people. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has pointed out, many clubs already make special arrangements to enable disabled people to gain admission to grounds without having to go through turnstiles and climb steps. Membership schemes must be drawn up in such a way as to build on existing arrangements and not cut across them. Where a disabled person does not normally go through a turnstile he should not have to do so when the membership scheme is in place.
That is the way in which we should look at the case for exempting disabled people on a practical basis rather than spelling out a list of the groups who may be exempted on the face of the Bill. If we specify a long list of different types of disabled people, some of

1439
whom can go through a turnstile but some of whom cannot, we involve the clubs in a complicated checking procedure which is of no help to them and still less to disabled people.
People who are registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act are issued with a green card as proof. Those who receive a mobility allowance have a notice of entitlement and a payable order book, as do people in receipt of attendance allowances. In each case they are separate documents. Under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act disabled people are issued with orange badges for their motor cars.
Clearly it would be difficult to require all those people to produce such documents to show that they are entitled to admission to a football match without a membership card. It is much better to look at the case for an exemption for disabled people in designated areas and build on the arrangements which the clubs have already taken on their own initiative.
I have said that we shall consider the case for spelling out on the face of the Bill a specific exemption for disabled people in designated areas. I shall consider further what Members of the Committee have said, but it is essential that the practical details should be left to the FMA and the clubs. I do not believe that it will be of help to present them with a long list of people, each with a separate means of identification. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Am I right in understanding that the Government will make an exemption in this case and will present the House with a form of words? The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, indicates that that is so.
I welcome that provision. If I wished to be provocative, which is far from my mind, I should agree with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, because, even though the Minister has indicated that he is being as helpful as possible, he has repeated the extraordinary arguments about people being deprived of benefits of membership of the scheme. If he took his argument seriously he would say that, as a matter of principle, the Government would not look at the position of the disabled because in doing so they would be discriminating against them in a monstrous manner. Fortunately, it is probable that the Minister has by now lost any form of confidence in that part of the argument.
Everything that he has said is acceptable to us and I thank him. I am sure that my noble colleague will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out the manner in which the FMA will have the major responsibility for putting the flesh on the bones. We wanted to hear the Minister say that those who can be categorised as being disabled are a special case to be dealt with outside the generality of the football membership scheme. We did not want the Minister to go any further than that and I am grateful to him. I look forward to seeing the small print—
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment I should like to voice concern about the possibility of designated areas. There are some disabled people who do not have to be herded into corrals. I accept that people who cannot get out of wheelchairs cannot go on the terraces and therefore there are unavoidable acts of discrimination. However, persons who are partially blind could be with their children on the ordinary seats. I hope that that aspect will be borne in mind.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I believe that the Committee will welcome my repeating the experience at Crystal Palace. There wheelchairs are admitted through Park Road entrance free of charge and accompanying helpers may obtain seats for £2. An accompanying helper is not necessarily someone who is interested in football but he is passionately interested in the welfare and wellbeing of the disabled person.
I believe that the Minister will wish to leave the FMA to produce a scheme acceptable to the Secretary of State. Provided that there is no loophole and that it is not discriminatory, I am satisfied that the Secretary of State will consider it.
At Leyton Orient football ground, for example, a dozen wheelchairs are accommodated on the stand behind the goal. Is that the stand where they scored the goal last year? At Gillingham football ground, blind supporters are seated, when possible, within earshot of a hospital commentator. Such examples will be known by the seven or eight wise men and women who form the FMA and will be taken into account. I am grateful and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) prividing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of members of families to be accommodated in family enclosures;").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. The Minister has often said that he wishes to return to the days when families went to football matches. My recollection is that it is only recently that families have wished to go to football matches. There may well have been cases of a father and son or other male relatives attending matches. However, it is only comparatively recently that clubs have recognised that within the community they not only have the job of winning the cup or winning the league but they also have a social job to do. Thus, the concept of family membership areas has grown. Most clubs and groups have that in one form or another.
Perhaps I may turn to Luton Town as an example. That has 1,972 seats in a family enclosure which is self-contained with its own entrances. Away families are not admitted unless they are guests of Luton. What a pity. Each member may take up to three guests, and we shall come later to the amendments which allow members of the scheme to take guests. I do not believe that I can give a better example than Luton. I am sure that there is nothing which Luton

1441
does which the Minister will say is bad. However, we shall come on to that later. At Luton there is pre-match entertainment.
Perhaps I may take Millwall as a further example. There are 500 seats in a separate section of the stand with its own entrance and there is a plan to enlarge the facilities. Reading has a section situated in D stand which is shared with season ticket holders and Coronet Club members. There is sponsorship and so on. However, there is a lack of family room in many cases and I imagine that family room is a good provision. At Watford there are 500 seats in front of the director's box and a family terrace with a capacity of 1,200 both physically separated with their own entrance, toilets and catering facilities.
I went to Watford and while looking over what is laughingly called the "directors' area" I looked into the family area. I was astounded to see not only children aged three or four who were running about in a family atmosphere but also a young mother who was rocking a baby in the pram to sleep. That was a real, unsolicited demonstration of the atmosphere of a family area where this lady had obviously been a supporter for some time and was still keen. She took along her baby and there was no problem of hostility or violence.
I can see great social benefits in that atmosphere. A great club like Watford tries to encourage schoolchildren and old age pensioners and others to go to watch the match. Perhaps I may also cite the classic case of Millwall. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Mellish, who knows more about Millwall than anyone here and is proud of it, is not in his seat. I am wearing the Millwall tie. I do not mean that there is only one tie! I wanted to strengthen my ties with Millwall! Millwall Football Club has gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure that there is a family atmosphere and uses a very nice phrase. It describes itself as, "the club which gave itself back to the community".
I hope that the Minister will be able to say something helpful on this amendment. I agree that one needs to be sure that potential hooligans are not able to use a family membership scheme in order to gain entry. As the Minister said, potential hooligans could use the season ticket device in order to gain entry through the back door. However, I do not believe that that will happen. I believe that the Minister must trust not only groups of people but also individuals who genuinely want what he wants; namely, the removal of violence from football. Practical people come to us and say, "We believe that one can trust the generality of family membership patrons". I shall not ask the Minister but I doubt whether there has been a punch-up or violence or hooliganism in or around a family membership area or participation in any such violence by its members. Therefore, I hope that the Minister may be able to help on this matter so that we can move on to more contentious amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe that my noble friend will be surprised that I do not think that he should accept this amendment. The reason is simple. A family area is not a sufficiently easily identifiable block of people. There is nothing to stop
1442
unaccompanied males—and it is unaccompanied males by which we are irritated—going into a family area. Those people have to be controlled. I believe that this amendment will produce a loophole by allowing that exemption. It is too loose.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, I am very much in favour of a large number of exemptions. I have spoken to certain exemptions and in a later amendment I shall speak to another block of exemptions. Those are all easily identifiable blocks of people who can be easily segregated. However, with season ticket holders and family members one gets into the problem of lack of proper identification. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will be as intelligently robust in his defence of this amendment as he has been for the rest of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: I understand the objections put forward to this amendment by the noble Earl; but I should like to say to him and to the Committee that if this amendment, or one similar, is not accepted it will be inevitable that those clubs who have these special family enclosures—I know a number of them—will abandon them. How else can they maintain and operate them?
