Sitting of 14 March 1989

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

  New Writ
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Vale of Glamorgan in the room of Sir Herbert Raymond Gower, deceased.—[Mr. Sillars.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Speaker: Objection taken. The debate will stand over until after Question Time.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 16 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently in employment in the north of England.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): In the three regions, north, north-west, and Yorkshire and Humberside, the work force in employment in September 1988 was 6,099,000. This has increased by 268,000 or 4·6 per cent. in the last two years alone.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend's excellent reply helps to confirm why unemployment in my constituency of Fylde has fallen in the past year by 30·3 per cent., but does he agree that the figures also confirm the excellent findings of the recent labour force survey, which show that the Opposition's attempts to rubbish our approach to employment creation are bogus and bankrupt?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. Unemployment in the whole of the region, including the north, the north-west, and Yorkshire and Humberside, has come down by 140,000 in the year to January—a reduction of almost 18 per cent. As my hon. Friend reminds us, at the last Employment Question Time the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asserted that the labour force survey
    "reveals that unemployment today in Britain is still over 2·6 million"—[Official Report, 14 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 140.]
    270
    The hon. Gentleman now knows what he said. To use his own characteristic words, that is utterly bogus. We wait for his withdrawal.
    Mr. Allen McKay: When the Minister talks about Yorkshire and Humberside and the labour force survey, will he admit that the survey does not tell the whole story, as pockets of unemployment remain? Will the Minister take account of the fact that in my constituency of Barnsley, West and Penistone male unemployment is still more than 16 per cent? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Fowler: There are parts of the country, including Yorkshire and west Humberside, where we wish the employment position to improve substantially. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also recognise, however, that unemployment has come down by virtually a million since the last election and that there are more than a million new jobs in the economy. That all-time record is certainly better than the position in 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that employment would be even higher if the Government encouraged a positive "Buy British" campaign when British goods are best? Does he further agree that employment would be higher than it is today if there was free and genuinely fair competition, not least for the magnificent British textile and clothing industry, which is one of the largest employers in the country?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that the Government would want free and fair competition. The Government support the organisation that is encouraging British goods and their marketing. As my hon. Friend knows, Sir Basil Feldman is chairman of that organisation, to which my Department subscribes.

    Restart
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the restart scheme.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): Since July 1986, about 5·4 million interviews have been carried out under the restart programme. of which just under 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that there has been some concern in mining communities about the use of the restart scheme for people in their late 50s and 60s who have retired from mining but who nevertheless have to suffer the indignity of that procedure? Can he confirm that that position is to be resolved and that he will now instruct local offices to cease harassing such people so that they no longer have to undergo the indignity of such irrelevant interviews?
    Mr. Cope: I do not accept that there is harassment, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is confirming in a written answer today that he is considering modifying the redundant mineworkers pension scheme, which has given rise to the problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, so as to remove the link with unemployment benefit and availability for work. Obviously, we shall take account of what my right hon. Friend does.
    Mr. Marlow: How many bluffs have been called, how many people have been rumbled, and how many have magically disappeared from the unemployment register when they have been called to a restart interview? What further action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that paid voluntary unemployment does not continue in those parts of the country where there is a labour shortage?
    Mr. Cope: I should be inclined to say that the aim of the restart interview is to contact the longer-term unemployed and to provide them with advice and information, but it sometimes has the effect that my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) about the plight of redundant mineworkers? Does he recall that when the miners' parliamentary group met him he gave a pledge that he would do his best to resolve the anomaly? In the light of that, should there not be some announcement about the matter so that the harassment of miners can cease pending resolution of the problem?
    Mr. Cope: I remember the meeting when the hon. Gentleman brought his colleagues to see me. I will reflect on that, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), in which he should find some comfort.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Speed: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen over the past year in the south-east; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: In the 12 months to January 1989, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the south-east including London fell by 157,400 or 27·9 per cent. Unemployment in the south-east is now at its lowest level for eight years.
    Mr. Speed: I welcome those figures, and my right hon. Friend confirms that the labour force survey showed that employment in the region rose by 800,000 up to June last year, more than offsetting the fall of 400,000 or 500,000 in the claimant count. Is not the real problem now to find the skills for the 150,000 vacancies in the south-east?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. The labour force survey shows a real growth in employment. In the past 12 months, there has been an increase of more than 600,000 in the number of employees. As my hon. Friend says, we now need to improve the nation's skills base. That is why we have introduced the employment training programme and are in the process of setting up the new training and enterprise councils.
    Ms. Short rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it about the south-east?
    Ms. Short: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the south-east and elsewhere the labour force survey and other evidence show that the new jobs being created in Britain are overwhelmingly low paid and part time, which is a real worry for the future of our economy? There is no future for
    272
    Britain in low pay, low investment, low training and a slow economy, but those jobs mean that that is the road that we are on.
    Mr. Fowler: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Lady has apparently not read the labour force survey. One point that emerges clearly from the survey is that the overwhelming number of jobs that have been created in the past 12 months are not part-time, but full-time. The fact that 86 per cent. of those jobs were full-time entirely demolishes the hon. Lady's case.
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of fall in unemployment in the United Kingdom and in other developed countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: Over the past year, the rate of unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrialised country. The rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom is below the average for the European Community and now stands below that of France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Ireland.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's step by step approach to the reform of industrial relations has made a significant contribution towards reducing unemployment? In the light of that, will he undertake to introduce further measures of industrial relations reform, including the abolition of what remains of the closed shop, so as to achieve a further reduction in unemployment?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that bad industrial relations, particularly in the middle and late 1970s exported many British jobs overseas. The closed shop puts unacceptable limits on people's freedom to choose for themselves whether or not to belong to a trade union. I made the position clear in the White Paper that I published before Christmas, and I repeat that we shall not hesitate to take any further legislative measures that may be necessary.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that whereas the rate of decrease may be acceptable in south-east England, where the rate of unemployment is 2 or 3 per cent. in many of the home counties, in Wales and elsewhere in these islands, where unemployment is running at between 15 and 20 per cent., it is totally unacceptable? When will he take an initiative to do something about that?
    Mr. Fowler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, after the west midlands, Wales is one part of the country where the rate of unemployment has come down most steeply. We shall do all that we can to improve on that. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will concede what has been done already.
    Mr. Holt: Unemployment in my constituency has fallen from its peak by 40 per cent. and stands today at lower than the national average. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Teesside chamber of commerce has just put out a press release which says that the
    "Teesside economy continues to boom"
    and shows that more than 28 per cent. of the firms on Teesside expect to be employing more labour in the next three months?
    Mr. Fowler: I am sure that what my hon. Friend says is right. The Prime Minister and I were in the north-east on Friday, as my hon. Friend knows, and there was no doubting the new confidence that exists there. It is important for the House to appreciate that in the past two years this country has shown the fastest employment growth since 1945.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State really crowing at the fact that unemployment is still twice as high as it was in 1979? How does he explain the fact that 40 per cent. of the money that the EEC is paying to member states this year to arrest industrial decline and job losses is coming to Britain—twice as much as to any other EEC state? Will he admit that he has been telling only half the story about the labour force survey in that employment has been growing in the last year at only half the rate at which it grew the year before and that 110,000 more people were knocked off benefit than went into jobs?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is becoming more and more muddled. The labour force survey reveals that for months past the hon. Gentleman has been fiddling the figures upwards. The House expects him to do the honourable thing and give up his job.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently in employment in the north-west of England.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): In September 1988, in the north-west region, the civilian work force in employment was 2,661,000—an increase of 80,000 or 3 per cent. in the past two years.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that employment seems to have risen in those areas of the north-west where the work force is co-operative and skilled, in contrast with other areas of the north-west where the unions are bloody-minded and Luddite?
    Mr. Lee: I think that my hon. Friend is getting at the situation on Merseyside. I have no wish to denigrate the work force on Merseyside, but in many cases they are being let down by some very extreme shop stewards.
    Mr. James Lamond: Why does not the Minister, who knows something about the north-west, tell the Secretary of State that he is talking nonsense when he says that jobs are being exported because of trade union activity? The textile workers are struggling to obtain a £100 basic wage for a 39-hour week, while closures in the north-west are taking thousands of jobs, including 250 in Oldham just a fortnight ago.
    Mr. Lee: It is true that there have been some textile losses recently. but in the past three or four years the textile industry has improved dramatically. Indeed, it was a shade churlish of the hon. Gentleman not to acknowledge that in the past two years unemployment has fallen by 31 per cent. in his own constituency.
    Mr. Sumberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a north-south divide, it is to the advantage of the north-west? Opposition Members who spend their time doing the region down should open their eyes and ears and acknowledge the fact that Lancashire's best friend is the Government.
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition do the north-west a disservice by failing to acknowledge the buoyancy, optimism and pride that most people in the region now have.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: While the Opposition welcome every job that is created, we deplore the fact that there are still record unemployment rates. If the Minister is so confident about the north-west in particular and the north of England in general, will he say why—according to the labour force survey—the rate of increase in jobs in the south-east over the past five years has been more than 10 per cent. while in the north-west it has been less than 1 per cent.? That illustrates the north-south divide.
    Mr. Lee: Why will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that in his own constituency unemployment has fallen by 30 per cent. in the past two years?

    Skill Training
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to increase the range of skills available and the number of people seeking work in the south-east.
    Mr. Fowler: I am taking a number of steps to increase the range of skills available in the south-east and other regions. They include the setting up of training and enterprise councils to help employers to define and meet local skill needs. We are also helping young people and the unemployed to learn new skills through YTS and employment training.
    Mr. Wilshire: As the labour force survey shows that there are now more than a million more people in work than when Labour was booted out of office, does my right hon. Friend accept that such an increase creates new problems of skill shortages and unfilled vacancies in areas such as Spelthorne? Does he believe that the new training and enterprise councils will enable local employers to focus training on local skill shortages and unfilled vacancies?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir, I agree entirely. The purpose of, and the concept behind, such councils is that they should be employer-led local bodies which assess the training and labour needs in their own particular areas. This is something that many employers have urged for a long time. I am glad to say that although we introduced the prospectus only on Friday there has already been a tremendous amount of interest—including interest from 20 or 30 areas where plans for training and enterprise councils are well in hand.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Secretary of State use every opportunity available to him to inform industrialists here that in Northern Ireland, where there is high unemployment, there are already highly skilled and well-educated people—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the south-east of England, not the south-east of Ulster.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making that point. I wanted to draw attention to the absence of skilled people in the south-east and to the fact that we in Northern Ireland could assist the Minister to relocate or even set up small subsidiaries to provide employment and meet the needs that exist in the south-east.
    Mr. Fowler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. If I meet employers in the south-east who complain of skill shortages and are looking for somewhere to set up or perhaps expand their businesses, I shall certainly say that for all the reasons set out by the hon. Gentleman Northern Ireland seems to be an extremely good place to do so.
    Mr. Rathbone: On that same point, does my right hon. Friend liaise with his right hon. Friends to ensure that jobs are created outside the south-east, thus relieving the congestion and strain on housing there in the way that everyone in the south-east wishes?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend says, it is not just a matter of private industry—it is a matter of the public sector, too. A major part of my Department, the Training Agency, is in Sheffield. It was announced only last week that a further part of the Ministry of Defence was to move to the north-east. That seems an altogether sensible move of the kind that ought to be encouraged.

    Wages Inspectorate
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the west midlands.
    Mr. Cope: The inspectorate targets its visits towards establishments most likely to be in breach. In 1988 in midlands division, which covers both east and west midlands, 2,609 establishments were visited and 747 were found to be paying below the statutory minimum in some respect.
    Mrs. Golding: According to the Government's statistics, there was only one prosecution in the midlands in 1988. Given that during the 10 years of this Government more than 89,000 establishments have been found to be paying illegally low wages, why have there been only 51 prosecutions? Why are the Government so little interested in the low paid?
    Mr. Cope: The hon. Lady's figure for prosecutions is right. In fact, the ratio of prosecutions to underpaying employers is higher now than under the Labour Government. Prosecutions are not the only way in which to achieve the desired aim.
    Mr. Marlow: Why do we need these secret policemen? What do they do for the buoyancy and competitiveness of our economy?
    Mr. Cope: Frequent studies have shown in the past that wages councils tend to decrease employment. That is why we are considering whether to continue with them.
    Mr. Meacher: If the Government believe in law and order, why have fewer than one in 1,000 establishments paying illegally low wages been prosecuted? Is it not ludicrous that, with half the number of wages inspectors, the right hon. Gentleman's Department is sending out postal questionnaires asking employers whether they are committing the criminal offence of paying illegally low wages? Will the Minister confirm that the next step will be to invite employers to write in and announce to the Department that they are committing this criminal offence?
    Mr. Cope: As it happens, the questionnaire method about which the hon. Gentleman complains was introduced by the Labour Government of which he was a member. We have continued to use it and we have increased the prosecution ratio. There are many more ways than one of securing the objects that we both have in mind. We have reduced the number of inspectors because we have simplified the system.

    National Dock Labour Scheme
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost to registered port employers of the 1988 levy to finance the cost of the National Dock Labour Board.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The 1988 levy to finance the National Dock Labour Board cost registered port employers £4,690,607.
    Mr. Amos: In view of the very high cost to the nation of the national dock labour scheme, and as it is archaic, anti-democratic and anti-competitive, will my hon. Friend consider abolishing it as soon as possible?
    Mr. Nicholls: Matters covered by the levy include issues relating, for instance, to training, welfare and medical services, which must be provided for. The Government's position on the scheme remains unchanged. There are no plans to change or abolish it.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister confirm that before the introduction of the national dock labour scheme the men in the docks were treated like cattle, and that only since the introduction of the scheme have the ports enjoyed peace and working conditions fit for human beings?
    Mr. Nicholls: If one goes far enough back in history, one can always find something to justify one's views, but the position remains as I have set it out.
    Mr. Janman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Port of London Authority is interested in developing land immediately adjacent to the port of Tilbury but that it is experiencing extreme difficulty in finding people to take up this opportunity because of the existence of the dock labour scheme? Does my hon. Friend agree that the dock labour scheme costs not only money but jobs?
    Mr. Nicholls: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, he makes his analysis in his own way, but I do not think that I can fruitfully comment on that analysis at the Dispatch Box.

    Employee Participation
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage employers to increase employee participation through schemes such as employee share ownership plans.
    Mr. Cope: We encourage employers to develop their employee involvement arrangements by whatever means are best suited to their particular needs and circumstances.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the validity of the slogan "Owners try harder" is shown by the success of employee share ownership arrangements in the

    277
    United States, which now cover 10 million workers? Does he accept that they have broken down the "us versus them" attitudes in the States and have spread capital? Will he do some research to see how those schemes and those benefits could be applied in this country? By the way, does he have any recent information as to the Treasury view on this matter?
    Mr. Cope: I do not think that I should make any comment on Treasury views at this time of the year. I am well aware of the American experience in the field of employee share option schemes, not least as a result of reading my hon. Friend's articles on the subject. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is also looking at this matter in connection with the Companies Bill.
    Mr. Dykes: Is it not important to try to get the Treasury view? There is still time before the Budget statement this afternoon. One of the important things to do in the future is to get Treasury approval for an increased maximum number of shares held under employee share option schemes.
    Mr. Cope: Treasury views are always important.

    National Dock Labour Scheme
    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future of the national dock labour scheme.
    Mr. Nicholls: The Government's position on the scheme remains unchanged, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed in the House on 19 January 1989 at columns 481–82 of the Official Report.
    Mr Townend: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised that I am very disappointed with his reply. Does he agree that the national dock labour scheme is one of the few remaining relics of the corporate state established by the post-war Labour Government, which has been demolished by this Government? Does he accept that northern ports, like Hull and Liverpool, are able to prosper and compete, that, with the opening of the Channel tunnel, it is essential that they be able to operate in a free market without restrictive practices, and that that will not be possible unless he abolishes the scheme?
    Mr. Nicholls: Again I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that I cannot do anything about having disappointed him. I have announced what the Government position is, and I confirm that it has not changed.
    Mr. Moate: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, as has already been said, jobs are being lost and that industrial investment in waterside-related schemes is being positively discouraged? He has said that the Government position is unchanged. In view of the overwhelming arguments for abolition of this archaic dock labour scheme can he do the House the courtesy of explaining why that position is unchanged?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend describes the argument as overwhelming. That is his analysis, but I think that he will agree that there are very few situations in which the arguments are that easy.

    Wages
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Nicholls: There is no such thing as a Council of Europe decency threshold for a minimum acceptable level of earnings.
    Mrs. Mahon: In that case, will the Minister say how many, and what percentage of, full-time male workers earn less than the decency threshold decided by the committee of expert advisers advising on the European social charter? In case the Minister has forgotten, let me remind him that it is 68 per cent. of all full-time average earnings.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am not sure that the hon. Lady can have been listening to the answer that I have just given. She asked me about the Council of Europe decency threshold for a minimum acceptable level of earnings. Let me repeat that there is no such thing. Obviously, what she is thinking about is a recommendation of the Council of Europe expert advisory committee as to 68 per cent. of national average earnings. I repeat that there is no such thing as a decency threshold. It would be a good idea if the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends were to get a grasp of that fact.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that any threshold relating to average earning is bogus because it is self-perpetuating; as wages increase, so does the average, so there will always be, per se, people below that figure. Any such proposal is designed to give credence to those who want to criticise and abuse, such as the Opposition.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right, but I am sure that the point will be lost on Opposition Members. One cannot talk of 68, 78 or 88 per cent. without considering the 100 per cent. figure.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister agree that low-paid people would be helped enormously if the national insurance system were changed to allow a threshold rather than an allowance, so that if one earns an extra pound one does not have to pay £2 as a national insurance contribution?
    Mr. Nicholls: That does not arise from this question, and this is not the time to speculate about it.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister acknowledge that 500,000 male employees and 2·3 million female employees will not benefit from any increases in allowances that might be announced this afternoon because they do riot earn enough to pay tax? Do not Government proposals to abolish wages councils make it clear that the Government are pursuing policies to make the rich richer and the poor poorer?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman talks about deductions from those who are in work, but if he had his way and followed the policies advocated by his party, fewer people would have the opportunity to work.

    Tourism
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the tourism industry in Bristol.
    Mr. Lee: The estimated annual 1 million visitors to Bristol and the high levels of investment in tourism projects show clearly that Bristol is sharing in the general prosperity and expansion of our domestic tourism industry.
    Mr. Sayeed: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but is he aware that most tourists get no further west than Bath and appear unaware of the historic and architectural merit of Bristol? What are the employment implications of Avon county council's failure to take part in the West Country tourist board and Bristol city council's antagonistic and contemptuous attitude to tourism?
    Mr. Lee: I am sorry that Avon county council is the only council that is not a member of its regional tourist board. I am happy to say that, despite that, about £34 million worth of investment has been made in Bristol. Exciting developments are under way in the harbour and waterfront area, a number of which I have seen.
    Mr. Douglas: When the Minister goes to Bristol, he will no doubt visit the SS Great Britain, which is a monument to the British merchant fleet. Will he acknowledge that we have other monuments under this Government, such as our merchant shipbuilding capacity? What will the Government do about that?
    Mr. Lee: I recollect that when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence I heard similar speeches from the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he puts that question during Defence Question Time rather than at Employment Question Time.

    Loan Guarantee Scheme
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the loan guarantee scheme.
    Mr. Cope: Over 21,000 guarantees to a value in excess of £690 million have been issued since the loan guarantee scheme was introduced in 1981. Applications are currently running at nearly 200 a month.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the loan guarantee scheme has been an essential ingredient in the spectacular job creation success among small businesses of the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Will he confirm that it is one of the most cost-effective job creation schemes that the Government have introduced and that it has a secure future?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, I confirm all that. The scheme has an estimated net job cost of about £450 per job. It contributes much to the creation of small businesses and successful businesses that have grown much, such as the Sock Shop.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister have a further look at the regional imbalance in the loan guarantee scheme and tell us what justice there is in the fact that the south-east receives considerably more than Yorkshire and Humberside?
    Mr. Cope: Obviously, we respond to requests from individuals, from companies and from the banks. To a certain extent, the take-up achieved by the guarantee scheme in the different regions is a result of demand from interested parties, rather than action on our part to steer the scheme in a particular direction. The only thing that we do in that regard is to offer better terms for those in the inner cities.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is not the loan guarantee scheme just a rather expensive way in which to train bank managers? My hon. Friend should try to persuade bank managers to put less emphasis on the security on offer and more on the viability of the business plans.
    Mr. Cope: I certainly do my best to try to persuade them of that important aspect of banking science. It is an important scheme because of its educational effect on some bank managers. At the same time, banks use it quite a lot and that is greatly to be desired.

    Wages Inspectorate
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the east midlands.
    Mr. Cope: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding).
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that the midlands inspectorate is based in my constituency and that when the Government came to power there were 26 inspectors, but now there are only 10? Will he visit that establishment and explain to the people why there has been a reduction in the numbers of inspectors when more than 4,000 cases of underpayment have been reported, but only nine have been prosecuted? When will the Government start to prosecute those people instead of harbouring them?
    Mr. Cope: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to the reply that I gave earlier about the increase in the ratio of prosecutions to underpaying employers since the Labour Government left office. The level of compliance in the midlands has not varied significantly over the years.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my midlands constituency employers are offering wages above the average because of severe skill shortages?
    Mr. Cope: Yes. About 97 per cent. of workers are now paid at least the minumum due.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I have an honest answer to my simple question? A large number of households in my constituency—families with children—have incomes of less than £100 a week. If I were an elector in my constituency I could not live on that sum. Could the Minister?
    Mr. Cope: In the past I have lived on a good deal less than the hon. Gentleman.

    National Dock Labour Board
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last attended a meeting of the National Dock Labour Board; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend has never attended a meeting of the National Dock Labour Board.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not clear that the national dock labour scheme acts against the interests of the docks concerned and against the work force in those docks? Surely we should be persuading people working in those docks that it is in their interests to see a change in the scheme or, indeed, its removal.
    Mr. Nicholls: I hear what my hon. Friend says and obviously he is supported by a great many of our hon. Friends. The question was about a meeting with the National Dock Labour Board and I doubt that there is much that I can add to that or to the points that my hon. Friend has just put.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that the national dock labour scheme has brought great stability to the docks and it has also allowed—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ross:—and it has also allowed the docks to plan their work properly? All the attacks from the Conservative Benches do not help those trying to have discussions within the dock labour scheme about how it can be improved in the best interests of the country and the economy.
    Mr. Nicholls: That analysis was so patently absurd that it was hardly supported by any of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: May I observe to my hon. Friend that, on this issue, he is beginning to resemble President Botha of South Africa? Nobody in his own party supports him.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and if the great wheel ever goes full circle I shall give him my support as well.

    Wages Inspectorate
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom in the latest available year.
    Mr. Cope: A total of 8·7 per cent. of the establishments on the wages inspectorate register covering 329,591 workers, which is an estimated 13·1 per cent, were inspected in 1988.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister explain to the House the standards which this Government apply to the question of law-breaking? On the one hand, the Government put in place a very severe system of penalties, fines and surcharges for those who cannot afford to pay the poll tax; on the other hand, the Government virtually ignore employers who break the law and illegally enforce low wages on workers who are already exploited. Is it a case of no law for the rich and vicious laws for the poor?
    Mr. Cope: On the contrary, we have improved the position. I have already said that 97 per cent. of workers are now paid at least the minimum due, and that is a higher percentage than a few years ago.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the formation of training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: Last Friday I published a prospectus inviting local groups of employers to submit proposals for forming training and enterprise councils in their areas. TECs will represent a fundamental change in the way training and enterprise activities are managed and developed. I have invited the first formal applications for development funding by the end of April. I expect the first TECs to be in operation by early next year.
    Mr. Moss: I congratulate the Minister on this imaginative initiative, which has been warmly welcomed in my constituency and the country as a whole. Does he agree that unfilled job vacancies are more likely to be filled in the future if local industrialists have a direct input into the training of local people for local jobs?
    Mr. Fowler: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. The training and enterprise councils will be locally based and led by employers who have a knowledge of their local area. That will be good for jobs in all the areas in which they are set up.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q.1 Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March 1989.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided over a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Prime Minister think that people suffering from Alzheimer's disease should have to pay the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady is aware, those who fall into the definition of severe mental handicap are exempt. It has not been possible to have a particular definition at the time at which that occurs for Alzheimer's disease to bring everyone automatically into that definition.
    Q.2 Mr. Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March 1989.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patnick: My right hon. Friend drew attention during a recent visit to the north-east to the region's confidence. Does she agree that that confidence has shown an upswing in the whole of the area, and does it not demonstrate the hollowness of the so-called north-south divide?
    The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. In a visit to both the north-east and north-west last week one found that business is flourishing, business men are optimistic, unemployment is falling and the amount of reconstruction under the urban development corporation, particularly on the river front, is going excellently. I agree that the north-south divide has gone.
    Mr. Kinnock: Following the comments by the Secretary of State for Health at the weekend, will the Prime Minister now assure the House that when she next needs the services of a doctor she will not follow her usual practice of reaching for her wallet?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the average receipts for the general practitioner in the Health Service. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct in giving the figure for the average receipts.
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March 1989.
    The Prime Minister: I refer to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Waller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very considerable concern which exists, for instance, in the Yorkshire area about river pollution and about the fact that the water authorities, which are themselves sometimes the guilty parties, have responsibility for the enforcement of pollution control? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when ecological issues rightly have priority, it is important that we get rid of these anomalies as soon as we can?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. When water is privatised, the duty of regulation and policing the standards of water and of rivers will come either under the National Rivers Authority or under the Director General of Water Services who will also be able to control the prices. That will be a great advance in addition to the extra efficiency that we will get from privatisation. It will be a good deal for the consumer.
    Mr. Heffer: Following the right hon. Lady's visit to Liverpool last Friday when she attacked the workers at Birds Eye—1,000 of whom have now been put out of work—and the city council which is collaborating with all the interests in the area, will she now apologise to the people of Liverpool and Merseyside and understand that the people in my area put compassion before profit, which is something which the right hon. Lady does not understand?
    The Prime Minister: Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not understand that to satisfy the consumer—we are all consumers—companies must stay competitive and efficient. If workers in his area refuse to be competitive, efficient, or to accept high productivity, the investment will go to those many workers who are prepared to be just that.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: In the short time which remains before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer unveils his Budget proposals to the House, will
    284
    my right hon. Friend reflect on the growing strength of the British economy? Will she confirm that in the past two years the growth in jobs has been greater than at any time since the end of the second world war? Does she agree that it is very gratifying to note that, to the end of last September, 60,000 of those jobs were created in manufacturing industry? Is it not, therefore, clear that those are the outward and visible signs of an industry which has now regained its competitiveness and the outlook for the economy is excellent?
    The Prime Minister: The standard of living is higher than it has ever been. The number of people in work is higher than ever before and there are 1 million more people in work than in 1979. The number of people at work in manufacturing industry is growing. That is a very good record and the prospects for the future are good.
    Mr. McGrady: Is the Prime Minister aware of the distress, hardship and injustice which is often caused in Northern Ireland when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issues an order under section 42 in the national interest whereby companies are deprived of their contracts and employees of their jobs? Does she agree that natural justice demands that the accused know the accusation and have the chance to defend themselves? Will she make arrangements for an appeal procedure to enable those injustices to be eradicated?
    The Prime Minister: I shall refer that point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who does a superb job in respect of his duties in Northern Ireland, as in all others.
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rathbone: With the Government's commitment to fundamental change in South Africa, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endorse the recommendations of the judicial commission set up by the South African Government for the banning of apartheid, the abolition of all apartheid legislation, the adoption of a Bill of Rights and a national franchise to re-establish human rights in that country?
    The Prime Minister: As I understand it, that particular commission—which we would agree with—insisted that apartheid must end by a process of negotiation and we fully support that. Some encouraging changes are taking place, not least with the independence of Namibia which is a great step forward. We are also doing our level best to help the further education of black South Africans and we are now spending some £10 million on assisting them to get a better education. There is a great deal of room for hope for South Africa.
    Mr. Foulkes: Would the Prime Minister, for once, like the unusual opportunity of uniting the House behind her and join me in sending good wishes to the only football team left in Europe, Heart of Midlothian, in the fourth round tie against Bayern Munich this evening?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is British business creating more jobs than ever before within the United Kingdom economy but it is investing in and taking over four times as many overseas companies as any other western country? Does she agree with me that this indicates that our economy is very strong indeed?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As far as this country is concerned, business investment as a proportion of GDP is at an all-time high, in addition to which, being a very internationally minded country, we are investing heavily overseas—more than any other European country. We are in the lead by a long way; we are way ahead of the second country, which is France.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Prime Minister believe that the shameful decision of Judge Pickles to sentence my constituent—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that the Prime Minister cannot answer questions such as that.
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the reports that I have seen in the newspapers about delays that may take place in the reform of the legal profession are not right and that we shall get on as soon as possible in the next Session with the excellent reforms proposed by the Lord Chancellor and put them into practice as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: The measures have been proposed in Green Papers which will be thoroughly debated. Then I hope that we shall be able to bring forward legislation as soon as possible, most likely next year.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Prime Minister's interest in human rights deep enough for her to place on the agenda of the conference on human rights in Paris under the Vienna talks the question of the treatment of political prisoners in Turkey, our NATO ally?
    The Prime Minister: We have raised the question of human rights in Turkey with Ministers who have come here. They have replied that they are doing everything possible to restore full human rights in Turkey and that the cases which are frequently raised date back some considerable time.
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that where a monopoly does not reflect the realities of the market place it is not only the consumer but the supplier who suffers, because sooner or later the market place will reassert itself and if the supplier has not adjusted his services to meet that it will be unable to adapt? In those
    286
    circumstances, will she give an assurance to those in the legal profession who seek its urgent reform that she is fully behind them?
    The Prime Minister: Most people, I think, who have studied the Green Papers of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor about the reform of the legal profession are behind the overwhelming majority of his reforms. There are still some dissentient voices, particularly in the legal profession, but I think that, broadly speaking, what he proposes is right. We shall consider what is said in the debate very carefully and I hope that we shall be in a position to bring forward legislation.
    Mr. Alton: Notwithstanding the resilience and sense of optimism which the Prime Minister will have found during her visit to the Albert dock in Liverpool and the housing co-operatives that she visited last Friday, does she agree that in an area in which 98,000 people are out of work, and some 18,000 have been out of work for the last five years, there is no point in just blaming the victims and that the Merseyside economy cannot stand to lose another 1,000 jobs? Will she personally do what she can to try to save those jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I was questioned about that particular loss of jobs, and I indicated that it was because the company could not achieve competitiveness, could not get rid of some restrictive practices, and could not increase productivity in that particular factory. So it chose to invest in a factory where it could do so. The company is still investing, but not at that factory. I was questioned about that matter at a spot where it is proposed to create another 5,000 jobs, arising from some of the reconstruction that is being undertaken at the docks as an extension of the work of the urban development corporation. It seems to me that there are fresh opportunities there. The hon. Gentleman will know that the company is delaying the close-down, to enable its workers to obtain other jobs and other training before closure occurs.—[Interruption] The company must be competitive, and if the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he is against the consumer and against every single worker.
    Mr. Knowles: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagement for Tuesday 14 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is present.
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jack: Recently, my right hon. Friend sponsored an excellent conference in London, on the preservation of the ozone layer. Will she consider sponsoring a similar event to help ensure the preservation of the world's rain forests?
    The Prime Minister: That aspect was, of course, mentioned at the conference on the preservation of the ozone layer. If my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) consults my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas
    288
    development, he will learn that a considerable number of our grants and aid are already given with the preservation of the rain forests in mind, because that is very important to the preservation of the ozone layer as a whole.

Points of Order
Mr. Speaker: Private notice question. Mr. Neil Kinnock.
Mr. Neil Kinnock rose—
Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take any points of order after the private notice question.
Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? He knows perfectly well that I take points of order after questions, and I have called a private notice question.
Mr. Kinnock rose—
Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that points of order are taken at their proper time, after private notice questions. I repeat that I have called a private notice question. Mr. Neil Kinnock.
Mr. Kinnock: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question—
Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman persists, I shall have to take action that I would very much regret having to take.
Mr. Sillars rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
Mr. Sillars: My point of order relates to this question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman for the final time that I will take his point of order after the private notice question.
Mr. Sillars: My point of order relates to the question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Sillars indicated dissent.
Mr. Speaker: I give the hon. Gentleman one more chance.
Mr. Sillars rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will leave the Chamber for the remainder of today's sitting.
Mr. Sillars indicated dissent.
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman refusing to do that?
Mr. Sillars indicated dissent.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman refuses, I shall he forced to name him. I give the hon. Gentleman one more chance to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Sillars indicated dissent.
Mr. Speaker: I name Mr. James Sillars.
Question put,
That Mr. James Sillars be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Wakehum]
The House proceeded to a Division:—
Mr. Patrick Cormack (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the time that has been wasted, if there should be occasion for a similar Division, will you use the powers vested in you under Standing Orders to allow us to vote by standing in our places?
Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment.
The House having divided: Ayes 376, Noes 16.

Division No. 120]

[3.33 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon John

Alton, David

Cormack, Patrick

Amess, David

Cran, James

Amos, Alan

Crowther, Stan

Arbuthnot, James

Cummings, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Darling, Alistair

Armstrong, Hilary

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

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Ashby, David

Day, Stephen

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Dewar, Donald

Aspinwall, Jack

Dixon, Don

Atkins, Robert

Dobson, Frank

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Doran, Frank

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dover, Den

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Dunn, Bob

Batiste, Spencer

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Beith, A. J.

Durant, Tony

Bell, Stuart

Dykes, Hugh

Bevan, David Gilroy

Eggar, Tim

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, John (St Helens W)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Evennett, David

Boateng, Paul

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fallon, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Fatchett, Derek

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Favell, Tony

Bowis, John

Fearn, Ronald

Boyes, Roland

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Brazier, Julian

Fishburn, John Dudley

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fisher, Mark

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Flynn, Paul

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

Fookes, Dame Janet

Browne, John (Winchester)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Forman, Nigel

Buck, Sir Antony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Burt, Alistair

Forth, Eric

Butcher, John

Foster, Derek

Butler, Chris

Foulkes, George

Butterfill, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Callaghan, Jim

Fox, Sir Marcus

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Franks, Cecil

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Freeman, Roger

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

French, Douglas

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fry, Peter

Carrington, Matthew

Fyfe, Maria

Carttiss, Michael

Galbraith, Sam

Cash, William

Gardiner, George

Chapman, Sydney

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gill, Christopher

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Colvin, Michael

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Conway, Derek

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

291

Gow, Ian

Lilley, Peter

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Lord, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Grocott, Bruce

McCrindle, Robert

Grylls, Michael

Macdonald, Calum A.

Hague, William

McFall, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Hampson, Dr Keith

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Hanley, Jeremy

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Hannam, John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Maclean, David

Harris, David

McLeish, Henry

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Maclennan, Robert

Hawkins, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Haynes, Frank

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

McNamara, Kevin

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Major, Rt Hon John

Heddle, John

Mans, Keith

Henderson, Doug

Maples, John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Marek, Dr John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Marlow, Tony

Hill, James

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hind, Kenneth

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Holland, Stuart

Mates, Michael

Holt, Richard

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hood, Jimmy

Maxton, John

Hordern, Sir Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Howard, Michael

Meacher, Michael

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

Meale, Alan

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Miller, Sir Hal

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mills, Iain

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Miscampbell, Norman

Howells, Geraint

Mitchell, Sir David

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Moate, Roger

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Morgan, Rhodri

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hunter, Andrew

Morrison, Sir Charles

Ingram, Adam

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Irvine, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Jack, Michael

Mowlam, Marjorie

Janman, Tim

Neale, Gerrard

Janner, Greville

Nelson, Anthony

Jessel, Toby

Neubert, Michael

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Nicholls, Patrick

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

O'Brien, William

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

O'Neill, Martin

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Oppenheim, Phillip

Kilfedder, James

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Page, Richard

Kirkwood, Archy

Paice, James

Knapman, Roger

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Patnick, Irvine

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Knox, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Lamond, James

Pawsey, James

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Lang, Ian

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Latham, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Lawrence, Ivan

Portillo, Michael

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Powell, William (Corby)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Price, Sir David

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Randall, Stuart

292

Rathbone, Tim

Strang, Gavin

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Straw, Jack

Renton, Tim

Sumberg, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Richardson, Jo

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Riddick, Graham

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Robertson, George

Temple-Morris, Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Rogers, Allan

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rost, Peter

Thornton, Malcolm

Rowe, Andrew

Thurnham, Peter

Ruddock, Joan

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Tredinnick, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Trotter, Neville

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Turner, Dennis

Sayeed, Jonathan

Twinn, Dr Ian

Scott, Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Walden, George

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wallace, James

Shersby, Michael

Waller, Gary

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Walley, Joan

Sims, Roger

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wareing, Robert N.

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Warren, Kenneth

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

Watts, John

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

Wells, Bowen

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wheeler, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Whitney, Ray

Soley, Clive

Wiggin, Jerry

Speed, Keith

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Speller, Tony

Wilshire, David

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wilson, Brian

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Winnick, David

Squire, Robin

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stanbrook, Ivor

Winterton, Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wood, Timothy

Steen, Anthony

Worthington, Tony

Stern, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Stevens, Lewis

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stokes, Sir John

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. David Lightbown.

Stott, Roger

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Salmond, Alex

Corbyn, Jeremy

Sedgemore, Brian

Cryer, Bob

Sillars, Jim

Douglas, Dick

Skinner, Dennis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Heffer, Eric S.

Wigley, Dafydd

McGrady, Eddie

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tellers for the Noes:

Nellist, Dave

Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew Welsh

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
The the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan withdraw from the House.
Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Govan must now leave the Chamber.
The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Budget Statement
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Neil Kinnock (by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will make a financial statement.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I am happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question.

  Budget Statement

    INTRODUCTION
    The background to this year's Budget is the unprecedented strength of the British economy, coupled with the continuing and overriding need to combat inflation, at a time when, throughout the world, it is unmistakably edging up again.
    I shall begin with an account of the performance of the economy in 1988 and the prospects for 1989, set in the context of the past 10 years. I shall then deal with monetary policy and the public sector finances. Finally, I shall propose a number of measures to carry forward the process of tax reform.
    As usual, the Financial Statement and Budget Report, together with a number of press releases filling out the details of my proposals, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down.

    ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND PROSPECTS
    The Government's first 10 years in office have seen a transformation both in the way in which economic policy is conducted, and in the results that have been achieved.
    For the first time, economic policy has been set firmly and explicitly in a medium-term context. We have been guided by the basic philosophy that the Government should set a sound medium-term financial framework and leave the private sector free to operate with confidence within it.
    The Government came to office with two central objectives—to defeat inflation, and to breathe new life into a moribund economy—and a clear idea of how to achieve those objectives. Inflation is a disease of money; and monetary policy is the cure. The role of fiscal policy is to bring the public accounts into balance and to keep them there, and thus underpin the process of re-establishing sound money.
    Strong sustainable growth is achieved, not through any artificial stimulus, but by allowing markets to work again and restoring the enterprise culture; by removing unnecessary restrictions and controls and rolling back the frontiers of the State; by reforming trade union law and promoting all forms of capital ownership; and by reforming and reducing taxation.
    The first and most urgent task we faced was to damp down the inflationary fires that had raged in the 1970s, and wrought so much economic and social havoc; and we succeeded. Between 1974 and 1979, inflation had averaged more than 15 per cent. Over the past six years it has averaged 5 per cent.—still not good enough, but a massive improvement.
    Once business and industry recognised the fundamental changes that were taking place, they responded to the new economic climate with vigour and confidence. As a result, we have experienced the longest period of strong and
    294
    steady growth since the war. Output in the United Kingdom has grown faster than in all the other main European nations during the 1980s—a marked contrast to the previous two decades, when we were bottom of the league—and this growth has been based on a dramatic and sustained improvement in productivity.
    For the economy as a whole, our productivity growth has been second only to that of Japan among all the major nations during the 1980s, and our productivity growth in manufacturing has exceeded even that of Japan.
    In Britain today we have more people in work than ever before in our history; they are better motivated than ever before, and their living standards have improved beyond recognition. But it is not just our economic performance that has been transformed: so have our prospects for the future.
    Over the past seven years, investment has grown more than twice as fast as consumption, creating the increased capacity necessary to meet future demand. Total business investment is now a higher proportion of national income than ever before, and its quality has improved immeasurably, too; as has the quality of British management. We have seen a dramatic and long overdue improvement in company profits and a remarkable growth in the total number of businesses, last year at the rate of more than 1,000 a week.
    Provided we stand firm in our resolve to get on top of inflation, the prospects before us are excellent. At least on this side of the House, we do stand firm.
    A year ago, in the aftermath of the worldwide stock market crash, it looked as if there would be some slowing down from the rapid growth of 1987. In fact that was not to be.
    As the House knows, the state of the national income statistics leaves much to be desired, but it now appears that we had in 1988 a second successive year of growth at 4·5 per cent., with unemployment falling by over half a million, to well below the European average. Manufacturing output grew particularly rapidly, by more than 7 per cent., to a level well above the previous peak.
    But total spending also grew by getting on for 7 per cent., mainly because of the boom in industrial investment, in itself a welcome event, but also because of continued strong growth in consumer spending. This last was financed to an unprecedented degree by borrowing, overwhelmingly mortgage borrowing.
    Invevitably, the rapid growth of total spending led to renewed inflationary pressure. To some extent this was diverted into a sharp rise in imports, and hence into the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments. The published figures put this at £14·5 billion in 1988, although, given the £15 billion positive balancing item—another name for errors and omissions—the true figure:is almost certainly less than this. But whatever the true figure, it is undoubtedly large, and a sharp increase on the deficit recorded in 1987 after seven successive years of surplus. Given sound policies, however, it can readily be financed.
    Moreover, unlike previous current account deficits we have known in this country, it reflects not excessive Government borrowing, but rather an upsurge of private investment unmatched by private savings, and this imbalance is something that will in due course correct itself.
    The real threat is posed by the increase in inflation itself. Excluding the distorting effect of mortgage interest

    295
    payments, the RPI rose by 4·5 per cent. last year, much the same as the average over the previous five years, but this underlying rate increased significantly through the year, and now stands at 5·5 per cent.
    Moreover, the increase in inflation appears to be a worldwide trend. Taking the seven major industrial nations as a whole, inflation is now at its highest level for three and a half years.
    In the United Kingdom, as in a number of other countries, it became clear that it was necessary to tighten monetary policy sharply. That meant raising short-term interest rates, which I duly did, starting last June.
    I am, of course, keenly conscious of the difficulties many borrowers, particularly home owners, are now experiencing. But however unwelcome high interest rates may be, they are infinitely preferable to the damage that would be done by high inflation.
    There are now increasing signs that the determined action that I have taken is having the desired effect. The housing boom that played such a large part in the events of last year has subsided. Monetary growth has slowed down appreciably, and retail sales, too, seem to have levelled off over the past four months, presaging a gradual recovery in the personal savings ratio.
    The outlook for 1989 is for inflation to rise a little further over the next few months, from 7·5 per cent. including mortgage interest payments, to about 8 per cent., before falling back in the second half of the year to 5·5 per cent. in the fourth quarter and perhaps 4·5 per cent. in the second quarter of 1990.
    Some slowdown in real growth is inevitable as we get inflation back on to a downward path—indeed, it has almost certainly already begun to happen. Overall growth is forecast to fall from the 4·5 per cent. recorded last year to 2·5 per cent. this year, with growth through the year at 2 per cent.
    Domestic demand is forecast to slow down even more markedly. But within this, investment, which is holding up well, is once again forecast to grow faster than consumption. The current account deficit is forecast to remain at the same level as last year.
    But the question of just how "soft" or "hard" the so-called landing will be is not in the hands of Government alone. The Government's task is to reduce inflation by acting, through monetary policy, to bring down the growth of national income in money terms. The task of business and industry is to control their pay and other costs. The more successfully they do so, the less costly in terms of output and employment the necessary adjustment will be.
    Over the medium term, however, it is clear from our experience over the past 10 years that the policy we are pursuing will bring inflation down, and steady growth will resume. The best contribution the Government can make to this is to carry forward the process of supply side reform, to help make the economy work better. That is the objective of the specific measures to which I shall turn in the second part of my statement.

    MONETARY POLICY
    As I said at the outset, monetary policy plays, and must always play, the central role in the battle against inflation. It is at the very heart of the medium-term financial strategy, the 10th edition of which I am publishing today.
    I have described the monetary tightening that has taken place over the past nine months. This has already led to a sharp fall in the rate of growth of the target aggregate, narrow money, or M0.
    For 1989–90, the target range for M0 will be 1 to 5 per cent., as envisaged in last year's MTFS. Although it will start the year above the top of that range, its very low growth over the past six months—below 3 per cent. at an annualised rate—suggests that it will fairly soon come back within the range. As in the past two years, there is no target for the growth of broad money, or liquidity, but I will continue to take it into account in assessing monetary conditions.
    The exchange rate is of particular importance in the conduct of monetary policy. The Government's clear commitment not to accommodate increases in domestic costs by exchange rate depreciation remains a key safeguard against inflation. In this context, we will continue to work with our G7 partners to maintain the greater exchange rate stability that has been a feature of the past two years.
    Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. I repeat now what I have stated clearly on a number of previous occasions: interest rates will stay as high as is needed for as long as is needed, for there will be no letting up in our determination to get on top of inflation.

    PUBLIC SECTOR FINANCES
    I now turn to fiscal policy. When we first took office, the public sector borrowing requirement was over 5 per cent. of GDP—equivalent to £25 billion in today's terms.
    This we steadily reduced over the years as a deliberate act of policy, until, by 1987–88, the PSBR had been eliminated altogether, and we started to repay the public debt.
    Accordingly, last year I budgeted for a further public sector debt repayment, or PSDR, of some £3 billion. In the event, it looks like turning out between four and five times as large, at £14 billion, or 3 per cent. of GDP.
    Even if there had been no privatisation proceeds at all, the public finances would still be in surplus, to the tune of some £7 billion. Nothing like this has ever been achieved in the past 40 years. Indeed, Government debt as a proportion of GDP is now lower than at any time since the first world war, and no other major country enjoys a comparable budget surplus. It has not been easy, even though we have been assisted this year by the exceptional buoyancy of the economy, which both boosted tax receipts and reduced public expenditure.
    Moreover, the substantial net repayment of public debt over the past two years has permanently reduced the burden of debt servicing, both now and for future generations. For the coming year, for example, the debt repayments of the last two years mean that net debt interest costs will be lower by over £1·5 billion a year. This saving is being put to good use, allowing extra spending on departmental programmes within our overall public expenditure constraints.
    The dramatic improvement in the United Kingdom's public finances has also provided a welcome opportunity to devote more attention to the structure of the debt that remains. We will continue to seek both to minimise the

    297
    cost of servicing the Government's domestic debt and to improve its quality by relying less on the more liquid borrowing instruments.
    We have also been able to restructure part of the Government's foreign currency debt, launching an innovative and cost-effective programme of Treasury bills denominated and payable in ECU.
    The first series of six-monthly tenders for these bills has proved a highly successful innovation. We plan to continue the programme at around the current level.
    Meanwhile, I am today adding one more entry to the long list of financial controls which we have swept away during our term of office. The last surviving relic of the post-war apparatus for the direction of capital by the state is the Control of Borrowing Order, which, since 1946, has involved, first, the Treasury and, then, the Bank of England in giving consents for equity and bond issues in the capital markets.
    As from today, it will no longer be necessary for companies wishing to make capital market issues to obtain the Bank of England's consent to the timing of such issues. The new issue queue will be a thing of the past. As soon as practicable, we will revoke the order itself and repeal the 1946 Act from which it stems.
    The sterling capital market has in recent times been going through a period of considerable adjustment, as the Government have changed from being a large issuer to a large purchaser of their own debt. The abolition of the Control of Borrowing Order will remove an unnecessary and bureaucratic restriction on issuers of capital as they move into the space formerly occupied by the Government when they were a borrower.
    This new freedom will be enhanced by a further, important set of deregulatory measures for the sterling capital market which are being promulgated today in notices issued by the Bank of England. These measures will open up the market for sterling paper of less than five years' maturity by extending the range of institutions which can make such issues; and they will create a unified regime for all these issues.
    Taken together, the changes I have described constitute a major liberalisation of the arrangements for London's capital markets. They will give greater flexibility to issuers and wider choice to investors.
    In last year's Budget speech, I set out the principle of a balanced budget as the proper objective of fiscal policy, in these terms:
    "A balanced Budget is a valuable discipline for the medium term. It represents security for the present and an investment for the future. Having achieved it, I intend to stick to it. In other words, henceforth a zero PSBR will be the norm. This provides a clear and simple rule, with a good historical pedigree".—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 996.]
    It is a rule that ensures that, as national income continues to rise, the ratio of public debt to national income continues to fall, and with it the burden of debt interest. It ensures, too, that the state makes no claim either on the savings of the private sector or on flows of finance from overseas.
    To go further than this, and seek to achieve the maximum possible repayment of public debt, would not be consistent with the Government's policy, as it would mean deferring for a very long time the benefits of a reduction in the burden of taxation, so I reaffirm the principle of the balanced Budget. However, given the substantial surplus we now have, the path of prudence and caution must be to
    298
    return to balance not overnight, but gradually, over a period of years. Thus, we can expect further years of debt repayment ahead of us.
    Moreover, given the particular uncertainties there are at the present time, I believe it would be right to budget for 1989–90 for a surplus similar to that secured in the year now ending; in other words, a further public sector debt repayment, or PSDR, of some £14 billion.
    This means that, in the space of three years, we shall have repaid roughly a sixth of the public debt that has accumulated over more than two centuries, but it also means that it will not be possible in this year's Budget to reduce the burden of taxation; that is to say, to reduce taxation as a share of national income.

    TAXPAYER CONFIDENTIALITY
    Before I turn to my proposals for changes in taxation, I have one other change of a specific nature to announce.
    As the House knows, the new official secrets legislation currently passing through Parliament is very much narrower in scope than the present Official Secrets Act. In particular, it does not cover information in the possession of either the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise concerning the private affairs of specific taxpayers. I am sure that the whole House will agree that it is essential for taxpayer confidentiality to be properly protected.
    I therefore propose to introduce provisions in this year's Finance Bill to ensure that it will continue to be a criminal offence for officials or former officials of either of the Revenue Departments to reveal information about the private affairs of a specific taxpayer.
    I would only add that the need for this protection is in no sense a reflection on the probity and integrity of the members of those two Departments.
    Indeed, after nearly six years as Chancellor and more than eight years as a Treasury Minister, I would like to take this opportuntiy to pay public tribute to the outstanding service I have consistently received from the officials of both Departments.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    BUSINESS TAXATION
    Mr. Lawson: I now turn to taxation. As I have done on a number of previous occasions, I propose to divide this into three broad sections: the taxation of business. the taxation of savings, and the taxation of personal income and spending.
    First, taxes on business. Ever since the corporation tax reform I introduced in 1984, the rate of corporation tax for small companies, defined for this purpose as those with annual profits of less than £100,000, has been set at the basic rate of income tax, currently 25 per cent.
    Large companies, defined as those with profits of £500,000 or more, pay the main rate of corporation tax of 35 per cent., one of the lowest rates of tax on company profits in the world. Between £100,000 and £500,000, the averge rate of tax gradually rises from 25 to 35 per cent.
    I propose to keep the small companies rate in line with the basic rate of income tax for 1989–90 and to leave the main corporation tax rate unchanged, but I propose to increase the small companies' rate band substantially, by 50 per cent.

    299
    Thus, the small companies' rate will apply to companies with profits of less than £150,000, and the 35 per cent. rate will be reached only at profits of £750,000. These changes will reduce the corporation tax burden for more than half of all those companies that do not already enjoy the benefit of the small companies rate.
    I propose to increase the VAT threshold to £23,600, the maximum permitted under European Community law.
    I also have to set the scales for the private use of company cars. This remains far and away the most widespread benefit in kind. When I doubled the car scales in last year's Budget, I made it clear that this still left this benefit significantly undertaxed. Accordingly, I propose to increase the car scales by one third for 1989–90. The yield from this will be £160 million in 1989–90 and £200 million in 1990–91. There will be no change in the fuel scales.
    Over the years, I have received a number of representations from business complaining about the long-standing tax treatment of foreign exchange gains and losses. I recognise that, as business becomes more global, this subject becomes increasingly important. However, I have to say that I find it one of the most intractable I have encountered. Certainly, there can be no question of any change in the present system until a number of crucial and complex issues have been satisfactorily resolved. I have therefore authorised the Inland Revenue to publish today a consultative document which explores those issues and examines the scope for reform.
    Finally, on business taxation, I have two major simplifications to propose, both of which follow from the income tax reforms that I introduced in last year's Budget.
    One of the many undesirable features of an income tax system with several higher rates was that, since a taxpayer's marginal rate could well be very different in different years, the question of which year income related to made a great deal of difference. This was true of schedule E, where the strict rule is that income is taxed in the year to which it relates, on an accruals basis.
    For the vast majority of employees, this basis of assessment for schedule E poses no problem, but for about half a million people, mainly directors, who do not receive all their income in the year to which it relates, it causes complications and often needless assessments and correspondence long after the tax year is over. It is also open to manipulation.
    I therefore propose that income tax under schedule E should in future be assessed on a receipts basis, with the simple principle that one pays the tax when one receives the income. This will have a transitional cost of £80 million in 1989–90 and £60 million in 1990–91, but in the long term it will yield both extra revenue and a significant saving in both taxpayers' time and Inland Revenue staff.
    The reduction in the top rate of income tax to 40 per cent. in last year's Budget also enables me to make a major simplification of the tax regime for the vast bulk of the incorporated sector of small businesses: those known as close companies—generally speaking, unquoted companies that are controlled by five or fewer people.
    The rules for the so-called apportionment of close companies' income are notoriously complex, taking up some twenty pages of impenetrable legislation. These rules
    300
    are no longer needed, and I propose to abolish them. I believe that family businesses in particular will welcome this substantial simplification.
    I do, however, have to guard against the avoidance of tax on investment income by channelling it through a closely controlled investment company. Any such company which does not distribute the bulk of its profits and other investment income will therefore be taxed at 40 per cent., equivalent to the higher rate of income tax.

    TAXES ON SAVING
    I now turn to the taxation of saving.
    The sharp decline in the ratio of personal saving to personal income, over the past two years in particular, has led to even more discussion than usual of the merits of providing greater tax incentives for personal saving.
    Certainly it is desirable that, over the medium term, we generate as a nation a level of saving sufficient to finance a high level of investment, but what matters for that is not personal saving alone, but corporate saving too, which is running at a historically high level, and public sector saving, which has been boosted by the move to budget surplus.
    Moreover, the personal saving ratio is measured in terms of gross saving net of borrowing, and it has fallen not because of a decline in gross saving but as a result of the sharp increase in personal borrowing. The appropriate remedy for that is to raise the cost of borrowing, and with it the return on savings, as we have done.
    Above all, the role of tax reform is to encourage enterprise and improve economic performance in the medium term. It is wholly inappropriate as a response to short-term or cyclical phenomena. So for the taxation of savings, the Government's policy is clear: it is to strengthen and deepen popular capitalism in Britain, by encouraging, in particular, wider share ownership. I have a number of specific tax measures to announce today to that end.
    Personal equity plans, or PEPs, were first announced in my 1986 Budget, and started up in January 1987. As the House knows, those who invest in these plans pay no further tax at all, either on the dividends they receive or on any capital gains they may make—indeed, there is no need for them to get involved with the Inland Revenue at all.
    Personal equity plans got off to a good start, with over a quarter of a million investors, many of whom had never owned shares before, subscribing almost £500 million between them in 1987.
    Since then, however, the take-up of new PEPs has slowed down, not least as a result of the changed climate in the equity market which followed the October 1987 stock exchange crash. So the time has come to improve and simplify PEPs and give them a new boost.
    First, I propose to raise the annual limit on the overall amount that can be invested in a PEP from £3,000 to £4,800. Secondly, within that, I propose to raise substantially the amount that can be invested in unit trusts or investment trusts. For many small savers, these provide an excellent introduction to shareholding.
    At present, PEP investors are limited to £540 a year, or a quarter of their PEP, whichever is the greater, in unit or investment trusts. I propose to increase this limit very substantially, to £2,400 a year; and the whole of a PEP will be able to be invested in unit or investment trusts, up to

    301
    this limit. To qualify for tax relief, the unit or investment trusts will be required to invest wholly or mainly in United Kingdom equities.
    Thirdly, at present, only cash may be paid into a PEP. I propose that investors should also be permitted to place directly into a PEP shares obtained by subscribing to new equity issues, including privatisation issues.
    Finally, I propose to make a number of important simplifications to the PEP rules so as to make the scheme more flexible, better directed to the needs of small and new investors, and, above all, cheaper to administer.
    I am confident that the changes that I have announced today will enable personal equity plans to play an important part in stimulating the spread of ownership of British equities in the years ahead.
    I also have a number of improvements to announce specifically designed to encourage employee share ownership.
    It is a striking fact that the number of approved all-employee share schemes has risen from a mere 30 in 1979 to almost 1,600 today, benefiting some 1·75 million employees. At present, the annual limits on the value of shares which can be given under all-employee profit-sharing schemes are £1,250 or 10 per cent. of salary up to a ceiling of £5,000. I propose to raise these cash limits to £2,000 and £6,000 respectively.
    Secondly, I propose to increase the monthly limit on contributions to all-employee save-as-you-earn share option schemes from £100 to £150, and at the same time double the maximum discount from market value at which options may be granted from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.
    Thirdly, a number of my hon. Friends have been concerned that current tax law may be inhibiting the development of employee share ownership plans, otherwise known as ESOPs. These are distinguished from ordinary approved employee share schemes by the fact that they use a wider variety of finance, acquire more shares and tend to operate on a longer time scale.
    I propose to make it clear that companies' contributions to ESOPs qualify for corporation tax relief, provided only that they meet certain requirements designed to ensure that the employees acquire direct ownership of the shares within a reasonable time. I hope that this will encourage more British companies, particularly in the unquoted sector, to consider setting up ESOPs.
    Those firms with employee share ownership schemes have no doubt that giving the work force a direct personal interest in their profitability and success improves the company's performance. The same benefits flow from profit-related pay. That was one of the reasons why, in my 1987 Budget, I introduced a tax relief to encourage its development. I have some improvements to make to this scheme, too.
    First, as I have previously announced, I propose to abolish the restriction that, to qualify for the tax relief, prospective profit-related pay must equal at least 5 per cent. of total pay. Secondly, I propose to raise the limit on the annual amount of profit-related pay which can attract relief from £3,000 to £4,000.
    Thirdly, I propose to enable employers to set up schemes for headquarters and other central units using the profits of the whole company or group for their profit calculations. Fourthly, to help share schemes and ESOPs as well as profit-related pay, I propose to change the
    302
    so-called material interest rules which may at present unnecessarily exclude employees from schemes where they can already benefit from a trust set up for employees.
    Taken together, the package of measures I have announced to encourage wider share ownership in general, and employee share ownership in particular, will help to ensure that the idea of a share-owning democracy becomes ever more entrenched as a part of the British way of life.
    I now turn to life assurance. Last June, the Inland Revenue issued with my authority a major consultative document on the taxation of life assurance. The tax regime for life assurance is unique. The present system dates back to the first world war and has developed over the years in a piecemeal way, leading to a state of affairs in which the incidence of tax is extremely uneven, with some life offices paying no tax at all.
    There is clearly a powerful case for reform, with a view to securing a tax regime which is more equitable both within the industry and as between life assurance and most other forms of savings.
    I have considered very carefully the representations that the industry has made, and taken full account both of the changes to the regulation of life assurance proposed by the Securities and Investment Board under the Financial Services Act 1986 and the prospects for increased competition within the European Community after 1992. In the light of these factors, I have decided not to proceed with the more radical reforms canvassed in the consultative document, but I do have number of important changes to propose, based for the most part on the general tax reform principle of seeking lower rates on a broader base.
    First, many life offices write pension business as well as life assurance, and they are not required to keep the two businesses entirely separate for tax purposes. This enables them to set the unrelieved expenses of the pensions business against the income and gains of their life business, thus giving their life profits unduly favourable tax treatment. The life offices themselves have accepted that this treatment is anomalous, and I propose to end it.
    This change will come into force on 1 January 1990. Together with some related measures to put the taxation of life offices' pension business on to a proper footing, it will yield some £150 million in 1990–91.
    The remainder of the changes that I have to propose constitute a broadly balanced package which, because of the transitional provisions, will reduce the taxation of life assurance in 1990–91 by some £100 million.
    I propose that the expenses incurred by life offices in attracting new business should continue to be fully deductable for tax purposes from the income and gains of life funds, but should in future be spread over a period of seven years. To give the industry time to adjust, this change will be phased in gradually over the next four years, starting on 1 January, 1990.
    There are certain other, more technical, matters raised in the consultative document which will require further discussion with the industry, and any legislative changes on these issues will have to wait for next year's Finance Bill. But I can say here and now that I propose, as from 1 January 1990, to abolish life assurance policy duty. I also propose, from the same date, that the rate of tax payable on the policyholders' share of the income and gains of life offices, which at present stands at 35 per cent on

    303
    unfranked investment income and 30 per cent. on realised capital gains, should be reduced to the basic rate of income tax.
    The net effect of all these changes to the taxation of life assurance will be a cost of £20 million in 1989–90 and a yield of £45 million in 1990–91, rising somewhat in subsequent years. But above all it will provide a more efficient and equitable tax regime for this most important industry.
    Later this year, United Kingdom unit trusts will be able to compete freely in Europe and will face competition from analogous Community investment schemes here. At present, trusts investing in gilt-edged securities or other bonds face a tax disadvantage. They pay corporation tax at 35 per cent. on their income but can pass on a credit of only the basic rate of income tax to their investors. I therefore propose that from 1 January 1990, as for life assurance companies, the corporation tax rate on unit trusts that come within the new European Community rules will be equal to the basic rate of income tax. Their investors will then get full credit for all the United Kingdom tax the trusts pay.
    I turn now to pensions. The tax treatment accorded to occupational pension schemes is particularly favourable; and the extent of this privilege has to be circumscribed by Inland Revenue rules. Thus, pension, schemes qualify for tax relief only if they meet certain conditions, notably that the pension paid may not exceed two thirds of final salary: and if they fall foul of any of these rules, they lose all relief.
    This has the perverse result that tax law effectively constrains the overall pension an employer can pay his employee. This is neither desirable nor necessary. Accordingly, I propose to make it possible for employers to provide whatever pensions package they believe necessary to recruit and reward their employees.
    However, while it is clearly right that employers should be free to provide whatever pension they see fit, it would not be right to make the present generous tax treatment open-ended. I therefore propose to set a limit on the pensions which may be paid from tax-approved occupational schemes, based on a final salary of £60,000 a year.
    I have deliberately set the ceiling at a level which will leave the vast majority of employees unaffected, and it will be subject to annual uprating in line with inflation. It will still be possible for a tax-approved occupational scheme to pay a pension of as much as £40,000 a year, of which up to £90,000 may be commuted for a tax-free lump sum.
    The new ceiling will apply only to pension schemes set up on or after today, or to new members joining existing schemes after 1 June. Public sector schemes, too, will be amended to comply with this. As I have already said, there will now be complete freedom to provide benefits above the Inland Revenue limits, though without the tax relief.
    The introduction of this ceiling on tax relief also enables me to simplify and improve the rules for the majority of pension scheme members, in partcular to ease the conditions under which people can take early retirement.
    I also propose to simplify very substantially the rules concerning additional voluntary contributions to pension schemes, or AVCs. In particular, the present requirements for free-standing AVCs place a heavy administrative burden on employers. These requirements will be greatly reduced. Indeed, in many cases employers will not need to be involved at all.
    Furthermore, if AVC investments perform very well, occupational pensions may at present have to be reduced to keep total benefits within the permitted limits. I propose that, in future, any surplus AVC funds should be returned to employees, subject to a special tax charge. This will remove the penalty that at present exists on good investment performance.
    The most important development in pensions in recent years has undoubtedly been the introduction and success of personal pensions. Since July last year, 1 million people have already taken advantage of the new flexibility and opportunities these offer. I have two proposals today to make personal pensions still more attractive.
    First, I propose to make it easier for people in personal pension schemes to manage their own investments. Second, I propose to increase substantially the annual limits, as a percentage of earnings, on contributions to personal pensions by those over the age of 35.
    This will be of particular value to those running their own businesses, who are often unable to make contributions until later on in their working life. It will also improve the position of personal pensions in relation to occupational schemes. The new limits will be subject to an overall cash ceiling based on earnings of £60,000, corresponding to the new ceiling for occupational pensions, and similarly indexed.
    These changes build on, and complete, the pension measures I introduced in my 1987 Budget. They represent a significant deregulation which will allow more flexibility, while setting for the first time a reasonable cash limit on the tax relief available to any individual. They should give a boost, in particular, to saving through personal pensions and through AVCs.
    Coupled with the changes I made in 1987, this is as far as I wish to go in amending the tax treatment of pensions.
    Finally, on the taxation of saving, it should not be overlooked that a far-reaching reform which I announced in last year's Budget, to come into effect in April 1990, is relevant in this context. I refer to independent taxation, about which three new explanatory leaflets are now available from all tax offices.
    There can be little doubt that one of the greatest disincentives to saving in the present tax system is the treatment of the savings of married women. At present a wife's income from savings has to be disclosed to her husband, and taxed at his marginal rate.
    Independent taxation will change all that. In particular, those married women who have little or no earnings will in future have their own personal allowance to set against their savings income. Independent taxation may well do much to encourage the growth of personal saving in this country.

    TAXES ON SPENDING
    I now turn to taxes on personal income and spending. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government are obliged to implement the European Court's judgment that certain of our zero rates of VAT on supplies to business, notably on non-residential construction, but also on fuel and power and on water, are not lawful. This derives from the court's interpretation of the Community's sixth VAT directive, to which the United Kingdom agreed in 1977. The necessary changes will be introduced in this year's Finance Bill, and draft clauses have already been published.
    In implementing the judgment, I have sought to do as much as possible to minimise the burden. From 1 April, VAT will be payable in respect of all non-residential construction, unless carried out under agreements entered into before the court ruling. As from 1 August, Iandlords will have the option to tax rents, which means, in practice, that in most cases no extra VAT will be paid at all.
    These measures will reduce the burden of VAT on construction, so far as the private sector is concerned, to just £35 million in 1989–90, rising to £110 million in 1992–93. Without them, the yield from VAT on construction in the private sector would have risen to £450 million. There will also be a first-year yield of £250 million from construction carried out for the public sector, and the public sector programmes concerned have already been protected by compensatory adjustments where necessary.
    So far as water for industry and fuel and power for business use are concerned, VAT will not be payable until July 1990. VAT on fuel and power will apply to business users above a specified threshold. Private households will remain zero-rated.
    I have been particularly concerned about the impact of the European Court's ruling on charities. Unfortunately, charities' business activities cannot lawfully be shielded from the effects of the ruling, but I have been able to retain zero rates for construction, water, fuel and power for all charities' non-business activities, for churches, and for residential accommodation such as hospices, students' hostels and old people's homes.
    I have considered whether there is anything further I can sensibly do to assist charities with their VAT bills in these special circumstances. I propose to relieve charities from VAT on fund-raising events, on sterilisng equipment for medical use, and on classified advertising.
    I also propose to relieve from car tax cars leased to the disabled. This is equivalent to an overall saving of about £400 on each vehicle leased to a disabled person. However, in general, I continue to believe that the best way of helping charitable causes through the tax system is by directly encouraging the act of charitable giving. The payroll giving scheme, which I introduced in my 1986 Budget, has been growing steadily. Some 3,400 schemes have now been set up, and over 100,000 employees are already participating, quite a few of them giving the full £240 annual limit for tax relief. I now propose to double that limit to £480, or £40 a month.
    I now turn to the excise duties. For some years now, the potential damage to the environment in general, and the risk to child health in particular, from excessive lead in the atmosphere has been a matter for concern. Lead in petrol accounts for 80 per cent. of lead in the atmosphere. The Government are firmly committed to phasing out leaded petrol, and in successive Budgets I have sought to assist this.
    I first introduced a tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol in 1987, and I increased it last year, but, although sales are undoubtedly rising, unleaded petrol still accounts for only some 5 per cent. of total petrol sales, even though two-thirds of the cars now on the road could use it, either without any modification, or else with only a minor modification, which should not usually cost more than £20 and, in many cases, will be carried out free.
    One of the problems is ignorance of the facts. Many motorists do not realise that their cars can already use unleaded petrol. Othes are unaware of how modest the
    306
    modification cost usually is, and many are under the false impression that if they do switch to unleaded petrol, their cars will no longer be able to use leaded petrol.
    It is clearly essential that these myths are rapidly dispelled. Meanwhile, I propose to take the opportunity of this Budget to increase still further the tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol, by nearly 4p a gallon. This means that, at a shade over 14p a gallon, or more than 3p a litre, our tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol will be greater than that of any other country in the European Community, with the solitary exception of Denmark.
    If the benefit of today's change is fully passed on to the customer—and I look to the oil companies to see that it is—it means that the price of unleaded petrol at the pump will generally be getting on for lop a gallon, or just over 2p a litre, cheaper than four-star leaded petrol.
    But I do not intend to stop there. I also propose to raise the tax on two and three-star petrol, so that the pump price of these grades will be at least as high as that of four-star.
    This should encourage garages to phase out two-star petrol, which is already down to about 6 per cent. of the total market, thus enabling them to switch storage capacity, and in some cases pumps too, to unleaded petrol—quite apart from the incentive to the remaining two-star users to switch to unleaded fuel.
    I am confident that the duty changes I have announced, which will take effect from six o'clock this evening, will contribute to a marked increase in the use of unleaded petrol over the next 12 months. They will also lead to a loss of revenue of some £40 million in 1989–90. I propose to recoup this from vehicle excise duty.
    At the present time, a bus or a coach has to have 66 seats before it pays as much in vehicle excise duty as a family car. I propose to rectify this anomaly by increasing the tax rates of this group of vehicles so that they cover their track costs. I also propose to increase the rates of duty for the heaviest non-articulated lorries, to put them on a more equal footing with articulated lorries. At the same time, I propose to simplify the system, greatly reducing the number of separate rates of vehicle excise duty.
    I have no further changes to propose this year in the rates of excise duty.

    INCOME TAX
    Nor do I propose any change this year to either the basic or higher rate of income tax.
    Since I aligned the rates of income and capital gains tax in last year's Budget, it follows that I also propose no change this year in the capital gains tax rates. However, I do have a few announcements to make concerning capital gains tax.
    With the advent of independent taxation from April 1990, married women will acquire their own capital gains tax threshold, so that a married couple will enjoy two such exemptions. In the light of this, I propose to maintain the capital gains tax threshold at £5,000 for 1989–90.
    Secondly, I propose to abolish the general holdover relief for gifts. This was introduced by my predecessor in 1980, when there was still capital transfer tax on lifetime gifts, in order to avoid a form of double taxation, but the tax on lifetime giving has since been abolished, and the relief is increasingly used as a simple form of tax avoidance. However, while the general holdover relief will

    307
    go, I propose to retain it for gifts of business, farm and heritage assets; and, of course, gifts between husband and wife will continue to be exempt.
    Moreover, I propose to extend the existing relief for all gifts to charities and to gifts of land and buildings to housing associations. Where, instead of being given away, the land is sold at less than market value, any capital gains tax will be based on the actual proceeds rather than, as now, on the market value. I also propose that such gifts and concessionary sales be normally exempt from inheritance tax.
    In the case of gifts of personal belongings, these benefit from chattels relief, under which any items worth less than £3,000 on disposal are entirely exempt from capital gains tax. I propose to double the chattels exemption limit to £6,000.
    Thirdly, I propose to change the tax treatment of certain bonds so as to simplify the tax rules and prevent a loss of yield by the use of indexation to create losses and the conversion of income into capital gains.
    To return to income tax, I propose to raise all the main income tax thresholds and allowances by the statutory indexation factor of 6·8 per cent., rounded up. Thus, the single person's allowance will rise by £180 to £2,785, and the married man's allowance will rise by £280 to £4,375. The basic rate limit will rise by £1,400 to £20,700. The single age allowance will rise by £220 to £3,400, and the married age allowance by £350 to £5,385. The higher level of age allowance will rise by £230 to £3,540 for a single person, and by £360 to £5,565 for a married couple.
    I have a number of measures to help the elderly. In 1987 I introduced a new and more generous age allowance for those aged 80 and over. I now propose to extend it to include all those aged 75 and over. This will take an additional 15,000 elderly single people and married couples out of tax altogether. Three quarters of all those aged 75 and over will not be liable to income tax at all.
    The income limit for the age allowance will rise by £800 to £11,400, again in line with indexation. However, I propose to reduce the rate at which age allowance is withdrawn above this income limit. I propose that, in future, it should be withdrawn at the rate of £1 of allowance for each £2 of income above the limit, instead of the present rate of £2 for every £3. This means that the marginal tax rate for those in the withdrawal band will be reduced to well below 40 per cent., thus meeting a large number of representations I have received over the past year.
    The Finance Bill will also include the provisions to establish the new tax relief for the over-60s' health insurance premiums, which I announced to the House in January, and which will take effect from April next year, at a cost of £40 million in 1990–91.
    I have one further change to make to help pensioners. Under the earnings rule, any pensioner who decides to continue to work after reaching the statutory retirement age sees his or her pension docked at a rate of 50 per cent. on every £1 earned between £75 and £79 a week, rising to 100 per cent. for every £1 earned over £79 a week. This rule applies until he or she has reached five years beyond the state pension age.
    The manifesto on which we were first elected in 1979 acknowledged that it was wrong to discourage people who wished to work beyond retirement age in this way, and we pledged that we would abolish the earnings rule. That is precisely what we shall do. My right hon. Friend the
    308
    Secretary of State for Social Security and I have agreed that the pensioners' earnings rule should be abolished from the beginning of October, the earliest practicable date. The necessary legislation will be included in the Social Security Bill currently before the House.
    The cost to public expenditure will be £190 million in 1989–90, which will be entirely met from the Reserve, but the net cost of this measure will be significantly reduced by the income tax payable on the increased pensions.
    Those who wish to defer taking their pension will remain entirely free to do so, and will continue to earn a higher pension in return. I am sure the whole House will welcome this long-overdue reform.
    If I were to adopt the so-called "duck test" now in vogue across the Atlantic, the pensioners' earnings rule would probably qualify as a tax, and I would now be able to claim to have abolished a sixth tax, but sound tax principles, coupled with my innate modesty and natural reticence, prevent me from doing so.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
    I have one further measure to propose. It has long been a feature of the national insurance system that, once people earn more than the lower earnings limit, which in 1989–90 will be £43, they have to pay national insurance contributions at the same rate on the whole of their earnings up to the upper earnings limit. There are currently three different rates—5 per cent. and 7 per cent. for those on lower pay, and the standard rate of 9 per cent. The two reduced rates, which I introduced for both employers and employees in my 1985 Budget, cut the cost of employing the young and unskilled, among whom unemployment was then high and rising, and cut the burden of national insurance contributions on the low paid.
    However, the highly desirable reduction in the steep step at the lower earnings limit was achieved at the expense of creating two small steps further up the earnings scale. This is not a real problem so far as employers' contributions are concerned, but it is for employees. For it inevitably means that, at certain points on the income scale, people can still be worse off if they earn more. Their extra earnings take them from a lower rate band to a higher one, and they therefore lose more in national insurance contributions than they gain in extra pay.
    In agreement with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, I now propose to build on my 1985 reform. For pretty well everyone who pays employee national insurance contributions, I propose to reduce to only 2 per cent. the rate of contributions on their earnings up to and including the lower earnings limit. On their earnings above that limit, there will be a single rate of 9 per cent., up to the upper earnings limit, which has already been set for 1989–90 at £325 a week. This will abolish altogether the steps which at present exist at earnings, for 1989–90, of £75 and £115 a week, and thus remove a serious work disincentive from the system.
    The step, which has always existed at the lower earnings limit, where people first come into the national insurance system, is the entry ticket to the full array of contributory benefits—as such, it is an essential feature of the contributory principle—but my proposals will more than halve this step, to only 86p a week in 1989–90. There will be no change in the contributions payable by employers.
    This reform will significantly reduce the burden of employees' national insurance contributions across the board. For the lowest paid, that burden is now heavier than the burden of income tax. This is the most effective measure I can take to lighten it. For everyone on just under half average earnings and above, it will leave them £3 a week more of their own money.
    The new system will take effect from the beginning of October, the earliest practicable date. The cost will be £1 billion in 1989–90 and £2·8 billion in 1990–91. The necessary legislation will be included in the Social Security Bill currently before the House.
    The total additional cost of all the measures in this Budget, on an indexed basis, is under £2 billion in 1989–90 and £3·5 billion in 1990–91.