I accept that there are difficulties. I have seen groups of people going into family enclosures united as a family, so far as one could tell, by total mutual hostility; but they nevertheless went in as a family. However, I am bound to say to the noble Earl that without such an amendment we are saying to all those football clubs which have reserved an area with special facilities and provision for families, "Do not provide them any more, they are not needed". That would be regrettable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has made a very positive point. I take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on his views. My noble friend who moved the amendment was right to say that family areas, designated as that, are a new feature of football.
I recall watching my first matches at Maine Road, Manchester in the early 1930s. I am somewhat long in the tooth because I can remember watching Hughie Gallagher. I watched from the boys' corner, as it was termed. My father took me in there. It was a part of the ground where the terracing was slightly steeper. I believe that part of the ground is now part of the family group arrangement.
I can see no reason why the amendment should not be acceptable. I do not watch much football these days; certainly not as much as I used to. If the Bill is enacted, I will have to join the membership scheme. The last time I went to Maine Road was a few weeks ago when I took my two grandsons aged five and eight. If the Bill is enacted how do I then take my grandsons to a match?
I should like to know that there is a part of the ground which is completely covered and without regulations having to be met. As my noble friend Lord Graham said, there is a developing theme within football to encourage family activity.

1443
Wherever it has been encouraged there has been a diminution in violence and aggravation. This is because families are families. They may argue among themselves but it is usually after the match and when they get home.
On that basis, if the Minister cannot give my noble friend a positive answer perhaps he can indicate that that facet is worth looking at. It would be delightful if we could encourage the growth of a family atmosphere in football. Families should be able to go to a match and make it, so to speak, a social occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, if the Bill is left unamended, it could act as a brake and a discouragement to the clubs who are doing their best to involve families and eliminate the problems now existing in football. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic in his reply.
Lord Monkswell: In supporting this amendment I find myself in a somewhat curious position. The only reason for supporting the amendment is if the Bill goes through to become an Act and we end up with identity cards for football supporters. One aspect that we must bear in mind is that if the Bill is enacted we must set up a scheme which will not destroy the game of football as we know it, largely because of economic reasons and falling gates.
A couple of months ago my son had his 10th birthday. As a treat he wanted to see Manchester United play. I went to the ground to buy the tickets and I noticed that there was a family enclosure at Old Trafford. I specifically did not buy tickets for that enclosure because I felt that my 10 year-old son would want to obtain the full flavour of a First Division match without being segregated or discriminated against. Therefore, we bought ordinary stand tickets and had a terrific afternoon. Millwall were the opponents and Manchester United beat them. Everyone enjoyed the match.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Except Millwall.
Lord Monkswell: "Except Millwall" somebody says. On one side of us we had hardened Manchester United supporters and on the other we had very strong supporters of Millwall who had come up from London to watch the game. At the end of the match there was general agreement that it was a good one. There was plenty of activity with goals scored and that kind of thing. I am sure that the Millwall supporters were a little downcast because they had lost, but we saw a bloody good game of football.
The point I am getting at is that I took my son on the basis that I could buy a couple of tickets and go to the match. If I had had to go through the process of getting identity cards for myself and my son, there is no way that he and I would have gone to the match. I would have said "I am sorry, son, we shall have to watch it on the box and that's it". Manchester United would have been denied the support of we two at least. I suspect that that will apply to many thousands of supporters of British football who go maybe only once every 10 years. That is my record.
I hope that my sons might take a little more interest in football. The point is that unless we write into the
1444
Bill exemptions such as the one that this amendment calls for, we will deny the game of football to ad hoc spectators; the father who takes his son along and develops an interest in the game. It may be that in future years the son will take out a full subscription or an annual season ticket. If it is to become law there must be some exemptions from this scheme to enable the casual football supporter to go to matches. That is why I support this amendment.
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested that the Minister might look on this amendment in a kind way. I hope to demonstrate that we look on it in a kind, practical and sensible way. As the Committee already knows, my noble friend has explained the Government's general position on exemptions and why we accept that there should be mandatory provision for exemptions in the scheme. We have undertaken to consider placing specific categories of exempted spectators on the face of the Bill.
We are not convinced that families in family enclosures should be one of those specific categories of exemption. We are aware that this was one of the possibilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, recommended by the Minister for Sport's working party in its report of last November. We do not believe that it is at all clear that the way to encourage the family audience for football matches is to exempt family groups from the scheme. Quite the reverse: it is by realising the benefits which the scheme offers that we will encourage families into football matches. By ensuring that the hooligan is kept out of football, law-abiding spectators will be able to watch matches in peace. That is a vital consideration in the context of families going to football matches.
There is also the matter of how you define and distinguish family groups. Arrangements would have to be made to ensure that hooligans—perhaps even people who have been banned from membership, though I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, doubts that—cannot use the family group to beat the system and attend designated matches. At too many matches we see aggressive and provocative behaviour, with the threat of violence never far below the surface. That is the view of the police. Let us remember too the segregation—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I ask the Minister on what basis he says that that is the view of the police?
The Earl of Arran: I firmly understand that that is the view of the police. Perhaps I may continue with the points that I wish to make.
Let us remember the segregation arrangements at the ground; the video surveillance at the grounds and the huge police resources devoted to football. There are about 5,000 officers deployed on match-day Saturdays. None of this makes for the kind of environment and atmosphere that is likely to attract families. The scheme will mean that we have a sure way of keeping hooligans out of football. The atmosphere at the match can improve and watching the game can become a more pleasant and enjoyable experience.

1445
Far from being exempt, families will wish to be part of this process. We welcome measures designed to attract a family audience to football matches. Wihout the protection of the national membership scheme family enclosures offer one of the few ways to improve the atmosphere at games. The membership scheme will provide an effective means of keeping troublemakers away. The scheme will bring real benefits not only in terms of banning the hooligan and improving the general atmosphere at matches, but also in the commercial opportunities it will present to the clubs. We want to see the clubs seize those opportunities. It is in their interests and in the interests of members of the scheme that they should do so. I hope that clubs will take a positive approach to developing the scheme.
There is not the same practical argument in relation to families as there is in relation to the disabled in designated areas. There is no practical reason why family groups should not go through turnstiles like everyone else. At the same time there will be nothing to stop the clubs exempting children or even parents and children together from any charge made for the scheme. I imagine that many clubs may wish to do so. As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, clubs would still be able to have family enclosures. Families would go to them as members of the scheme rather than, as now, as members of the enclosure.
In conclusion, families will wish to join the scheme and enjoy the benefits membership will bring. I hope that noble Lords will share and understand these sentiments and feel in their wisdom able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not know who has briefed the Minister but the noble Earl appears to have misled the Committee regarding the views of the police on the Bill. I have been at Old Trafford and at Maine Road when the attendance has been around 50,000. The police superintendents at those games were absolutely emphatic that they had total control of the situation.
The Minister said that the police had indicated that violence is always just below the surface. I have never heard that from chief superintendents in charge at those grounds. That is a slanderous remark to make. It is not true to say that violence is just below the surface at those football grounds. I could stand in the crowd at Old Trafford, Maine Road or Elland Road and be completely safe. Most football clubs are trying to eliminate standing room at grounds and to provide seating for all spectators. That in itself tends to eliminate friction and violence. The Minister is on dangerous ground when he refers to the views of the police. I should like to know who said that violence is simmering just below the surface at football grounds. I have not noticed it when I have been at football grounds. I have also walked around outside the grounds.