    CONCLUSION
    In this Budget I have reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the defeat of inflation through the maintenance of prudent monetary and fiscal policies. I have budgeted for a debt repayment of £14 billion—the largest ever. I have announced a major reform of, and reduction in, employees' national insurance contributions; and I have honoured our pledge to abolish the earnings rule for pensioners.
    I commend this Budget to the House.
    Mr. Kinnock: I begin with customary felicitations and, on this occasion, thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his reply to my private notice question. I shall try to ensure that my supplementary is not as long as the answer he gave me.
    I also take this opportunity to welcome the change that the right hon. Gentleman has announced in the excise duties, a change that will promote the use of lead-free petrol. That is an entirely sensible step for the Chancellor to take. On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I further welcome the belated achievement, after 10 years in government, of the Conservative pledge to abolish the earnings rule for pensioners. It is only a fortnight since my hon. Friends on the Social Security Bill Committee sought, not for the first time, to secure that abolition. It is a shame that the Government did not see lit, even at that juncture, to make the adjustment so that at least it could have been an act of consensus, which I am sure it will be.
    This is not simply an annual Budget; the occasion is becoming marked by what can only be described as the custom of holding the annual nationalist games. I hope that that custom will not last very long because it is of no use to anybody, least of all the people of Scotland and Wales. In any case, we did not have to rely on the nationalists for entertainment when we had a professional juggler right in front of us.
    After nearly six years as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman was able to stand up this afternoon and say that inflation in the second half of this year will reach 8 per cent. and that then it is expected to dip. He is so afraid of what will actually happen that he dare not raise any excise duties. He announced that growth in the course of this year will be halved and that the balance of payments deficit will stay the same this year as it was last year—that is, around about £15 billion. He said that he expected interest rates to remain high. But still, after announcing all this wonderful record of his
    310
    achievements, particularly in the past 12 months, the right hon. Gentleman produced again the lexicon of clichés about an unprecedented strength in the economy.
    Yet again, in the next 12 months, we shall see just how much strength the right hon. Gentleman will produce in the economy. A year certainly does make a difference. Last year we had the boom budget that made the credits spree and the trade deficit and inflationary pressures worse than they otherwise would have been. This year we have had the bust Budget—a botched attempt to make up for the Chancellor's excesses and messes in last year's Budget.
    Last year, in his Budget forecasts, the Chancellor told us that, in 1988, inflation would be 4 per cent., but he said that that was still too high. It was 6·8 per cent. in 1988 and it is now 7·5 per cent. and he has just told us that it will rise further. Of course, it might dip a little towards the back end of the year, perhaps even as early as July, because of the arithmetic of the year-on-year calculation of inflation. The fact remains, however, that without any excuse of any major move in commodity prices and without the pressure of any major movement in oil prices such as the previous Labour Government had to put up with, this is a Chancellor who is fast becoming Mr. Inflation.
    Last year, the Chancellor, as usual, missed his monetary targets—missed them by billions. In his estimate of the Budget surplus at £3 billion, he showed that he had absolutely no idea of what was happening in the economy—he was out by a factor of five. Last year, the Chancellor proved that he is to economic forecasting what Eddie the Eagle is to ski jumping.
    There will, as usual, be much comment on the Budget, but I warrant this: this year no one, neither the Chancellor's friends nor the Prime Minister—there is a distinction—will say that this Budget was
    "quite the most brilliant we have seen"
    After the experience of the past 12 months, perhaps the Prime Minister knows the difference between brilliance and flashiness, but the less lustrous Budget of 1989 cannot be blamed on any lack of advice. There has been no shortage in either the quantity or the quality of that advice.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received advice from his right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (M r. Heseltine), for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), and for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and had the benefit of advice from his right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Higgins)—whose advice is of high quality—and he has also had the benefit of advice from his right hon. Friend in the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Wales, but he ignored that advice as well. He has also had high-quality advice from his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—the good old Member for Bexley and Sidcup, say we, because he tendered very high-quality advice to the Chancellor. However. the Chancellor has dismissed all his right hon. Friends as if they were a bunch of
    "teenage scrbblers".
    The Chancellor was right about one thing last year; he was absolutely right to scorn the estimates offered in July by the City analysts that the balance of payments deficit for 1988 would be £10 billion. They were totally wrong about that; it was £14·7 billion, so the Chancellor was right to scorn them. Let us hope that he does not berate them quite so frequently this year because though they were far out, they were a great deal closer than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    311
    There was advice for the Chancellor from this side of the House too. Sadly, he neglected that. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who presented a series of proposals for improving the situation, that there would be no change of policy. That was the Chancellor's absolutely unflinching announcement. He must have forgotten nine movements in the interest rate over a very short period, a kind of economic yo-yo, but he told my hon. Friend that there would be no change of policy. At all times, except when the Chancellor has faced the Prime Minister, his responses to demands and protests have been the same: "No change; I am standing firm. Read my blips." That has been the answer he has offered this 12 months.
    Let us hope there will be different responses in the forthcoming months; otherwise there may be substance in the rumours percolating that the Prime Minister might be looking for a replacement for this Chancellor of the Exchequer. We understand that her gaze has fallen favourably upon the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is only a week since she was telling us that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is
    "absolutely first-class in every way,"—[Official Report, 7 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 751.]
    whether in architecture, art, or civil engineering. Clearly, here we have a renaissance Cabinet Minister, with such an accumulation of talents as to make Leonardo da Vinci feel humble. So it might be that, in the course of the next 12 months, Michelangelo will replace Machiavelli. I do not know whether the country will be the better for it.
    In this Budget the Chancellor did not offer anything to repair the damage done to ordinary families both as a result of last year's giddy, give-away Budget and so much else that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been doing. His failure to make that reparation will dismay many people in our country, but it will not surprise them. Because, for instance, of the briefing that did not take place and the tapes that do not exist, the people of Britain now know that child benefit hangs by a mere comma in the Conservative Manifesto. They also know that they have a Chancellor who believes that only a "tiny minority" of pensioners have "difficulty in making ends meet", even though there are 6 million retired people in this country either below or just on the official poverty line.
    So it comes as no surprise to the people of Britain that they have a Government who take with one hand and then take more with the other. They are a Government who give income tax cuts and then wipe out any gains with mortgage and interest rate rises and rises in other taxes, who have imposed the highest tax burden in peacetime history on the people of this country.
    This Budget will not lessen the burden either on the family or on the national income. I see the Chancellor disagreeing. The fact is that, even to get back to the burden as a proportion of national income and a weight on the average family that was reached under the last Labour Government, the Chancellor would today have had to cut the standard rate of income tax by another 6p. That demonstrates how much of an increase there has been in the tax burden under this Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    However, not content with maintaining that record tax burden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ensured that the greatest burden falls on the average family. Since the
    312
    right hon. Gentleman, the great tax reformer, entered 11 Downing street, the bottom 50 per cent. of British taxpayers, over 10 million people, have received £10 billion in income tax cuts; the top 1 per cent., just 200,000 people, have been given £16 billion in tax cuts. That cannot be just, efficient or right, and it will certainly not be right when that burden is increased by the Government-sponsored price rises in water and electricity and the poll tax—no tax was ever conceived or designed to fall more heavily on ordinary families throughout the country and less heavily upon the very rich.
    Not content with being a high-tax party, the Conservative party, especially under the Prime Minister and the chancellorship of the right hon. Gentleman, is also spectacularly the high interest rate party. The average mortgage rate under this Government has been at an all-time record for an all-time record period. It is not an accident. The right hon. Gentleman told us last year, and he repeated it of course this year
    "that interest rates remain the"
    not "an" but "the"—
    "essential instrument of monetary policy"
    [Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 995.].
    While even he cannot have thought, when he said last year, that the essential instrument would become a 13·75 per cent. bludgeon on home buyers and a huge cost burden added to the costs of industry, it is only really this Chancellor's usual performance.
    After all, in the past six years this miracle worker has raised the mortgage rate to a level more than 35 per cent. above that which he inherited. Today, just before he sat down, the Chancellor claimed that the changes in national insurance contributions make this a budget for the low-paid. They certainly need it, because the great supply-side reform that this Government has achieved is to remove both rights and protections for the lowest paid workers in the land.
    The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was going to claim credit for removing the steps in national insurance contributions. That is very interesting. We of course welcome it. We have made several demands over several Budgets for radical reform in national insurance contributions to alleviate the burden on the lowest paid workers. What has to be remembered, however, is that this man now removing the steps in national insurance contributions is the Chancellor who installed the steps in national insurance contributions and who increased the rate from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent.—a huge tax increase for those least able to afford it.
    I wish this were a Budget for the low-paid. The truth is that the changes announced by the Chancellor today hardly touch the average family and its income, and they do not compare with the endless largesse that he was prepared to show last year to those on the very highest income. This is not a Budget for the low-paid worker; this is another con job from a low-down Chancellor.
    True to form, again in this Budget, while the right hon. Gentleman was failing the majority he was favouring the minority. Even this modest Budget today brought in a few more of what are becoming known as Lawson's loopholes. We have had them before. We had the BES and enterprise zones. Those are just two examples; there are plenty more of them. We have had various kinds of tax relief, based on the hope that if the tax obligations of those on higher

    313
    incomes were reduced they would be more willing to commit their resources to investment. That has never worked, and it will not work now.
    The Chancellor has announced with a little twist today that, through this Budget, he will allow previously purchased privatisation share issues to be placed in personal equity plans. It will be plain to everyone that he is doing that to give free and speculative gains on privatisation issues. That is the water privatisation bribe, and the Government will need all the bribes that they can get if they are going to make that flotation work.
    Of course, trying to relieve of tax the people on top incomes to induce them to invest has not worked. After 10 years of giving away £26 billion to the richest I per cent. in our country, the proportion of total investment in GDP is lower than during any year under the last Labour Government. The savings ratio is also at rock bottom. It is historically at its lowest ever figure.
    I used to think that it was the national debt which did not matter. It now appears to be the savings ratio which does not matter. That is extraordinary. If the savings ratio does not matter, why did the Chancellor put all that effort into trying to subsidise savings if it was not to try to pull up savings from the historically low level which he has managed to reach as further evidence of his brilliance?
    The Chancellor's steps today. like so many of his other steps, show his incompetence and perversity. If the fact that we have 13 per cent. interest rates does not attract savers, why should subsidies attract them? In a country in which the Government refuse subsidies to meet the environmental costs of a rail link and in which they regard subsidies for training or research as the work of the devil, people rightly ask why subsidies are right for those with the money to save and wrong for those who use railways, carry out research or need training.
    The Budget contains the most indefensible of all the Government's tax subsidies—the subsidy which they propose to give to people who buy private health insurance for the over-60s. If the Government want to give priority in the Budget to the health needs of the elderly, the answer is not tax relief on medical insurance premiums for the well-off. The answer is to provide proper funds to cut NHS waiting lists for the elderly, to increase district nursing, health visiting and chiropody and physiotherapy services. If the Prime Minister would only join the NHS queue instead of jumping it, she would know that I am telling the truth.
    When I raised this matter with her, the Prime Minister said that she was surprised I was
    "prepared to purchase a private house but not prepared to purchase private health care. [Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 424.]
    That is what she said to me just a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister is so distant from reality that she equates housing with health. If she can do that, perhaps she can tell us what are the health equivalents to rent, mortgage arrears, housing, rises in mortgage rates, overcrowding and homelessness. If the Prime Minister believes that there is an equation between buying a house and buying private health insurance, she can tell us all about it. I might even get her to rise at the Dispatch Box to answer this, who knows?
    The needs of the elderly, whether they are in the private sector or on the NHS, will not be met by subsidies of this kind. When we know that the Government, according to the Chancellor, are prepared to give over £40 million—it
    314
    will be a lot more than that in reality—of taxpayers' money to the already well-off, when they are denying proper facilities to those who do not, cannot and will not pay, that is a grotesque sense of injustice.
    We all know why that provision is in the Budget. It is not because the Chancellor is enthusiastic about it. It is not even, to do him credit, because the Secretary of State for Health is enthusiastic about it. That provision is in the Budget because it is one of the Prime Minister's pet obsessions. She deludes herself, or she wants to delude others, that private health subsidies for the over-60s will somehow ease pressure on the Health Service. It cannot and will not do that.
    Apart from any other considerations, private health insurers do no cover pre-existing medical conditions such as arthritis, senile dementia, loss of mobility or many of the other most usual ailments of the very elderly. BUPA offers the advice that private health insurance does not exist to alleviate long-term illness, because that is not a suitable subject for insurers.
    In the Finance Bill which will follow this Budget and in many other ways, it is important that people's attention is drawn to the basic ideology behind that proposition so that people can judge the Budget and the Government's White Paper on "Working for Accountants". The idea that the private medical sector can help with health needs is not the Prime Minister's only delusion. She believes, or says that she believes, that the
    "trade deficit is being financed by people who are prepared to invest in Britain and who have full confidence in the country's economy."—[Official Report, 2 March 1989, Vol. 148, c. 392.]
    The Chancellor said something like that again today. However, the truth is that the brilliant Chancellor has made such a botch of his job that the only way in which he can get short-term money into this country to fund his record balance of payments deficit is to offer the highest interest rates in the industrial world.
    At the same time that the Chancellor is making families and businesses bear the crushing interest rate burden, he is presiding over a huge and continuing net outflow of long-term capital. Last year, about £9 billion of long-term capital came into Britain and £24 billion of long-term capital went out. Some "full confidence" that shows in "the country's economy", to use the Prime Minister's words a net long-term capital outflow of £15 billion to go with the deficit on the current account of £15 billion which will stay with us again this year.
    However, against that background the Chancellor expects us to stand back and admire him for accumulating a Budget surplus. Against a background of huge household debt, a rock-bottom savings ratio, a massive trade deficit and a record tax burden, the Chancellor expects the people of Britain to become positively reverential at what he calls his "prudence and caution" in using that surplus to pay back the national debt.
    Before anyone becomes too impressed with the Chancellor, a few factors should be taken into account. It is very difficult for the Chancellor to claim "prudence" for accumulating the surplus when he did not plan for it and when it is five times bigger than he expected. He was the most shocked man in the House of Commons. He must be the only person who still believes in Father Christmas.
    Despite all the talk that we heard again this afternoon about "prudence and caution" in paying off the national debt to "lift the burdens of the future", the Chancellor

    315
    knows that he is not using the Budget surplus because he wants to. He is using it to repay the national debt because he thinks that he dare not do anything else with it.
    The Chancellor has his bonanza budget surplus—a real windfall if there ever was one—which he believes that he cannot use in Britain without sucking in more imports and sending the markets haywire. He has all this money, but he dare not use it. He must feel like the robber who opens his swag and finds that all the banknotes are marked. The robber analogy is not entirely without meaning, especially when we bear in mind the remarks of the former Prime Minister, the late Lord Stockton, about selling the family silver.
    We must remember that the surplus is not the Chancellor's. The headlines might read "Mr. Lawson's surplus", "The Government's surplus", "The Chancellor's surplus", "Mr. Fixit's surplus", "Wonderman's surplus" or even "The Brilliant Chancellor's Surplus". However, as the Chancellor and the Prime Minister repeatedly and rightly remind everyone, Governments do not have their own money. Governments only have the people's money. Governments only have the taxpayers' money. So Governments do not have their own surpluses: they have only the people's surpluses.
    What are the people in Britain saying should be done with their surplus? In every measure of opinion, such as that in The Daily Telegraph 10 days ago and confirmed by every other source, people are not saying that the surplus should be used to repay the national debt or to spend on big tax handouts. In huge majorities, in all measures of opinion, the people who own that surplus are saying that their surplus should be used on health, education, transport, to protect the environment and to make the streets and railways safer and cleaner. The people are saying that their surplus should be used to prepare for their future and for their children's future. That comes through strongly from every measure of opinion, and this is a day on which the Chancellor should have trusted the people.
    Some of the people want their surplus used in this way because of their instinct for social justice; others because of an innate understanding that this country's economic and social fabric has been run down and must be built up if we are to face the future. But most people, I suspect, will say that their surplus should be used for constructive reasons of the most enlightened and common-sense self-interest, because the people of Britain know that they need the National Health Service and the public education system; they need comfort and security and efficiency as they travel across the country. They know all that because, unlike the Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet, they use the public services in Great Britain.
    This is the time that the Chancellor really should have trusted the people of this country, because the National Health Service lacks the resources to spend properly on its development needs. In this country, rivers, beaches and water supplies need cleansing. In this country, under this Government, local council house building has dropped by two thirds, private house building has fallen by one third and we have increased overcrowding, bad housing and homelessness. Under this Government it is a country that spends a fraction of what our competitors spend on skill training and in which investment in commercially viable
    316
    research is still, despite all the oil, the tax burden and the Budget surplus, still spending 10 per cent. less on research than in 1979.
    In this country, with all those needs, the Government would have to spend £14 billion in order to raise the proportion of GDP spent on public sector capital investment back to the level it was at under the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), or under my right hon. Friends Lords Wilson and Callaghan.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): He does not understand.
    Mr. Kinnock: Oh, I understand only too well. One only has to walk out of this place and see the filth on the streets and the railways, the schools understaffed, the shortages of teachers and the under-funding of research to know that I understand only too well.
    In this country, with all these needs for repair and renovation and to face the future, a Government that use their Budget surplus to pay the national debt are like a householder who insists on paying back the mortgage despite the fact that the roof is leaking, the damp is rising, the electric wiring is perilous and the windows are falling out. This decision is justified by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister by saying that we should be paying off the mortgage, paying off the national debt, because if the people do not use their resources for that they will leave a debt round their children's necks.
    It is strange that the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole always say that they do not want to leave debts to our children. Yet they are always prepared to cut the taxes of the rich and to restrain public capital spending. They do not want to leave debts to our children, but they are always willing to preside over stagnation in manufacturing investment, always ready to leave a legacy of decay and danger because they will not undertake proper investment in the present or the future.
    They leave debts, too—the debts of a Chancellor who, in his time in office, has seen exports rise by 21 per cent. and imports by 58 per cent. In the last 12 months alone, he has seen exports rise by 1·8 per cent. and imports by 13 per cent. Such a Chancellor leaves debts. Such a Chancellor runs up overdrafts. Does he think that there is some charity in the sky that will fund that huge deficit that he has run up?
    That is not all the debt story. Under this Chancellor personal debts have risen, because of his fiscal and monetary incompetence, to a level which means that British households are more indebted than those of any other of the seven major industrialised nations. The Chancellor, who now uses his single instrument of record interest rates, punishes people for believing him on previous occasions. This Chancellor and this Government allow decay to increase, danger to spread, debt to rise and division to increase. The people will have to pay those debts now because they are without choice when they face their bills. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government will pay later because they will have to face the people without support.
    Mr. Speaker: As the private notice question is fully debatable on the Ways and Means resolutions, I do not propose to take any further questions on the private notice question.

    CONCLUSION

      PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
      Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means motions).
      That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

      (a) Hydrocarbon oil (motion No. 2);

      (b) Vehicles excise duty (rates) (motion No. 5);

      (c) Special machines (vehicles excise duty and hydrocarbon oil) (motion No. 7).—[Mr. Lawson.]

      Question agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I now call on the Chancellor to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the law". It is on this motion that the Budget debate will take place today and on the succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week and they will then be decided without debate.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax, otherwise than in a case where the amount has been paid by reason of a mistake;

  (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  [Relevant documents: European Community document No. 8887188, Annual Economic Report 1988–89 and the unnumbered document, "Annual Economic Report 1988–89" (final version as adopted by the Council).]
  5.29 pm
  Mr. David Knox: I should like to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on this, his sixth Budget statement. Like all his previous Budget statements, his speech today was well constructed, to the point and commendably brief. I do not know how many more Budgets my right hon. Friend will introduce, but he has set his successors a very high standard to match, and of course his Budget speeches compare very favourably both in style and in content with those of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) between 1974 and 1979.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: But they are an awful lot denser.
  Mr. Knox: I must thank the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for his private notice question this afternoon. With the exception of one or two hon. Members, the entire House is very grateful to him for co-operating to stop an abuse of parliamentary procedure. As a result of the right hon. Gentleman's action, the House was able to proceed with the Budget debate in the usual way. I think that a Conservative Member ought to express the gratitude of this side of the House to the right hon. Gentleman for his action.
  However, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I welcome my right hon. Friend's cautious and prudent Budget. Given the balance of payments position and the current rate of inflation, he was right to be very cautious and to maintain the public sector debt repayment at the same level in the coming year as it has been in the past year. I strongly welcome a number of measures in my right hon. Friend's Budget. Chief among them is the fulfilment of the pledge made in our 1979 election manifesto that the earnings rule would be abolished. We have long waited for that to happen, and at last it has been implemented. Incidentally, another pledge made at the same time was that there would be rather less legislation under a Conservative Government than under the previous Labour Government. Perhaps that pledge also will be fulfilled in the coming years, who knows?
  In the face of inflation and balance of payments difficulties, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend decided

  319
  to stick to increasing the thresholds by only the statutory amount. One expected him to do at least that, because he was one of the authors of the original Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment back in the 1970s. Although he does not always receive as much credit as he should for this, he has as Chancellor fulfilled the spirit of that amendment in the past.
  I am pleased also that my right hon. Friend has made the changes he has to national insurance contributions. The new arrangements will be much more satisfactory, because they remove the disincentive to people to earn more that obtains in the existing arrangements. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has taken steps to increase long-term saving. I view the decline in saving over the past few years as a serious matter. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken the important measures that he has to try to increase the rate of long-term saving. Together with those, there are measures to increase wider share ownership, which is important if we are to create a capital-owning democracy—to use that great phrase of the late lain Macleod.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has not increased duty on alcohol and tobacco. I warmly welcome the change in duty payable on unleaded petrol. Only 5 per cent. of petrol consumption is accounted for by unleaded petrol, and it is high time that its share was considerably increased. Yesterday, I took the precaution of asking my garage to convert my car to unleaded petrol, so clearly I shall benefit from that measure. I had no pre-knowledge of the Chancellor's decision.
  Important though the measures announced by my right hon. Friend are, he will be judged on the economy's general performance during the next year rather than on his Budget. Two areas of the economy are of particular concern at present. They are the balance of payments and inflation. There is no doubt in my mind that the balance of payments is the more serious of them. In the early 1980s, we had—thanks to oil—very large surpluses on the current account of our balance of payments. They enabled us to build up massive overseas investment. Today, British people own much more capital abroad than foreigners own in this country. Britain has become one of the strongest creditor countries in the world. It can be argued that that is the only real advantage North sea oil has given us.
  It was hoped that that advantage would be a lasting one and that the income from our overseas investments would help us to pay our way in the world when the oil was no longer there and we were compelled to import oil again. However, over the past three years we have moved from a position of having a substantial surplus on our balance of payments current account to having a substantial deficit. Last year, the deficit totalled 14·5 billion. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend announced that he expects a similar deficit in the coming year. We can pay for such deficits either by the sale of overseas investments or by borrowing.
  So far, the deficits have been financed mainly by borrowing at excessively high rates of interest, which have attracted hot money into London. A combination of our strong net capital position and high interest rates has enabled us to avoid the kind of sterling crisis that we knew in the 1970s. If our current account deficit continues uncorrected for any length of time—and there is no sign
  320
  that it will not do so—our net capital position will deteriorate, to the point where we shall eventually become a net debtor country. If that happens, apart from the devastating repercussions for our domestic economy, it will mean that oil had come and gone with no long-term advantage to the British economy.
  I have none of the hang-ups about borrowing and debt that the Government have, but I find it difficult to understand how a Government who are so concerned about their own borrowing, and who are now so proud that they are paying back the national debt, can appear indifferent to the fact that we, as a nation, are deeply in debt, that we are enjoying a standard of living that we are not earning, and that that standard of living is financed in part by borrowing from foreigners.
  The principal task facing my right hon. Friend in the immediate future is action to remedy the current account deficit. What should be done? Our deteriorating balance of payments probably owes something to increased inflation. Prices are rising faster in Britain than in many other countries, which makes us uncompetitive. Although action must be taken to control inflation, I do not attach great significance to rising inflation as a contributory factor to creating the deficit, because it appeared before inflation started rising.
  Whatever view one may take, I hope that no one believes that controlling inflation will of itself remedy our balance of payments problem. Much more important as contributory factors to the deficit are the rise in consumer demand and the effects of high interest rates. Rising consumer demand has been fuelled by easy credit, a fall in personal savings, and the tax cuts of the past two Budgets. As to the latter, I am not being wise after the event, because in my speeches on the last two Budgets, I criticised tax cuts because of their possible effect on our balance of payments. I regret that it seems that I was right.
  As to rising consumer demand, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has not introduced some form of credit control in his Budget, but I am not terribly surprised that he did not do so. I welcome steps to encourage savings. It is important to remember that temporary increases in fluctuating interest rates are unlikely to act as an incentive to the kind of long-term saving that we need. My right hon. Friend's new measures will have a positive effect on increasing long-term savings—and it is those that we need.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend did not announce further tax cuts—not because I have any ideological objections to them, but because I believe that the money would have been spent at least in part on imported consumer goods, and we cannot afford that at present. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend did not divert some of the money he might otherwise have devoted to tax cuts to capital expenditure on the infrastructure with a low import potential. In that way domestic demand could have been maintained at such a level as to ensure that unemployment continued to fall.
  In my view the greatest stumbling block to righting the balance of payments deficit is the policy of high interest rates. It is of course true that the current high interest rates policy will bring downward pressure on inflation and consumer demand—which will help the balance of payments—but it also has a serious adverse effect. High interest rates keep sterling at an artificially high level, which makes British exports dearer in overseas markets and hence more difficult to sell. It also makes foreign imports cheaper, so they are easier to sell.

  321
  As long as the high interest rates persist, I do not think that we can expect to reduce the deficit, far less eliminate it. If we are to eliminate it—and we must—there must be a reduction in the exchange rate of sterling against other currencies, and that means that interest rates must be allowed to fall. I am afraid that I heard no indications of such a policy this afternoon.
  The other economic problem facing the Government is inflation. Although I do not consider it as serious a problem as the balance of payments deficit, the current position requires remedial action, particularly because of the political importance that the present Government have always attached to controlling inflation. Over the past year retail prices have risen by 7·5 per cent., and, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, they are likely to rise to 8 per cent. in the next few months. That is more than twice as fast as the annual rate of inflation 12 months ago.
  The Government have reacted to rising inflation by increasing interest rates, and I have no doubt that if they persevere with that policy inflation will eventually be brought under control—but at a price. Apart from the effects on the balance of payments, to which I have already referred, the use of high interest rates has other adverse effects. If interest rates are used as the sole weapon against inflation, to be successful the policy must be pressed to the point at which there is a severe demand deflation. Output will stop rising and will probably start to fall; unemployment will stop falling and will probably start to rise again, although there are still far too many people out of work—despite the welcome fall of 1 million in unemployment over the past two years.
  The cost of squeezing out inflation using interest rates on their own is very heavy for the balance of payments, output and jobs, and other measures should be used in addition to interest rates.
  Of course alternative anti-inflationary weapons such as credit controls also have deficiencies and weaknesses, but surely there is a case for using a combination of measures. None need be pursued to its ultimate extreme, but the overall effect will be more likely to achieve the objective of controlling inflation without over serious side effects.
  One aspect of our inflationary problem, which I think that the Government should consider again, is the effect of wage and salary increases on price rises. In recent years wages and salaries have continued to rise faster than output, and that rise has accelerated recently, thus contributing to the higher rate of inflation. The problem may well worsen in the current year, because the increase in the inflation rate will mean that the cost of living factor in wage and salary claims will be higher in 1989 than it was in 1988.
  The excessive increase in earnings has happened because the labour market for wage and salary earners has been overheated, despite high levels of unemployment and the freeing of the labour market that has resulted from the trade union legislation and other measures introduced in recent years. Obviously that overheating has intensified as unemployment has fallen. It is, of course, absurd that the labour market should be overheated when 2 million people and more have been out of work, but it shows the importance of more and better training—the Government's actions in that regard are to be commended—and of further measures to improve the mobility of labour.
  No matter what action is taken, however, it seems likely in the long term, and certain in the short and medium
  322
  terms, that the labour market will continue to be prone to overheating, even at times of high unemployment. It seems to me that we are further away than ever from resolving the great unresolved economic problem of the post-war era—how to maintain high employment and at the same lime control inflation, particularly wage and salary cost inflation.
  Could it be that there is a case for an incomes policy after all? Of course incomes policies have their weaknesses and deficiencies, but so have all the alternatives. I hope that the Government will think again, and will not rule out some form of incomes policy in the future.
  5.45 pm
  Dr. David Owen: Having erred considerably in the direction of carelessness in last year's Budget, the Chancellor has certainly chosen the path of caution this year. What worries me is that he has not sought to take measures that will improve the underlying competitiveness of British industry.
  Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), I believe that the balance of payments deficit haunts the economy and is likely to do so for the next two to three years. Unless serious steps are taken to ensure that unit costs are kept down and our manufacturing competitive edge is maintained, we shall continue for the next few years to look apprehensively over our shoulder to see how much foreign confidence in the United Kingdom economy we are able to retain.
  It appears to me from his overall Budget judgment that the Chancellor is more fearful than I had expected: this is a more cautious Budget. There are two possible interpretations of that caution. Perhaps, having been careless last year, the Chancellor is determined not to repeat his error this year, in which case his caution must to some extent be welcomed. A more cynical explanation, borne out by the cynical manner in which consumer spending has been pumped up before elections, is that the Chancellor has deliberately been over cautious this year so that he can he far more relaxed in the run-up to the next election, and that the old familiar electoral cycle is dictating Budget judgments.
  How much credibility can we give the Chancellor's judgments? People have been pretty kind to him, hut the fact is that in March last year he predicted a current account deficit of only £4 billion and an inflation rate of 4 per cent. For him to have been so grotesquely wrong about the balance of payments deficit figures, and now to admit that he expects inflation to rise to 8 per cent., is a mark of how seriously wrong last year's forecasting was.
  The question is whether we can give much credence to the Chancellor's figure of 8 per cent. The worst decision that he has made in social terms, and in terms of equity and justice, is his decision to cut the retail price index by 0·5 per cent. In forgoing excise duty indexation, the Chancellor is forgoing some £290 million. I am worried about inflation and I want to see the Chancellor trying to massage the RPI down. Nevertheless, I find it immensely hard to understand how a Chancellor can raise charges for prescriptions, eye tests, water, gas and electricity—all of which are essential—yet forgo an increase which most people had expected on cigarettes, which kill and damage and cost the National Health Service substantial sums every year, and alcohol, the growing abuse of which is causing immense social problems.

  323
  The Chancellor has a funny sense of social and economic priorities. In deciding to reduce the pressure on the retail price index, which I support, he opts for freezing the duty on cigarettes and alcohol, yet increases prescription charges and essential charges for water, electricity and gas, which every family in Britain cannot do without. If those are Lawson priorities, I do not want much of them.
  There is a serious question about the essential issue of how to bring down the RPI, but there are also other problems. The Chancellor has produced some well-thought-out measures and, to be fair to him, it is very attractive that at long last the earnings rule has been abolished. That was a very brave decision. His decision on unleaded petrol is certainly a step in the right direction. I would have preferred a bigger margin of 20p, but provided that the oil companies do not cheat this time, a 10p margin will be most beneficial. We strongly support some of his other measures.
  I am anxious, however, about the strategy behind the Budget. The fundamental objective is to improve our competitiveness. The Chancellor has decided to spend £14 billion on public sector debt repayment. He wisely decided not to reduce basic tax rates, as that would have sent all the wrong messages and would have fed through into consumer spending, but there is no inherent reason why we have to pay back our debt except to retain confidence. The Chancellor could have embarked on spending priorities to strengthen the underlying economy and retain confidence.
  For example, the Chancellor inveighed against a devaluation in the currency to retain competitiveness because of his very reasonable fear that that would feed through in inflation. He stated that that would not be the case and that he would hold up interest rates to protect the pound because of his anxiety about inflation. Yet the Red Book states:
  "manufacturing unit labour costs rose by 22 per cent. in 1988, a little more than in 1987"
  but were not offset by productivity.
  "Unit labour costs in the other major countries fell slightly on average."
  There is no sign that unit labour costs in Britain will fall.
  We need devaluation without inflation. How do we achieve that? The Government could consider the national insurance contributions paid by employers. We have argued in the SDP many times that targeted reductions in employers' national insurance contributions should be part of a strategy to tackle unemployment and encourage industrial expansion. We have argued that those reductions should and could be targeted to be fully in effect by the end of 1992. If we were to phase out the national insurance contributions by employers, perhaps by a 15 per cent. reduction this year at a cost of £2 billion, we would have a strategy for retaining the competitivenes of British industry, provided that that relaxation was not simply passed on in pay rises. But no one can do anything about industry that pays over and above productivity. There are already ominous signs in the economy that some employers are beginning to allow pay rises that cannot be justified by productivity.
  I was surprised that the Chancellor did not take the opportunity to link pay rises to share options, so that all company employees would have the tax-free share perk which was given to directors in the 1984 Budget. But it
  324
  should be given only on pay rises, not on existing pay and would be taken in the form of share options. That would have exerted downward pressure on wage inflation and attracted more savings.
  Almost all the measures that the Government have announced for savings are worth while, but they are very cautious and minimalist, and will not improve the personal savings ratio to the extent necessary to provide a little more room for manoeuvre on interest rates. Therefore, I fear that interest rates will remain high for some time, and that will damage industry and investment.
  I believe that it was a mistake not to encourage more private investment into infrastructure. Infrastructure investment is difficult for private investors. There is a long pay-back time and a very high environmental cost which is not always justified by pure profit. The Government should consider the SDP's suggestion for infrastructure bonds, encouraging people to invest in infrastructure, which is an essential part of keeping British industry competitive. It is no use making the substantial and worthwhile investment in the Channel tunnel unless it is linked to all parts of the United Kingdom. That necessitates an improvement in road and rail links right up to Scotland.
  There is no evidence yet that the Government realise the urgency of our transport links, and they are not producing the Victorian investment which made our present railway network and is needed to revive and renew it again. There is no dedicated freight line and no linkage to Liverpool to open up that port to Atlantic trade and enable it to compete with Rotterdam with a free flow rail link straight through to the Channel tunnel. That is an inspired investment. It is seen to be long-term and does not feed through to inflation and I believe that it would carry confidence abroad far more than public sector debt repayment.
  There is no vision in the Budget and no element in which the Chancellor is tackling the very weaknesses exemplified by our trade deficit. He has no strategy to improve the competitiveness of our manufacturing export industry on which our real prosperity depends. Only if that and our industrial and manufacturing capacity improves will we get away from the confidence factor and be able safely to reduce interest rates. We need investment in substantial portions of British industry. We do not attract the same levels of investment as our foreign competitors.
  We have to remember the true message of 1992. To hear the Government talk about 1992 one would think that it was all opportunities. The Government are right to be optimistic and to get our business men orientated to the fact that 11 nations' markets will be open to us. But it is about time that Britain realised that II other nations see ripe opportunities in our market. It is very easy to penetrate the British market. We have national newspapers and national media and if one pays for advertising in those one goes in with a tremendous market push.
  We are extremely vulnerable to aggressive exporting incentives by the other II European Community countries. We have to be more conscious of how vulnerable we will become in 1992 when the barriers come down. It is excellent that we talk about the opportunities, but we should realise how vulnerable we are and how dangerous 1992 could be. What we do between now and 1992 is of critical importance in ensuring that our industry