I went recently to Old Trafford as an ordinary spectator. I left my home in Denton on the outskirts of Manchester by bus at a quarter to one. I went to the centre of Manchester and caught the football bus, paid my return fare, went to Old Trafford, watched
1446
the game, stayed a while afterwards and then got the football bus back to the centre of Manchester. Then I had to get a bus from Manchester to Denton and by then it was half-past six. It took nearly five hours to watch a football match and get home.
Every football bus that I went on was completely full of bona fide spectators. Nobody knew who I was and at no time did I ever think there was any threat of violence from any of those lads on those buses. So it is an absolute slander for the Government to put that forward here today as part of their defence for what they are trying to do.
I did that five or six weeks ago. It took me five hours to do it and I never felt in danger, intimidated or under any duress whatever. If we are to listen to the Government's case, they should not quote the police when they cannot produce the police who are supposed to have said certain things. That is an indication that the Government are misusing somebody's statement. It is certainly not coming from the senior police who are in charge at football grounds. They are content with what they have. From the way in which the record has improved lately, it is obvious that they are doing their job and they could well get on with it without being trammelled by the additional duties that they will have to perform because of this Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I wish that the Prime Minister was sitting next to the Minister on the Front Bench. What on earth would she say? We have had lectures, we have had statements—and, as a matter of fact, I agree with them—about the value of family life. Indeed the Prime Minister, rightly in my view, believes that the family unit is the best unit we have and the unit most likely to instil and encourage good behaviour, both in husbands and indeed in children. Yet here we have the Government rejecting the opportunity to write in an amendment which would improve the Bill in a way which the Prime Minister herself is bound to agree with.
Indeed, what the Government ought to be seeking to do is not to discourage this sort of thing but to encourage it; to encourage attendance at football matches by families. Not only would those families, because they would be in the family unit, be well behaved, whatever their age or sex, but they would encourage others and be an example to others to behave well and properly also.
So I hope that the noble Earl, if he will not listen to this side of the Committee, will bear in mind what the Prime Minister believes about the sanctity and value of families keeping together, of families doing things together, and about the family unit being the prime source of decency in this country. If he does that, then I think he will accept this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether the noble Earl will help us. I asked him specifically to justify the statement he made about the police. Will he now do so?
The Earl of Arran: To take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, he is of

1447
course absolutely right about the family unit. But the whole point of this scheme is to encourage the family unit to return to the game of football. We hope that by this Bill that is exactly what will happen. As I said before, clubs will still be able to have family enclosures. The only difference is that families will go to them as members of the scheme rather than, as now, as members of the enclosure. To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Earl does that, does he not realise that to have to enter the membership scheme at a cost of perhaps £3, £4 or £5 for each member of the family is a discouragement? What is more, the bureaucracy of joining the scheme is also a discouragement to the family and to the family unit. That is why the Government should give serious consideration to the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: The answer is that it would not be as great as the discouragement of violence. As I said originally, the cost of taking a family into a designated football ground might be helped by some relaxation of the club rules.
I regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, took the view that he did of the police. There is no doubt that the police view is that at too many matches we see aggressive and provocative behaviour with the threat of violence, which I repeat again is never far below the surface. That is borne out by the deployment of some 5,000 police officers to control football supporters on an average Saturday. Can anyone say with confidence that if we took the police and the segregation fences away there would be no trouble? I do not believe that that would be the case.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister repeated in his answer to me what he said to my noble colleague who moved the amendment. Does he say that if the Bill becomes an Act the need for the police will be dramatically reduced? As a Mancunian—a northerner—who has also been a Yorkshire Member of Parliament, I have to tell the Minister that the only time that I feel threatened during the later years of my life is travelling on the Underground at night in London, not watching football matches at Leeds, Old Trafford in Manchester or even Arsenal. I have been to Arsenal and I have never felt threatened there.
It is strange that the Government should be hell bent on saying that violence is always just below the surface at a football match. If the Minister dares to travel home from here at night on the London Underground he will find that violence is not just below the surface; it is on the surface. He may well want to transfer the police from football matches to that goal.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, who knows how police forces operate from his duties as a Minister in the department, asked the Minister a question. Will the Minister tell us which police force he is talking about, because I have heard no evidence from the police who control the ground which probably has the biggest average gate outside Glasgow in the United Kingdom? I do not know where the Minister gets his information from. I do not believe that it
1448
comes from any of the associations which represent the different grades in the police. I have not heard the information before. He must produce hard evidence and name the people or associations that have made the assertion. The Minister should not say in a blasé way that the police have said a certain thing. It has not been said. The information has been introduced without any names or evidence to back it up. It does neither the Minister nor the Government's case any good to proceed along those lines.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support my noble friend a little. First, there is no doubt that there has been violence at football matches. There can be no argument about that. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has put forward a good argument against my noble friend's refusal to accept the amendment. He is making a bad case. It is almost as bad a case as the case my noble friend is making for turning down a bad idea. My noble friend has produced all the wrong arguments. We have known each other since about 1951. I still hope that he will resist the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I asked a specific question of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, about the attitude of the police. He then answered a totally different question. If the noble Earl does not know the position then his advisers will and I now urge him to consult them. I am asking him again: in relation to the statement he made about the position of the police, from whom did he hear this? Who told the Government that that was the position of the police? The noble Earl made the statement, he must now justify it. Will he please do so?
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may specifically answer the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. We see the Bill as offering a prospect of reducing the amount of police time and effort devoted to policing football matches.
Yes, the threat of violence appears elsewhere but we are dealing especially here with football. The Association of Chief Police Officers believes that too much violence exists at football matches. Yes, the association has some reservations about how the scheme will work in practice but no doubt about the nature of the problem. Why else should there be segregation, CCTV, escorts of crocodiles of away supporters to protect them from attack? The problem exists. The Bill tackles that problem.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl has now told us for the first time, and only after being asked an embarrassing number of questions, that he has received a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers. I think we are all extremely interested to know what the reservations are. The noble Earl has been good enough to inform us about the reservations of the police in regard to the Bill, which is a public order Bill. It is truly astonishing. I repeat that if the matter had been handled by my former department, even though we might well have had deep differences of opinion, at least the department would have been able to answer simple questions of this nature.

1449
I should like the noble Earl, if he would be good enough, to answer this question: what is the character of the reservations held by the Association of Chief Police Officers to which he has just referred? We are entitled to know the answer. All the more so, because earlier the noble Earl was trying to tell us that there was strong police support for the Government's position. Now we hear that there are reservations on the part of the police. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be candid with the Committee and give us the information to which I believe we are entitled.
If he cannot give us the information this evening, perhaps he could place a copy of the letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers in the Library of the House so that we can all be well aware of the reservations to which the noble Earl has just referred. He has just made a major statement and I hope that he will be able to assist us.
The Earl of Arran: The reservations concern the ability to move people through turnstiles without risk of congestion and disorder outside. The police are happy to be consulted about the mechanics of the scheme so that these concerns are addressed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I apologise to the Committee for continuing on this matter, but is that the only reservation introduced by the Association of Chief Police Officers? Going through the turnstiles is of course an important issue. Obviously, if the system does not work, there could be major public disorder. Will the noble Earl tell me whether that is the only reservation made by the Association of Chief Police Officers, or are there others? I should be very grateful if he could help us.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Earl replies, may I ask whether or not it is the case that there are widespread fears that violence which is prevented within the football grounds will simply be transferred to the adjoining streets? That will be very much to the detriment of the inhabitants of houses in those streets, even though it may be of benefit to the spectators inside the ground.