  325
  is competitive. The absence of that drive in the Budget makes me feel so negative and pessimistic—intense caution and no imagination.
  The Chancellor has had a bruising year. There has never been a period when a Chancellor has been so comprehensively disowned by his Prime Minister. Indeed, there was a time when some of us wondered whether he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is all very well for him to come to the House without some of the bombast that we have had to put up with when he slashed into teenage scribblers in the City who jump up and down in an effort to get press attention, but their predictions were right and the Chancellor's were wrong.
  There is something else missing. There is an absence of commitment to investment, to keeping unit costs down and to skill training—an essential element if we are to remain competitive. Much of the wage pressure that is building up is because employers have to pay over the odds. There are not enough skilled people even though there is high unemployment in some parts of the country. We are not getting the right type of people through. The Government may say that they are taking measures to redress the position but all the time there is a lack of real investment in skill training, which would produce results as quickly as they are needed, which is pretty quickly.
  Then there is the social dimension. The Government have done insufficient to shield some of those who are feeling the effects of high interest rates—in particular, first-time home buyers. we should move towards expenditure taxation. All savings should be treated the same. The Chancellor has always favoured a broad tax base and low rates. The problem is that the Prime Minister faces one of her usual dilemmas between intellect and instinct She wishes to retain some tax allowances, like the mortgage tax allowance. She wants low tax rates but she wants to keep various allowances. We have to read between the lines of the Chancellor's statement. I have not yet had time to read the small print, but from what he said on life assurance and on pensions, it seems that once again his dream of taking away all tax allowances, and of going for a broad-based tax and low rates has been defeated by politics, if not by institutional inertia.
  It is high time we went the other way. We have to face the fact that most tax allowances will stay. The mortgage tax allowance will remain. Therefore, all savings should be treated equitably and fairly, with tax allowances at the standard rate across them all. There is nothing inherently wrong in saving for a house. It is no different from saving for a pension. It is an individual choice that people make. We had better give up the idea of getting rid of all tax allowances and going for a simple system of narrower-based tax. We shall continue to have many allowances on savings. Let us make them neutral between savings instead of having the nonsense about mortgage tax allowance hovering between the Prime Minister's passion and the Chancellor's hatred. Let us face it: it is legitimate to have mortgage tax allowance at the standard rate and to be prepared from time to time to up it to help young people who are buying a house for the first time. They are being treated badly; it is wrong that that should happen.
  One suggestion of the SDP is for a kick-start mortgage: the limit would be raised to £50,000 for the first year and then tapered down. We have to consider the question more rationally. Are the Government phasing out the mortgage tax allowance? Is that their policy? I would be interested to know. It appears that one day the Chancellor wants that
  326
  but that near election day the Prime Minister comes back increasing it. We are unequivocal. We want an expenditure tax and we want all savings to be treated neutrally. Tax allowance at the basic rate, but not at the higher rate, is acceptable; the higher rate should be abolished. We would keep mortgage tax allowance and encourage home ownership. It is essential that young people who want to purchase their own homes are not savaged because of high interest rates.
  Other social requirements are missing. The child tax allowance should have been increased by at least £1. It is an outrage that we have not been able to help the greatest element of poverty—the poverty among families with a large number of children.
  The Chancellor has rightly concentrated quite a lot of money and support on the elderly. He has reduced the age allowance for additional tax relief from 80 to 75 and has also abolished the earnings rule for pensioners.
  I welcome what the Chancellor has started to do on national insurance contributions. The SDP has urged him for many years to act on the national insurance contribution for employees. His tentative first step is welcome. It starts to make the national insurance contribution more progressive. Although there are many spikes within his new system, it will be logical only if the Chancellor carries reform on each year, continuously making changes to marry the national insurance contribution to income tax. We should accept that a national insurance contribution paid by an employee is to all intents and purposes an addition to income tax. It is one and the same thing and the two should be treated in the same way, with no disincentives and a smooth transition between the two. If that is the Chancellor's strategy, we welcome it. I hope that he will move faster on it and eventually reach complete integration.
  Another missing social requirement relates to housing benefit. The impact of the present housing benefit on poor families is appalling. I hoped that there would be at least a 10 per cent. increase in housing benefit to shield people on lower incomes.
  I thought that the Chancellor was seriously interested in attracting women back into employment. The problem in nursing will be savage. Employers who make nursery provision for female employees are treated absurdly because the Government insist that that is a tax perk that has to be clawed back. That is wrong, and the requirement should be abolished. These are all important changes. They are right in social justice but also have economic advantages.
  The Budget has been unimaginative. I leave it with a feeling of pessimism. It is as if the Chancellor's imagination and bounce have been knocked out of him over the last year. By all means let him be cautious, but where was the understanding of the faults of our economic position? I do not know that we are yet in a crisis, but the balance of payments deficit has to be grappled with far more courageously and adventurously, and with much greater commitment to investment in the medium term than is contained within the Budget. Perhaps the Chancellor fears something that he has not felt able to let the House know. Certainly I find it hard to understand why he has produced a Budget with so little imagination on the central question of Britain remaining competitive in its industry and ensuring that its exports can expand in order to close the trade deficit.
  6.8 pm
  Sir John Stokes: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was faced with a difficult problem this year owing to the rise in inflation and the danger to sterling. In framing his Budget he has been extremely sensible and realistic and he comes out with credit. His Budget is sound and strictly anti-inflationary.
  Official statistics are notoriously unreliable. I suspect that our balance of payments figures are nothing like as bad as they are presented. Industry is thriving to an extent which I have not seen for a long time. The recent report of the Institute of Directors expresses confidence among business men. It says that generally high interest rates are not harming investment.
  The outlook for business profits continues to be very good. I am delighted to see in my own constituency the progress of many firms in the past year, especially in sales and marketing and in their use of skilled manpower. Exports are holding up very well and the remarkable export successes of some of my firms, even very small ones, are unsung in the media, which only seem to like bad news.
  British industry as a whole still cannot make enough products of the right design and price to compete with the flood of imports from abroad. That serious matter will take some time to cure. The motor trade, on which so many people in my constituency depend, is holding up very well.
  The strength of sterling depends on strict control of inflation and is also based on the respect of foreign countries for the Government, headed as they are by a Prime Minister who is a leading world statesman. It would be too frightful to contemplate what would happen if the Opposition parties were able to form a Government.
  The control of inflation must always be the hallmark of the Government. There is no doubt now that the high interest rate is cooling down excessive spending in the high streets. It is essential to bring inflation tightly under control once again, for the good of the country and to ensure that the Government are returned at the next general election.
  It is terrifying to look back at the pace of inflation in the last two generations. It would take £25 today to buy goods worth £1 before the war. Even in the past 10 years, the value of our money has gone down by 50 per cent. That has not happened in certain other countries such as Germany and Switzerland. We must ask ourselves why. Is it because we have not worked hard enough, have paid ourselves too much or have paid out vast sums in welfare and other benefits which we cannot afford? These difficult questions are for the present generation to answer, in spite of the vast improvements of the Thatcherite revolution. We must hope that the next generation will make a better job of it than we have done.
  I welcome the higher bands on which income tax will be levied, which will attract those who are out of work to seek employment more avidly. I particularly welcome the reductions in national insurance payments for the lower paid. I am not surprised at the vast amounts that these very important reforms will cost the Treasury, as they are well worth it from the human point of view and for the help that they will give as an incentive to work and to improve one's earnings.
  I have a few disappointments, however, in this otherwise excellent Budget. I should have liked capital gains tax to be abolished, as well as inheritance tax, which
  328
  runs quite counter to the philosophy of the Government. It is only natural for a parent to wish to hand on to his children what he has saved and built up. I also hoped that stamp duty might have been abolished, especially in house purchase, thereby reducing costs, and the mass of paperwork involved in housing transactions.
  I welcome the reduction in the national debt, which is good housekeeping and saves the taxpayer money in future years. It also paves the way for tax cuts. I am delighted that the earnings rule for pensioners has been abolished.
  I have received several representations from constituents about their fears of an increase in the tax on company cars. On the whole, I agree with what the Chancellor has done. The more that tax allowances are phased out, the greater can be the reduction in income tax.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a major problem for a salesman who travels, say, 30,000 miles a year and who needs his company car? He has no choice, as he could not carry on his job without a car. It is essential that the Chancellor stops hammering those thousands of people.
  Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend is very percipient. I was coming to that very point, having a son who has risen from salesman to general sales manager, and who is now a consultant. It is most unfair on those people. I hope that there will be a chance to make the correct amendments during debates on the Finance Bill.
  I welcome the improvements in corporation tax, so that smaller firms will have more money available for investment. The fall in unemployed, about which we hear so little from the Opposition, is also very welcome, but it puts up pressure for higher wages. That should be resisted by employers, unless there are real productivity gains. I welcome the many steps that have been taken to improve savings, which are vital to our future prosperity. I also greatly welcome the plans to extend share ownership.
  The Chancellor said nothing, perhaps wisely, about 1992. I would be happier about it if the EEC concept was less Socialist-oriented, and more keen to create real competition from firms that were freed from old fashioned Socialist ideas, such as worker directors.
  I hope that the recent blast from the bishops will not deflect the Government from continuing to enable individuals to give of their best, to help themselves and their families, and of course the economy at large. The attack by some leading Churchmen on individual effort is sinister and dangerous. Who wants inefficient state industries? How right the Government are to denationalise them as fast as they can, and thus staunch the dreadful losses that have built up. Who wants inefficient private companies or an inefficient City of London?
  A good industrial or commercial concern treats its employees, suppliers and customers fairly, as for instance does Marks and Spencer and other similar organisations. What on earth is wrong with that? It is from the profits of our industry and commerce, and especially from the successes of our manufacturing industry, that taxpayers' money is found to fund all kinds of good causes such as better health care, a better environment and improved roads, and better welfare benefits, where all those are right and desirable. There would be more money for the arts and all kinds of other good causes. There would be support for

  329
  the police in the fight against crime. There would be more to contribute to the defence of the West and to the defence of our country.
  The enormous sums of money needed to provide for our colossal public expenditure could not be found if individuals at all levels in industry and commerce did not work and try hard. Their successful effort is vital to the nation, competing as we are against the great trading nations of the world. But that does not mean that all those hard-working and patriotic people are nasty selfish brutes.
  We only have to consider the enormous increase in charitable giving to realise how generous people are. Lower taxes seem to mean that people are giving more away; and how splendid. It is a marvellous time for charities. Let us hope that they are all being run efficiently.
  I hope that the Chancellor will pay no attention to the silly dons in some of our universities who, leading a marvellously sheltered and secure life, constantly complain and hold out the begging bowl. The Oxford dons made such fools of themselves in refusing to give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister an honorary degree. Now they are appealing for a large sum from private individuals to assist in the running of one of the great universities of the world. The combination of taxpayers' and private money is often the best way forward, whether for institutions such as universities or for special situations such as the regeneration of our inner cities.
  Vast sums of taxpayers' money are spent on state education. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science should be trying to ensure that education equips people for life, including earning a living, but that does not mean that we are producing a philistine generation. I read history at Oxford, a subject that I have always loved, and I have found it a great help to me in dealing with my fellow English men and women, and essential for understanding our institutions.
  As a nation we love to grumble, and the media, particularly the BBC, love to foment that characteristic. Of course we have the bad and sad pockets—the poor and those who cannot cope with life—but the vast mass of the people have never been so prosperous as now. The change in the west midlands is startling compared with when I first went there over 20 years ago. So many more ordinary people now own their own homes, and they have cars and telephones, every kind of gadget in the kitchen, televisions and videos and holidays abroad once or twice a year. They dress very well, their children are spotlessly turned out and they eat and drink well. They go out more to restaurants and they enjoy themselves.
  I am glad about all that and we must be thankful for it. Provided that, as a nation, we improve ourselves morally as well as we have economically, we have little to fear and we should all count our blessings.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: We have listened to the Chancellor deliver his sixth Budget this afternoon. Beforehand, the pundits had predicted that it would be as exhilirating as a wet Sunday afternoon. After listening to it, many will feel that their forecast was correct.
  There were one or two concessions in the Budget, such as the abolition of the earnings rule for pensioners, which the Opposition welcome, and the small concession to the low-paid in national insurance contributions. However, as
  330
  my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, the Chancellor faced a cruel dilemma. He had a surplus of no less than £15 billion—five times bigger than he had expected. He did not know what to do with that for fear of triggering off an inflationary spiral, upsetting the City and threatening sterling. But much of the Chancellor's dilemma this afternoon was of his own making. Last year he created a bonanza for the better-off. It helped spark off the credit boom, and the country is now suffering the after-effects.
  How did the Chancellor obtain that £15 billion surplus which has caused him such problems? First, he stoked up the economy to achieve relative boom conditions at a time of the previous general election. That in turn brought about an increase in tax revenue. Secondly, the Government continue to derive immense benefits from North sea oil revenue. Whether such revenue has been put to the best use is an argument for another day. Thirdly, there is the money from the sale of what has euphemistically been called the family silver. Vast revenues have come into the Treasury from that source. Fourthly, there is the sale of council houses. The list goes on, and the vast bulk of the proceeds is pocketed by the Treasury.
  In judging the measures that the Chancellor proposed this afternoon, it is worth looking, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did, at his earlier forecasts. The trade deficit at the end of 1988 was £14 billion. The Chancellor had forecast that it would be £4 billion. He was a little out there. The trends in 1989 are even worse. For example, the January deficit was £1,700 billion, equivalent to an annual deficit of £20 billion. Interest rates have gone up from 7·5 per cent. last May to 13 per cent. That has led to increased mortage costs, imposing hardship on many less well off families. As a result, there have been many repossessions and the number of homeless families has increased correspondingly.
  The situation is made worse because the Government are not allowing our local authorities to use the proceeds from the sale of council houses to build the new houses for rent which so many less well off families urgently need. Likewise, high interest rates keep up the value of the pound, making it harder to sell British goods overseas. Furthermore, high interest rates stifle investment because the cost of borrowing is so dear, yet that investment is so badly needed, particularly in our manufacturing industry.
  Three years ago, the Chancellor told a City audience that inflation was the judge and jury, so let us take him at his word. He forecast a 4 per cent. inflation rate at the end of 1988. In fact, it is just under 8 per cent. at present and is still rising. In addition, there are to be increases in water and electricity charges. The poll tax is still very much an unknown quantity, but we can all fear the worse.
  The Labour party criticised last year's Budget, saying that, apart from being unjust, it was foolhardy. However, the Prime Minister described it as brilliant in concept, drafting and delivery. How wrong can one be? I wonder what she will be saying about this Budget. It is because the Chancellor was so wrong last year that he has had to be cautious this year.
  What would a Labour Chancellor do in the present circumstances? I am convinced that he would not give priority to paying off the national debt. First, he would look at the state of our NHS after 10 years of Thatcherism. His first decision would be to scrap the recent White Paper, which is little more than a step on the road to the privatisation of that wonderful service. He would

  331
  concentrate on reducing those huge hospital waiting lists and take steps to increase the number of doctors and nurses in the service. He might look too at the measly wages paid to the back-up staff in the NHS, not only the clerical and administrative staff, but the technical staff, so many of them highly trained, using the most sophisticated equipment in the operating theatres and other vital areas. If greater appreciation is not shown to those people, many of them will leave the service, and the patients will be the real losers.
  An efficient transport system is basic to an efficient economy. In manpower terms, our rail network has been cut to the bone. Competitor countries such as France and West Germany have invested heavily in their rail networks. We must now do likewise. Without prejudging any inquiries that are taking place, there seems little doubt that manpower cuts imperil passenger safety.
  When so much of our passenger and freight transport is by road, we are still a long way from creating an efficient road network. There are too many bottlenecks, so many bypasses yet to be constructed and our motorway network is still incomplete. We should get rid of the iniquitous toll system on estuarial crossings. Those toll charges are relics of a feudal age.
  There is no excuse for not investing in roads, when this year about £17 billion will be raised in motor taxation and less than a quarter of it will be spent on roads and maintenance.
  Labour believes that a concerted effort should be made to preserve and protect the environment. That cannot be left to the vagaries of market forces. The Thatcher Government have presided over a decade of environmental negligence and lassitude. Labour is pledged to clean up our beaches, promote safe energy, tackle the greenhouse effect and save the ozone layer. We want our water safe and clean, not sold off.
  According to Government statistics, unemployment is now running at about 2 million. I would put the figure much higher, and I agree with the economics editor of The Observer who last Sunday put it at 2,700,000. But with such a staggeringly high level of unemployment, a skill shortage is fast developing. Many employers having cut back over the years in this vital sphere, there is now an urgent need to invest in skill training, and a Labour Chancellor would give that task the highest priority.
  There are at last indications that the political tide is turning. The forthcoming Vale of Glamorgan by-election is likely to show that trend accentuating. At last, people are calling for change, and it is clear that Britain now needs a Labour Government.
  6.33 pm
  Dr. Alan Glyn: The people are calling for change, as the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said, and that is exactly what they are getting. This is a sensible and prudent Budget. It is the first time in the nation's history that we have begun to pay back the national debt, and I consider that 14 billion towards that repayment will recoup itself in interest charges. If we can go on in that way, we shall be able to repay all the debts that have been incurred by our predecessors.
  I, too, welcome the abolition of the earnings rule and the encouragement which the Budget gives to wider share
  332
  ownership. When I speak of wider share ownership, I appreciate what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said about the need to think in terms of home ownership and the ownership of all assets. Those assets should be passed on to the children of those who have acquired them without incurring a penal rate of tax. The idea of saving should not be confined to one generation, just as the idea of paying back debts should not be confined to one generation.
  Our exports are up, and 1992 will provide us with a challenge and a wonderful opportunity. That point was well illustrated by the right hon. Member for Devonport. Our competitor countries are often able to get into our markets and invest in our enterprises. We have the chance of doing the same to them, and there is no reason why we should not do it.
  Controlling inflation is one of the most important tasks on which the Chancellor has embarked. We can see, by looking back, say, 30 years, the way in which inflation has altered the pattern of our lives. It has done much damage to the elderly, who find towards the end of their lives that their savings are worth perhaps 10 per cent. of their original value.
  Our society is, happily, rapidly improving its standards of living. That is happening under Conservative rule. But high earnings must give people a sense of environmental responsibility, for example, through the use of lead-free petrol. In the way that they mean a better standard of living, they must be accompanied by higher moral attitudes. We must work at preserving that and other aspects of our lives.
  Conservative policy has altered the nation out of all conception. Had we thought, say, 30 years ago of the changes that have taken place, we could not have imagined that they would happen. In my lifetime much has completely altered. Today, brains, intelligence and the ability to produce goods are attributes which the Conservative party recognises.
  If we continue in this manner, we shall arrive at an even higher standard of living and create a nation that is proud of itself, in which opportunities are available to everybody and a nation that can stand well above all other nations in Europe.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to speak following the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) but, given the short time available to me, I shall not go into many of the matters which he raised.
  Today's Budget was trailed for some time as a Budget for the low paid. It was said that the Chancellor would try to rectify the disequilibrium in his fiscal system by correcting the mistakes he made last year, when he gave massive tax reductions to the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers.
  I agree that the Conservatives had given a manifesto pledge to reduce taxation to 25 per cent. as soon as prudently possible, but it was rash of the Chancellor to effect that commitment so early in the Parliament and at the same time to reduce the higher rates of taxation from 60 to 40 per cent. The consequences were that he was reducing taxation in an expanding economy. The economy was forecast last year to rise by 3 per cent. It actually rose by 5 per cent. That, combined with the tax deductions, produced a massive import bill of £15 billion.

  333
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) foresaw that in his Budget contribution last year, when he expressed fear that, when the tax deductions had worked their way through the system, they would come out in consumer goods, that those goods would come from imports and that the result would be a massive increase in our balance of payments deficit. All that has come about, and the Chancellor has been required to raise interest rates nine times within a few months to finance that deficit.
  The Chancellor has done that at the expense of mortgagors and business people wishing to expand. Everyone needing credit is having to pay more—all because of the actions of the Chancellor last year—and virtually everybody is suffering. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that the Chancellor had been reckless last year. He was more than reckless—he put forward a catastrophic Budget. Therefore it is appropriate that this year he should seek to bring in a cautious Budget that is lacking in imagination.
  If the Chancellor really wanted to help the low paid in our society he should have increased child benefit from £8·35 to make good the cuts in its value. He should also have announced a further increase to £10·75 to reflect the real cost of bringing up children. We all welcome the national insurance contribution rate of 2 per cent. for the low paid, which the Chancellor introduced today. As the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) said, that will cost the Chancellor a lot of money—£1 billion in 1989–90 and £2·8 billion for 1990–91. In our view, that does not go far enough to rectify the imbalances in last year's Budget tax cuts for the low paid.
  If the Chancellor wanted to bring in a Budget for the low paid, he should have raised the income tax threshold for those low-paid workers by 16 per cent. As we know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually raised the threshold only in line with the Rooker-Wise amendment. Not taking account of fiscal drag, means that more tax will be collected by the Revenue and this will be of no great benefit to the taxpayer over the next year. The Budget is a status quo Budget, which may be in the interests of the British people but does not serve the interests of the low-paid.
  It was clear that the Chancellor wanted last year's Budget to be a tax reforming Budget, and he described it as such. In an article that he wrote entitled "Tax Reform, the Government's Record", published by the Conservative Policy Centre, the Chancellor declared that his main objective in reforming taxes was to improve economic performance. Judged by his own standards, last year's Budget could only be described as a catastrophic failure.
  As a direct consequence of that Budget we have had inflation running at 8 per cent. and I noticed that, in his Budget statement today, the Chancellor was careful not to say that the inflation rate would come down in the last quarter of this year. In fact, there is a clear indication that high inflation of 8 per cent. will continue into the 1990s—that is twice the rate of inflation in the United States of America, which must worry the Government.
  As we know, the balance of payments deficit is now £15 billion and interest rates are 13 per cent. Personal savings must also worry the Government because they are at their lowest for 40 years—lower than any other major industrial country. In the three-tier Europe that is rapidly developing, we find ourselves—in terms of inflation—in the third tier, with Greece and Portugal.
  334
  All those unhappy events need not have happened had the Chancellor not chosen a fiscal boost at the time of an expanding economy. In his modest way, the Chancellor last year congratulated himself on having achieved what he described as sustained growth with low inflation. He did not realise that his Budget would give us reduced growth and increased inflation. Today he said that the growth rate for the present year will be 2 per cent. In his Budget speech last year he said that he expected the year to be one of healthy growth and low inflation. He said that an inflation rate of 4 per cent. would be too high, and forecast a £4 billion deficit—less than 1 per cent. of GDP. He described that as temporary and said:
  "The medium term financial strategy, now entering its ninth year, will continue to provide the framework for reducing the growth of money GDP, and hence inflation, over the medium term."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 995.]
  As we know, none of that has happened—for which the Chancellor must bear the responsibility.
  As I said earlier, the Chancellor raised personal tax allowances only in line with inflation as it stood at the end of last year. He did not raise them sufficiently to take into account fiscal drag and did not raise them enough to help the lower paid. Had he done so and raised the allowances by 16 per cent. he would have ensured that the tax burden of a couple earning half the average wage would be restored to 1978–79 levels.
  The Government have announced their intention to abolish Britain's minimum wage system. While the Chancellor today offered some tax cuts to the low-paid by way of allowances and changes in national insurance contributions, he also threatened them with wage cuts. If he really wanted to help the low paid, the best news that he could have announced today would be that the Government were scrapping their plans to leave Britain the only nation in Europe without minimum wage protection for its poorest workers.
  I received a letter from one of my constituents who is a senior shop steward in the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers, asking for my support in the fight to keep the wages councils. He wrote:
  "the clothing trade does not want to go back to the sweat shops of the past. As you are aware many low-paid workers in your constituency need the protection of the wages councils."
  That letter was written on behalf of 600 union members who live in my constituency and who are most concerned about what will happen if the wages councils are abolished.
  Earlier in the year, the Social Security Advisory Committee, in its paper "Credit Debt and Poverty", showed that the amount of money borrowed by people in Britain had doubled in seven years. The number of mortgage repossessions rose nearly eightfold over the same period and more than half of unemployed families with children are in debt. According to the Department of Social Security, 5 million people have a standard of living that is less than half the national average. Nearly 11 million people—about one fifth of the population—have a standard of living that is less than 60 per cent. of the national average.
  Last week, two of my constituents, a blind man and his wife, told me that the man received £74 a week in benefit. They received income support and the man received severe disablement allowance. He tried to put £30 a week in the bank in order to cover gas and electricity bills which, he

  335
  said, were onerous at this time of the year. He had also tried gas and electricity-saving schemes but without much success. Therefore, the couple also drew money from the man's bank account for their personal clothing. They also had to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. They had almost nothing in the house and lived out of tins every day. As the man said, it was all too much. I wonder what that couple thought that the Budget provided for them as they listened to it on the radio.
  If the Chancellor really wanted to help those on low pay and at the poorer end of our society, he should have increased child benefit from £8·35 to make good the cuts in its value and he should also have announced a further increase to £10·75 to reflect the real cost of bringing up children.
  We heard a novel way of handling the economy—to repay the national debt. I remember, many years ago, reading "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens—a book written over 100 years ago—in which it was said that paying off the national debt was a barmy concept. It has taken 100 years to meet a Chancellor who believes in paying off the national debt.
  The Chancellor said today that the national debt would be reduced by one sixth as a consequence of the Budget, but the national debt is just a figure. It does not take into account the £530 billion that is owed to people contributing to pensions; if it did take that into account, it would be out of the question to pay off the national debt. The right hon. Gentleman is paying off the national debt because he does not know what else to do with the money. Even so, he is putting money into the economy by allowing Treasury paper to be taken back by the banks and institutions that bought it in the first place. The Chancellor is giving them about £14,000 million. That will be used in the City for more fancy and far-fetched takeover bids, and for exporting abroad, which will not help our economy.
  The Chancellor has given us a cautious Budget. I am glad that he did not reduce income tax by 1p. He had no manifesto commitment to do that. If he had done so, he would have been trying to fulfil a pledge that he gave at the Dispatch Box last year. It was better to reduce the national insurance contribution by the low paid to 2 per cent., giving them a badly needed boost.
  The Chancellor has still not rectified the great disequilibrium that he put into last year's Budget. We have all heard of fool's gold: it is actually iron pyrites. We have heard of a fool's paradise—a paradise of economic and financial structures in which there is a reduced manufacturing base, a massive increase of imports to maintain our standards of living, and reduced investment—with the result that the country's infrastructure is going to rack and ruin. In this fool's paradise oil tax revenues and the receipts of asset sales are squandered to repay the national debt of past generations, instead of being used to build up the future for generations yet to come. That is the fool's paradise of this Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the one in which he wants us to live, and it is one which I am sure the British people will shortly reject.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on an excellent and cautious Budget that includes many good measures. It is a
  336
  Budget for the low-paid. A welcome change in the national insurance rules means between £1 and £3 a week for families on lower incomes, buttressed by the fairly generous increase in thresholds necessitated by the relatively high rate of inflation, which provides another £1 a week.
  This is also a Budget for the pensioner. The whole House welcomes the decision at last to abolish the earnings rule which has stopped pensioners taking those extra jobs and benefiting in full from them.
  The House should also welcome the changes in the age allowance which give a useful boost to pensioner incomes in the 75 to 79 year-old range. Those changes complement the reforms and improvements in previous years that helped the over-80s, both on the benefit side and on the tax side.
  This is a Budget for the small company. Many Conservative Members will welcome the improved tax regime on profits and the increase in VAT threshold for smaller businesses. My only regret is that the Chancellor and his colleagues have not been able to persuade the EEC that the threshold for small businesses should rise still further. A threshold of about £50,000 would be much better than one of about £23,000.
  This is a Budget for wider ownership, continuing the progress that the Government have made through their privatisation programme and tax measures. I welcome the profit-related pay ideas, and the ideas about ownership of shares for employees in the companies for which they work. I hope that these measures will provide a major boost to the ownership of shares in their companies by employees, and I hope that the idea of profit-related pay will make more rapid progress in the coming year as a result of the more generous treatment afforded it in the Budget. Both these proposals cannot but strengthen the response of the economy to the present high level of demand; they cannot but improve relationships between managers and employees, boost productivity output and earnings, and a sense of participation in the economy.
  Last but not least, there is a welcome green tinge to the Budget, with the widened differential for unleaded fuel, giving it a 14p advantage over ordinary petrol.
  What should we make of the balance of this Budget? It is clearly designed to make fighting inflation the main priority, and that must be right. Conservative Members do not wish inflation to rise to 8 per cent. and stay there. We have every wish to see it fall to well below 5 per cent. The main intention of the Budget is to deliver a shock to the incipient inflationary psychology, so that inflation will again fall to low single figures. I believe that the Budget is fierce enough, as a complement to the tight money policy that is now being pursued, to achieve the aim of reducing inflation after its peak in a few months time.
  The Government's stance has now moved to being tight on money. I would therefore expect sterling to perform reasonably well on the exchanges as a result of that policy. As the Chancellor explained, the main object of monetary policy is to curb inflation; fiscal policy need not carry that burden indefinitely.
  I welcome the idea that over the next few years the Government can return the economy to a zero public sector surplus or deficit. That means that there is plenty of scope for tax reductions and for the improved public services which have been the hallmark of the Government in recent years and which will continue to be so in the strategy mapped out in the Red Book.

  337
  The balance of payments deficit has excited interest among Opposition Members. It is one of the few things to which they can point which looks less than ideal. I hope that the Treasury will pursue its inquiries into the £15,000 million black hole that has appeared in the balance of payments statistics. The actual deficit on trade must be running below the deficit being reported to the House and the nation. The problem is that no statistician seems able to tell us exactly how much of the deficit can be accounted for by the missing items not recorded in the figures and how much of it is genuinely a trade deficit.
  I hope that the Chancellor will not intervene too much in the exchanges, and will let tight money policy do the job. I think that the whole European Community has one problem with exchange rates—the large undervaluation of the deutschmark against all other leading European currencies. That is a result of a managed exchange rate system in Europe, and it means that 10 out of 11 member states of the Community are running substantial trade deficits with Germany. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will examine that in their discussions with Finance Ministers of the other member nations of the EEC
  The Opposition have been fairly muted in their criticisms of Government economic policy on the issues that matter to people, such as the large increase in the number of jobs and the much more satisfactory record on inflation than that before 1979. They have concentrated on the items that they want to accent at any given time and which they think are going wrong. I do not blame them for that. They are also succeeding by that device in avoiding telling the House and the nation what they would do and what their economic policy might be. I hope that in the course of the debates in the next few days a little more light will be thrown on that mildly interesting subject.
  Today, we learned from the Leader of the Opposition that Labour would not run a great big surplus such as this
  338
  one. How true that is: it would not have generated a big surplus like the one that the Government enjoy because its policies would not have generated the growth and it would not have been prudent enough with the public accounts to have generated a surplus in the first place—
  Mr. Bell rose—
  Mr. Redwood: After all, the Government inherited, in today's money, a £25,000 million deficit from the Opposition and are now running a £15,000 million surplus.
  There has been some comment that, were the Opposition in control, the money would be spent on a variety of schemes in the public sector—from water works to rail projects and other infrastructure investment. Where were these gentlemen when the Government came to the House in the autumn and announced major increases in infrastructure investment in all the major spending programmes of concern to them?
  How can the Opposition argue that such an expenditure programme would have no inflationary conequences, when the construction industry is already operating at full capacity and any major surge in demand on top of the generous levels of capital spending projected by the Government and coming from the private sector would immediately lead to an inflationary force within the economy, which would in turn lead to the bidding up of wage rates, which in turn would be spent in the shops? It is a complete myth that, if the money is spent in the public sector, there will be no inflationary consequences. I hope that we will get elucidation of these important matters of Opposition policy.
  I have great pleasure in recommending the Budget to the House.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth]
  To be resumed tomorrow.

  First Scottish Standing Committee
  7 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Regretfully I have to report from the First Scottish Standing Committee that, having drawn the attention of the Committee to the disorderly conduct of the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), I have been directed to report those hon. Members to the House.
  The Members referred to in my report were not nominated to serve on the Committee appointed to consider the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, but they were present in the body of the Committee room when the Committee met today at 10.30 am. I called upon them to withdraw, but they refused to comply with my request. In these circumstances, the Committee agreed to the motion that I have reported. As the House will know, neither a Standing Committee nor its Chairman has power to discipline Members, and it is for the House to decide what action, if any, it wishes to take.
  7.2 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move the following motion relating to a matter of privilege:
  That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee room; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.
  I very much regret, as I have no doubt do most right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, that the hon. Members for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) should have thought it right to defy the authority of the Chair by refusing to withdraw from the Standing Committee on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill when called on to do so by the Chairman of the Committee. It is a long-standing and inviolable tradition of this House that the authority of the Chair is invariably accepted. The hon. Members have challenged that authority by refusing to comply with the request from the Chairman of the Standing Committee to withdraw.
  Whatever their views about the size and composition of the Standing Committee, it is totally wrong that they should attempt to express their views in this way. I fully accept that they may hold their views quite strongly, as is shown by the enforced absence of one of their number from the Chamber at the moment, but they were wrong to act in this way. By doing so they have infringed one of the most fundamental privileges of this House—the position of the Chair.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend, in the light of what he has said, take it from me that many hon. Members take the view that the motion that he has moved is extremely moderate, bearing in mind the gross disorder this morning? Does he agree that if there is further disruption from those hon. Members, the House should consider imposing the severest penalties upon them?
  Mr. Wakeham: That is a hypothetical question, and I hope that the situation will not arise. However, I have no doubt that the House would take an even graver view of any further disorder.
  Subject to your views, Mr. Speaker, the size of the Committee and its composition are not a matter for discussion today. It is a matter entrusted to the Committee of Selection, and it is not the issue now facing us. It may be asked why I am taking the step of moving this motion now, before it can be printed on the Order Paper. I remind the House that it is over 16 years since we last had to consider such a step, and I think I am right in saying that on that occasion my predecessor suggested that there had been no earlier precedents. Fortunately, he was corrected by Mr. Speaker, who drew attention to a ruling of some 46 years previously by the Speaker that this was a matter of privilege which could be raised without prior notice. I am sure that hon. Members would consider it remarkable for the House not to have an opportunity to take action in time to prevent the disruption of the next meeting of the Committee, which takes place on Thursday.
  As I have said, we are not debating the merits of the decision taken by the Committee of Selection, which, I may say, was in accordance with established procedure, or, indeed, the substance of the Bill before the Committee. This is a narrower debate about a very important aspect of the privileges of the House and the powers of the Chair. This, too, is entirely in accordance with the terms of the debate held on a similar occasion 16 years ago—in respect, by coincidence, of similar actions taken to disrupt a Scottish Standing Committee then considering the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
  The House now has to make up its mind whether it should allow hon. Members who have been unable to get their way through the proper procedures to attempt to obtain what they want by refusing to obey the request of the Chair and by disrupting the proper consideration of the business before the Standing Committee. I have absolutely no doubt that, if such conduct were to be accepted, and were repeated, the standing and authority of this House and the orderly conduct of our debates would be seriously threatened.
  In my view there is only one decision the House can take: the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill must be given the power to require hon. Members who are not members of the Committee not to attend to sit as members of it and thus seek to disrupt its proceedings.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I want to speak briefly in support of the motion. The Standing Committee on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill is supposed to be considering the detail of the Bill. The measure, as most of us know, is objectionable to most of the people of Scotland, but the Committee stage will give Scottish Members of Parliament who are opposed to it an opportunity to mount cogent arguments against it and to marshal further opposition to it. In these circumstances it behoves every Member of the House—and I mean every Member—to sustain the authority of the Chair of that Committee so that those debates may take place, and the people of Scotland may make their judgment on the basis of the arguments that are mounted.

  341
  As I said on another occasion, when we were talking about discipline in this House, Members of Parliament deal in words, and we want our words to have influence. But before our words can have influence, they must be heeded; before they can be heeded, they must be heard; and if they are to be heard, we must have order. For those reasons, we must sustain the authority of the Chair in this Committee.
  The fact is that many of us—perhaps all of us at one time or another—do stupid and slightly, or even substantially, disorderly things on the spur of the moment. Most other Members are willing to forgive us because they recognise that they may themselves do something similar in the near future, or have done something similar in the not-so-distant past. But in this case the obvious object from the start was to disrupt the Committee's proceedings and to make it impossible for the Chairman to ensure that the Committee was able to discharge the business that it was supposed to be discharging.
  I do not want to say any more about that side of the matter, but I should like to point out that my understanding of the Bill is that, before schools may opt out, even under this legislation, it will be necessary for those in favour of that course to convince a majority of the parents involved that it would be a good thing. It is therefore vital that the arguments against opting out be properly heard and properly conveyed to the people of Scotland.
  I urge on all Scottish Members of Parliament solidarity in this matter. Only if all the people in Scotland who are opposed to this ridiculous proposition stick together and argue against it will there be a likelihood—indeed, if we all stick together, a certainty—of the parents of Scotland rejecting it as soon as they have the opportunity to do so.
  Hon. Members opposed to Tory party policy in Scotland and the Bill should stick together. One way of doing so is to stick by the authority of the Chair, by allowing debate and argument to be mounted and the people of Scotland to hear, appreciate, understand and agree with the overwhelming arguments against opting out.
  7.9 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I rise to respond to and comment on the report put before the House by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and the motion moved by the Lord President of the Council.
  I found the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) strange. He seemed to be saying that all we have to do is to collude and let the system work. It did not seem to matter whether the political opinions of the people of Scotland, as expressed at the election, will be lost in the process of such collusion. I suggest that Labour Members should cross the Floor and join Conservative Members, because that is what they have done today.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Ewing: I have just begun my remarks. I shall give way generously if the House allows me to address the issues involved.
  The Government have today taken an unusual step. Rightly, the Lord President of the Council quoted the precedent that occurred on Burns night in 1973 during
  342
  consideration of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. A similar step had to be taken against various Scottish hon. Members, who included the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the hon. Member for Inverness Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, Mr. Mackintosh, the hon. Member for Paisley, Mr. Robertson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, Mr. Oswald and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, Mr. Grimond. There was no precedent, but it showed how much opposition there was to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, and reflected the views of the Scottish public. Hon. Members tried to make a strong point on behalf of their constituents and national opinion in Scotland.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Before the hon. Lady leaves the subject of collusion, may I put it to her that the ultimate act of treachery was committed in 1979 by her hon. Friends and Welsh nationalists when they brought down the Labour Government and let this rabble into office?
  Mrs. Ewing: I thought that it might be as well to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene at this stage because I should remind Labour Members that they refused to put the Local Government (Scotland) Act to a vote of confidence, thereby destroying the Government's ability to continue. The hon. Gentleman should not include Welsh nationalists in his remarks because of the circumstances at that time.
  I wish to explain to hon. Members who will be asked to vote on this issue the reason for my hon. Friends' action this morning. It is important that people understand the rationale for our activities.
  Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Lady mentioned the incident that occurred in 1973. Does she accept that when my right hon. and learned Friends sat in on that Committee there was no Liberal representation on it? Some of the Labour Members who sat in were protesting that there was no geographical representation. Does she see a distinction between that and the present position, because the Scottish National party is represented on the Committee dealing with the Self-Governing Schools Etc. Bill?
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the circumstances in 1973. We argue that Scottish legislation should be dealt with by Scotish hon. Members, and I think that Social and Liberal Democratic Members appreciate that. Indeed, they have said so publicly in Scotland, but they may take a different attitude in the House.
  In the 1987 election, the Conservative party made a sudden announcement about the possibility of opting out being included in education legislation. It was sprung on a surprised electorate. I shall refer to some remarks made on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchannan-Smith). He remembers being
  "totally surprised by the idea".
  I asked whether opting out would apply in Scotland and we were immediately assured that it would not and that it was introduced to meet special circumstances in England and Wales. The Secretary of State intervened to try to insist that this was not the case. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said:

  343
  "It is a pity that my right hon. Friend did not speak to me personally during the general election campaign. Fighting as a candidate in my part of Scotland, when I consulted on the matter I was quite clearly told that it did not apply to Scotland."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 649:]
  The Conservative party did not include opting out in its election manifesto for Scotland. Indeed, it did not win any support for its general manifesto.
  The issue was first mooted by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) during consideration in Committee of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988—from which the Scottish National party was excluded—and was officially included in the Gracious Speech last autumn.
  Suddenly, the self-governing Schools Bill was produced in February and is now in Committee. All educational organisations in Scotland are deeply concerned about the speed with which this legislation has been brought forward. My hon. Friends and I are concerned about the education system in Scotland. All four of us volunteered to serve on the Committee.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are debating a procedural motion. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has been making substantive points about the Bill, which may or may or not be relevant. The substance of the matter with which we are dealing is disorder. Those guilty of creating disorder should not use this opportunity further to forward arguments that hon. Members may wish to deploy in the proper place at the proper time.
  Mr. Speaker: I must agree. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) must stick to the motion.
  Mrs. Ewing: I was trying to explain my hon. Friends' action this morning and why the motion has been moved. Hon. Members who will be asked to vote on the motion should understand the reason behind our action.
  I say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that I find it strange that Scottish Members who attend a Scottish Committee dealing with Scottish matters to voice the opinion of their constituents should be described as disorderly. I should not define that as disorderly. My hon. Friends attended because six Conservative Members who represent English constituencies and have no interest in Scottish education have been appointed to the Committee.
  The Select Committee on Selection and the Whips have deliberately tried to fill the Committee with hon. Members who will agree with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Their sole purpose, as was apparent when they arrived this morning, is to sit in the Committee, deal with their constituency mail and vote with the hon. Member for Stirling. They are present not to listen to the arguments and the debate but as Lobby fodder, which is legislative imperialism by the establishment to ensure that Scottish opinion is ignored and defined full explanation.
  There is anger and frustration in Scotland about the way in which Scottish legislation is being conducted through the House. The Leader of the House has said that we are trying to prevent debate from taking place, and perhaps that is true, but it is interesting to read some of the comments made on Second Reading by hon. Members now serving on the—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not go into that, I have given her a good deal of scope, but she must deal with the motion on the Order Paper.
  Mrs. Ewing: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a respectful person and I try hard to observe your rulings in this House. As one who attends regularly I am conscious of the difficulties that you face and I also know that you understand the difficulties that we in the so-called "minority" parties face.
  Today we have seen an attempt by the establishment on the two Front Benches to collude to stop Scottish opinion being voiced accurately. As I said when we first discussed the Bill, I believe that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of Scottish Members. I still believe that that is the answer and, that instead of this procedural motion, the Leader of the House should have moved a motion to enable us to look at our procedures so that Scottish legislation, which deals with a distinct policy such as education, could be considered solely by hon. Members who are elected from Scottish constituencies. [Interruption.] That would best solve the problem facing us, but I gather from the noise coming from the Back Benchers of the establishment parties of the House that they do not agree.
  Those hon. Members are ignoring Scottish political opinion and to do so is extremely dangerous. They should not treat Scottish political opinion with contempt. I believe that we should now remit the Bill to a Standing Committee consisting solely of Scottish Members.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Part of the reason for our actions this morning is evident from the noise coming from the Benches around me and the way in which hon. Members have reacted.
  Hon. Members do not understand what the House is doing to Scotland. Major Scottish institutions and fundamental matters affecting Scottish society are being railroaded by an English majority that neither cares nor understands and which is callously used by the Government to get their majority through. [Interruption.] That noise illustrates my argument.
  At the heart of this matter is what to do in a democracy when the wishes of the Scottish electorate are not only disregarded but flouted in the House—in other words: "What do you do in a democracy when minority means you?"
  It is clear that the Government have no mandate in Scotland and that is why they are forced to draft English Members on to a Committee to make up numbers. The Government do not have a majority in Scotland.
  Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninhgame, North) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way.
  Mr. Welsh: This morning we took a principled stand to draw to the attention of the Scottish people the injustices that are being perpetrated against them by the Government and their Labour allies. We are now faced with an unholy coalition. English Tories have been drafted on to the Committee, yet Scottish Members, who have an informed view of Scottish education, are not allowed to participate.

  345
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has told us that we should mount cogent arguments against the Bill, but his advice is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Welsh: No, I shall not give way.
  The nonsense spouted by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about cogent arguments is immediately refuted by the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on Second Reading of the self-same Bill:
  "None of our amendments is ever accepted in Committee. That is"—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 690]—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go back to the Second reading, we have passed that stage. He must direct his remarks to the motion.
  Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras favours cogent argument, but one of his Back Bench colleagues has already recognised that the Government do not accept cogent arguments or amendments. What can be done when something as important as Scottish education—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
  Mr. Welsh: No, I shall not give way.
  The Government do not accept any amendments, so any charade in Committee will leave the Bill unamended and its nature will have been determined by the English majority who have been drafted in to make sure of that. The Government are disregarding the opinions of the Scottish electorate. That is disgraceful.
  I am unhappy about the use of the words "disorderly conduct" because we simply turned up in the Committee Room. Nothing was said and we did not seek to interrupt the Chairman. I am sure that that is not the type of disorderly conduct which leads to arrest at weekends. We made a dignified, orderly and justified protest.
  We are up against stultifying rules that restrict Back Benchers. Earlier today, the coalition between the Tories and Members of the Labour Front Bench made sure that, through the medium of a private notice question, yet another legitimate procedural manoeuvre has been closed off to Back Benchers.
  Mr. Dobson: When the hon. Gentleman served on the Standing Committee on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, why did he not make use of the procedural manoeuvres available to Committee members? He spoke only for 17 minutes out of the 33 hours that made up that Committee stage.
  Mr. Welsh: I had the same success in getting amendments through as the Labour party—[Interruption.]—I am not allowed to quote the words of the hon. Member for Maryhill, but she made it clear that, whatever the Bill, the Government do not accept amendments.
  English Tories have been drafted on to a Scottish Committee which affects a fundamental part of our society. What happens to Scottish education will be determined by people who do not know or understand our educational system.
  346
  The Government have no mandate from the Scottish people and what we did this morning was simply to demonstrate that enough is enough. The present system rides roughshod over the Scottish electorate; someone, somewhere, had to do something about that, especially as the Labour party has failed to do anything. The Labour party has sought to co-operate with fellow Tories, but we have used the procedures available to us to demonstrate that enough is enough.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Angus East (Mr. Welsh) I am interested in the term "disorderly conduct". I do not know what happened in 1973 among the hon. Members on the Liberal Benches—[Interruption.]—but our conduct in the Committee this morning was less disorderly than the conduct of many Labour Members tonight.
  The central element of the speech of the Leader of the House was that we should make our arguments in Committee. Surely it must be in order for me to answer that suggestion. The answer lies in the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is a member of the Committee, and who said to you, Mr. Speaker, on Second Reading:
  "I say that with all respect to you, Mr. Speaker. I did not sit in my place thinking that if I were fortunate enough to catch your eye I would be able to change the minds and attitudes of Conservative Members. We all know what a foolish hope that would be. None of our amendments is ever accepted in Committee. That is certainly true of social security and employment legislation, and the same can be said of any other measure that is considered in Committee."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 690.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was speaking in the Second Reading debate.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I certainly agree that those were my words, and I stand by them, because the point of being on a Committee or discussing legislation on the Floor of this Chamber is not to change the minds of the hon. Members opposite; it is to get the words on the record and communicate them to the Scottish public. To do that we have to put down amendments and be there.
  Mr. Salmond: I am glad that the hon. Member stands by her words. Perhaps she can discuss with the shadow Leader of the House whether it is fruitful to put these arguments in Committee. I agree that it is important to the Scottish public to hear the arguments, but the most fundamental thing is the decision made by the Committee.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Member will contain himself and allow me to develop some points, I will give way to him later in my speech.
  The fundamental point is whether we can expect this Committee, in view of its complexion, in any way to respect Scottish public opinion. A brief glance through the six English Conservative Members who have been parachuted on to this Committee gives the lie to any feeling that they are there to listen to the Scottish arguments. There is the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), a former London teacher, councillor, Right-winger, anti-smoking, pro-birching for muggers and rapists, strong NHS supporter, educated at St. Albans—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with this motion. The hon. Gentleman should return to it.
  Mr. Salmond: It was not my intention to go through the six Members one by one. I was going to mention the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), a former director of Michael Forsyth Associates Ltd.
  I make the point that these six hon. Members from English constituencies are not there to listen to the Scottish arguments. I, as a Member of this House who volunteered to serve on that Committee, have thousands of constituents who stand to be threatened by this measure, which will divide and fragment Scottish education. These hon. Members do not have a single constituent who will be affected by this legislation, yet they were selected to serve on this Committee while the applications of myself and my hon. Friends were refused. That is a fundamental point.
  It has already been said that we on this Bench are beginning to think there is a degree of collusion, to put it no stronger, between Labour Members on these Benches and those on the Benches opposite. The vote this morning in Committee was, significantly, 17 to 1. This afternoon we saw the remarkable sight of a Leader of the Opposition who believes it is his job not to create problems for the Government but to solve them. We believe, as a minority party, that we are the victims of collusion between the two major parties.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I am genuinely curious, and I hope the hon. Member will be able to help me. We understand from the earlier part of his speech that he is totally convinced that membership of this Committee is a futile exercise which will gain absolutely no results. We understand, on the other hand, that the whole point of this manoeuvre is that all the Scottish National party members want to be on the Committee. How does he reconcile these two points?
  Mr. Salmond: The case the Scottish National party makes is that this Bill should have been considered by the Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading. We are happy to leave the decision to hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by this legislation and, as the hon. Member well knows, 64 of the 72 Scottish Members have declared their opposition to the Bill. It is not the right of the Scottish National party to decide what we are arguing for; it is the right of the Scottish people to decide this legislation that we are arguing for.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am not sure whether the hon. Member really wants to destabilise the Committee or not. If he does want to stop the show, he has a friend in me. However, what concerns me now is that he seems to be sailing through clearer waters in wanting it put before the Grand Committee. Why can he not put it before the Convention?
  Mr. Salmond: I am happy to answer the point directly. We want to form a body which will decide matters. If the Convention were to discuss the fundamental issues of Scottish education, yet allow a Standing Committee of the House of Commons to railroad through opting out legislation in Scotland, the cause of the Scottish people would not be advanced one jot.
  I claim that it is not just a Scottish National party point of view that this Committee has been rigged against the wishes of the Scottish people. It was also the view of the
  348
  hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) himself, when he argued that the Bill is not merely bad but a breach of faith, and that it concerns a matter of honour.
  I want to turn to our belief that the rules and regulations of this House are flexible: there is one set of rules for the Scottish National party and minority parties and another set of rules for the Front Benches. We have already found in this Parliament that a Standing Order of the House of Commons concerning the need to set up a Scottish Select Committee has not been implemented. We found a remarkably flexible interpretation of the rights of private notice questions and what notice should be given this afternoon. I will not go further on that matter, except to say that it is a matter to which we shall certainly return later.
  As a minority party, we believe it is our right to represent our constituents in a matter which affects only Scotland. It is only Scottish constituents who are threatened by the opting out legislation for Scotland. Not a single constituent of the six hon. Members parachuted on to the Committee will be affected. I, as an SNP Member, a Scottish Member, cannot accept the right of English Members of Parliament to ride roughshod over clearly expressed Scottish opinion.
  I close with this remark. There are only two measures which I believe have mobilised deep opposition in Scotland to the present Government. The first is the poll tax, and that campaign is under way. The second is this Bill, and the Scottish National party will not accept the English majority imposed upon us on the Standing Committee.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I feel inclined to be very brief, and I sense that the mood of the House is of great tolerance on both sides, because hon. Members have listened reasonably attentively to arguments in the hope that people outside will appreciate the exigencies and intricacies of our procedure. The Leader of the House is well known for his tolerance and understanding, and I do not want to go into the difficulties he has had in setting up a Scottish Select Committee.
  I think we are due some explanation of the effect of this motion. How long is it intended to last? Is it intended to last for the duration of this Parliament or just for the duration of this particular Committee? Normal procedure, as I understand it, is if Members who are not on such bodies as Select Committees enter Committee rooms when a Committee is deliberating in private, the Chairman may courteously ask a Member who has inadvertently come in to remove himself, and no draconian measures will be necessary.
  I wonder where we are going. If Members are sitting within the precincts of the Committee, as I expect was done today, how are these defined in our Committee rooms? We know quite clearly when we are in the House and when we are out of the House. For example, if I step across this line, by convention I am out of order. If I move into the Gangway, I am out of order. How are we to determine, when a Member is in a Committee room, whether he is actually in the Committee or not? [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that those SNP Members were stupid. We do many things in this place which are apparently stupid. Some of our procedures are dignified and sanctified, but the whole procedure of voting might be construed as stupid as we march through the

  349
  Lobbies, walking back and forth, at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. My God, what could be more stupid than that? If our constituents saw it, they would think that we were mad.
  That is not at issue today. We are considering a unique power which we are going to give my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). The last time such powers were used was in 1973. I believe that the use of such powers was justified then to deal with a piece of legislation from which many of our difficulties today emanate. My goodness, if there was any piece of legislation which we should not have passed, it was that legislation dealing with the so-called reform of local government. We will have to try to reform that again, but that is another issue.
  I do not want to be disrespectful to you, Mr. Speaker. However, my experience of this place goes back in one way or another for 14 years. I have never known a private notice question not to appear on the annunciator. Its absence today was sharp practice. I am not accusing you, Mr. Speaker, but the Front Benches used sharp practice against the Back Benches. I do not care tuppence which party that practice was used against: it was used against Back Benchers. Some people have used a rather crude word to describe it—collusion. The Front Benches collude and Back Benchers must be very careful that they do not collude against them. Our liberties and rights as Back Benchers can be severely restricted in this place. We must be careful to ensure that they are not further restricted.
  I do not intend to consider the merits of the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill now. Nor do I intend to consider the merits of the Government's railroading the legislation through. There can be no more objectionable legislation before the House now than the legislation to reform Scottish education.
  The Leader of the House has responsibilities. I have emphasised to him before that his responsibilities lie not simply to the Tory party, but to the House. His colleagues may shake their heads, but I have described the tradition and we are considering the traditions of this place. The onus and balance of the argument in this place claims that those terrible SNP Members have offended against the traditions of order.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I hesitate to intervene, but is it not a fact that those hon. Members intervened on the freedom of speech?
  Mr. Douglas: I doubt that very much. This House has a responsibility to defend the freedom of speech, but people outside the Chamber defend it. Freedom of speech is defended outside this place. Many people have a mistaken view about the location of the repository of free speech. We are lucky to have freedom of speech, and over recent years the Government, with their enormous majority, have railroaded minorities in this House and particularly over minorities represented on the Labour Benches.
  We must be very careful about the powers which we confer. Of course we want order and we want the procedures of this place to be carried out. However, we should not kid ourselves that the Government will play by the rules. Any Opposition Member who thinks that is kidding himself. The issue arises because the Government know that they have extreme difficulties over the number of Conservative Scottish Members. They are changing the
  350
  rules daily. That is why we must be very careful before we pass this motion. We must ensure that we are not creating an unfortunate precedent.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I suppose that hon. Members who speak in this debate should present their credentials. For the past 18 years, I have fought against the erosion of the rights of Back Benchers. Over that time, I have seen rights eroded. When I first came here, hon. Members could table two written questions to Ministers. There was also a counting-out procedure in the House. In those days, we could ask Mr. Speaker to count the House and if there were fewer than 40 Members present, the Government would lose their business for the day.
  Between 1970 and 1974, the Conservative Government, led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), reduced the quorum in Standing Committee and abandoned the counting-out procedure and the quorum in the House. I fought against all that.
  If I give the impression that what happened in Standing Committee this morning was an erosion of Back Benchers' rights, I would be giving the wrong impression. Members of the SNP may call that collusion. I do not care about that, because I have been in politics long enough and I can defend myself before my constituents. SNP Members need not take my word for that, they can ask Dr. McIntyre, John Donnachy, John McGregor or Ron Halliday and all the other SNP candidates who have opposed me over the past 18 years. They will say whether I am fit and able to defend myself before my constituents in anything that I may do.
  It would be a great mistake if we created the impression that what happened in the Standing Committee this morning had to do with the erosion of Back Benchers' rights or was related to concern being expressed on behalf of the people of Scotland about the measure before that Standing Committee. It is wrong for SNP Members to give the impression that they are the only Members of this place concerned about the Government's proposals on opting out.
  If you do not mind my saying so, Mr. Speaker, the three SNP Members who have contributed to this debate have displayed an appalling lack of confidence in their ability to convince their constituents that this legislation is so bad that their constituents should not use the terms of the legislation to opt out.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ewing: No, I will not give way, because I do not want to get involved in an argument with the hon. Gentleman and the three SNP Members. I want to make serious points. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is going to make a serious point, I will give way. This is not a trivial matter.
  Mr. Walker: My serious point is that the hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record for having amendments accepted in Committee when he was leading from the Opposition Front Bench. If his colleagues had his confidence, obviously the Standing Committee could make progress and we could get on with the work.
  Mr. Ewing: I suspect that if I had been leading from the Opposition Front Bench during this Parliament, my distinguished record would have been somewhat dented.
  About three weeks ago the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup detailed 47 pieces of legislation to which no amendments were accepted in Standing Committee. I would not want the impression to go from this place tonight that what has happened in Standing Committee today is an erosion of Back-Bench rights or an expression of concern.
  Mr. Salmond: Looking at the complexion of the Standing Committee with his long experience in the House, does the hon. Gentleman anticipate any meaningful amendments being accepted in Committee? As we both know the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, does he believe that Scottish schools which might be vulnerable to the legislation will be provided with substantial incentives to opt out if the Bill reaches the statute book?
  Mr. Ewing: This is not the first piece of education legislation to come before Scottish Members during this Parliament. The school boards legislation passed through the House, but there was no demonstration by SNP Members and there was no SNP Member on that Committee. There is one SNP Member on the Committee on this Bill, and there has been a demonstration.
  It is as well that the House should know that this whole exercise has been trailered for the last three weeks. The only people who have been taken in by it tonight, as far as I am aware, are the Scottish media. I understand that they have covered this incident, but that is because it has been a dull Budget. To be fair to the Scottish media, they have not really had much to report in terms of the Budget.
  In all seriousness, it would be a great tragedy if somehow or other the impression were given that the demonstration in Committee this morning was a demonstration of concern for the people of Scotland or concern that Back-Bench rights were being eroded. It is purely and simply—there is no nice way of saying this—a publicity stunt for the SNP, and some of the media in Scotland will fall for it.
  If all four Members had secured a place on that Committee, it would have been the worst thing that could happen to the SNP. I apologise to the Leader of the House, because he is not responsible for it, but I am sorry that the Chairman of the Commitee could not find a place for all four Members, because they would not have turned up. I have the voting record here, if any hon. Member wants to challenge me, of Committees they have been on. I will not speak ill of Donald Stewart, because he is one of the finest friends I have had in all my years in the House. Donald will send me a nice letter after this; the only problem is that he will write it in Gaelic so that I will not be able to read it.
  However, when Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart were here and we had the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the two of them would serve on that Committee. The SNP does not have a good Committee record. We have had as many as 11 SNP Members here and they still did not have a good Committee record. They are trying to give the impression today that somehow or other they are bubbling over with concern for the people of Scotland. They are bubbling over, all right—bubbling, full stop—and they will bubble all their days here because that is all they can do.
  352
  I am confident that I can take this bad legislation to my people in Falkirk, East and convince them that it is not worth paying any attention to it. If the SNP Members had any confidence in themselves, they would do the same. I shall give my support to the Chairman of the Committee because that is the only way the House can function. The only alternative is to break away. There is just no other option. The rules and procedures of the House will not be reformed to meet the views and the needs of four Members, so we should face up to that challenge: we either support the Committee Chairman and make sure that these Committees work, or we do the extreme thing. I am against that, so I am in favour of the Chairman and will support him tonight.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that we are getting used to the idea that there will be a bit of excitement from the Scottish national on Budget day, but I suspect that it may be the start of a tradition. I remember that when I first came to the House the excitement was what Mr. Leo Abse might be wearing. Perhaps in future years it will be who is going to be thrown out from the Scottish National party Bench.
  I do take this seriously, although it is a matter on which it is easy to joke, and there are quite important principles at stake here. It is not a matter just of who is colluding or conspiring with whom; it is a matter of the good order of the House and how we conduct our affairs.
  I have to say to my colleagues on the Scottish National party Bench that I have found some of the remarks made tonight difficult to understand. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), for example, made a very spirited point about the difficulty in getting any of his amendments accepted. My understanding—I am quite prepared to be corrected—about the Transport Bill is that the hon. Gentleman put down one amendment, to replace the word "may" by the word "shall", so possibly he is generalising from a rather narrow base.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: As usual in these matters the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. That was not my amendment. He perhaps might take into account my eight amendments on this particular Bill.
  Mr. Dewar: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman's interests are growing. I noticed that he was careful to say, "That was not my amendment." He did not say that he had more than one, however, in the whole history of the Transport Bill.
  Undoubtedly, what took place this morning was an attempt to disrupt the Committee, and this has not happened in Committees of the House in the past. I have considerable respect for Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart, and they did not think it was necessary to disrupt the poll tax Bill, although certainly that was a piece of legislation that was disliked by the people of Scotland in an almost unprecedented way.
  I am totally confused as to exactly what argument has been put to the House. As I understood what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who spoke first for the SNP, had to say, she was advancing the argument that the whole point of the demonstration today was that she and her three colleagues should all have been included in the membership of the Committee. Then we had the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who

  353
  argued very strongly that the last thing he wanted was to be on the Committee as at present constituted because it would he an essay in futility and he would be unlikely to make progress of any kind. I am not clear whether we are being told that the Committee should never meet or that the Committee should be reformed to include those hon. Members.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Gentleman seems to have moved very substantially from the points he made in his own speech on 6 March, columns 644 and 645, when he said it would be—
  Mr. Speaker: Let us not go into the Second Reading Committee again, please. We are dealing with this motion.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the information that she has been re-reading my speeches. I do not often make that mistake, but on this occasion I will perhaps have a look.
  It is always dangerous to put historical perspectives on these matters and I plead guilty to trying to do this. Perhaps I could be allowed to give the House a quotation which is of historical interest as it goes back to the mid-1970s:
  "Following Hamilton and Mrs. Ewing's grand tour of Scotland, where she played to packed houses, the SNP gained an instant mass membership. But it was membership lacking in political background and quality, with a higher than normal proportion of cranks and people motivated by grudges."
  That was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) talking about the hon. Member for Moray's mother-in-law. I give you a solemn undertaking, Mr. Speaker, that that is my last mother-in-law joke of the evening.
  To be serious on the matter, I genuinely regret that this motion has had to be brought foward, but this is, as the Leader of the House has said, a very unusual set of circumstances. What distinguished this from many rowdy scenes that we have seen on these premises at various times is that it was quite clear that the people involved intended to persist. This was not a matter of making a point and withdrawing. It was quite clear that if the House did not take steps to deal with the matter we should see it on Thursday and Tuesday and the following Thursday ad infinitum. That, I think, is what gives it its special character and justifies the fact that this motion is now before the House.
  It is not a draconian measure, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas); it is a motion specifically related to the proceedings of this one Committee when it is considering this one Bill. It is not a blanket power that is being brought forward that will stay there to threaten the activities of Back Benchers on all occasions. It is tailored to deal with this one specific situation, where unmistakable notice has been given that if the House does not take steps we shall be in a situation of continuing impasse, which would not be good for Scottish politics or, certainly, for the conduct of the House.
  I am not on the Committee but, on behalf of my colleagues, I am anxious to see the issues debated, because this is an unusual Bill. I will not go into the merits of the Bill except on this narrow point, which is relevant to why I believe that we should not be faced with a continuing impasse. Even if the Bill is forced on to the statute book, its most objectionable part—the opting-out provisions—
  354
  will remain simply an entry on the shelves and a piece of constitutional lumber, unless it is brought to life by groups of parents using the powers.
  The real argument will be conducted in Scotland with public opinion, with the Minister trying to create circumstances in which the powers will be used, while those of us on the other side of the argument will try to persuade parents to consider the wider interests of the educational system and refuse to have anything to do with the legislation.
  To do that, it is necessary to debate the matter in Committee. This morning, all that was achieved was two and a half hours of nominal debating time, during which the Minister did not have to say a single word to justify or defend his proposals. There is no point in that.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman address the point that, if the legislation proceeds, either parents will be faced with huge incentives to agree that schools should opt out or, as has been the English experience, they will be faced with school closures—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should not address that point, as it has nothing to do with the motion.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to be allowed to make an argument and then for other right hon. and hon. Members not to be allowed to pursue that argument with questions?
  Mr. Speaker: The motion before the House is in order, but much wider consideration of the merits of the Bill is not.
  Mr. Dewar: It is clear that there are points of difference as to the Bill's merits. I am saying to the House that it might be advisable to get down to debating those differences rather than get hung up on a procedural wrangle that has a lot to do with column inches hut not very much with the practical fate of the legislation.
  We have had a day of excitement. Earlier in the day, the House was invited to advance the Budget debate by discussing the fate of the Vale of Glamorgan. I know that I cannot do that now, but that was a transparent procedural device—it could not be anything else. There was the extraordinary situation of an attempt to move the writ being made by one member of the Scottish nationalist group while being opposed by another. That was a device for making a point on the Floor of the House. It was a manoeuvre for political advantage, and one cannot call foul if one is out-manoeuvred. The only result is that one hon. Member has been suspended, which is to no one's credit—certainly not to his. The cause in question was advanced not a whit.
  I back the motion not because I am conspiring with the Leader of the House, with whom I have not spoken today, nor because I am in some way conniving in the suspension of Back Benchers.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I am just finishing. I have given way several times.
  I am backing the motion because, put in the simplest possible terms, I believe that it is an attempt to mount a parliamentary manoeuvre that is outside the rules of the House, that cannot be justified, and that is wrong on the

  355
  basis of the arguments and the merit. It is for those reasons, and because I agree, albeit reluctantly, that such a step is necessary, that I invite my hon. Friends to support the motion that is before the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 10.

  Division No. 121]

  [8.3 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Flynn, Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Battle, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Beith, A. J.

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bell, Stuart

  Forth, Eric

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Foster, Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Franks, Cecil

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  French, Douglas

  Blunkett, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Body, Sir Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, George

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  George, Bruce

  Bowis, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Boyes, Roland

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bradley, Keith

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

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

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ground, Patrick

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buckley, George J.

  Hague, William

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butcher, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butler, Chris

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

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Caborn, Richard

  Harris, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holt, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irvine, Michael

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

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Dewar, Donald

  Jessel, Toby

  Dixon, Don

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Durant, Tony

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eadie, Alexander

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Eastham, Ken

  Knowles, Michael

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Knox, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lamond, James

  Favell, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  356

  Latham, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rogers, Allan

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lord, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  McCartney, Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McFall, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

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

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Snape, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Speed, Keith

  Maclennan, Robert

  Speller, Tony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Madel, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Maples, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stott, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morley, Elliott

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walden, George

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wallace, James

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  O'Brien, William

  Wareing, Robert N.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Watts, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard

  Wheeler, John

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Ray

  Patnick, Irvine

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wilshire, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wilson, Brian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Portillo, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Mr. David MacLean and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

  Robertson, George

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Salmond, Alex

  Beggs, Roy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas, Dick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Kilfedder, James

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nellist, Dave

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Self-Governing Schools Etc (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately

  357
  from the Committee Room; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.

  First Scottish Standing Committee

    PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
    Resolved,
    That the Order of the House [23rd January] be supplemented as follows:

    PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

      Lords Amendments
      1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 23rd January, those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion be brought to a conclusion not later than the expiration of the period two hours beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
      2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

      (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

      (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

      (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

      (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

      (iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

      (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all remaining Lords Amendments;

      (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

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

      Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
      3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
      4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
      5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

      (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

      (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

      (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

      (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

      (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

      Supplemental
      6—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
      (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
      7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
      (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
      (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
      (4) If at any time the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
    Clause 15

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S.I4.
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 10, line 41, at end insert—
      "(10) Section 61(1) to (8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (fingerprinting) shall apply to the taking of a person's fingerprints 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 tlat section and for believing that his fingerprints will tend to confirm or disprove his involvement.""—[Mr. DouglasHogg.]
      Mr. Speaker: With this we shall consider also Lords amendments 5, 28 and 29.
      8.13 pm
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: As the amendments are either technical or part of the general thrust of amendments moved by the Opposition in the House of Lords, I shall not oppose them.
      Question agreed to.
      Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

  British Railways Bill
  Order for Second Reading read
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The annual British Railways Bill is connected with the desire of the British Railways Board to bring the railway system into line with the requirements of modern operation. This general works powers Bill is one of a substantial number introduced in the House since 1963. It aims to improve the safety and efficiency of the railway system, but such Bills have always been seen in the past as an opportunity for hon. Members to raise other matters relating to the railway system. Although I am sponsoring the Bill on behalf of the board, hon. Members should recognise that I am not competent to answer any points outside its scope.
  It is, of course, right that all hon. Members should be concerned about safety, as indeed is everyone in the country. Let me make it clear that the board never puts safety after passenger convenience: it is always a top priority. Everyone who works at British Rail receives basic training, and every railwayman receives at least two years' training before taking out trains, so that he has a knowledge of both train operation and the routes that the train is likely to cover.
  Automatic warning systems are already provided for drivers, and automatic train protection is the next step. Such technology, however, has yet to be applied to a complex rail network. It is in existence for simple rapid transit systems, and it is hoped that a pilot scheme may be in place next year.
  Part I of the Bill deals with the normal preliminary provisions that incorporate the usual enactments by reference relating to such matters as compulsory purchase. Part II deals with the works proposed, part III with the lands, part IV with the normal standard protective provisions and part V with the miscellaneous and general provisions.
  Let me begin with the major works proposed. Works No. 1 is a new railway in Birmingham to connect Snow hill station with the station at Smethwick West. The proposed new railway is sponsored by the Passenger Transport Executive which will pay the cost of the reinstatement of British Rail tracks on disused track-bed out of Snow hill until the line joins up with the board's existing freight railway for the final part of the link. For part of its length, the proposed link will share presently disused four-track formation with a light rapid transit railway proposed to be constructed by the PTE. That plan is very much welcomed by local residents and will benefit them and others.
  Works No. 3 consists of a new railway—partly reinstatement of disused track, and partly totally new railway—intended to form a link between Nottingham and Mansfield to permit services on the Nottingham-Mansfield-Worksop corridor. The proposal is backed by local authorities in the area which will provide the funds to construct the railway which is expected to relieve traffic congestion. There is also some likelihood of European funding being obtained.
  Works Nos. 9, 10 and 11 consist of work associated with platform extension to enable longer trains to operate on certain sections of Network SouthEast. Hon. Members who are concerned about overcrowding on trains must

  361
  welcome that proposal, which will provide some easement of the inevitable overcrowding in the rush hour. Works No. 9 deals with the reconstruction of the tunnel at Woolwich Dockyard station. Works Nos. 10A and 10B involve bridge and viaduct widening at Lewisham station. Works No. 11 involves bridge widening at Dartford station.
  Greenwich borough council is aware of the proposed works No. 9 and has expressed no opposition. Lewisham borough council has expressed some concern about some aspects of works Nos. 10A and 10B, but discussions are continuing with the board and it is hoped that a mutually acceptable solution will emerge. The initial reaction to the proposed works No. 11 from Kent county council and Dartford borough council is not unfavourable and further discussions are continuing.
  I shall briefly identify the other works in the Bill for the convenience of hon. Members. Works No. 2 at Tickhill has received no objection from Doncaster metropolitan borough council or from the Tickhill town council which is well aware of the planned works. Works No. 4 relates to the extension of the high speed train depot at St. Philip's marsh. Bristol city council is aware of the board's proposals, and discussions are taking place.
  Works No. 5 relates to the construction of a new cord line to improve facilities for the coal trains supplying the Fiddlers Ferry power station to which there is no objection, as far as the board is aware.
  Works No. 7 is a new siding to run to the British Alcan works at Bassaleg, and the Gwent and Newport district council is in favour of the scheme.
  Works No. 8 relates to the deviation of Margam to Tondu branch railway at Cefn Cribwr to achieve the release of a significant amount of coal which can be exploited by British Coal.
  Clauses 6, 7 and 8 relate to works No. 1, clause 9 involves the relinquishment of powers under the British Railways (No. 2) Act 1981 and the British Railways (No. 2) Act 1984. Clauses 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 relate to works Nos. 3 to 9.
  We now come to the provisions of the Bill which have caused some concern. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has expressed concern and has put his name to the blocking motion. The provisions deal with the stopping up and closing of footpaths. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the petition on behalf of the Ramblers Association. Clause 17 deals with the removal of a dangerous walkway over the River Ribble. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that change should be made in the interests of safety.
  For the convenience of the House I shall touch on the related clauses. Clause 11 relates to the stopping up of footpaths at Kirkby in Ashfield and deals with the earlier works to which I have referred. Clause 18 provides for the taking down of a dangerous footbridge and clause 19 the stopping and discontinuance of a footpath at Tipton with which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is particularly concerned. The vehicular use of the crossing was prohibited in 1981 and subsequently in 1984 and as a result the crossing has been only for users of the footpath.
  Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise for intervening at this stage, but perhaps I should tell the hon. Gentleman as a matter of information and courtesy
  362
  that clause 11 is of interest not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Demon and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as it is in your constituency.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman should proceed with caution.
  Mr. McNair-Wison: Of course I shall proceed with caution, and I hope that I will carry you with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that the board has no desire gratuitously to curtail movement across any of its tracks or any of its land. In all the cases that I have mentioned, the proposals stem entirely from a desire to improve safety.
  Clause 19 relates to Watery lane level crossing in Sandwell. Vehicular access was prohibited nearly 10 years ago and the board proposed a scheme using miniature warning lights. Quite properly and understandably, the local school and the council were concerned that that would be dangerous because many trains travel through the area. The council was concerned that the crossing should be closed. The board believes that that is probably the only sensible answer, but as school-children and those requiring access to the school are likely to be concerned for at least another year, no action will be taken until 1990, but I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and others concerned about the footpath will look favourably on the suggestion, which is not a gratuitous interruption of access but in the interests of safety. If hon. Members wish to explore the matter further I shall do my best to answer their points later, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye again, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The remaining clauses in the Bill are fairly standard. Clause 28 sets time limits for the purchase of land and the rights over land which are limited until 31 December 1994. Clause 29 deals with the extension of a time limit from an earlier Bill because of the work required for the reinstatement of the curve linking the midlands line with the great central route at Doncaster. The board intends to apply for an extension until December 1994.
  Part IV of the Bill is the standard incorporation of previous protective provisions. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, part V deals with the miscellaneous and general provisions. As the House well knows, there are also schedules attached to the Bill.
  In conclusion, I want to point to the modest nature of the proposal. I hope that, it will find favour with the House. I also hope that, at a time when British Rail is very much in the news, perhaps for all the wrong reasons, those of us who are concerned about its operation will give the Bill an opportunity to proceed so that the modernisation, and as a result the safety and efficiency that we hope will flow from it, will be a benefit to all the travelling public.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I apologise to the House for causing a debate to take place on the Bill. I had hoped that it would be possible for the promoters to meet the points raised by the Ramblers Association and by myself without a debate. I was disappointed last week that it was not possible for the promoters to give an undertaking, particularly because my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has been pressing me hard for several months about the importance of the part of the Bill which will provide a rail

  363
  link from Mansfield to Nottingham. I fully appreciate his point, and I have great admiration for the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents to try to get that line included in the legislation and to get the local authorities, and hopefully the EEC, to come up with the money to make the line a practicality.
  I am concerned about the principle as to how footpaths should be diverted or stopped up. Anyone who wants to close a footpath, stop it up or divert it should use the highways legislation or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 rather than a private Bill. I do not want to rehearse the whole argument. I suspect that on future British Rail Bills we will go into the argument in more detail.
  I have always contended, and I believe that the Private Bill Committee has also made it clear, that planning matters should be the subject of public inquiries and, perhaps as a long stop, parliamentary legislation, rather than public inquiries being short-circuited by parliamentary legislation.
  It would have been possible for the diversion of the footpath in the Mansfield area to be dealt with by an application to the local authority. The local people would have had an opportunity to object. As I understand it—I do not know the area well—most of the local people do not object. They are losing one piece of path and they will gain an alternative path. Therefore, British Rail could have used the local procedure. If local people had been concerned about the proposal, they could have made their point of view known directly to the inspector appointed to consider the objections to the footpath closure. Instead, the proposal has to be dealt with at second or third hand on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs.
  No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield knows all the detail on the ground, but it is not easy for another hon. Member to argue about footpaths in a constituency other than his own. It is not easy either for the Ramblers Association, which has to put the petition to the Committee, to get its information from local walkers and put it to the Committee at second hand. It would have been far better for British Rail or the other promoters to make their proposal for the diversion of the footpath through the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the highways legislation rather than by a private Bill.
  The next footpath is at Malton where the proposal is to take down the bridge at the level crossing because it is not safe. Again, local procedures could have been used rather than resorting to a private Bill. It is a cumbersome process for local people who want to object. It would be simpler if they could object to the local authority. I believe that there would have been no difficulty for British Rail if it had proceeded in that way.
  The third footpath is in the Tipton area at Sandwell. It is more complicated and I am reluctant to tread that path. Again, I suggest that it is not appropriate to deal with the matter through a private Bill. As it involves the closure of a footpath across a railway, it could have been argued about locally rather than at second hand in the House. British Rail insists that it could not use the highways legislation or the Wildlife and Countryside Act because it could not establish that no one wanted to use the footpath.
  The argument is more complicated. In that case, people want to use the footpath but it is not safe. British Rail argues that, because it wants to close the footpath in the
  364
  interests of safety, it could not use the highways legislation or the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It could use those provisions only if it believed that people did not want to use the footpath.
  I do not know enough about the local position. Perhaps British Rail is using the argument of safety to avoid the cost of constructing a proper crossing which would enable people to get over the railway safely. In one or two places British Rail has erected footbridges. Although the footbridges are a safe way for people to cross, they have caused considerable upset to people who have suddenly found a substantial structure by the side of their gardens. I do not know enough about the Tipton case to know whether a new footbridge would be practical.
  Again, it is not the best use of parliamentary procedure for a private Bill to be pushed through the House which will close a crossing over the railway on the ground of safety, with the odd little addition that British Rail will not close the footpath straight away but will leave it open as long as a school wants to use it. In future, when the children stop using the footpath, other local people will be denied the opportunity to do so. Again I argue strongly that such a proposal should not be in a private Bill but be dealt with by other means.
  The Ramblers Association will put its petition to the Committee. I hope that British Rail may be able to meet the association's points. Perhaps British Rail need not make changes to the Bill in relation to Mansfield and Malton. If it was to give a general undertaking to the Ramblers Association that in future it will deal with closures through local procedures rather than a private Bill, that would be satisfactory. In the case of Tipton there should be more investigation of the legislation in general to see whether it is correct, as British Rail contends, that it could not close the footpath by any procedure other than a private Bill.
  I do not intend to divide the House, particularly in view of all the efforts that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield has made to try to get the railway line into his constituency. I hope that British Rail can clear up the matter and that the Bill may have a speedy passage. Perhaps in the not too distant future my hon. Friend will invite me to travel on that bit of railway to see his constituency.
  8.39 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene now and briefly explain the Government's view of the Bill. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for his very lucid exposition of the Bill. These Bills are necessarily complicated and detailed, so I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for his very useful presentation, which enables hon. Members to have an informed debate on these matters. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made an interesting and thoughtful contribution, in which he alluded to the Ramblers Association's objection in principle to the use of private Bill procedure for the stopping up and diversion of public footpaths, on