Lord Gisborough: What has this got to do with families? Are we not talking about the family? We have gone right off the subject.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sure the noble Earl will be assisted by his noble friend in answering the question which some of us have put to him. We have been discussing a question involving public order at football matches. The noble Earl has been good enough to indicate for the first time that he has in his possession a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers. He has now told us one of the reservations of that body. I have asked him, I hope, a simple question. Are there other reservations, and if so, what are they?
The Earl of Arran: I understand that the only other reservation that the association has is the possibility of the scheme being abused.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: What exactly does that mean? By whom will it be abused? I do not understand what that means.
The Earl of Arran: That stands for itself. The abuse refers to people trying to get into grounds when they are not legally entitled to do so.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister indicated, in more than one reply, that when the Bill becomes an Act it will result in a diminution of the police forces needed outside and inside football grounds. How does the Minister make such a deduction when new laws are coming into operation and the only people who can apply them or see that they are observed are the police forces in the areas concerned? The Minister must understand that he is standing experience on its head.
We are in a situation where the police will be involved in applying the law in certain circumstances which could involve a substantial number of people outside a football ground. The Minister is saying that the police will accomplish that task with a smaller force than they have at present. Whenever has a law been made, involving the police as the direct contact point, that has diminished the role of the policeman and not increased it? If the Government are proceeding on that basis, once again the premise is wrong. If the Bill becomes an Act, I can only see it involving the individual policeman at a ground in far more activity because no one else will have the authority to deal with the law that is being broken. Whoever is advising the Minister is advising him grossly incorrectly. However, do the Minister and his advisers draw the conclusion that at a very busy time, perhaps on a Saturday afternoon at a football match where the police presence is crucial as the contact point with the public, the role of the policeman will diminish and a smaller force will be needed? To me that is absolutely bonkers.
The Earl of Arran: I am disappointed that the noble Lord takes such a pessimistic view about this matter. If the legislation is to work properly, one of its byproducts will be that eventually, and hopefully in not too long a time, the number of police deployed on a Saturday at a designated football match will decrease. Hopefully, the figure of 5,000 will come down.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I was going to develop a number of other points earlier, but I thought it helpful to have the clarification which the noble Earl has given us concerning a communication of some kind that he has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers which indicates concern on two issues only. I hope the noble Earl will be quick to correct me if I am wrong. The first is an anxiety about what could happen at the turnstiles. The second concerns abuse of the scheme, by which is meant people illicitly entering a ground. Those are the only two concerns expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers. I put it to the noble Earl that if I am wrong I look forward to him correcting me and I shall of course give way. Otherwise, I shall continue with what I propose to say.

1451
I have a further point to make. As has just been pointed out, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, at the beginning of his speech drew attention to the number of police officers who are used every Saturday afternoon. He gave the number as 5,000. The implication of what he said is that following the introduction of the scheme fewer than those 5,000 police officers will be involved because all will be tranquility. Is that a professional judgment made by the police? Has the Minister been told by the Association of Chief Police Officers that that is their view, or is it the view of politicians in the Department of the Envronment whose policing skills are probably rather limited?
I should be grateful if the noble Earl could assist the Committee on those two matters.
The Earl of Arran: I understand that discussions are taking place with the Association of Chief Police Officers through the Home Office on the whole problem. It is hoped that those discussions will produce sensible ideas. Discussions are currently under way with the ACPO.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Once again the noble Earl has declined to answer the question which I asked him. I apologise for troubling the Committee, but when a Minister consistently declines to answer a question one assumes that there may be some explanation for that. He was the man who introduced the letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers. It was the noble Earl who referred to reservations being expressed by the police commanders of England and Wales. Until he told us we were unaware of those reservations.
During the course of what has become a protracted cross-examination, the noble Earl has said, first, that police anxieties are centred on admission to the ground and delays at the turnstiles, and, secondly, he has referred to abuse of the scheme. Those are his words, not mine. I am asking him not whether valuable discussions are taking place between the police and the Home Office—I am sure that they are. I am asking him a different question. Are there more than two issues on which the police have expressed reservations? The answer is either yes or no. Which is it?
The Earl of Radnor: Perhaps we can get back to the amendment as it is written instead of listening to endless Second Reading speeches which are quite out of place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: This is disgraceful. A Minister of the Crown has made a statement which he has been asked to justify. Will he do so or will he not?
The Earl of Onslow: This is not the time for the noble Earl to answer such questions. We are talking about families being exempted from the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has a valid point but it is not relevant at this stage. Otherwise he could go on to discuss drainage in Nigeria or trips to the moon.
1452
The whole situation could get totally out of hand. Please can we keep to the point rather than chasing after hares. The noble Lord has a point but this is not the time to raise it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The gallantry of the noble Earl is, as always, commendable. However, the Committee has heard a statement made by the representative of the Government about the attitude of the Association of Chief Police Officers. He is the man who introduced the argument. He is the man who said that there were anxieties in relation to two limited areas of policy. I have asked him a simple question. Are those the only concerns or are there others?
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I can simplify the issue and bring this debate to an end by saying that if the Association of Chief Police officers has more than two reservations I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Furthermore, I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library.
Lord Dean of Beswick: In that case, why did the Minister introduce into the discussion of this amendment the inference that the government proposals had the total support of senior police officers? From what he has just said it is obvious that that is not the case.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak to my own amendment. The past 36 minutes have not been wasted. They have revealed a degree of uncertainty in the Government's case that must worry the Minister's supporters behind him—and there are still some left, although not many—as to his ability to satisfy perfectly simple and straightforward questions.
The two noble Lords who spoke from the government side are quite right: this is a debate about family membership schemes. I shall not go over matters that have quite properly been introduced. When the debates are read, the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Dean will reveal considerable disquiet. That will not be the end of the matter. We shall need to study the debate and we have our own methods of ascertaining the veracity of all that has been said, much of which is very disturbing.
Perhaps I may take the Minister back to the central premise upon which so much of what he and his colleague have said this evening is based. That is the report of the Minister's working party to which we must pay due regard. When we discussed season ticket holders, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was quite happy to quote from that report which said that, in its view, season ticket holders were not a satisfactory group to be excluded; in other words, the report of the FMA working party was sensible and sound. However, on the issue of designated family areas, the report said:
"The working party considered, in the interest of encouraging families to attend matches, that children under 16, accompanied by an

1453
adult member of the scheme, could be exempt from the scheme provided that:

(i) they view, the match from a designated family enclosure; and

(ii) there is direct access to that family enclosure, not allowing transfer to other areas of the ground".

That is what the Minister's own report said. I should tell the Minister who will answer the debate that that is what the Minister for Sport has said in another place and in other ways. He is on the record as saying that he favours an exemption that will allow such a step. When the Minister replies, he must tell the House why there has been a change of ministerial thinking in that matter. It is a change for the worse. When we look at what we are asked to do, we see that the Minister has fallen back on loopholes and attempts to deceive when it is unnecessary to do so.
We are asking the Minister to encourage families. It is not a case of bringing back families. That was the very first point that I made 50 minutes ago. It is a myth to talk about bringing back a family atmosphere; the creation of family membership areas is a modern phenomenon. It has come about only in the past few years—and not thanks to any government initiative, either a Labour or a Conservative government, but thanks to the way in which social cohesion has developed. Football clubs have recognised that it is right and proper to create a family atmosphere. The creation of such an atmosphere is to the credit of the clubs, which I believe have been given far too little credit for what they have been doing over the past 10 years and, more importantly, over the past three or four years.
Let me take a look at the document that I have received from Watford. That club has family enclosures, a family terrace and a family block. It has achieved that by itself. The Minister has an opportunity to rescue what I believe has been a sad episode in debating this Bill. If there is any merit in this House having an opportunity to discuss and influence matters, surely the Minister must recognise that there is a case to be answered or at least examined. I have before me a great deal of detail from a great many clubs with which I shall not weary the House because we have already spent a long time on this amendment.
However, the Minister must recognise that on this side of the Chamber we are becoming more and more exasperated by the reliance of ministerial spokesmen on arguments that we do not accept. The position is bad and becoming worse. The argument is not only that something should be done but that it should be done through this scheme. When we talk of individual incidents of hooliganism that the Minister says we want to take out of football, we are talking about one spectator out of 10,000. We are talking, in an average match, of one spectator being taken out of the ground—either ejected or told to get lost—or arrested and perhaps subsequently convicted of an offence. We are talking of one person in 10,000. We are asking the Minister this question. Why subject various groups of people to payment for a card, and the necessity of carrying it?
More importantly, we have to come to the part of the Bill—I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is in his place—when we look at some of the aspects of punishment for the alleged heinous crime of trying
1454
to get into a football match without a membership card. We shall then enter a whole new ball game with this Bill.
A noble Lord said that this is not the time to raise certain matters: that we are somewhat limited in the amount of time we have to deal with the Bill properly. I am not talking in terms of the Government harrying us, but of our sense of propriety in taking a reasonable time. Millions of people outside the Chamber—with no disrespect to other Members of the Chamber—rely on Members on this side of the Chamber to put their case. If, when we put their case, we receive the answers that we have done, we are obliged not to leave the matter alone. At the end of the day, we recognise that the Minister has his weapons and his opportunities. We shall not become upset about that. However, we need to put all the points.
When one talks in terms of arrests., we already know that the Minister for Sport has had to backtrack upon published information which he gave to the other House and which was publicised internationally. Already some of the statistics that he gave have had to be revised. The Minister's statistical record therefore is wrong. The evidence about the people who attend the matches is wrong. Let me tell the Minister about spectator incidents. Those are events which cause everyone to realise not that one man or woman has been taken out but that there has been an incident. In 1980 there were 47 during the whole season; in 1981, 24; in 1982, 42; in 1983, 42; in 1984, 41; in1985, 41; in 1986, 20; in 1987, 19; in 1988, 19, and to date this year there have been seven. I say that because the position is improving, thanks to the better policing, the better expenditure of money on closed circuit television and better segregation.
In my view, the clubs have been treated very badly by the Government by their failure to acknowledge that they have been working hard. They have spent millions of pounds. The football trusts have a first-class record of aid and assistance.
I do not believe that the Minister will alter what he has said. I do not think that he has the power or authority to do so. The sad aspect that Members must reflect upon is that on these Bills the Minister comes into the Chamber with a brief and is unable or unwilling in the face of prepared arguments to consider what we are saying—not to concede, but to consider. That is very offensive.
On the basis that there will be a scheme—and that has been accepted by the House at Second Reading—we are trying to improve it. We are asking the Minister and his colleagues to listen to what we are saying. It is very sad. The Minister may have made some of the debates more protracted. If all that we have is not victories but opportunities to present arguments, then he is driving us to put those cases forward and not to let go until we are satisfied that there is nothing more to achieve. I am very disappointed with the reply of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme of school parties;").
The noble Lord said: I can short-circuit this debate because at an earlier stage the Minister made a reference which I want to acknowledge again was very helpful in starting us off in a reasonable temper. That has slightly evaporated as the night has gone on. He had in mind that he would produce an amendment of this kind to lay on the face of the Bill the obligation on the FMA to consider bringing in exemptions for, among others, school parties. Many clubs have special facilities for encouraging schools to visit the clubs and, what is more important, players and others to do with the clubs to go out into the schools. That is a worthy objective.
The school party will obviously be accompanied by adults. The Minister was right that any deviation from the scheme needs to carry with it someone accepting responsibility for ensuring that that deviation is adhered to. He made a point about guests and I repeat that. If he says simply that he has in mind writing on the face of the Bill that school parties, or a phrase which means school parties, can be considered by the FMA, we need to know how that is to be done, but the manner will be left to the FMA. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will find the Government in a somewhat more conciliatory mood on this amendment, purely because we think it is a sensible amendment. I should make it quite clear why we believe this is a sensible amendment.
We have explained the Government's general position on exemptions. We accept that there should be mandatory provision for exemptions in the scheme and we will consider including specific categories on the face of the Bill. This amendment would provide for the mandatory exemption of school parties from the national membership scheme. We have sympathy with the principle behind this amendment, but we have to consider carefully how school parties can best be catered for.
I think the Committee might agree that, in order to ensure that the arrangements for school parties work smoothly and are not open to abuse, it would be sensible for the clubs and their local schools to discuss such issues as arrangements for entry, how the school party would best be accommodated within the ground and what supervision it should have. This latter aspect strikes us as particularly important. Arrangements for catering for school parties under the scheme must spell out that the parties should be properly organised and supervised. Clearly it would be unacceptable for groups of young people to come together in unorganised groups and be considered a "school party" in this context.
Arrangements for school parties to attend matches will not present a problem for the club or the schools.
1456
They must of course be made in advance. That is how arrangements are currently handled.
For these reasons, we do not think that it would be appropriate to spell out an exemption arrangement for school parties on the face of the Bill. We are not for one moment suggesting that school parties are gangs of hooligans. Of course we want to encourage young people to attend matches and see the club and its neighbouring schools develop good relationships. It is in everyone's interest that this should happen. We welcome clubs making arrangements to make the match an attractive day out for schoolchildren. From the club's point of view it is very important to remember that today's young people are the adult spectators of tomorrow if the game has the right appeal.
We have undertaken to consider placing guests of the club on the face of the Bill as a mandatory category of exemption. I suggest to the Committee that this is the route by which the organised school party could best be fitted into the framework of the scheme. Clubs and schools could work out appropriate arrangements and the clubs could make the members of the school trip temporary members for the day. Though a matter for the clubs, we envisage that temporary membership cards would be issued free. Certainly we would expect clubs to take this view in respect of organised school parties. As with all temporary membership arrangements the club will be responsible for ensuring that arrangements for school parties work properly and are not open to abuse.
We commend that approach to the Committee and hope that Members will see it as a reasonable basis on which to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Does that reply mean that a Government amendment will be tabled on Report? I welcome the noble Earl's general approach, but at the end of his speech I was entirely mystified as to what happens next. What will happen next?
The Earl of Arran: We have already made that particular commitment, in case there is doubt in the noble Lord's mind.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl says "commitment" and I understand he is saying that school parties will be excluded from the membership scheme. He then says that he does not want that to appear on the face of the Bill and that maybe we shall have a mandatory exclusion.
I admit that we are only beginning to fight our way through the tortuous language of the Bill. However, at the end of the noble Earl's speech I was entirely confused about what will happen next. Is the noble Earl saying that on the basis of his oral undertaking that will be the end of the matter, or is he saying that at the Report stage he will bring forward a proposal which we shall be minded to accept? What is the case?