  365
  the ground that the existing powers of highway authorities provide adequate safeguards for public rights and private interests.
  However, I understand that the powers under the Highways Act 1980 do not at present allow for stopping up on safety grounds. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Joint Committee that considered Private Bill procedure recommended in October that the Highways Act 1980 should be extended to permit stopping-up orders to be made on grounds of safety in appropriate cases. That would be achieved through the usual Highways Act procedures, including confirmation by the Secretary of State, if necessary following a local public inquiry. But the House has not yet had an opportunity to debate that report. The Government are still preparing their response to it. It is only fair to tell the hon. Gentleman that in the present circumstances the Government are satisfied that there is no objection to British Rail seeking powers in the Bill.
  The three petitioners against the Bill will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Committee, which will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved. It will have the added advantage of hearing expert advice. Therefore, I welcome the assurance by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I recommend to the House that the Bill should be given its Second Reading and be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee, where it can be given the detailed consideration that it merits.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: Like the Minister, I welcome the Bill. I also extend my usual thanks to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for the way in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I, too, spend a long time—it might seem even longer to my audience—dealing with these measures. Perhaps I might be allowed to refer to some of the works in the Bill in a little more detail, not least because many of the provisions of works No. 1 are in my constituency.
  I and most of my constituents express great pleasure at the restoration of the old great western route between Snowhill and Handsworth, especially as that route will be eventually a four-track formation once again. While we shall not be able to see halls, kings and castles along the great western main line, I hope that we shall see on two of the tracks fairly new sprinter DMUs, and on the adjacent tracks the even newer super-trams of the midland metro, provided the Department of Transport gets its act together and stops changing the rules, as it did recently in a hopefully futile attempt to stop us having a midland metro. But that expectation gives me great pleasure. I hope that the works will be proceeded with quickly if the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight.
  I should like to deal with works No. 3, and the replacement of a passenger rail service between Nottingham and Mansfield, and, I believe, Worksop. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) who has done a great deal of work behind the scenes in the House and with his local authority and the other relevant local authorities to see that the railway services that were short-sighted and misguidedly withdrawn in the 1960s are restored sooner than later.
  Mansfield is the largest English town that is not connected to the railway network. I apologise in advance
  366
  if I have pinched a line from my hon. Friend's speech in saying that, but the fact that a town the size of Mansfield has been off the railway network for 25 years speaks volumes for the short-sighted decisions that were taken in the so-called Beeching era. Thanks to the efforts of the local authorities and hon. Members with constituencies in that part of the world, I am sure that that railway service will be restored.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish gave a careful and concerned speech about clause 19, the Tipton Watery lane level crossing. As I said to the hon. Member for New Forest, who is responsible for the Bill, that crossing is in the constituency adjacent to mine. I notice that the hon. Gentleman was careful to give a full and detailed explanation to Madam Deputy Speaker when she was in the Chair, as the work concerns her constituency.
  The circumstances surrounding the clause are complicated. It is a long-running saga. Sandwell borough council wrote to Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), and to me, and I should have thought also to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), asking for support so that the crossing would remain open. The circumstances surrounding its proposed closure are that the British Railways Board, in its constant desire to cut costs and ingratiate itself with the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, wants to close the manned signal box at Watery lane, which controls the wicket gate through which members of the public pass across the track.
  I have some sympathy with BRB and I do not quibble with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, as I am aware of his expertise on Acts of Parliament. But British Rail has the bulk of the responsibility for preventing motorists and pedestrians from killing themselves. It is strange and slightly illogical, although I understand the reason for it, that we protect the railways in this manner, yet children and adults, whether responsible or sober, are free to cross heavily-used dual carriageways if they are unwise enough, without any protection. Proposals to stop up crossings across lightly used railways—although this is a heavily used main line—are greeted by opposition from individuals, local authorities and groups such as the Ramblers Association.
  Various alternatives to closure have been discussed by the council and BRB. I ask the Minister to clarify this point at the end of the debate. As I understand it, the board does not propose to take any action until an annexe has been completed for an adjacent school in 1990. Once that annexe is completed, the need for the crossing will be removed, although I accept my hon. Friend's point that there may well be inconvenience to present users.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish reminds us, the replacement of level crossings by bridges is occasionally as controversial as the original decision to close a level crossing. He does not represent the Woodsmoor area of Stockport, but it is close to his previous constituency, and he will be aware of the controversy that arose when British Rail decided to stop up a level crossing to save the wages of those working in the signal box, and to replace it with a bridge. There was such a row that after about seven years British Rail had to take down the bridge. Thankfully, there is no suggestion in works No. 3 that British Rail will adopt that course, but

  367
  that case shows that often what British Rail does is wrong in the eyes of many people. I hope that, as my hon. Friend said, the discussions that are taking place, and will take place up to 1990, will lead to agreement. He may be able to persuade the Ramblers Association, whose interests he guards zealously in the House, that the closure should go ahead.
  As the Minister said, these matters can be discussed more fully in Committee. On behalf of the official Opposition, I give the Bill a warm welcome. On behalf of my constituency, I hope that British Rail, having been given the parliamentary go-ahead for these works, will proceed quicker rather than slower, and that we shall see once again early in the 1990s a four-track railway line between West Bromwich and Birmingham Snow hill.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): This can be described as a useful little Bill. It costs only £26 million and extends British Rail's network. As the preamble to the Bill says, British Rail has a duty
  "to provide railway services in Great Britain and, in connection with the provision of railway services, to provide such other services and facilities as appear to the Board to be expedient."
  I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for allowing a debate on this issue which goes wider than the details of the Bill, to which I have no objection and in no way wish to obstruct. Throughout the debate on the extension of the British Rail network as it affects my constituents and my part of Britain, I have tried constantly to be constructive and positive. I have no desire to be a Luddite, and never have been. My anxiety is to make sure that as Britain enters the 21st century, for the first time for many years with a rather exciting prospect for railways, we get it right.
  Getting it right means not only getting a railway of a kind that we can be proud of and that can discharge the kinds of functions that we wish it to discharge, but also a railway that is acceptable to the people who have to endure its passage. I talk about the new high-speed rail link to the Channel tunnel, which has been a source of trauma for a long time in my part of the world.
  Part III of the Bill includes powers of compulsory purchase. One can but hope that British Rail has fully consulted all those affected. However, one cannot rely upon that. In my recent experience, British Rail does not understand what consultation is. In my part of the world, British Rail has exhausted itself with meetings. On the one project alone, admittedly 77 times more expensive than the one we are discussing this evening, it held about 160 public meetings. Any fair-minded person must pay tribute to the extraordinary stolid good humour with which British Rail personnel, often exhausted and often shown to be incompetent, managed to retain their good nature.
  However, good nature is not enough. The meetings were all confused, crowded and very angry. They were confused because either they were told different things at different times or they were told nothing much at all. They were crowded because they dealt with matters at the very heart of individuals' concerns—home, environment and life style. They were very angry—this is the point—because they were in no sense consultations; they were confrontations. I hope that, in the areas covered by the
  368
  Bill, British Rail has consulted or will consult. However, in case it still has not learnt what consultation is, I shall tell it again, although I have told it often enough already.
  Consultation means sharing. It means saying to someone, "This is my difficulty. It affects you. Will you help me to resolve it?" In my area there are many people with diverse skills, long experience and a strong sense of public duty. There are engineers with experience of multi-million—even billion—pound projects. There are architects, planners, designers, naturalists, noise specialists, geographers, surveyors and lawyers. They are intelligent, mature, rational people. Present them with a problem and they will work to find a solution. Confront them with a solution designed with no reference to them, pat them on the head as if they have nothing valuable to contribute, and they will fight every inch of the way.
  My worry in Kent is that, now that British Rail has retired to a new position prepared in isolation, it will argue that it has consulted enough. I tell it now that further public meetings with communities down their chosen route will not be considered consultation. North Downs Rail Concern—the umbrella group with which I have been associated—has reorganised itself. It has set up specialist sub-committees concentrating on matters such as compensation, noise measurement and so on. It will offer its help to the individual communities along the line, each of which will set up its own negotiating team to talk with British Rail.
  If British Rail responds to that, it will be consulting. If it does not, it will be confronting. I hope that in Kent, as in other areas covered by this Bill, it will this time consult. If it does not, it will steel the opposition to its railway and all its related works.
  In relation to freight, the Bill allows for the construction of new railways. In my part of the country we are in trauma over the plan to construct the longest railway in Britain this century. It will be a passenger line. Part of our trauma stems from the fact that we do not believe that the proposed railway is the only railway that will need to be built. We believe that there is already a need for a purpose-built freight line. We are not alone in that belief. Eurotunnel would like one. Its chairman, Alastair Morton, says:
  "We believe it is virtually certain that the capacity of Network SouthEast to accept and carry to schedule a rapidly rising flow of international passenger and freight trains will not be maintained at the level shown in British Rail's Study Report."
  Maunsell's, Kent county council's consultants, pointed out that even the higher estimates so far used by British Rail stem from a database which dealt with the years 1974 to 1984. They recommended
  "That serious consideration be given to the design of the new tracks to accommodate freight services in addition to international passenger services."
  Steer, Davies and Gleave, consultants to Transport 2000, also attack British Rail's forecasts, pointing out that it has carried out no complete revision of freight forecasts since 1985. That group believes that it may be possible to cope by upgrading an existing line, but only if it were upgraded to take continental gauge freight.
  General Technology Systems makes it clear that, unless British Rail provides a Berne gauge line, it will lose to the competition for the growing Euro-freight market and that its revenue loss will be so great that the funds to sustain

  369
  even relatively modest improvements to the United Kingdom rail network, such as are proposed in the Bill, will fall.
  The Minister tells me that I am wrong because there will not be capacity in the tunnel to take the freight anyway. I believe him to be misinformed. I think that British Rail, frightened of competition, is trying to persuade us that it will make an adequate response to the challenge of a rapidly growing European freight market by slotting in freight trains in gaps left open by the transfer of some passenger trains.
  It is absurd to enter the 21st century with a railway system which cannot take Berne gauge wagons. Out of 200,000 European freight wagons, only 2,500 can run on British tracks. That is why I believe that we shall shortly be confronted with a proposal for a new freight line, possibly built by private enterprise. No wonder we in Kent take a burning interest in the hitherto unavailable freight proposals of British Rail. I earnestly hope that British Rail, which is bound to present its freight proposals before the end of the year, will have the tact as well as the sense to present them before it puts its private Bill before the House next November, if it manages—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member has been referring to the subject of the Bill until recently, but I am now getting a little lost. I am sure that he will return to the subject matter of the measure.
  Mr. Rowe: I was about to do so with my next sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  This interest should not he confined to Kent. The people of Birmingham, Doncaster, Ashfield and Gedling, Bristol, Avon, Warrington and Newport, and all the other places covered by the Bill, should be taking as sharp an interest as we are taking.
  Mr. Snape: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of all those places, and of West Bromwich, take an interest in these matters. If, however, he is seeking allies for a Bill which will come before the House at a future date, he will not get them by blocking the installation of new railway systems in other parts of the country. Speaking for my constituency—even though I am on the Opposition Front Bench—we in West Bromwich welcome a new railway line. If the hon. Gentleman wants allies to prevent the establishment of a different line, we would appreciate it if he did not block the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be careful not to stray from the subject matter of the Bill that we are discussing. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will stay in order.
  Mr. Rowe: It was never my intention to block this Bill and I did not realise that there was any danger of the House running out of time on it. The House will agree that I have not been frivolous or irrelevant in the remarks I have made. I will not develop further my argument about freight at this stage.
  I have no doubt that some of those affected by this Bill will be entitled to compensation. I wonder whether they feel less aggrieved than my constituents, some of whom are distraught at the damage already done to their property by British Rail's proposals. We have no idea if or when this massive purveyor of blight will be built. The chairman of BR, presenting BR's chosen route to MPs, said as his eighth presentational point:
  370
  "We have no idea when this project will become economically viable, but we are sure it will one day."
  As a result, hundreds, if not thousands, of households have seen tens of thousands of pounds arbitrarily sliced off the value of each of their homes. As the average stay in a house is less than five years, the great majority of them will have to sell their homes long before any line is built. Surely they are entitled to some compensation.
  There must be considerable merit in compensating people if their homes are disturbed by BR proposals to build new lines, to extend existing lines or to alter materially the way in which lines are operated by those properties being bought by the British Rail Property Board, one of the largest property organisations in the country. It is imbued with the clear vision, which is shared by railwaymen throughout the country, that living near a railway line is an asset rather than a disadvantage.
  Given that to be the case, it has nothing to lose by backing its judgment and buying properties which, to their present owners, appear to be disadvantaged by the existence of a railway line. That is, in BR's eyes, a serious misconception because it believes that people will benefit from the railway line, even if they do not understand that at this stage.
  The British Rail Property Board should buy the large numbers of houses that will be at a serious disadvantage in the property market because of British Rail's proposed changes which, in many cases, may take many years to come to fruition.
  I do not wish to be destructive or Luddite or to block the Bill in any way, and I bring my speech to a close.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on introducing the Bill so that we might at last have the opportunity to try to obtain proper transport services in my area, if works No. 3 of the Bill is eventually carried out.
  Tonight we are faced with an unusual set of circumstances, particularly when we remember what has recently happened in the railways. The hon. Member for New Forest has received an all-party and disciplined response to his call to get the Bill through the House this evening. The Bill's supporters come from both Conservative and Opposition Members and the Government support the Bill's passage through to Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has a great history with, and knowledge of, the railways, in particular the National Union of Railwaymen. If hon. Members were to examine my biographical details, which are in the Library, they would see that I too have a history of working with the rail unions and with the train drivers, union, ASLEF.
  I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for saying that he does not wish to block the Bill, which will also provide a great service for his constituents. Whether he likes it or not—I am sure that he does—my in-laws are his constituents. They live in Bearsted in Kent and I am sure that they will be pleased that the hon. Gentleman will not be opposing the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said earlier, the Bill will enable them to board a train in their constituency and travel to the largest town in England yet to acquire a railway service.

  371
  All the hon. Members who support works No. 3 of the Bill represent constituencies in Nottinghamshire—the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—and have been active in pursuing the objectives contained in the Bill. Credit should also be given to British Rail for its excellent work in bringing the Bill to the House, and to the local authorities in the Nottinghamshire area—in particular to Nottinghamshire county council, which has spent much time and money arguing the need for such services into the east midlands areas. The county council has spent much money with Leeds university going through feasibility studies with the communities that will be involved in stages one and two of the programme. I am happy to report that on each occasion, the general public were very much in favour of reviving the service.
  If it is reintroduced, the line will travel from Nottingham to Ashfield, Mansfield and Worksop and will pass through many areas that have lost their main source of employment because of the massive pit closure programme in Nottinghamshire in recent years. These communities have lost pits or the pits in them are at risk, and the line would be a shining light in these areas, heralding the restructuring of opportunity throughout Nottinghamshire.
  I am pleased to report that the Bill is also supported by the Railway Development Society and all the MEPs of the area. As the Minister knows, only last week Worksop, Mansfield and Nottingham were given the go-ahead by the EEC, thanks to the support of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I should be grateful if the Minister for Public Transport would pass on a message of thanks to his right hon. Friend for his honest approach to the application for grant. These three areas in Nottinghamshire have successfully applied for regional assistance from the EC. We hope that some of the money will be used to rebuild our society, which has been so badly hit.
  If the Bill becomes law it will be a shining example of economic development for people in the areas concerned. Not much light has been seen there in recent times. Not only is Mansfield the largest town in England without a railway, it is a small constituency. I could walk its width in about 45 minutes. It is like a city in the middle of the country. My hon. Friends who represent neighbouring constituencies could probably drive for 30 or 40 minutes and still be in them. The constituency is many miles from the centres that do have transport. The M l is five or six miles away and the Al more than seven miles away. The main conurbations such as Worksop are furtherTrom the M I. Worksop is about 17 miles from Mansfield, which is 12 miles from Chesterfield—the nearest railway station—15 miles from Nottingham railway station, and 19 miles from the railway station in Newark. This is a problem area, and the Bill would give us great hope if it became law.
  The Bill would also give us the chance to try to attract new businesses and create the employment necessary to reduce unemployment in the areas through which the route would pass. Up to 37,000 people are unemployed now in the small communities that would benefit from such a service.
  372
  I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has decided not to pursue his objections to the Bill at the end of the debate. I am grateful to him because I know of his concerns. I may add that I have equal admiration for the sturdy work that he does on behalf of the Ramblers Association and others. For many years he has represented their interests in this Chamber.
  In conclusion, I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House, in the interests of an awful lot of people—about 500,000—to register their objections by a method different from that which might be adopted in the Chamber tonight. If they think it necessary, let them adopt the procedure that could be used at the Committee stage.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I do not want in any way to oppose this Bill or to impede its progress. As the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) have said, where it affects particular constituencies it is to be welcomed. In that spirit I do welcome it. I have taken note of the words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who gave the Bill qualified support. I think he accepts that the legislation has to go through as a private Bill, but he expressed the view that this principle may itself be wrong. It seems entirely wrong and archaic that the presentation of propositions, plans and proposals to improve the railway system in this country should depend on the private Bill procedure. It is wrong that debates attended by so few hon. Members should be the means by which people's lives are changed dramatically—in some cases, their homes destroyed and their whole lifestyle and family life put at risk.
  The principle of this Bill is broadly welcome, but it is the same principle that will be used in the next few days to get the King's Cross measure through. There has been little consultation. The very procedure this evening demonstrates the inadequacies. The establishment of a second terminal in London, at King's Cross, will predetermine the route through south-east England and the route through London. The proposal presupposes that every passenger going to Mansfield or West Bromwich, East, or Denton and Reddish must go through London. It presupposes that every item of freight coming through the Channel tunnel or coming from the south-east of this country will have to go through London before reaching an onward destination.
  This Bill demonstrates the inadequacies of the parliamentary vehicle, even though its purpose is generally acceptable. I will give an example to illustrate my point. Last week—quite out of the blue, without warning—it was proposed that, by way of a private Bill, a whole area of my constituency centred on Warwick gardens should be disrupted. It is suggested that there should be a sub-surface junction with a branch line going to Waterloo by a most circuitous route. People who are not going to Waterloo will go through King's Cross.
  The locality has been presented with a great problem, which raises the question whether we ought to change our procedures for dealing with British Rail matters. We must ask whether there should be some kind of public inquiry to meet the needs of local residents and to give them an input as to the implications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested, there is often far more

  373
  expertise, experience and professional skill locally than is available to British Rail in making its plans in the first instance. It would be very wrong not to recognise that and to proceed with this means of dealing with British Rail business.
  I will not oppose the Bill; indeed, if it goes to a vote I will support it, but, in supporting it, I am doing so for its proposals and not for the means of their implementation—the matter, not the manner. Before we embark on other major legislative proposals introduced by private Bill that will affect not only thousands in the south-east today but millions throughout the rest of the country tomorrow, we should consider whether the procedure is right. I believe that it is wrong.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: With the leave of the House, I should like to deal with some of the points that have been made and thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for their support. As the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) rightly said, this is important legislation and the sooner it passes its remaining stages the better it will be for British Rail and the travelling public. I was interested by the remarks of the hon. Member for Mansfield about works No. 3.
  I listened with interest to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). They dealt with important matters relating to British Rail, and although their remarks were slightly outside the detail of the Bill I am sure that they will have been noted by the Department and the British Railways Board.
  I shall deal in more detail with the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Interestingly, he drew our attention to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, of which I had the honour of being Chairman. I am looking forward to the debate on private Bill procedure almost as much as the hon. Gentleman. We shall discuss the provision of powers for British Rail that will be an alternative to the current private Bill system. Let us hope that we will not have to wait too long for that debate.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish specifically addressed his remarks to the footpaths that we were discussing earlier this evening and to clauses 18 and 19. As he will know, there are powers in the Highways Act 1980, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, safety is not a consideration. The Joint Select Committee report makes some suggestions about that.
  It might have been possible to apply to a magistrates' court under section 116—I am thinking mainly of the Ribble crossing—to obtain powers if the highway authorities had been so minded. It is necessary to prove that the way in question is unnecessary. It is believed that
  374
  magistrates are likely to be unwilling so to find, especially if there is evidence of opposition to the proposal. While the board does not seek to dissuade highway authorities from making applications under section 116, as, if they are successful, the board and the highway authority are content, it is difficult to argue that it is an appropriate vehicle for dealing with such matters.
  As the law stands, if there is considerable objection it could be a slow or futile process when one is dealing with something that, in the wider context of the works in the earlier part of the Bill, means that closures are essential. If we are to use the present procedures, the board has no alternative. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, although he and I may share views about how things should be done on another occasion.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I admired the work done by the Joint Committee on private Bill procedure and I hope that much of its work will be implemented quickly. It strikes me that promoting a private Bill could save some time. On other occasions, will British Rail consider starting, proceedings under the Highways Act 1980 so that, when it reaches this stage, it can say that local agreement has been reached or that a local inquiry has been undertaken and that the inspector has found that there is a case for closure? I believe that that would simplify things.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been noted by the board and others, and I hope that they will be carefully, considered.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East discussed the Sandwell borough council problem. He referred to the school and the new buildings. It is important to note that, conscious that the crossing is of such potential danger, the council has concluded that the only satisfactory solution would be to close it completely. Coincidentally, the council's education committee has proposals for extending the accommodation at the main Alexandra high school, thereby enabling it to close the annex in Queen's road. Therefore the only caveat which the council has is that the crossing should remain open until July 1990, when the academic year ends. The hon. Gentleman stressed that point. Against that background the board, by clause 19 of the Bill, seeks power to stop up the crossing.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that that is a fair solution given the problems relating to a busy piece of track and the possible dangers to children and others if something is not done.
  The proposals are comparatively modest. They do not represent major pieces of railway building, but are essential to the proper performance of the railway system. Therefore, I hope that the House will now allow the Bill to go forward to Committee for further consideration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.27 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The passage of the Bill will enable the work to begin on a hotel and leisure complex that will bring considerable benefit to the area as a whole and to my constituency in particular. The hotel and leisure complex will be built on a small part of the site occupied by the old crystal palace.
  That palace was opened by Queen Victoria in June 1854 and between then and the beginning of the first world war it became the dominant entertainment and cultural centre of south London. Crowds flocked there to watch sporting events, listen to concerts and to marvel at the art displays and the permanent exhibitions. The crystal palace led to the development of the surrounding area.
  In 1914 the management of crystal palace changed and the Crystal Palace Act 1914 empowered trustees to hold and to manage it as a place of public resort and recreation. The main object of the trust, as expressed in the 1914 Act, was to maintain and manage the park as
  "a place for Education and Recreation and for the promotion of Industry, Commerce and Art"
  In 1936, as some of us will remember, the crystal palace burned down in one of the greatest peacetime fires ever known in the country. Much of the park continued to be open, but the site of the crystal palace was derelict and closed to the public. In 1951 control of the area passed to the London county council and in 1965 it was taken over by the Greater London council. In 1986 control passed to the London borough of Bromley and the council of the London borough of Bromley wished to open up the area, which had lain derelict and closed to all members of the public for more than 50 years. Much of the work is already in hand, partly in conjunction with English Heritage.
  The council decided, after very wide consultation, that it would be beneficial to lease part of the land and to build a £20 million hotel and leisure complex and, because there is a shortage of such facilities in the area, money from the lease would pay for the improvements to other parts of the park.
  The aim of the Bill is to permit the commercial co-operation necessary and the implementation of easements on the land concerned. Clause 3 of the Bill, which is the operative clause, would permit the council to lease all or part of the land shown on the plan and to grant easement in connection with the provision of a hotel, restaurant, shops, licensed premises, leisure facilities, entertainment facilities or other associated uses.
  The 1951 Act gave the LCC very wide powers to build or alter buildings, create gardens, ornamental lakes and even spaces for military drill, but under the strict interpretation of the 1951 Act the provision of a hotel did not seem to come under the five headings of education, recreation, industry, commerce or art. Clause 3 of the Bill fills that gap.
  The council's plans, which were unveiled two years ago, have been the subject of very wide local consultation. This large draft landscape plan was widely circulated. There was a popular version of it. There were public meetings and an exhibition in the civic centre, and the views of local inhabitants were canvassed widely.
  376
  The result of that consultation showed a unanimity which we normally associate with the regimes of Romania or Albania: over 95 per cent. of those consulted or who responded to the consultation were in favour of the council's broad proposals, and there has been all-party support for them.
  The area surrounding Crystal Palace park is represented by Conservative and Labour councillors, while the area of the Bill itself is part of a ward presently represented by two councillors who were members of the SDP and who are now members of the party widely known as the "salads". Conservatives, Labour and SLD have supported the proposals. It is not surprising that the plan received such widespread support. There is a shortage of first-class hotel accommodation in the area, and Holiday Inn, which will run the hotel, has a deservedly high reputation.
  It is perhaps worth noting that the management of the national sports centre, which will be overlooked by the hotel, is particularly enthusiastic about this 150-bedroom development, for many of the leading athletes who come to the national sports centre now look down their noses at the hostel rooms available at the sports centre itself. It is also worth noting that the Department of the Environment and the relevant tourist authorities also strongly support the provision of extra first-class hotel accommodation in the area.
  The hotel and leisure complex will also provide a welcome extension to employment opportunities in the area. Over the past two years the unemployment rate in the area has dropped dramatically, but new job oppportunities are still welcome. The creation of 200 new jobs, of which a substantial proportion should be filled by my constituents, will still be very welcome.
  The few people who object to the proposal tend to believe that open space will be taken away from the general public. That is not so. For more than 50 years, since the palace burned down, the 20 acres which we are talking about have been closed off entirely. No member of the public has had free access to the bramble-covered terraces, and for 80 years before the great fire in 1936, the public had to pay to get into that area.
  It is exactly 175 years since the few acres which we are talking about were last generally open to the public. The Open Spaces Society has raised some objections in recent weeks. Consultations have taken place between that society and council officials. I believe that the objections on the grounds of loss of an open site can and will be met.
  There is also a feeling in some quarters that the jobs on offer should be looked down upon because they will be mainly in a first-class hotel. I believe that that attitude is wholly mistaken. Tourism and business travel are growth industries in most parts of the world. There is nothing second-rate about jobs which provide shelter, food and comfort for travellers.
  There is also some concern about the extra traffic which will be generated by the development. It is impossible to build a 150-bedroom hotel anywhere in London without causing some traffic problems. However, it would be difficult to think of a site more capable of absorbing extra pressure than this. Crystal Palace parade, which the development will adjoin, is an exceptionally wide thoroughfare and the scheme envisages the provision of no fewer than 800 parking places. It is true that there is considerable congestion on the roads in other boroughs

  377
  near the access to the roundabout where Anerly hill meets Crystal Palace parade. However, some elementary traffic management in those boroughs would ease the problem.
  By all sensible criteria, therefore, this scheme, which has all-party support, should be allowed to proceed. I hope that the House will give this worthwhile Bill a Second Reading.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I had several reasons for blocking the Bill originally. As an ex-member of the Greater London council, I have no love for the London borough of Bromley. I may as well come straight out and declare my prejudices. If the London borough of Bromley promoted a private Bill to give away free bacon sandwiches, I would object to it.
  I well remember that borough's record in its—as it turned out—successful attempt to destroy the GLC's "fares fair" policy. I believe that that was unconscionable. It put the London borough of Bromley in the kind of context where I have always kept it. It is one of the meanest, nastiest, mean-spirited boroughs, and I want to respond in kind tonight.
  My second point is the substantial one and it is that my dislike of the London borough of Bromley is more than matched by my great love of the crystal palace site. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) quite rightly described some of the feeling that many Londoners have for the crystal palace, particularly those of us who have lived in the south of London. For electoral purposes I have transferred my residence to the east side of London but it is a difficult jump to make. That river is a great barrier, physically and psychologically, in many respects, so my feelings still are with areas such as Crystal Palace where I spent a great deal of my childhood.
  I ought to say something about the crystal palace because it plays an enormously powerful image-building role in the consciousness of many people who live in the south of London. One does not have to have been around at the time of the great exhibition of 1851, although one or two hon. Gentlemen I know were, to have taken the tram ride up Sydneham hill or to have seen the great fire in 1936. My mother still talks about the fact that in 1936 the glow over the whole of London was fantastic. It was one of the greatest fires that London had ever seen and people were taking the tram to Crystal Palace to see this spectacular incident. It provided a good night out for large numbers of Londoners, but a far greater number deeply regretted that tragic fire, the causes of which, as far as I am aware, have never yet been found although it happened all those years ago.
  At least one was able to go up there by tram in 1936. I am still looking round for the very clever person who decided that we did not need trams any more. I remember riding on what was, I think, the last tram from the Oval to Brixton, from my school to where I lived. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) looks up. I was, of course, a child in arms, just in case she tries to check in Dod's. It was a sad occasion when the trams were removed. We now have bus lanes, which are unenforceable. Those trams that took people to see the great conflagration of 1936 could have been doing a very useful job since 1936 and right through to 1989 taking the citizens of London round somewhat faster than the buses and tubes do today.
  378
  The original crystal palace, as you probably know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was built in Hyde park to house the great exhibition of 1851. The idea of the exhibition was to enable Britain, at that time the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, and other countries, to display their manufactures and arts and thereby promote international trade and understanding. The designer of the building was Joseph Paxton, a brilliantly versatile man, who was self-taught in architecture. He was not an architect but a gardener, as I recall, who was very adept at putting up glasshouses, and he made the crystal palace one of the largest glasshouses that the world has ever seen. The structure was of iron and glass. It was 1,848 ft long and 488 ft wide and held more than 100,000 exhibits.
  As the hon. Member for Beckenham said, there is no longer a palace at Crystal Palace. For more than half a century, one of the finest sites in London has remained empty, while that great symbol of the Victorians' faith in progress and enlightenment has lived on only in the imagination. Such was its grip on the imagination of so many people in London, young and old, that it has remained the crystal palace. Many mementoes of the palace were created, so that we have many visual images in prints, paintings, models and medallions, which one can still buy fairly cheaply in the markets of London.
  If anyone wants to start a good collection, I suggest 1851 memorabilia. They might not appreciate in price, because millions of these things were produced during the course of the great exhibition, but they give an image of the sort of vision that the Victorians had—a vision that is so sadly lacking on the Government Benches today.
  Mr. Roger Sims: I remind the hon. Gentleman that although the Crystal Palace was destroyed by fire, the two towers remained as a visual reminder of the old palace until they were pulled down during the war.
  Mr. Banks: Vandals are all around us, even to this day. Let us briefly move on to the 1951 festival of Britain. It is a lamentable fact that its skylon and dome of discovery were pulled down. Even a shot tower went in order to clear the site. Fortunately, no one has proposed pulling down the Royal Festival hall. That example of the festival of Britain shows that, even in a period when one might have thought people would be more concerned and sensitive about our architectural legacy, the vandals were still among us and prepared to destroy it. In the same way that there is a proposal to recreate the site of the 1851 exhibition, there are also proposals. which the House debated yesterday, to recreate something close to the 1951 festival on the south bank. I have as many reservations about that as I do about the 1851 re-creation.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: The two towers to which the hon. Gentleman referred were pulled down not as an act of cultural vandalism but because they served as a landmark for German bombers during the war. They were removed as an anti-aircraft measure.
  Mr. Banks: There are no greater vandals than the Luftwaffe, and obviously one would not have wanted to guide its planes to sensitive spots.
  Even though the crystal palace site remained derelict after the 1936 fire and after the towers were pulled down, it had an ability to recapture the spirit that prevailed there until the great fire—even though we knew that it was not

  379
  the original site of the great exhibition and that the palace was transferred from Hyde park to Sydenham hill. I hope that I have made my point about the palace's imagery.
  It is now suggested that the palace will rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes on Sydenham hill. What rises from the ashes will not be a replica or re-creation of one of the 19th century's finest monuments, but a mockery. The romanticism of the crystal palace, which has acquired almost mythical importance, is to end in pathos. My second objection to the scheme is the function of the proposed building, which is to be private rather than public. It would be built on the site of the original terraces, which Bromley restored with the help of English Heritage, using taxpayers' and not private money.
  The Crystal Palace Foundation, which is an institution for which I have the highest regard and which was established in 1979, welcomes the prospect of a new crystal palace but questions whether the hotel and proposed facilities are necessary and whether a more imaginative scheme should not be promoted. The foundation asks:
  "If this is to be the new palace of the people, could there be space created for public meetings, conferences, concerts, and so on?"
  Mentioning concerts gives me an opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Beckenham, who has a constituency interest in the matter, to tell me what happened to the open-air concerts at the Crystal Palace bowl. In the days when the GLC was responsible for the Crystal Palace park, I used to spend very enjoyable evenings at the weekend attending open-air concerts, which attracted thousands of people from the immediate locality. That was a really enjoyable experience. What happened to those concerts? Why have they stopped? That is one of the casualties of the GLC's abolition that has not drawn much comment either in the House or outside it. I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for Beckenham if he can explain why I have had to feel so deprived on Saturday and Sunday evenings since the abolition of the GLC, partly because I have been unable to attend concerts at Crystal Palace. For the new complex to become just another hotel does not reflect what the original Crystal Palace stood for.
  The London borough of Lambeth has considered the proposal. Although I do not know whether the borough has communicated the full extent of its objections to the Bill's promoter, I know that correspondence has been exchanged between the boroughs of Lambeth and Bromley. Lambeth has objected to the various changes proposed by Bromley to enable the complex to go ahead. Bromley's additional aims would include
  "a hotel, restaurant, shops, leisure facilities, entertainment facilities or other associated uses".
  In September 1987 members of the town planning application sub-committee in Lambeth were advised by their officers that Bromley's proposals for the site were premature and took no account of the visual effects or the traffic effect on the area or the benefit to users of the park from such development. Lambeth's sub-committee agreed, and the council therefore replied to Bromley stating its objections
  "on the grounds that insufficient detail was provided as to the sale of the development and suggested that (a) a planning brief for the Crystal Palace Parade site is prepared by Bromley officers; (b) a Public Inquiry is held to consider hotel/leisure development proposals before planning permission is
  380
  granted; and (c) a comprehensive traffic management study is carried out to assess the impact of the proposed developments."
  I would like to know to what extent any of the requests made by the London borough of Lambeth were commented on or followed by the London borough of Bromley. The paper that I have in front of me, having recently acquired it from the London borough of Lambeth, states:
  "Bromley's Borough Plan (adopted in 1985) designates the Crystal Palace park as Metropolitan Open Land. This includes the application site on which Lambeth's observations were sought. The Plan's written statement contains three policies on Metropolitan Open Land. Policy R8 states:
  'Within the areas of Metropolitan Open Land as defined on the Proposal Map the following are the only uses which will generally be considered acceptable: (i) Public and private open space and playing fields; (ii) agriculture, woodland and orchards; (iii) golf courses; (iv) allotments and nursery gardens; (v) cemeteries and crematoria; and (vi) schools and institutions in large grounds'.
  The proposals to which Lambeth objected did not appear, therefore, to conform to Bromley's own adopted Borough Plan, yet there was no reference to a possible departure from the Borough Plan in Bromley's request for formal observations from this Council."
  It is clear that Bromley is prepared to alter its own plan, adopted as recently as 1985.
  "Bromley Council granted itself deemed planning permission for the application referred to … It was not called in, despite it appearing to represent a departure from the adopted Bromley Borough Plan. However, it appears that the existing legislation, contained in the London County Council (Crystal Palace) Act 1951 is not wide-ranging enough to encompass Bromley Council's plans for the use of the Park."
  That is why Bromley has come to the House to use the Private Bill procedure to change the legislation and to get round its own plan.
  That brings me to my third objection, which has been echoed by Conservative Members in respect of other legislation: the use of private Bill procedure, in the event of controversial, perhaps unacceptable proposals such as this, to get round planning inquiries. Often the promoters of a Bill use the private Bill procedure to circumvent a local authority's own planning procedures. Here we have a local authority using private Bill procedure to circumvent its own planning procedures, which is twice as bad.
  That is why I object so strongly to the Bill. It is not the way to go about it. The hon. Member for Beckenham said that the various documents had been well circulated around the area. Of course I accept what he says, but so often what happens in such circumstances is that the documents are put through people's doors. The bigger and bulkier they are the more one can guarantee that they will not be read.
  The hon. Gentleman may intervene, or wait to reply to the points that I have raised, to say whether a synopsis of the plan was circulated, in which the proposals were fairly simple and straightforward so that people would get a general idea of what was being proposed. Even if that has been done, it is no substitute for a proper local inquiry so that people have the opportunity to think about it.
  It is not a question of people sitting isolated in their homes waiting for documents to be stuffed through their letterboxes, reading them and understanding immediately the implications of the proposals. We all know that it does not happen like that. People may throw the information to one side or not understand it. It is only when people who have more time and direct interest have studied the

  381
  document and explained its implications that the real body of feeling awakens. I believe that there will be a real body of opinion when people become more aware of precisely what the proposals entail.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what plans the Greater London council had for developing the site when it had control of it, so that we can appreciate his point more fully?
  Mr. Banks: That is a fascinating subject. I should love to hold the attention of the House for as long as possible, perhaps even until 11.30 pm. to explain all the various proposals that we had. The main area of expenditure by the Greater London council was on the national sports centre. When I was chairman of the arts and recreation committee of the Greater London council, I took great pleasure in devoting a large amount of London ratepayers' money to the development of that site, without feeling guilty. I have had close, detailed discussions with the Crystal Palace Society about what we could do with the site where the new development is to take place.
  I must tell the hon. Gentleman that my plan was to completely rebuild the crystal palace. We have all the plans and many of the artefacts still exist. It might look like a tip, but plenty of things could be restored. The Crystal Palace Society has done a wonderful job restoring many of the old artefacts from the original site. My idea was to rebuild it and we started discussing the proposal. It would have been an exhibition centre for concerts and for the arts generally, but essentially it would have been a public development scheme. However, we are talking big money—or megabucks, as they say. Although the Greater London council was a fairly well-heeled organisation, in the time scale that I envisaged we did not have the money for that development, but the idea was there. It was not just a dream: I had committed it to paper and worked out some plans and some proposals which I think would have grabbed the imagination of people in the immediate vicinity and throughout London.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) asked me a question and I have done my best to answer it. The hon. Gentleman put up a fairly spirited defence of the Greater London council from time to time.
  Mr. Stanbrook indicated dissent—
  Mr. Banks: I was giving the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. I thought that he was on the side of the angels, but I realise that, as ever, he was working with the forces of darkness to try to destroy the Greater London council. I meant to refer to the hon. Member for Beckenham.
  The destruction of the Greater London council was a tragedy and was deeply resented by large numbers of Londoners. Opinion polls still show that 70 per cent. of Londoners oppose the Government's proposals. But she that must be obeyed had already decided that the Greater London council was to be abolished. Therefore, it went. The renaissance of that wonderful crystal palace could have been achieved. I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington feels totally ashamed of the shabby role that he played in the destruction of the Greater London council, thus denying the resurrection of the wonderful Crystal Palace.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Surely the hon. Gentleman has just made an excellent case for what the London borough of Bromley proposes to do.
  Mr. Banks: No. That is most certainly not the case.
  I come to my last point: what is proposed? If it was a faithful reconstruction of the Crystal Palace, if it was still enshrining the old visions of the Victorians and if it was to be a public building, providing a great addition to the facilities for ordinary people in south-east and south London generally, I would not object to the scheme, other than perhaps to have a go at Bromley borough council about something or other. Because the proposed scheme does not fit the image that I have tried to describe and because it does not follow the traditions of the old Crystal Palace, I object to it.
  David Prout, the architectural adviser to the Victorian Society, wrote a good letter in which he said:
  "We are extremely worried about the cynical exploitation of the dream of rebuilding the Crystal Palace in order to promote the use of the site for the construction of a luxury hotel and shopping centre. We wish to condemn the present scheme and emphasise that the lip service paid by the developers to the old Palace should not prejudice opinion in their favour."
  That is a full answer to the hon. Member for Orpington.
  Mr. Prout continued:
  "Architecturally the Crystal Palace was one of the most significant buildings of the 19th century. This building having disappeared, however, it is more important to remember that for the second half of the 19th century the Palace was a place of public entertainment and education, comparable in importance to the South Bank centre in modern London."
  I can see how the Crystal Palace and the south bank centre are being linked. It is coincidental that the House is considering reconstruction at Crystal Palace and also the proposed development at the south bank around the site of the 1951 exhibition. In neither case is the proposed reconstruction fitting to the traditions of the historic past.
  David Prout continued:
  "Rather than a great public building, however, the present plans envisage a typical suburban commercial development with luxury hotel, shopping facilities and leisure centre. This is a wasteful abuse of a location which is a natural site for a public building. It utterly ignores the influential historic role of this nationally important site and the possibility of restoring this role.
  As if in compensation for this, the developers propose to build a 'new' Crystal Palace. The resulting 'conservation modernism", however, is totally unacceptable. The curtain wall structure with a mirror glass skin is pastiche revivalism of the very worst kind. Not only is it a pastiche architecturally, but it is a fraudulent abuse of the Crystal Palace dream."
  Perhaps I would not have put it so exotically, but I could not have put it better than David Prout.
  I have raised my three sets of objections. I do not like the London borough of Bromley, and never will until it becomes Labour controlled, which I expect it to, very soon. Secondly, I do not think that the proposal fits in with the image and vision or, indeed, the use of the old Crystal Palace. Thirdly, this is further evidence of the abuse of the private Bill procedure. It is for those three reasons that I wanted the Bill to be brought to the Floor of the House for a short debate.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I had not realised that the hon. Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) has a similar background to mine. It is different because we are both Londoners, but I was born north of the Thames

  383
  and now represent a London constituency south of the Thames. Like the hon. Gentleman, I find that the gracious river separates London in many ways besides the geographical division. Nevertheless, one has great affection for London's institutions, including Crystal Palace.
  I remember, possibly unlike the hon. Gentleman, the night when the Crystal Palace was burning. I heard about it on the wireless and went out and saw a red glow in the sky to the south. I thought how terrible it was. But times have moved on and in the past 50 years the site has been cut off from the public and has not been developed for any public or useful purpose. I am beginning to think that this is a repetition of the old story of an area in London that could not be developed because the local authorities could never agree with each other. The London docks are the best example of bureaucratic, official, municipal inertia; no one could agree on the best way forward, so nothing was done for 50 years.
  When I asked the hon. Gentleman what the Greater London council had done about Crystal Palace he seemed confident that there was a solution to the problem and he had grandiose ideas about what might have been done. In some ways one sympathises with him: it might have been nice to rebuild Crystal Palace to serve the purposes of its original design, or at least to be of some public benefit.
  Unfortunately, those Socialist pipe dreams of local councils and the Greater London council were never achieved and translated into practicality. Like the London docks, the solution depended on the enterprising authority of the London borough of Bromley, which decided to develop the site at last, using funds from the private sector. The splendid London docks development has been rejuvenated in that way with the assistance of private money. Almost everyone, even those wretched borough councils that refused to co-operate with each other, now admit that that splendid progressive development has benefited all of London. I believe that the same will result at Crystal Palace.
  Thank goodness for the London borough of Bromley, which has had the good sense, courage and enthusiasm to decide at last on the future development of that site. I hope that it will benefit all Londoners and will realise to some extent the worthy aims and ambitions of the hon. Member for Newham, North West. I welcome the Bill and hope that it goes through rapidly without further amendment.
  10.8 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It may be helpful to the House to give a brief indication of the Government's view of the Bill. It is traditional on consideration of private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance, and this Bill is no exception to that rule. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the London borough of Bromley. We have no points outstanding on the Bill.
  It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. Only one petitioner remains against the Bill for the Select Committee to consider. The Committee will be in a very much better
  384
  position than we are tonight to examine the issues involved in detail. It will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
  I therefore hope that the Bill will be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee for this detailed consideration.
  10.8 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I am delighted that he began by explaining that his main reason for opposing the Bill was his prejudice against the London borough of Bromley. He is an honest Member of the House and we are glad to have that on the record.
  The hon. Gentleman departed a little from his normal sense of honesty when he claimed the national sports centre for the GLC. I was present at the opening of the national sports centre, which took place slightly before the GLC came into being.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I did not say that the GLC constructed the national sports centre; I said that the national sports centre was the main recipient of expenditure devoted by the GLC to the Crystal Palace area. When I chaired the arts and recreation committee, I spent, on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and all other London ratepayers, large amounts of money, as I said, without any guilt, on upgrading and investing in the national sports centre. One can still see the result of that work around us today.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: I am delighted that money was poured into the national sports centre. I am slightly less pleased because perhaps the hon. Gentleman, certainly some of his colleagues, removed me from the management committee at that time. No doubt the money would have been spent even more wisely if that had not happened.
  I was fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's description of the splendid public building that would have emerged on the site if only the south bank regime had remained in power in London for another mere 50 years. However, there were 20 years when the GLC had control of that site. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had some fascinating plans in his fascinating mind, but, during those 20 years he did not share those thoughts on the development of Crystal Palace with me, my constituents or the local inhabitants in any way. Since no scheme was produced by the hon. Gentleman, it is not surprising that the new scheme has been greeted with enthusiasm.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the concerts. They gave a great deal of pleasure to many people but they also caused some aggravation. By no means all my constituents were enthusiastic supporters. Financial problems have arisen and there are disputes over the contracts. Since legal action is pending, it would not be appropriate for me to go into those matters in detail. However, I hope that in future appropriate open-air concerts will be held on the site once again.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the somewhat muted opposition from Lambeth council. It has not petitioned against the Bill. After its initial objections, it did not follow up those matters with the council, but I believe that its points about traffic management and parking problems have been dealt with.

  385
  The hon. Gentleman's main point was the suggestion that the London borough of Bromley was using this procedure because it wished to short-circuit the normal planning procedures. That is not the case. The private Bill procedure must be used because the site is governed and controlled by a private measure. To go outside the use of the site in terms of that measure, another private Bill is required.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The proposal before us tonight could not proceed under Bromley's borough plan, which was adopted in 1985. I agree that Bromley must come to Parliament with a new Bill if it wishes to change the original measure. The 1985 plan took into account the original measure, and under those circumstances the borough is, in effect, getting round both procedures.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not argue that once a plan has been produced it can never be changed. We have procedures for changing a plan, and those procedures have been followed in this case.
  The widest consultation took place. About 5,000 people locally were circulated, meetings were held and the overwhelming view of those consulted was that the plan should proceed. I hope that the House will support this legislation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed.

  Voluntary Services (Bradford)
  10.17 pm
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  Mr. Max Madden: I am introducing a brief debate on the funding crisis facing the voluntary sector in the city of Bradford.
  Last Friday, my constituent Michelle Renshaw was sentenced to a week's imprisonment for contempt of court when she refused to give evidence against someone who had threatened her with violence because she was frightened to give that evidence.
  It may not seem immediately apparent why I am referring to that case in a debate on the voluntary sector. I am doing so because there is widespread concern, which the Renshaw case has aroused, over the effect that that case will have on many women facing violence, who it is feared will not be prepared in future to come forward and make a complaint for fear that they might finish up in prison in the way Michelle Renshaw did last weekend.
  It is also relevant for me to mention the case of Michelle Renshaw, and the fears that many women threatened with violence will have of coming forward, because one of my local voluntary organisations threatened with closure is the Bradford Gingerbread centre, which provides support and self-help for lone parents and their children. There are only a handful of such agencies in Bradford and if the Gingerbread centre closes, it will be another door shut in the face of worried women in Bradford, who are desperately looking for advice, help and support. Undoubtedly, after the Michelle Renshaw case, the work of such organisations will become more, and not less, important.
  When Bradford Gingerbread centre was threatened with closure a few days ago, I contacted a large number of agencies and individuals who had used its services over many years. I shall give three of the views expressed by people who have used the centre. One said:
  "Coming to the centre means that I am not on my own and I can share my problems with other Single parents. I am disabled and my son is 7½. Coming here shows my son that he is not the only child without a dad."
  Another said:
  "For many parents, the centre is a lifeline, it offers security knowing that people care about you as an individual, without the centre people will feel isolated."
  The third said:
  "For me personally it has built up my confidence and gives me something to look forward to."
  These examples demonstrate the genuine strength of feeling and underline the importance of the Gingerbread centres in Bradford and Keighley which should be kept open and allowed to continue to serve the vulnerable people in our deprived and disadvantaged community in Bradford.
  It is always a pleasure to debate with the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) but I am rather disappointed not to be debating with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) who is visiting Bradford tomorrow—perhaps that is why he is not here tonight. I understand that when he is there he will visit the enterprise centre, which is a new, plush, city centre project with uniformed staff, colour-matched furniture and

  387
  fittings, and rubber plants. It is sad that there is no wheelchair access to the library and information centre, which are said to have cost a total of £200,000.
  It is sad for those working in voluntary organisations in Bradford to see such vast expenditure on a new city centre project when genuine community-based projects such as the West Bowling enterprise—which helped more than 300 people in a recent 12-day period—has no money with which to pay the workers. It is sad that Bradford will lose those important community services.
  It would be a scandal if the Bradford Cyrenians centre were forced to close. It is the only—I stress only—direct-access hostel for homeless men, especially young and old single men. One hundred men use this hostel every year and a staggering 400 are turned away. The Cyrenians have a long-stay home and furnished flats, which provide accommodation for 33 men. If its funding is withdrawn, the project will close, which will mean more and more homeless men sleeping rough in cardboard boxes, on benches and in doorways in Bradford. Such a scandalous state of affairs can be found in many cities, as well as Bradford, and is not just a grim feature of everyday life in London.
  On 7 March, the voluntary sector co-ordinating group issued a statement saying that 32 voluntary projects were facing closure or severe cuts in services at the end of this month as a result of the failure of Bradford council to pick up urban programme funding or former Manpower Services Commission grants. The statement went on to say that Councillor Pickles, the Conservative leader of Bradford council, had said that no money was available to fund these projects. It continued:
  "There is at least £5 million allocated to next year's Council balances—money which will not be spent.
  Councillor Pickles has said that the money going to the voluntary sector in 1989–90 will be at the same level—£5·1 million—as in 1988–89. However this claim is backed up by very dubious creative accounting. For example £400,000 of the money claimed to be going to the voluntary sector is in fact debt charges on capital purchases, some as many as ten years old. This money has never been mentioned before or included in any calculations about voluntary sector funding. In most cases, the property it represents was bought by the Council and is owned by the Council … and never belongs to the groups—this is as if Council is forcing the voluntary sector to pay its mortgage.
  In 1989–90. £200,000 of the money allocated for the voluntary sector will actually go towards the running costs of the community trust. Administration costs of grants have never before been included in the calculations. Coincidentally, the amount of money needed to pick up the threatened projects is around £600,000."
  The statement concluded:
  "We understand that the Council has obtained permission from the Department of the Environment to refund 3 projects (around £100,000) out of next year's Urban Programme grant. While we welcome this, it is important to stress that it is not new money—it means that less will be available for other urban programme spending next year. When the Labour controlled Council approached the DoE for a similar solution in September … they were refused."
  This raises a number of interesting questions, not least why the Department of the Environment was prepared a few days ago to give £100,000 to enable three voluntary organisations to continue when last September it was not prepared in identical circumstances to allow such an allocation of urban programme money. The voluntary sector co-ordinating group rightly pointed out that 62 full
  388
  and part-time jobs will be lost if these 32 voluntary projects are closed down or if their services are severely cut. The cost of making these people redundant will he at least £55,000, which is enough to fund essential services.
  The statement went on:
  "Next year 400 people would have come to the Volunteer Bureau looking for the chance to do voluntary work—where will they go? 6,000 people would have come to Gingerbread in Bradford and Keighley for advice and support—where will they go? 7,000 children will be looking for playschemes, toy libraries, holidays and trips out—where will they go?"
  All these cuts and closures and lost services come on top of a catalogue of cuts that have hit the poorest people in Bradford extremely hard. Earlier this year our benefit advice shops were closed. Our school meals charges are now the third highest in Britain and our council house rents have been increased by £5 a week. Charges across the board, from home helps to car parks, have been greatly increased.
  We know that these massive cuts are deliberately undertaken to reduce the poll tax so that middle-class people living in middle-class areas will pay less poll tax, while the people I represent—the unemployed, the poor, the deprived and the disadvantaged—who live in difficult areas, will pay a high poll tax. The price that they will pay for that will be cuts in services and increased charges for all the things on which they depend in their daily lives.
  I want quickly to refer to some of the organisations that are threatened with closure. The first is the Asian women and girls centre. Based in Manningham, it offers support for Asian women and girls. Its activities include sewing and craft classes, English classes, a playgroup and advice counselling. More than 100 women use the centre each week. Bradford Metro Childminders employs a part-time worker to offer support to registered childminders in the district—of whom there are 800, and more than 250 of them use the service.
  The Bradford metropolitan council for voluntary service is particularly hard hit. I have already mentioned its volunteer bureau. Its employment development projects offers advice and support to groups that work with the unemployed, and encourages the development of projects that offer employment and training. There is also the Asian development project.
  The Bradford parent and toddler association employs a part-time worker to offer advice and support to about 70 PTAs in Bradford. It runs a toy library, a bulk-buy service and training for parents and play leaders. All its services would be lost. DIAL grant funds an advice line service. It is part of the Bradford voluntary action group for the disabled and provides advice and information for disabled people.
  Keighley Gingerbread family support unit offers a comprehensive advice and support service to single parents in Keighley. It deals with a wide range of problems and develops activities to support single parents, such as housing projects and self-help groups. It will close without funding. It dealt with more than 3,000 inquiries in 1987–88.
  Thorpe Edge encourages the development of a range of local groups, including tenants associations and a credit union and provides equipment, facilities and meeting places. There are many more of these organisations, but time does not permit me to mention them all.
  Great anxiety and uncertainty hangs over all these voluntary organisations and the thousands of men, women and children who depend on them to improve the quality of their life.

  389
  A letter dated 23 February., written by Barry Clark, the chair of Bradford metropolitan council for voluntary service, to Councillor Pickles says:
  "In your telephone conversation … you said that 'everyone knew that these cuts would take place, and that no reasonable person could have expected otherwise'. This is in direct contradiction to what you, your deputy, Richard Wightman, and Council officers, have been telling Voluntary organisations and the press since the full council meeting on October 25th …
  Time after time we and others have asked for assurances that your promise to fund the voluntary sector at the level of funding received in 1988/9, plus inflation, was a real commitment, and not just political rhetoric. Time after time you assured us that 'The Council is already committed to maintaining the current level of funding support to the voluntary sector in 1989/90 plus inflation' and that 'you will note that so far the voluntary sector has escaped any cuts in real terms at the expense of cuts in council services'—your letter to Val Mills on the 30th January …
  Is it really your intention to cause the voluntary sector serious harm by depriving it of essential funding for core services, and if this is your intention, why did you not say so at a much earlier date? Why, particularly, have you left it until a few weeks before the beginning of a new financial year before informing voluntary sector groups of your intentions to cut or remove their funding, and why have you, or your officers, not even had the courtesy to inform affected groups that they were even being considered for such drastic cuts?"
  There is widespread anxiety about the community trust which is proposed for Bradford. I gather that there are about 50 others around Britain. I understand that none have budgets of more than about £100,000. In Bradford, it is proposed that the community trust would allocate more than £5 million. There are worries about the legalities and constitution of a community trust. I understand that the Conservative council intended to allocate section 11 and urban programme moneys through the community trust, but it has been advised that that would be illegal. There is concern that the community trust will be unelected and unaccountable. It is seen as a buffer between the public and the council that is extremely unwelcome. I hope that the Government will persuade Bradford council that it would be monstrous for an unelected and unaccountable body such as the community trust to allocate enormous amounts of money.
  For many years, the voluntary sector in Bradford has offered vital service to a city that suffers from acute deprivation and disadvantage. We hope that the Minister will make clear that the Government will provide the £600,000 that is necessary to enable the 32 voluntary organisations to continue. That sum is peanuts, and I hope that the Government will recognise that on a day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allocated £10 million to repay the national debt and spent only £2,000 million on the people of this country. Many people who depend on the voluntary sector in Bradford will not see an extra penny piece from today's Budget.
  I received a reply to a question that I tabled to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). He said:
  "I understand that several projects which have reached the end of their approved funding period, and which were not included in next year's programme, may come forward for consideration. I will of course examine these very closely.—[Official Report, 9 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 669.]
  The Government should put their money where their mouth is. If the Government and Councillor Pickles believe that the voluntary sector is important and should be protected, they should provide the extra £600,000 that
  390
  the voluntary sector so badly needs and not allow it to fall victim to the political whims and prejudices of Conservative councillors and Ministers.
  I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that £600,000 will be made available, that funding will be guaranteed indefinitely and that the voluntary sector in Bradford can continue doing the excellent job that it has done for many years, served by dedicated men and women whose only desire is to serve the community.
  10.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I apologise for not being my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), but I assure the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that I will pass to my hon. Friend the observations that have been made in the debate.
  I may be an appropriate Minister to reply to the debate, because I have a long experience of work with the voluntary sector. It has pioneered many of our greatest and most important social reforms. Often, it has set up services on a shoestring budget to meet a previously unrecognised need and has developed sources of funding until they become stable within the community.
  It is naive of the hon. Gentleman to think that the funding of the voluntary sector has ever been predictable and secure. Some uncertainty about finance is often inherent in voluntary sector organisations. I fully appreciate that those involved want to bring an end to the present uncertainty, and I hope that by putting the hon. Gentleman's remarks in the context of the variety of sources of funding for voluntary groups I shall be able to throw some light on these problems.
  I want to make it unequivocally clear that the Government believe that the role of the voluntary sector is profoundly important. The Government have been a major supporter of the voluntary sector. In 1986–87, voluntary organisations received £280 million in grant from Departments, which is an increase in real terms of 90 per cent. since 1979. Overall funding from Government sources amounted to over £2 billion. In addition, many voluntary organisations are charities and so benefit from tax relief, which in 1986–87 amounted to £600 million.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Budget, which offered further assistance to charities, both in terms of VAT relief and in terms of the doubling of the tax relief that will be available for payroll giving. We believe that, although the funding of the voluntary sector should come from Government and local authority sources, the individual, the company, the church and other groups have an important part to play.
  Voluntary organisations must look widely for funding and for support. Anyone who has worked with a voluntary organisation will know that there are various sources of support and assistance. Such support is no longer limited to cash donations, as secondments, provision of equipment and facilities, gifts in kind and sponsorship are increasingly the norm.
  For the most part, voluntary organisations—I recognise that there are some exceptions—should not be dependent upon long-term Government funding. It is in their own interests, as much as anything else, to move on and to become independent. Voluntary organisations can receive funding from a number of different Government Departments, depending on their areas of activity. Some

  391
  of the programmes are aimed specifically at the voluntary sector and in other cases voluntary organisations can obtain funding for projects of funding to provide services under more general schemes. The range of the programmes and the number of the organisations funded is such that it would not be possible, without detailed inquiries, to make a precise analysis of the full range of funding available to the voluntary organisations in Bradford.
  The hon. Gentleman may have just learnt that Bradford has been chosen to form part of the safer cities programme, for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible. Projects supported by that programme aim to reduce crime, lessen the fear of crime and create the conditions within which economic enterprise can flourish. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Miss Renshaw and the need to overcome the fear of crime and build up confidence in the community is important. In Bradford, work is being done with the voluntary sector, with the council for voluntary service, the community relations council and others.
  Bradford benefits greatly from section 11 funding, which is also the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Last year, about £6·5 million was spent in the Bradford area, particularly to provide assistance for work with ethnic minorities of Commonwealth origin.
  One of the major sources of funding for the voluntary sector, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is the urban programme, which works in deprived inner-city areas. Through that grant machine local authorities, with severe inner-city problems, including Bradford, receive a yearly allocation from central Government to be spent on a variety of projects. Apart from inner-city Bradford, the surrounding district also benefits. Economic, environmental, social and housing schemes are all represented by that programme, and all sectors of society have an opportunity to participate in worthwhile projects aimed at inner-city regeneration.
  The voluntary sector is particularly well represented and the Department of the Environment, through the urban programme, actively encourages community-based projects. A strong voluntary base has always been seen as a vital element in the Government's determination to uplift urban areas.
  My professional experience of working in Peckham and Brixton strongly bears out the importance of working with voluntary groups rather than only working with and directing help to local authorities. The urban programme has made an impressive contribution to Bradford and in part explains why the hon. Gentleman was able to read out such a string of organisations that have benefited from that form of Government assistance.
  In the year 1986–87 alone, some 116 voluntary projects, which accounted for £1·17 million, were approved. That
  392
  meant that 116 groups which could find no other source of income were given a new lease of life. In 1987–88 we had a similar story when 189 projects were helped and a further 120 projects, worth £1·29 million, have been approved in the current year. The type of project currently supported is almost unlimited and the hon. Gentleman has made reference to some. They cover such things as help for disabled community centres to help for single-parent families.
  It is important to appreciate that the urban programme is not, and never has been, a bottomless pit for funding. It has always been a pump-priming grant, designed to get things started. Projects that prove their worth will, when they reach the end of their period of funding, often survive on their own or be taken over by the local authority.
  The difficulty in Bradford is that many of the schemes to which the hon. Gentleman referred have already been re-funded, so there would not normally be an expectation that they would be funded again under the urban grant scheme. However, in exceptional circumstances, it is open to the local authority to resubmit a scheme for a further period of funding, although this would be expected to last for only a short time. The decisions on these important and valuable schemes are being taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier). He hopes to make an announcement on these matters soon, and bring an end to the uncertainty.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the establishment of community trusts. These are independent charitable trusts, drawing funds from a variety of sources to help the needs of the community. the idea came from the United States, where such trusts have been successful. They have only recently started to emerge here, but they offer a way to bring together the voluntary organisations, the local authorities, the business community and individuals. We believe that support for systems like this means that the local authority can extend its facilitative and enabling role within the community. Recently, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives welcomed trusts as an important way to achieve a good working relationship with the voluntary sector.
  Bradford has achieved a significant increase in Government grant of some £23 million, or 16 per cent., which has meant that its block grant goes up to £167 million next year. It is a matter for the authority how it spends those resources and it is making every effort to analyse and consider carefully the most effective and productive way to allocate the money. We have no doubt that voluntary organisations can play an important part in bringing people together and generating alternative sources of finance to meet the needs of the community in an effective and valued way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Submarines (Liverpool)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what detailed information is available to the population of Merseyside on the consequences of an accident involving a nuclear reactor on the nuclear-powered submarines using the port of Liverpool.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Liverpool special safety scheme contains information on the possible consequences of accidents involving reactors on nuclear-powered submarines. Copies of the scheme are held by local civil authorities, and it is being distributed to public libraries in the area.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for the disposal of nuclear material arising from an accident to a nuclear submarine in or around the port of Liverpool.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The possibility of an accident involving a release of nuclear material from a submarine is extremely remote. However, our accident response plans do allow for such an occurrence, and for the controlled monitoring and decontamination of affected areas. Disposal methods would vary depending on the type and amount of materials involved.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what incidents have been reported in the past 10 years involving nuclear submarines coming in to the port of Liverpool.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There has never been an incident involving a Royal Navy submarine which has led to a radiological hazard to service men or members of the public. No nuclear submarines of other navies have visited Liverpool during this period.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries by order of either national or local government to his Department's knowledge forbid the docking of nuclear submarines at ports near high population urban areas; and which countries forbid completely the entry of nuclear submarines into their waters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence does not maintain a list of countries which make such prohibitions.

PRIME MINISTER

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

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

  Mr. Hugo Young (Book)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will acquire for the Library of 10 Downing street, a copy of Mr. Hugo Young's book of the Thatcher premiership.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

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

ENERGY

  Redundant Mineworkers
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the suspension of payments to redundant mineworkers under the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme arising from the tighter enforcement of the criterion of availability for work.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 161, whether he will now make a statement on restart and the redundant mineworkers payments scheme.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I recognise that restart procedures in respect of availability-for-work have resulted in suspension of payments to former mineworkers who are beneficiaries under the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme. Following discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, work has been put in hand on the options for modifying the link between benefits under the RMPS and unemployment benefit availability procedures, having regard to cost and consequential effects. It is very possible that as a result of this work I will need to introduce an amending order to modify the RMPS. In the meantime, I understand that the employment service is taking into account this development in its application of its procedures.

  Petrol Sales
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of petrol sold is sold through outlets owned by integrated oil companies.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are no figures available providing a breakdown of United Kingdom petrol sales by company type.

  Nuclear Power
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for what aspects of the application of Euratom safeguards to civil nuclear power plants and civil nuclear fuel cycle facilities he is responsible to Parliament to give details.
  127
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The detailed application of safeguards procedures by Euratom and the IAEA is a matter for them. The Government's obligations arise from the Euratom treaty and our safeguards agreements with the IAEA. I am satisfied that we are fulfilling these obligations.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many kilogrammes of safeguarded plutonium have been exported; to which commercial operators in which countries on which dates, for each year since 1979; and which exports involved sales and which leasing arrangements.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 January 1989 at column 157. Detailed information relating to the quantities of plutonium exported to individual operators and countries, and the frequency and nature of shipments, cannot be revealed for reasons of security and commercial sensitivity.

  Piped Gas
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he has any information as to what proportion of piped gas is presently supplied to large consumers by any company other than British Gas;

  (2) if he has any information as to what proportion of piped gas in the United Kingdom is presently supplied by British Gas.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department does not have reliable information available.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 210, if he has any information about how British Gas will determine in the future the actual level of prices of firm gas for large industrial consumers; and whether a competitive market for the supply of piped gas currently exists in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have nothing precise to add to my answer of 1 March 1989 at column 210 about the actual level of prices of firm gas. However, the measures taken following the MMC report are intended to encourage the development of competition in gas supply to customers over 25,000 therms.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what policy considerations underlie his decision to subject to control prices for domestic gas consumers but not prices for large industrial consumers.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The distinction was established by the Gas Act 1986, which subjected prices for large industrial consumers to competition law. The recent MMC report has justified that approach.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inflation
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the effects of the level of inflation on industry.
  128
  Mr. Atkins
  A number of those who make representations to my Department refer to the need to contain inflation. The great majority recognise that this must remain a top priority both for Government and for business itself.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has made any study of opportunities existing for United Kingdom companies to provide dismantlement, storage and sealed-disposal services for refrigeration units containing chlorofluorocarbons in industrial developing Third world countries.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 7 March 1989 at column 461 to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms. Walley). The parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer have yet to approve procedures for the destruction of chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals that are controlled under the protocol.

  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, during his recent meeting with Soviet Trade Minister Kamentsev in London the prospects for the sale of British radioactive waste disposal technology and expertise were discussed.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will be in a position to announce the areas in the United Kingdom which the Economic Community have decided will be eligible for support under the European regional development fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Areas to be eligible for support from the European regional development fund will be those selected for assistance from the reformed European structural funds under their new objectives 1, 2 and 5(b).

  The objective 1 areas were listed in Council regulation (EEC) No. 2052/88 of 24 June 1988. They include Northern Ireland.

  Objective 2 and 5(b) areas are to be determined by the European Commission. It announced a provisional list of objective 2 (industrial) areas on 8 March 1989. This contains nearly all the industrial assisted areas, including the hon. Member's constituency, and also a number of other areas. Following consultation of an advisory committee of national officials, this list is expected to be finalised during March 1989.

  The Commission is expected to decide within a few weeks on a first list of objective 5(b) (rural) areas. It assured us in May 1988 that the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, rural Wales and the assisted areas of Devon and Cornwall would be eligible under objective 5(b).

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what limits he proposes to set upon the charities component of European regional development aid to the United Kingdom; if he will break down the figure by economic region; and if he will make a statement.
  129
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The composition of future applications to the European regional development fund is under consideration.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures on the regional distribution of his Department's budget for research and development.

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

  Arms Sales (Iran and Iraq)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if United Kingdom arms manufacturers will be granted export licences for sales to Iran or Iraq in the near future.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 18 January 1989 at column 241, to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

  Satellite Broadcasting
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking, in conjunction with the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the European Space Agency, to resolve potential problems of signal interference between BSB and the Olympus satellite; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: We are currently negotiating with the European Space Agency and other interested parties an arrangement which will ensure that reception of the United Kingdom's fifth direct broadcasting satellite channel will not suffer unacceptable signal interference from the Olympus experimental satellite. This arrangement is based on internationally agreed criteria (as prescribed in the final acts of the world broadcasting satellite administrative radio conference, Geneva, 1977—the 77 plan—and incorporated in appendix 30 of the International Telecommunications Union radio regulations): It also takes account of the possibility that the operator of the fifth United Kingdom DBS channel may wish to operate at only one half of the satellite power prescribed in the 77 plan.

  Radio Communications (Central London)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many operating licences have been issued by his Department's radio communications division in central London to users operating on base transmission of 442·97500 mHz and mobile transmission of 428·47500 mHz; and how many users have complained about overcrowding of the frequency.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: There are six licensed operators on these frequencies within the M25, and one licensed operator in the west midlands area.

  Three users, from within the M25 area, have complained about overcrowding of these frequencies. These complaints are being investigated.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he now expects British Gas to publish its schedule of prices to large industrial consumers following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in implementing the recommendation in the report.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: I hope that British Gas will be able to publish in the very near future its schedule of prices for large consumers, together with details of how it will be implemented. Many of the large customers of British Gas have asked for a delay in the implementation of the new schedule beyond 1 April to enable them to consider the implications for themselves.

  Steel Industry (Gas)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 190, what information he has as to what proportion of production costs firm gas accounts for in (a) the steel forgings industry and (b) the steel castings industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  According to the latest five-yearly inquiry, gas purchasing amounted to just under 2 per cent. of the production costs of the forging, pressing and stamping industry (including steel forging) and the ferrous metal foundries industry (including steel castings) in 1984. Data for firm gas alone, or for all gas to the specific industry sectors, are not available to me.

  Imitation Food
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has reached a decision on whether imitation foods for dolls' houses and collectors of miniatures should be covered by the proposed Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1989; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  In the course of consultation on the regulations to implement the European Community directive on dangerous imitations a large number of representations have been made for the regulations not to apply to imitation food supplied for use in dolls' houses or model scenes or settings. These items are exempt from the Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1985 but are subject to the general safety requirement under section 10 of the Consumer Protection, Act 1987 and where appropriate to the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1974. After careful consideration of these representations, I have concluded that these items should be excluded from the new regulations.

  Computer Hacking
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, following the recent cases of unauthorised electronic penetration of computerised information, when he intends to bring forward a Bill to outlaw computer hacking.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply. We are awaiting the final report of the Law Commission, which is looking at the matter as part of a review of the law on computer misuse.

WALES

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what was the value of urban programme moneys for each year since 1979(a) for Wales, and (b) for district councils in the valleys initiative area, at constant prices.

  £ million

  Cash allocations

  Real terms

  Year

  Main allocations

  Special and supplementary allocations

  Total

  Main allocations

  Special and supplementary allocations

  Total

  1979–80

  5·5

  0·6

  7·1

  12·1

  1·1

  13·2

  1980–81

  8·4

  0·7

  9·1

  13·2

  1·1

  14·3

  1981–82

  10·0

  0·9

  10·9

  14·3

  1·3

  15·6

  1982–83

  15·3

  3·3

  18·6

  20·5

  4·4

  24·9

  1983–84

  17·7

  —

  17·7

  22·7

  —

  22·7

  1984–85

  17·6

  4·45

  22·05

  21·4

  5·4

  26·9

  1985–86

  15·7

  3·5

  19·2

  18·1

  4·1

  22·2

  1986–87

  18·75

  4·95

  23·7

  21·0

  5·5

  26·5

  1987–88

  20·05

  3·0

  23·05

  21·3

  3·2

  24·5

  1988–89

  17·8

  6·7

  24·5

  17·8

  6·7

  24·5

  1989–90

  27·6

  —

  27·6

  26·3

  —

  26·3

  (b) The total urban programme allocations in cash and real terms for the district councils which have all or part of their areas within the Programme for the Valleys area are as follow:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash allocation

  Real terms

  1979–80

  2·1

  3·9

  1980–81

  3·3

  5·2

  1981–82

  3·5

  5·0

  1982–83

  7·1

  9·5

  1983–84

  6·7

  8·5

  1984–85

  8·5

  10·4

  1985–86

  6·4

  7·4

  1986–87

  10·0

  11·1

  1987–88

  10·5

  11·1

  1988–89

  13·3

  13·3

  1989–90

  13·4

  12·8

  (a) Number of Renovation Grant applications1

  1982–832

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Alyn and Deeside

  973

  705

  189

  220

  223

  197

  Colwyn

  598

  183

  161

  342

  366

  455

  Delyn

  785

  390

  82

  123

  187

  172

  Glyndwr

  1,042

  649

  90

  131

  195

  274

  Rhuddlan

  244

  122

  87

  114

  107

  98

  Wrexham Maelor

  719

  183

  104

  134

  130

  110

  Carmarthen

  2,766

  765

  480

  546

  614

  460

  Ceredigion

  1,525

  336

  127

  110

  127

  336

  Dinefwr

  2,552

  611

  103

  107

  134

  121

  Llanelli

  2,441

  131

  128

  683

  680

  654

  Preseli

  1,368

  220

  1,148

  731

  686

  844

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,499

  679

  278

  711

  640

  495

  Blaenau Gwent

  11,176

  702

  400

  791

  941

  677

  Islwyn

  2,687

  1,354

  1,178

  785

  1,312

  1,221

  Monmouth

  2,520

  187

  440

  653

  661

  89

  Newport

  6,071

  827

  910

  1,227

  889

  770

  Torfaen

  1,467

  3,226

  253

  849

  465

  265

  Aberconwy

  664

  199

  204

  199

  199

  245

  Arfon

  1,613

  797

  212

  317

  592

  533

  Dwyfor

  1,816

  600

  77

  128

  183

  153

  Meirionnydd

  1,559

  575

  68

  67

  56

  120

  Ynys Mon

  1,652

  942

  101

  119

  115

  131

  Cynon Valley

  5,206

  408

  560

  1,119

  2,029

  1,989

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,950

  172

  187

  244

  268

  388

  Ogwr

  3,350

  1,342

  562

  1,140

  966

  1,089

  Rhondda

  15,800

  2,731

  1,771

  2,118

  1,578

  1,813

  Rhymney Valley

  5,641

  1,165

  496

  778

  974

  1,103

  132
  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: (a) The main urban programme and special and supplementary allocations in cash and real terms for all Wales for each of the years since 1979–80 is shown in the following tables:

  Notes:

  1. The allocations in real terms have been derived by the application of the GDP deflator at market prices with 1988–89 as base year.