The Earl of Arran: As I have already said, they will be fitted into the framework of the scheme.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: What does that mean? The noble Earl does not appear to understand his own brief. I am asking him as courteously as possible to explain an answer to a relatively simple question. If the noble Lord, Lord Graham, withdraws his amendment, as I am sure he will wish to do, what will happen next? Will there be any provision in the Bill dealing with the issue, or will it be left entirely on the basis of the noble Earl's statement?
It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, knows the answer to the question. If the noble Earl cannot follow the point perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will explain the answer.
The Earl of Arran: I should like to make absolutely clear what was said by my noble friend on the first date as regards exemptions. He said that the scheme should provide for school parties as guests of the club. The Government will consider an amendment to refer specifically to guests of the club to be tabled at Report stage. By that means we propose to deal with school parties. I hope that the issue is now clear to the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Lord Winstanley: I do not wish to create difficulties at this late stage. I have always understood the word "guest" to imply someone who does not pay. It is my clear knowledge that many football clubs make a great deal of money out of school parties. If they are suddenly to be told that school parties are guests some will have second thoughts and say that they are not guests but must pay in the same way as everyone else.
What does the noble Earl mean by "guests"? Does he put that interpretation on the word "guests"? Are they to be non-paying or can they pay in the same way as other people?
The Earl of Arran: We are not speaking of guests per se but of guest cards.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I made a note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said earlier. I noted four categories of exemption from among the eight or nine which we requested and they were the disabled, guests, foreign and school parties. That was my note of the groups which would be taken care of.
I understand that the Minister is saying that school parties will be brought within the ambit of guests. How that is achieved is another matter. Is the Minister saying that those who can be categorised as guests will be in the gift of the FMA, or is the FMA to be told by the Minister who it should include and who it should exclude from the list of guests?
That begs the question: what is the purpose of the FMA and groups of people wishing to be considered? I believe that the Minister should say more about the freedom of the FMA to interpret the meaning of the word "guest". We on this side saw it as a concession that rather than have groups of people fully exempt, the club should take the responsibility for issuing guest cards to certain categories. I should like the Minister to say that that means freedom as to who
1458
and how many should be included and the conditions of inclusion. We do not want the Minister to tell us that all those details will be given to the FMA.
We know that whatever the FMA does, its scheme must be approved by the Secretary of State. Therefore, perhaps I should ask the Minister why he does not let the FMA present its scheme to cater for what it believes is wanted and needed. If the Minister then wishes to strike out or amend the Bill, he can do so. We do not want good men and women with some sense of maturity and responsibility to sit down and look at each other and say, "The Minister has told us what powers we have and has circumscribed them in such a way." This is a genuine plea to the Minister.
At the end of the day, we know that under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill there is an overriding authority given to the Government through the Secretary of State. Therefore, why should not the FMA decide how to deal with this matter? I believe that the Minister can be helpful.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: As I believe my noble friend said on previous occasions, we want the scheme to be run by football for football. This amendment concerns schoolchildren and therefore will not be under the aegis of the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, says, this matter is to be in the gift of the FMA. As regards the technical points and details he mentioned, those will be for the FMA to decide.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As I understand it, we are now quite clear—and I hope that the noble Earl will follow this question because I have perhaps been rather dense—that the Secretary of State will have no role in this matter whatever. Those were his words. This will be a matter exclusively for the FMA. Is that right?
The Earl of Arran: I believe that it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State will disagree because here we are dealing with schoolchildren.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That is a totally different answer. The noble Earl must do more homework on his briefs before he speaks to the Committee. He has now contradicted himself within the space of 30 seconds. He said that the Secretary of State will have no role in the matter and it will be up to the FMA. When pressed he gave a totally different answer; namely, that he feels it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State will interfere. The noble Earl does his department no good at all by giving conflicting answers within the space of between 30 and 60 seconds. I again ask him—and I should be grateful if he will be good enough to confirm this—whether his latest answer; namely, that the Secretary of State could intervene, is correct or do we go to his first answer in which he said that the Secretary of State will have no role in the matter? Which of those answers does he wish us to take seriously?
The Earl of Arran: The FMA will present the scheme for the Secretary of State's approval. I repeat that it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State will involve himself in this particular recommendation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have to be satisfied with what the Minister said. However, that is not satisfactory because the FMA, which is the league and the association, will listen very carefully to what the Minister said. The FMA is not irresponsible and is not out to wreck the Bill or the scheme. Because it has to have a relationship with the Minister and other Ministers—and it may very well be those who are answering here tonight—it will not wish to make such a flagrant abuse of its opportunity that the Secretary of State will strike out something. Therefore, I accept that it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State will want to interfere in the method and the manner whereby school parties are able to go to the grounds.
We ought to be absolutely clear, too, that the Minister and his colleagues must not try to dot every "i" and cross every "t" of every aspect of the Bill. The noble Earl appears to wish to intervene. He does not! Well, I repeat what I was saying and that will teach him. If the Minister is saying that this is an area that he believes the Secretary of State can have confidence in leaving to the FMA, that is satisfactory.
There are other areas where the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport have demonstrated their great reluctance to trust highly responsible people. I refer to the administrators of football in this country. A chink has appeared in the whole paraphernalia of argument that we have had tonight. It appears to me that the FMA has fair licence to produce a sensible scheme accepting the caveat, as the Minister said, that when the scheme is produced and the nitty-gritty is looked at it has to be approved by the Secretary of State.
Sadly, Parliament will play no part in the matter because it is up to the Secretary of State. We should have liked to see the scheme because there are parliamentarians in both Houses who have a genuine interest and will want to make a genuine input. However, the Minister has done his best and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators, without their being members of the scheme, of women and of men aged 40 or over;").
The noble Earl said: As the Committee will know, I support the general thrust of this Bill. Despite assertions to the contrary, we know that there is a football hooligan problem. We know that if we can keep those who are involved in hooliganism away from football matches football hooliganism should be diminished. Therefore, it seems totally logical to me that the target—those who should be asked to carry identity cards—should be those people who are likely to commit football hooligan offences.
The Government take the view that everyone will rush out to buy identity cards because the scheme is the best thing since sliced bread or Sky Television. We know that is not the case. We know that the scheme is to stop problems and troubles. In that I am totally, completely and utterly on the side of the Government. Therefore, I ask myself how I can help Her Majesty's Government.
It seems to me that the way to do that is to cause the minimum amount of aggro to the law-abiding football attending populace. If my noble friend—I say that in its personal sense since my noble friend Lady Serota is not here—were to go to a football match she is unlikely to be a football hooligan. My great aunt Thea is unlikely to be a football hooligan—she is 101 this year. I do not think that three-year-old babies being rocked in prams in the family enclosure are, if they are feminine, likely to be football hooligans. On the whole, I do not think that the feminine sex takes the view that it is fun going down the streets putting in the boot and generally behaving with mayhem and in the riotous way by which we are all deeply offended. Therefore, I suggest that women should be excluded from the necessity to join the scheme. The minimum amount of administration involved the more likely the scheme is to succeed.
The Committee will have noticed that my amendment says: "and of men aged 40 or over". In his opening remarks concerning the first amendment my noble friend Lord Hesketh intimated the difficulties in recognising men over and under 40. I believe that the people that are likely to cause offence are aged between 15 and 30. It is in that age group that aggressive tendencies are found. By the age of 30 they have either learnt to go straight or they have become sophisticated criminals and somebody else is employed to be beastly on their behalf. I accept that the over-40 argument is not possible and I do not wish to speak to that part of my amendment.
I seriously make this plea. Women used to be known as the fair and gentle sex. Perhaps in the age of women's lib they would not like to claim that privilege. It is established that on the whole they do not indulge in such behaviour. I hope that women can be excluded. I am sure that my noble friend will read a brief telling me of the terrific advantages for a woman in buying an identity card. I shall not believe a word of it. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I oppose this amendment. My noble friend said that most girls are fair and gentle, and I believe that he is right. But some are not. The girls that are bad can be very vicious. It is a very small proportion but it should not be underestimated. We have been through an era of anti-sexism when women have insisted on being equal in all respects to men. They must accept the consequences. I do not believe that they can be equal on the one hand and unequal when it suits them.
Identification is very difficult. When I see two seagulls I am never sure which is male and which is female. In some extraordinary way they themselves manage to know which is which. Many of the youngsters that I see I have no idea what they are. The fact that they may have long hair is no indication. Their clothes are unisex; dress does not give their sex away. Very often they are unidentifiable. In any event it would be the easiest thing in the world for young men to come in looking like women. I oppose this amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It might be as well at this stage if I say a few words about my Amendment No. 53C. The Committee will note that it says:
"providing for the admission as spectators, without their being members of the scheme, of female persons")".
I am sorry if that sounds a little hard, but I was advised that it was probably the best way of tabling the amendment so that there can be no shadow of doubt as to what is meant. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that the reason I have tabled this amendment is that I believe that his amendment may be easily overcome. In the first place, what is a woman; when does a teenager start being a woman and when does a woman stop being a teenager? There may have been some difficulty about that.
My amendment is not about positive discrimination. I do not believe in positive discrimination. It seeks to exempt from any national membership scheme a section of society which is not and has not been involved in football violence. Women and girls constitute about 10 to 15 per cent. of attendances at league football matches. That is quite a significant percentage. From my observations there has certainly been no record of females being involved in physical violence at football matches. The incidence of female violence is very low in society as a whole. My impression was confirmed only this morning by a former senior police officer who advises the Football League. He cannot recall women being involved in any arrestable offence at a football match.
Women at sports events can shout as loudly as their male counterparts, but the Bill is not concerned with shouting encouragement or otherwise to the competing teams or individual players. It is about vicious physical assault on people, often with dangerous weapons, and wilful damage to property. There is no reason why females should be forced to become part of a national membership scheme since it is known positively that they have not so far been. and are not likely in the future to be, involved in football violence. The Government cannot argue that this would be a difficult exemption to administer. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, admitted only today that it would be easy to recognise females—women, girls. He said that during an earlier debate. The Government cannot now argue that this would be a difficult exemption to administer.
In spite of what the noble Lord has just said, there is no problem of distinguishing between the two sexes. Even in these days of so-called unisex in clothes and hairstyles, women are easily recognised by their stature, gait, complexion and other attributes which belong exclusively to the female of the species. It may be argued that males may impersonate women to evade the necessity to produce an identity card. This argument cannot be sustained. In the first place, any male seeking to impersonate a female for the purpose of illegally entering a football match would be guilty of an offence. Secondly, football hooligans represent the male, macho image, and would therefore hardly dress up as females. It may well be the case that women and girls will be discouraged from attending football matches if they are forced to join a national membership scheme. That is the last thing we want. Indeed, there is a need to retain and increase the
1462
civilising and calming effect that women can have on large assemblies. This amendment and that of the noble Earl will make a contribution to just that.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: In replying at this late hour to Amendments Nos. 53 and 53C I shall speak only briefly after the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, concerning men over 40.
The Government do not believe that an exemption for women is desirable. Our reason for believing that will come as no surprise to Members of the Committee opposite. I make no apology for repeating the argument that we want as many people—law-abiding spectators—as possible to join the scheme. Where there are good practical reasons for exempting groups of people, as in the case of disabled people in designated areas and guests of the club for whom the club will take responsibility, I have already shown today that the Government are willing to take a sympathetic approach. However, there is no good practical reason for exempting women from membership and there is no reason why they should not join the scheme. It is because women are unlikely to be involved in hooliganism that we want them to join the scheme, to attend matches in the company of male spectators and to help improve the atmosphere at grounds. There would be practical implications also in exempting women from membership of the scheme.
I shall not overstate the argument. It is a relatively simple matter to identify women. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, drew attention to possible difficulties with regard to identification. He pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the feminism in recent years. The principle that the Government have always had on this Bill from the start is that we accept the concept that we have to have limited exemptions. This single amendment would exempt half the population. We believe that in order for the scheme to succeed it has to work within the limits that we feel will make it work. I quite understand the argument of the noble, Lord, Lord Stoddart. I only say that we disagree with it and hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The reason why half the population would be excluded, as the noble Lord has said, is that that half the population does not commit violent offences at football matches. What the noble Lord is once again saying is this. So that we can have this beautiful bureaucratic piece of machinery which will hum in a most attractive fashion, women are to be brought into it without any serious argument to justify their inclusion.
Have the Government asked the Association of Chief Police Officers how many women have been arrested for public order offences inside or outside football grounds? Has the issue ever been raised? If the association said that there were no statistics, as I suppose it will have said on the basis of what the noble Lord said earlier, has it been asked to give an impression of how many women have been arrested? Surely the Government made some limited inquiries before drafting this Bill, or did they make none? Perhaps the noble Lord would tell us.
Lord Hesketh: I would go even further than the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and say that the basis of the Government's argument would be there if none had occurred.
The Earl of Onslow: If no arrests have been made at all, old age pensioners, cripples and everybody else are to have identity cards, and those who do not go to football matches. I am trying to be helpful—it does not sound like it, I know—and there is a case for the Government having these identity cards, but there is no case for giving them to people who will not cause any trouble. Can my noble friend answer this question? I wrote to him, and hope he received the letter, warning him that I would ask how many women had been arrested or convicted in the past 10 years for football or related offences. He knew that I was going to ask him that question. Please will he give me an answer?
Lord Hylton: I fail to see why the Government do not seem to trust people who can obviously be trusted. The great majority of women will not go to football matches at all. Those who do, do not commit offences. Therefore why not trust them not to commit offences? I begin to feel more and more that this Government love taking a sledgehammer to crack a slender nut. We had it in Northern Ireland where they thought, and still think, that the right to silence should be taken away from terrorists. But they enlarged that principle to take away the right to silence from, for instance, mentally handicapped people. One honestly begins to despair.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the noble Lord not agree that the statement he made a few moments ago is, even by the standards of our debates, one of the most bizarre we have heard? What the noble Lord said on this amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was that his view would be exactly the same if there were no offences ever committed by women. Yet what follows from this Bill? They will be required to enter the scheme. If they attempt to enter a football ground without being a member of the scheme they commit a serious criminal offence. In the final analysis that could lead them to be sent to prison. That is extraordinary.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House has been good enough to sit here during our increasingly strange proceedings. I am not asking him to intervene because that would be unreasonable. I hope that he will speak to the Department of the Environment between this debate and next week's debate to ensure that serious replies will be given to Members of the Committee who raise serious questions on the Bill.
If we are creating new criminal offences for half the country's population, who the Minister says should be brought into the scheme even if none of them had ever committed a criminal offence inside or outside a football ground, we are moving in an extraordinary fashion. I repeat that in the 14 years during which I have been a Member of this place I have not heard so many daft speeches from the Government Front Bench.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Does not the Minister's reply indicate, as was said on Second Reading, although I did not speak in that debate, that we are
1464
dealing with only a small minority of people? An earlier amendment related to season ticket holders. I have not done any totalling up, but I imagine that there is a minimum of 300,000 season ticket holders in the First Division. My noble friend Lord Underhill has produced some figures. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that they are reliable. He said that between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the people who watch football matches are ladies. There has been no evidence from the police to show that season ticket holders or women watching football matches present any risk.
The Minister said earlier that if season ticket holders were eliminated from the scheme it would not be worth running. It is almost like Parkinson's Law. The Government need those people to make the scheme viable. If the figures are roughly correct, we are talking about 40 per cent. of the people who watch football matches presenting no risk. As the two previous speakers suggested, the Minister should look at what is taking place. If we add to that number the handicapped people who were traditionally allowed in to sit in wheelchairs on the touch line, we are talking about a minority of a minority of people who may create a problem.
It is a tradition that the Prime Minister be invited to present the Cup Final cup to the winners. What will the situation be with the present Prime Minister who is the author of the Bill? The Minister for Sport is not its author. In its wisdom the Football Association may invite the Prime Minister to present the cup, although bearing in mind the present relations between them I doubt it. Would she be allowed of right to go to the match or would she need to seek the permission of the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask for preferential treatment? If she did, it would go down like a lead balloon with the footballing fraternity.
Lord Hesketh: I am not aware whether my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be a member, but if she is not a member she would attend on a guest card.
Lord Dean of Beswick: As whose guest? As far as I am aware Wembley does not come within the ambit of the scheme. We are talking about Football League clubs.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: If the Prime Minister were going to a Football League club she would also attend on a guest card. The simple fact of the matter is that I know and understand that noble Lords opposite consider the Bill to be, among other things, an imposition. The position the Government have always taken is to see it as a protection. When we talk about women we—who are, after all, the weaker sex in some ways—have introduced a Bill to protect people. These are the very people whom we wish to protect. Our proposal is very straightforward. We wish to bring in the scheme as we have been advised to do. If it works, I am sure that all noble Lords will be very happy, but the fact is that it is within the legitimate desires of the Government to bring in the scheme as they have been advised. That is what we are intending to do.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say a word. The Minister has again rested his case on the grounds of excluding the minimum number of people possible. Even when we make out a case for a large group of people who in our view are not the kinds of people whom the Minister wants to exclude—that is, potential hooligans—he says that if they go to the ground, they need protection from the potential hooligans, therefore they need a card to get in. But that is putting—not the card before the horse—the cart before the horse.
When very recently I met Eddie Plomley, who is the chief executive of Watford, I said to him, "How many women attend your matches?" He cogitated and said, "About 20 per cent." In his view, Watford has more than the average because of the atmosphere it is called "the friendly club". It has attracted the kind of ambience about which I told the Minister. I asked Eddie Plomley, "Can you recall the last time a woman was involved in an incident of violence?" He said, "Never". I said, "In the past five years", and he said, "No". The Minister must take it that Mr. Plomley is an honourable man. I did not tell him that I was going to quote him here tonight, of course; but I have quoted him and that is Watford's record.
If the Watford experience is broadly the same as that of others, what is the Minister doing? Against the premise that he seeks to protect people, they are already part of an ambience in which they do not need that protection. At Watford, less than one spectator per 10,000—and their average gate is about 10,000—merits the attention of the police.
Perhaps I may tell the Minister what he is doing to a growing band of people outside the House. They may not like the scheme, but they recognise the political and arithmetical realities of the Government's majority in this Chamber and another place. People recognise that it is quite likely that a Bill will be passed along the lines of the scheme. But they have said that they believe that when the detail is examined, the Minister and his colleagues will listen to the voice of experience. People outside already know that when it comes to season ticket holders there is no case for including them, but they are being included. People outside know that there is no case for including old-age pensioners, but they are being included. There is no case for including women, but they are being included.
The Minister says he wants to have as few people excluded as possible. I know that he and his colleagues are petrified of being accused of allowing coaches and horses to be driven through their original concept. But if the original concept was to protect the public, and if we have been able to demonstrate—as I am sure we have—that by making these exclusions the Minister will still be able to protect the public, in my view the Government show weakness in not accepting amendments to the scheme.
If this scheme, even slightly amended, is the scheme which finally sees the light of day, I believe it will not just be to the discredit of the Government—that will not displease me—but it will anger many people who will feel that the Government are not prepared to
1466
listen. Some people outside—the administrators and the people who run football and the fans—have to make this work. I want the Minister to tell his colleagues that there is no need for the scheme. I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, wants to do with his amendment, or the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, when his amendment comes up later in the proceedings. I think that the Minister again has singularly failed to show a responsiveness to what I believe is sense.
Lord Hesketh: I have just remembered that I failed to answer the point of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, concerning separate figures for female soccer violence convictions. No such figures are kept.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have one question on that. I asked a different question, to which the noble Lord inadvertently did not reply. I asked him if he had asked the Association of Chief Police Officers whether it maintained detailed statistics of its impression of the number of women arrested for offences of violence at and around football grounds. Was that question asked or was it not?
Lord Hesketh: The very straightforward answer is that I do not have that information with me at this moment. I shall write to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Onslow: I must admit that: I am very surprised that those figures are not kept. I thought that if someone was arrested, his name, age and presumably his sex were taken down. I also thought that if someone was convicted of a crime, his name, age and sex were recorded somewhere in the bowels of police records. If that is the case, and I have every reason to believe that it is, those figures must be available. However, I think I shall withdraw the amendment.
In passing I want to say that, as a supporter of the main principle—I cannot underline this too much—I think there should be identity cards which can be taken away from what I have been calling in a rather old-fashioned and perhaps snobbish way the yob classes. I disagree with the Government in that they want to have the minimum of exceptions to this provision and I want to have the maximum. If one has the maximum reasonable exceptions, there will be a much greater acceptance for the scheme as it stands. That is what I want to happen. I want the Government's Bill to be welcomed by the public at large and to be seen for what it is; that is as a serious attempt to curb what is perceived by the public as a very unattractive blot on our society. I do not think there is any argument over that whatsoever.
The Government run the risk of doing themselves and their Bill damage by attacking the problem with a blunderbuss rather than with a ·22. It is the blunderbuss element which makes me unhappy. I think, if it is possible, people should do the minimum amount of anything and should only do what is necessary. I have a feeling that parts of this Bill, by not exempting the maximum number of people and only exempting the minimum, thereby conceding the

1467
principle of exemption, are unnecessarily overactive. It disturbs people's peace of mind unnecessarily. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think that we have reached the point when, by agreement, we should resume the House. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  SALMON: ILLEGAL FISHERY
  SALMON: ILLEGAL FISHERY
  DECAPITALISATION RATES: HARMONISATION STEPS
  DECAPITALISATION RATES: HARMONISATION STEPS
  OZONE RESEARCH UNIT
  OZONE RESEARCH UNIT
  OCEAN RESEARCH: BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
  OCEAN RESEARCH: BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
  TEACHER VACANCIES
  TEACHER VACANCIES
  ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT: RESEARCH
  ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT: RESEARCH
  PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION ACT 1985
  PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION ACT 1985
  ST. STEPHEN'S HOSPITAL, LONDON
  ST. STEPHEN'S HOSPITAL, LONDON
  BACTERIAL INFECTION OF FOOD
  BACTERIAL INFECTION OF FOOD
  RHINOCEROS HORN AND IVORY: ILLEGAL TRADE
  RHINOCEROS HORN AND IVORY: ILLEGAL TRADE