  2. Boundaries for district councils do not correspond to boundary of Valleys Programme area and the figures in table b above do not include allocations for county councils.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of applications for home improvement grants and the number accepted for each year since 1979, by district and at constant prices.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: The information available is shown in the following tables:
  133

  1982–832

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Taff-Ely

  5,411

  1,336

  649

  266

  513

  587

  Brecknock

  2,046

  419

  83

  120

  165

  231

  Montgomery

  2,294

  464

  95

  103

  77

  118

  Radnor

  530

  222

  92

  97

  123

  104

  Cardiff

  11,521

  5,364

  2,060

  3,608

  4,053

  4,296

  Vale of Glamorgan

  4,075

  578

  249

  450

  452

  391

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  660

  1,131

  100

  114

  184

  1,233

  Lliw Valley

  972

  468

  340

  377

  506

  610

  Neath

  2,551

  259

  283

  258

  491

  498

  Swansea

  8,357

  2,331

  1,617

  1,909

  1,594

  1,767

  Wales

  121,101

  32,773

  15,964

  21,788

  23,475

  24,637

  1 Number of renovation grant applications are not available prior to 9 March 1982.

  2 Total grant applications between 9 March 1982 and 31 December 1983.

  (b) Number of renovation grant approvals

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Alyn and Deeside

  109

  125

  153

  397

  428

  154

  86

  242

  226

  243

  Colwyn

  156

  135

  76

  182

  328

  60

  213

  274

  278

  341

  Delyn

  133

  69

  153

  259

  328

  160

  150

  195

  266

  152

  Glyndwr

  78

  68

  78

  330

  500

  230

  95

  106

  206

  180

  Rhuddlan

  32

  16

  22

  54

  94

  68

  52

  84

  83

  63

  Wrexham Maelor

  72

  88

  25

  170

  140

  94

  85

  115

  71

  96

  Carmarthen

  298

  244

  180

  633

  1,790

  424

  617

  445

  468

  465

  Ceredigion

  176

  165

  130

  365

  999

  68

  337

  316

  108

  291

  Dinefwr

  181

  49

  45

  160

  461

  171

  130

  150

  125

  165

  Llanelli

  338

  123

  132

  323

  1,523

  258

  484

  515

  461

  853

  Preseli

  187

  177

  188

  373

  902

  196

  423

  397

  427

  443

  South Pembrokeshire

  131

  95

  162

  483

  682

  605

  286

  555

  440

  447

  Blaenau Gwent

  275

  220

  169

  928

  2,325

  319

  225

  776

  907

  345

  Islwyn

  286

  176

  214

  528

  997

  978

  1,447

  1,186

  1,419

  1,582

  Monmouth

  115

  116

  100

  364

  912

  196

  335

  237

  413

  89

  Newport

  240

  160

  288

  1,147

  1,108

  413

  1,021

  55

  517

  874

  Torfaen

  98

  47

  87

  414

  773

  404

  286

  370

  433

  444

  Aberconwy

  117

  104

  127

  168

  301

  220

  209

  155

  195

  203

  Arfon

  279

  275

  269

  412

  698

  465

  562

  553

  468

  437

  Dwyfor

  101

  50

  141

  528

  758

  289

  79

  194

  132

  154

  Meirionnydd

  120

  104

  69

  353

  1,208

  861

  68

  223

  61

  116

  Ynys Mon

  114

  84

  75

  264

  1,271

  198

  162

  196

  232

  303

  Cynon Valley

  225

  171

  158

  422

  677

  221

  348

  1,263

  1,518

  1,430

  Merthyr Tydfil

  202

  81

  225

  705

  2,068

  377

  420

  547

  606

  1,036

  Ogwr

  493

  329

  455

  700

  1,418

  1,125

  574

  1,120

  904

  1,267

  Rhondda

  514

  415

  782

  1,723

  3,570

  5,068

  579

  2,329

  1,332

  1,642

  Rhymney Valley

  331

  207

  355

  953

  1,192

  944

  393

  739

  952

  954

  Taff-Ely

  320

  291

  854

  1,432

  2,205

  557

  677

  742

  256

  587

  Brecknock

  124

  127

  141

  296

  776

  111

  62

  202

  331

  236

  Montgomery

  69

  59

  63

  471

  733

  139

  167

  228

  116

  279

  Radnor

  72

  58

  31

  204

  372

  82

  181

  127

  101

  92

  Cardiff

  497

  457

  698

  1,425

  4,031

  1,821

  2,866

  3,122

  3,051

  3,107

  Vale of Glamorgan

  228

  207

  316

  788

  1,101

  402

  205

  590

  452

  386

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  202

  157

  163

  225

  204

  68

  186

  403

  609

  451

  Lliw Valley

  301

  283

  222

  402

  261

  315

  339

  535

  484

  574

  Neath

  394

  141

  235

  884

  1,727

  259

  304

  656

  774

  493

  Swansea

  977

  937

  444

  1,501

  1,987

  1,546

  2,046

  1,219

  1,276

  1,279

  Wales

  8,585

  6,610

  8,025

  20,966

  40,848

  19,866

  16,699

  21,661

  20,698

  22,099

  (c) Value of Renovation Grant approvals (£000) at 1988 prices1 2

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Alyn and Deeside

  —

  —

  —

  1,033

  1,484

  636

  285

  937

  788

  871

  Colwyn

  —

  —

  —

  1,020

  1,817

  203

  751

  1,050

  1,102

  1,088

  Delyn

  —

  —

  —

  999

  1,108

  660

  422

  487

  695

  391

  Glyndwr

  —

  —

  —

  1,261

  2,496

  1,486

  423

  454

  757

  664

  Rhuddlan

  —

  —

  —

  57

  213

  135

  83

  161

  218

  170

  Wrexham Maelor

  —

  —

  —

  586

  572

  408

  316

  413

  231

  313

  Carmarthen

  —

  —

  —

  3,250

  8,623

  2,052

  2,728

  2,144

  2,028

  1,772

  Ceredigion

  —

  —

  —

  1,987

  5,876

  302

  1,624

  1,555

  421

  1,083

  Dinefwr

  —

  —

  —

  805

  2,159

  580

  378

  439

  381

  519

  Llanelli

  —

  —

  —

  1,136

  4,371

  797

  1,819

  1,323

  1,252

  2,235

  Preseli

  —

  —

  —

  2,074

  5,598

  976

  2,138

  1,669

  1,792

  1,537

  South Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  2,518

  3,503

  3,047

  1,300

  2,610

  2,258

  2,189

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  4,332

  9,705

  1,038

  1,028

  3,202

  3,295

  1,153

  Islwyn

  —

  —

  —

  2,061

  3,639

  2,780

  3,656

  3,698

  4,343

  4,230

  Monmouth

  —

  —

  —

  1,505

  4,024

  977

  1,068

  767

  1,265

  173

  Newport

  —

  —

  —

  5,086

  6,313

  1,846

  3,321

  1,917

  2,127

  3,287

  134 135

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Torfaen

  —

  —

  —

  1,410

  2,658

  1,716

  998

  1,014

  1,610

  1,837

  Aberconwy

  —

  —

  —

  752

  1,159

  707

  679

  473

  579

  654

  Arfon

  —

  —

  —

  1,588

  3,112

  2,275

  2,442

  2,278

  1,735

  1,567

  Dwyfor

  —

  —

  —

  2,305

  3,327

  1,252

  333

  877

  523

  648

  Meirionnydd

  —

  —

  —

  1,407

  5,152

  3,893

  236

  881

  211

  402

  Ynys Mon

  —

  —

  —

  1,336

  6,581

  833

  627

  750

  890

  1,078

  Cynon Valley

  —

  —

  —

  2,443

  3,837

  843

  1,363

  4,098

  5,562

  2,979

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  —

  2,167

  5,245

  1,211

  1,233

  1,515

  1,532

  2,539

  Ogwr

  —

  —

  —

  3,276

  4,696

  3,384

  1,322

  3,855

  2,851

  3,490

  Rhondda

  —

  —

  —

  6,165

  12,540

  17,854

  1,883

  7,493

  4,605

  5,561

  Rhymney Valley

  —

  —

  —

  2,769

  4,848

  3,900

  1,298

  2,704

  3,639

  3,396

  Taff-Ely

  —

  —

  —

  4,576

  8,202

  2,273

  2,601

  3,377

  641

  1,508

  Brecknock

  —

  —

  —

  1,155

  3,165

  479

  235

  499

  753

  599

  Montgomery

  —

  —

  —

  2,032

  3,290

  547

  619

  758

  369

  877

  Radnor

  —

  —

  —

  694

  1,398

  409

  530

  333

  352

  248

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  —

  5,080

  16,228

  6,959

  10,158

  12,250

  11,735

  10,622

  Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  3,027

  4,553

  1,769

  859

  2,321

  1,554

  1,351

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  —

  —

  —

  534

  636

  250

  392

  965

  590

  1,268

  Lliw Valley

  —

  —

  —

  1,806

  1,096

  1,413

  1,299

  2,093

  1,520

  1,612

  Neath

  —

  —

  —

  2,093

  4,884

  604

  841

  1,236

  1,824

  962

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  6,510

  8,396

  6,937

  7,947

  5,194

  5,640

  5,770

  Wales

  31,265

  21,324

  30,520

  82,476

  166,503

  77,428

  59,233

  77,791

  71,665

  70,643

  1 Information by district is not readily available prior to 1982.

  2 Value of approvals has been expressed at 1988 prices using GDP deflators.

  This does not include allocations for area based renovations for which the totals are as follows:

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  11

  20

  24

  £ million

  Capital allocations: UDG

  Local authority

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  —

  0·062

  0·012

  0·008

  0·694

  —

  Colwyn Borough Council

  —

  —

  0·092

  0·229

  0·114

  —

  Delyn District Council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·060

  0·042

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  —

  1·205

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·170

  0·008

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·213

  0·068

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  0·220

  0·284

  0·353

  0·234

  0·027

  —

  Islwyn Borough Council

  —

  —

  —

  0·262

  0·058

  0·376

  Newport Borough Council

  0·013

  0·024

  0·821

  0·783

  —

  —

  Torfaen Borough Council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·090

  Cynon Valley Borough Council

  —

  —

  —

  0·065

  0·345

  0·141

  Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  —

  —

  0·101

  0·010

  0·106

  0·201

  Rhondda Borough Council

  0·038

  0·451

  0·959

  0·318

  0·171

  0·897

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  —

  —

  0·129

  —

  0·018

  —

  Cardiff City Council

  0·640

  1·473

  1·289

  0·210

  0·244

  0·636

  Vale of Glamorgan District Council

  —

  —

  —

  0·744

  0·594

  0·022

  Neath Borough Council

  —

  0·061

  0·058

  —

  —

  0·435

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·090

  0·186

  Swansea City Council

  0·640

  0·249

  0·058

  0·023

  0·327

  1·717

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received any representations concerning the payment under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme of money to landlords; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: In addition to the letter that I have received from the hon.

  Urban Development Grants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of urban development grants by district council for each year since 1979 at constant prices.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: Urban development grant was introduced in 1982. The following table represents the value of capital allocations made in each year are expressed in real terms and have been devised by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the latest GDP deflators. 1988–89 is the base year for the calculations.

  Gentleman the president of the Farmers Union of Wales has written to me about problems which his members are facing in reaching agreement with the Crown Estate and the water authority about the apportionment of grant that would be paid under the ESA scheme. I have arranged for my officials to meet the union to discuss the problem.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff including vacant posts, in the press and the public relations office of the Welsh Office; and what is the proposed complement for 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: There are 22½ staff in the information division which has a notional complement of 28½. Under delegated budgets staffing levels for 1989–90 will be determined by the resources made available to line managers and decisions on budget allocations for 1989–90 have yet to be finalised.

  Bed and Breakfast
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what is the number of people for whom

  Households placed in bed and breakfast accommodation, by type of household1

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Single persons

  n/a

  n/a

  83

  74

  44

  54

  113

  56

  74

  Lone parents with children

  n/a

  n/a

  165

  160

  108

  148

  268

  211

  248

  Married couple with/without children

  n/a

  n/a

  168

  160

  106

  117

  225

  147

  177

  Other

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1

  3

  —

  2

  4

  6

  Total

  133

  348

  416

  395

  261

  319

  608

  418

  505

  1 During the year as a whole, under Part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  Source: Welsh Office.

  Neath-Port Talbot Hospital
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether in the consideration he is now giving to the proposals of the health authority for the building of a new hospital in the Neath-Port Talbot area he is still on target so far as the intended commencement of work is concerned.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am at present examining the proposals from West Glamorgan Health Authority. The scheme is currently on target to start in 1991–92.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now make it his policy to answer detailed questions on the rules governing the use of plastic bullets.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) on 15 December 1988, at column 677.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.
  138
  bed-and-breakfast payments are being made; and whether they are single, single with children, a couple or a couple with children for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The available information is set out in the following tables:

  Households accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation1

  Numbers

  1979

  22

  1980

  67

  1981

  63

  1982

  21

  1983

  17

  1984

  31

  1985

  20

  1986

  35

  1987

  45

  1 On 31 December, under Part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  Source: Welsh Office.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  All Northern Ireland Departments have prepared, and are implementing, information technology strategies geared to their individual business objectives with the aim of increasing efficiency and effectiveness while ensuring value for money in the purchases of systems. The Northern Ireland Office is in the process of preparing its own strategy. Each strategy includes provision for improving internal communications through the use of voice and data transmission facilities, office automation and management information systems. Fax and telex facilities are also available in Departments and local offices dealing with matters such as social security. In particular, the Northern Ireland Office has recently introduced a secure inter-communicating word processing system and a secure video conferencing system linking its Belfast and London offices. A telecommunications strategy has also been drawn up, and plans are being prepared to provide a modern, fully integrated, digital network.

  The departmental information technology strategies address the provision of information to the public where this is appropriate and a number of computer systems providing this facility are operational in areas such as social security benefits, economic development and agriculture. In addition a free telephone service, freeline DHSS, is provided to anyone in Northern Ireland linking inquirers directly to a centre where full-time staff provide information and advice on all social security benefits and related services.

  Departmental information technology strategies are continually reviewed to ensure that they match administrative and policy objectives. Departments also endeavour to keep abreast of the latest developments in technology and seek to apply these where they fit into their strategies.

  Genealogists (Fees)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is he will list(a) the standard fees and (b) the discretionary fees charged for services provided by the public record office (i) to commercial genealogists and (ii) where YTP or ACE workers are working on behalf of commercial genealogists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fees charged for services provided by the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland are set out in a schedule to the Public Record of the (Public Use Of The Records) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1953. The current schedule of fees is contained in a statutory rule, No. 180 of 1988 a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The deputy keeper of the records has discretion to waive such fees if the records are being inspected for the purposes of private, non-profit-making research. The rules are interpreted in the same way in respect of services provided for ACE and YTP workers as for other members of the public.

  Consumers (Consultation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secreatary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements there are for consulting consumers on the work and decisions of his Department.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total of grants in aid paid to the tobacco industry in Northern Ireland since 1979; if he will list these; what other financial assistance has been made to tobacco companies by the Government in the same period; if he will list these; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  There have been no grants in aid paid to the tobacco industry in Northern Ireland since 1979. In terms of financial assistance, the Department of Economic Development (including the Industrial Development Board) has paid a total of £33,909,246 to tobacco companies in Northern Ireland since 1979.

SCOTLAND

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on Monday 6 March.

  Telephone Survey
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the questions that were asked in the recent Scottish Office telephone survey.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: The interview schedule contained questions about respondents' experience of a number of crimes, including car theft, bicycle theft, theft from vehicles, vandalism to vehicles, housebreaking, robbery, sexual offences and assault. Questions were also asked about fear of crime and household security.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether surveys similar to the recent telephone survey by the Scottish Office have been conducted under its auspices in the past.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: The questions asked in this survey are very similar to those used in the British crime surveys of 1982 and 1988.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how people who took part in the recent Scottish Office telephone survey were chosen.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: A random sample was obtained by means of computer-generated telephone calls.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the purpose of the recent telephone survey by his Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: The survey in Scotland was part of an international exercise involving 15 countries mainly from the European Community but also including the United States of America, Canada and Australia. The survey used tightly standardised methods in order to obtain comparative information on the nature and scale of victimisation and other criminal justice information across the various participating countries.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the recent telephone survey conducted by his Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: My Department's central research unit, which acted as co-ordinator for the survey in Scotland, received about 30 telephone calls and one letter from the public. For the most part the callers sought only to confirm the bona fide nature of the survey though a number voiced specific concerns and complaints mainly related to the household security questions. Two of the calls related to the question about sexual assault.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the people who carried out the recent Scottish Office telephone survey had received any formal training in counselling techniques;

  (2) what qualifications the people who carried out the recent Scottish Office telephone survey had.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]:

  The staff of the survey firms which conducted the survey are experienced in the use of telephone interviews

  141
  for research purposes. The interviewers were given introductory training for the special needs of this survey which paid particular attention to the sensitive nature of many of the topics included in the questionnaire.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the findings of the recent Scottish Office telephone survey will be published in full.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: A report on the results of the survey is to be published later this year.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps were taken to ensure that respondents to the recent Scottish Office telephone survey were made aware of the voluntary nature of the survey.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: The introduction to the questionnaire used by all survey interviewers offered the respondent a number of opportunities to decline to participate before commencing the interview. At this stage, also, respondents were given the opportunity to verify the authenticity of the survey. This could be done by telephoning the liaison contact in the Scottish Office or the free telephone number of the Market Survey Society. That this was effective was demonstrated by the fact that, to achieve a sample of 2,000, approximately 4,000 calls had to be made. One person in two approached declined to participate. Those who participated were, of course, free to put down the telephone at any point.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps were taken to protect the confidentiality of respondents to the recent Scottish Office telephone survey.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: Confidentiality was a principal factor in the decision to use computer-generated telephone interviewing. This technique offers greater confidentiality than the more usual doorstep interviews since neither the name nor address of the respondent is known to the interviewer. This was explained by the interviewers to potential respondents before seeking their agreement to participate.

  Hospitals (Capital Evaluation)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give for each hospital over 250 beds(a) the land and building capital evaluation and (a) equipment capital evaluation;

  (2) on what date he proposes that hospitals will start paying capital interest charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have asked each health board to compile a register of all capital assets held, their location and their value, but this information is not yet available. A Scottish working paper on capital charging, including a proposed timetable, will be published shortly.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the proportion of Forestry Commission sales since the introduction of the rationalisation plans sold(a) back to the previous owners, (b) privately and (c) by public sale.
  142
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Manouchehn Tehrani
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now received a copy of the written decision of Lord Weir, in the Court of Session, concerning the dismissal of Mr. Manouchehn Tehrani, consultant surgeon, from his employment at the Inverclyde royal hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has seen a copy of Lord Weir's opinion. It now falls to Argyll and Clyde health board to consider anew the courses of action open to it.

  Fish Farms
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what quantities of Nuvan 500 EC have been released into the marine environment via salmon farms in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inspections of marine fish farms have been made in each of the last five years by(a) the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, (b) the river purification boards and (c) the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of marine fish farms by scientists from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland were as follows:

  Numbers

  1984

  68

  1985

  101

  1986

  110

  1987

  133

  1988

  176

  Information is not held centrally on the number of inspections of marine fish farms by river purification authorities.

  Information as to inspections carried out by the Health and Safety Executive is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Matrimonial Homes
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report of the research into the working of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am placing copies of the report in the Library, and the Scottish Home and Health Department is sending copies to interested organisations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has reviewed the
  143
  report, "The Transport of Plutonium by Air and Sea", written by Jonathan Spink and Paul Helliwell for the European Proliferation Information Centre on behalf of the national steering committee of the nuclear free zone authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The honorary secretary of the nuclear free zone national steering committee wrote to the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 16 January enclosing a copy of the report. A reply to the honorary secretary's letter issued on 9 February. A copy of the reply is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Condor 2
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a meeting with his counterpart on the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss the assistance given by Federal Germany aerospace companies to Argentina for the production of the Condor 2 ballistic missile system.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No, but officials from the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany frequently discuss the effective implementation of the missile technology control regime.

  Rain Forests
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any recent representations to the Brazilian ambassador over the chopping down of the Amazonian rain forest and its consequent implications for the depletion of the ozone layer.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I both drew to the attention of the visiting Secretary-General of the Brazilian Ministry for Foreign Affairs last week the strong concern felt in this country on environmental issues, notably the future of the Amazon rain forests. We stressed that our overall approach was to work with the Brazilian Government on these matters.

  PLO (Bombings)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, at his recent meeting with representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, he raised the question of compensation for victims of past Palestine Liberation Organisation bombings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not met PLO representatives. We have not discussed with the PLO possible compensation for victims of acts of violence. We oppose such acts from whatever quarter.

  Israel (Nuclear Weapons)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his recent meeting with Israeli Government officials in Israel, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) raised the issue of Israeli possession of nuclear weapons and the prospects of Israel signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  144
  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State raised the question of Israeli accession to the non-proliferation treaty during his talks with Professor Arens on 15 February.

  Albert Mukong
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make inquiries of the Government of Cameroon about the reasons for the trial of Albert Mukong, a civilian, by a military court.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are aware of the case of Albert Mukong and have raised it with the Cameroon authorities. We shall continue to monitor the case.

  Oil Spill (Antarctic)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what treaty obligations and resources are available for oil spill control in the Antarctic; and whether Vikoma skimmers and the Frogmat boom have been evaluated in these latitudes.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no specific treaty obligations which require the United Kingdom to clean up oil spills in Antarctica and there are no resources deployed in Antarctica by the United Kingdom for that purpose. The equipment referred to in the question has not, so far as I am aware, been evaluated in Antarctica although boom and skimmer devices were used in connection with the oil spill from the Bahia Paraiso which sank on 31 January.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on steps he has taken to advise the Government of Iraq of Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards human rights violations in Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have repeatedly made clear to the Government of Iraq our concern at their failure to respect human rights in their country. On 9 March, we co-sponsored a draft resolution on human rights in Iraq in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and voted against Iraq's successful motion to take no action on that draft. Our representative at the Commission made clear our concerns in his statement.

  China
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on human rights in China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In addition to publicly available sources, Her Majesty's embassy in Peking provides regular reports on human rights questions.

  We are concerned about human rights in China. Our general aim is to encourage the Chinese Government to continue their programme of economic, social and political reforms, in the belief that in the long run this will lead to the development of a stable and democratic society in China, which is essential for the respect of human rights.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Veterinary Practitioners
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many qualified veterinary practitioners completed their training in the United Kingdom in each year from 1985 to 1988; and how many veterinary practitioners, qualified abroad, were registered to practice in the United Kingdom in each year over that period.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The numbers of veterinary students who completed their training and obtained veterinary degrees in the United Kingdom in each year from 1985 to 1988 are:

  Number

  1985–86

  379

  1986–87

  366

  1987–88

  384

  1988–89

  314

  The numbers of qualified veterinarians from abroad registering with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons entitling them to practise in the United Kingdom in each of these years was:

  Number

  1985–86

  122

  1986–87

  224

  1987–88

  263

  1988–89

  256

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mandatory training veterinary practitioners undergo with respect to(a) the treatement of marine fish and (b) protection of the marine environment.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Undergraduate veterinary training courses include basic instruction on all animal species. Veterinary graduates may choose to specialise in any aspect of veterinary surgery including marine fish.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what central records are kept of products prescribed by veterinary practitioners.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax System
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates that the law relating to capital gains tax, capital allowances and the management of the tax system will be consolidated.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: Consolidation of statute law is the responsibility of the Law Commission. One present plans, it is expected that a Bill consolidating the law on capital allowances will be ready for introduction early in the 1989/90 Session of Parliament. The Law Commission envisage that further work on consolidation of tax law will follow.

  National Debt
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what components comprise the calculation of the national debt.

  Mr. Lilley
  The national debt is conventionally defined as the nominal liabilities of the National Loans Fund. These consist mainly of short, medium and long-dated Government securities, national savings products and Treasury bills. As such, they take no account of the public sector's holdings of short-term assets (for example foreign exchange reserves held in the exchange equalisation account). At 31 March 1988 the national debt stood at £197·5 billion, of which market holdings were £177·9 billion.

  Full details of the national debt are published annually in the consolidated fund and national loans fund accounts: supplementary statements, and placed in the Library.

  However, net public sector debt is nowadays a more appropriate measure of public sector indebtedness than the traditional measure of "national debt" as it covers the whole of the public sector rather than just central Government and it also takes account of the public sector's short-term assets. At 31 March 1988 net public sector debt stood at £171·3 billion. Full details of the components of net public sector debt are published in the November 1988 Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the national debt at today's value in(a) 1973–74, (b) 1978–89 and (c) 1987–88.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1987–88 prices, the national debt at the end of each year was as follows:

  £ billion

  1973–74

  177·5

  1978–79

  178·3

  1987–88

  197·3

  However the national debt is conventionally defined as the liabilities of the national loans fund. As such it is not the most useful or comprehensive measure of the total state of public sector indebtedness. It comprises debt held by official bodies within central Government, it does not cover the whole of central Government debt and it excludes entirely the debt of other parts of the public sector. In addition, it takes no account of the public sector's short-term assets including foreign exchange reserves. A better measure is public sector net debt, though figures for this are only available from end 1974–75. In 1987–88 prices, the public sector net debt at the end of each year was as follows:

  £ billion

  1974–75

  218·9

  1978–79

  180·3

  1987–88

  171·3

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the national debt was repaid between(a) 1974–75 and 1978–79 and (b) 1978–79 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Lilley
  The national debt is conventionally defined as the liabilities of the national loans fund. As such it is not the most useful or comprehensive measure of the total
  147
  state of public sector indebtedness. It includes debt held by official bodies within central Government, it does not cover the whole of central Government debt and it excludes entirely the debt of other parts of the public sector. In addition, it takes no account of the public sector's short-term assets. A better measure is public sector net debt, whose flow analogue is the PSBR-PSDR.

  In 1987–88 prices the cumulative PSBR was as follows:

  (a) 1974–75 to 1978–79 £118·9 billion (or £22·4 billion a year on average).

  (b) 1979–80 to 1987–88 £88·4 billion (or £9·8 billion a year on average).

  Select Committees (Recommendations)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Major
  The reports of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Government's replies to them are available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  VAT
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy concerning the provision to credit reference agencies of information concerning the non-payment of value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: Information held by Customs and Excise about the VAT affairs of registered traders is confidential and is not disclosed to credit agencies.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the past 10 years the number of new businesses which have registered for value added tax in Waveney.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: I regret that statistics are not maintained on a district basis. The local VAT office at Ipswich covers not only the Waveney constituency but the area which includes Ipswich itself, Felixstowe, Newmarket and Bury St. Edmunds. The number of VAT registrations processed by that office for each of the calendar years 1979 to 1988 was:

  Year

  New registrations

  1979

  1,612

  1980

  1,497

  1981

  1,726

  1982

  1,528

  1983

  1,557

  1984

  2,321

  1985

  2,094

  1986

  2,180

  1987

  2,324

  1988

  2,826

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1988–89 by the Central Office of Information on(a)
  148
  television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what is the 1989–90 budget for each of these categories of spending.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The estimated spending for 1988–89 by the Central Office of Information on behalf of other Government Departments for the above categories is:

  £ million

  (a) TV advertising

  49·5

  (b) Radio advertising

  1·5

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  35·0

  (d) Other promotional material

  23·5

  109·5

  Detailed decisions on estimated expenditure by media through COI on behalf of other Government Departments for 1989–90 is a matter for departmental Ministers.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Central Office of Information; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiate between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The Central Office of Information does not have statistical divisions or staff in statistical posts; nor are any proposed for in 1989–90.

  Civil List
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the total amount payable under the Civil List Acts to the royal family in the calendar years 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Lawson
  The information on amounts payable to the royal family in the present and previous year is as follows:

  1988

  1989

  £

  £

  The Queen's Civil List

  4,500,000

  4,658,000

  HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

  390,300

  404,000

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  217,700

  225,300

  HRH The Duke of York

  86,500

  155,400

  HRH The Prince Edward

  20,000

  20,000

  HRH The Princess Royal

  135,600

  140,400

  HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

  132,100

  136,700

  HRH The Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

  53,500

  55,400

  HRH The Duke of Gloucester

  106,300

  110,000

  HRH The Duke of Kent

  143,500

  148,500

  HRH Princess Alexandra, Hon. Lady Angus Ogilvy

  136,800

  141,600

  Total

  5,922,300

  6,195,300

  Refunded by Her Majesty The Queen

  386,600

  400,100

  5,535,700

  5,795,200

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Work Permits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the position on the granting of work permits to husbands of Commonwealth exchange teachers working in schools in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the immigration rules, the husbands of women admitted to the United Kingdom as Commonwealth exchange teachers cannot themselves be admitted to take employment unless they qualify in their own right—for example, by obtaining work permits in accordance with the usual criteria. I am, however, considering whether husbands should be admissible, with freedom to take employment, on the basis that their wives are being admitted as Commonwealth exchange teachers.

  Court Service (Clerks)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the number of justices' clerks, their deputies and court clerks in the magistrates courts service who have left the service to take up similar positions with the Crown prosecution service.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that at the end of February there were 278 court clerk vacancies in England and Wales. The number of court clerks who have taken up appointments with the Crown prosecution service during the previous year is not available except at disproportionate cost, but is due to be collected shortly. Information about justices' clerks and their deputies has not so far been available separately, but we propose to collect it.

  Women's National Alliance
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the decision to refuse a grant to the National Alliance of Women's Organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has received 26 representations and, having considered the points that they have made, can see no reason to change his decision that the Home Office should not make a grant to the proposed national alliance.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what applications he has received for the funding of a women's national alliance; whether he has reached a decison on any such application; and whether he will be taking into account existing funding provided to bodies representing women's interests in reaching his decision.

  Mr. John Patten
  The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has applied for a grant for a new National Alliance of Women's Organisations. My right hon. Friend has decided that funds should not be made available for the organisation. In reaching a decision he took account of existing funding provided to bodies representing women's interests.

  Entry Applications
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each country(a) the number of applications to enter the United Kingdom for marriage under paragraphs 41 and 46 of the immigration rules and (b) the number of refusals of such applications in (i) 1987 and (ii) 1988.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested on fiancé(e)s (paragraph 41 of the immigration rules) and spouses (paragraph 46) applying for entry clearance to the United Kingdom is available centrally only for those countries specified in the following table.

  Fiance(e)s and spouses applying for entry clearance to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Applications

  Country

  Newly received1

  Granted2 3

  Refused initially3

  Bangladesh

  1987

  1,720

  1,180

  250

  19884

  1,270

  1,000

  280

  India

  1987

  3,450

  2,520

  890

  19884

  2,290

  2,030

  610

  Pakistan

  1987

  5,370

  3,060

  940

  19884

  4,040

  2,530

  730

  Hong Kong

  1987

  320

  250

  10

  19884

  230

  210

  5—

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 These applications may have been received in an earlier period.

  4 January to September.

  5 5 or fewer.

  Telephone Survey
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how people who took part in the recent Home Office telephone survey relating to sexual harassment in England and Wales were chosen.

  Mr. John Patten
  Those interviewed in the recent Home Office telephone survey were chosen from listings of randomly generated England and Wales telephone numbers. This maintained the confidentiality of the name and address of the respondent. The sample in England and Wales—2,000 men and women—was chosen to be a representative cross-section of those aged 16 or over.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether surveys similar to the recent telephone survey by the Home Office relating to sexual harassment in England and Wales have been conducted under its auspices in the past.

  Mr. John Patten
  Surveys similar to the recent telephone survey have been conducted in the past under Home Office auspices, though this is the first occasion on which telephone interviewing has been used. Other surveys have used face-to-face interviewing with similar questions asked. The British crime survey was conducted in England and Wales in 1982, 1984 and 1988 (and in Scotland in 1982
  151
  and 1988). The Home Office has also commissioned surveys to measure criminal victimisation at the more local level. Telephone interviewing was used in the current survey because it was less expensive than face-to-face interviewing, but mainly because it allowed greater standardisation of field work methods across the participating countries.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the questions that were asked in the recent telephone survey by the Home Office relating to sexual harassment in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The questionnaire contained questions about respondents' experience of eight crimes—vehicle theft from, bicycle theft, theft vehicles, vandalism to vehicles, burglary, thefts of personal property, robbery, and assault. Additionally, women were asked about sexual assault. Other questions asked included fear of crime, satisfaction with local policing, and crime prevention behaviour. Some social-demographic information was also collected.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the recent telephone survey by the Home Office relating to sexual harassment in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office research and planning unit (who acted as co-ordinator for the survey in England and Wales, and to whom respondents were referred if they had any queries) received about 50 calls from people who were either interested in confirming that the survey was bona fide, or wished to know why questions on household security had been asked. No one in England and Wales complained directly about the sexual assault question. One person wrote to the Home Office for confirmation that the interview she had given was part of a survey which the Home Office had commissioned.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the purpose of the recent telephone survey by the Home Office relating to sexual harassment in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The survey in England and Wales was conducted as part of an international exercise in which 15 countries have so far taken part. The countries are mainly those from the European Community, though the United States, Canada and Australia have also participated. Because of problems in comparing levels of crime across countries using information on recorded crime, the international survey used an identical questionnaire and highly standardised sample selection and field work methods to provide a comparable measure of levels of victimisation. Sexual harassment was one of nine forms of victimisation which women in the same were asked about. The survey also aims to compare attitudes to and responses to crime in the different countries.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps were taken to protect the confidentiality of respondents to the recent telephone survey by the Home Office relating to sexual harassment in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The names and addresses of those interviewed in the recent telephone survey on crime in England and Wales were not known to interviewers as they 152
  were contacted through randomly generated telephone numbers. The Home Office do not know (and will not know) which telephone numbers were called. The full confidentiality of the information obtained was explained by the interviewers to potential respondents before seeking their agreement to take part.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what qualifications the people who carried out the recent telephone survey by the Home Department relating to sexual harassment in England and Wales had.

  Mr. John Patten
  Interviewers in the company which conducted the recent telephone survey in England and Wales (and Scotland) are experienced in interviewing for research purposes. They had undergone a full training programme for telephone interviewing and operate under the Market Research Society's code of conduct. There was also a full briefing for interviewers by a female Home Office survey expert in which the special features of this survey were emphasised.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps were taken to ensure that respondents to the recent telephone survey by the Home Office relating to sexual harassment in England and Wales were made aware of the voluntary nature of the survey.

  Mr. John Patten
  The interviews were carried out according to the Market Research Society's code of conduct which requires that respondents must be made aware of the voluntary nature of all surveys. Respondents were allowed the opportunity to decline to take part before the interview began. Respondents were also given the opportunity to check that the survey was bona fide. In England and Wales, one person in two declined to take part in the interview.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many police officers have(a) applied for a transfer from the Metropolitan police to provincial forces since 1 January and (b) had their applications approved; and what were the comparable figures for the year ended 31 December 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the commissioner that of the 201 applications for transfer received since 1 January 1989, five had been accepted by 10 March. In 1988, 464 applications were received, of which 92 had been accepted by 31 December, and a further 82 have been accepted since.

  Broadcasting Levy
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to announce the revised broadcasting levy arrangements for the period 1990 to 1992.

  Mr. Hurd
  Full details of the new levy arrangements will be published in the Finance Bill. A levy rate of 10 per cent. will be applied to net advertising revenue for each ITV company after their fourth channel subscription and a £15 million "free slice" have been deducted. A levy rate
  153
  of 25 per cent. will then be applied to the net domestic profits for each company after the advertising revenue levy and a £2 million "free slice" have been deducted. There will be no levy on profits from overseas sales.

HEALTH

  Salmonella
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will give a member of the public suffering from salmonella poisoning the identity of the source of their infection when it is known to his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department is not the source of such information. The local authority environmental health department has primary responsibility for investigating cases of food poisoning. Any requests for information relating to such cases should be directed to the medical officer for environmental health of the appropriate authority.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting times for the following operations at each of the hospitals in the Trent regional health authority(a) hip replacements, (b) knee replacements, (c) hernias, (d) cataracts, (e) ear, nose and throat, (f) varicose veins, and (g) gynaecological; if he will show in his answer comparative figures for five and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect waiting time information centrally for individual hospitals. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Trent regional health authority, who may be able to provide this information.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the waiting list statistics for September 1988 are yet available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have today published a statistical bulletin giving details of numbers of in-patients and day cases on the NHS hospital waiting lists for the six months which ended on 30 September 1988.

  On a comparable basis with earlier figures, there were 691,100 patients on the in-patient waiting lits for England at 30 September last year. This is a slight increase on the figure for March 1988, although it is still more than 8 per cent. lower than in March 1979.

  During the six months in question 941,400 in-patients and 359,200 day cases were treated from the waiting lists. For in-patients and day cases treated, the median waiting time was estimated to be around five weeks—a period which we have managed to sustain since March last year, in spite of the fact that the NHS is now treating more patients than ever before.

  General Practitioners (Contracts)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has made to the general medical services committee to safeguard the earnings of general practitioners in the transition of any new general practitioner contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  The GMSC negotiators were sent proposals for transitional arrangements associated with changes in
  154
  the GPs' remuneration system on 27 February. Those proposals formed part of confidential discussions with the GMSC negotiators and I have no plans to disclose the details at this stage.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new money is being made available to ease the transition to any new general practitioner contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" (paragraph 2·6) which states:
  "the Government are prepared to invest substantial extra resources into those parts of the FPS where they are most needed, in order particularly to develop positive health promotion activities, raise standards and make the services more sensitive to the needs of the consumer."

  AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the allocation of special funds for AIDS to the North East Thames regional health authority in 1987–88 and 1988–89 and what it will be in 1989–90; what has been the North East Thames regional health authority programme of expenditure on AIDS, listed by each district, in 1987–88 and 1988–89; and for what specific capital and revenue schemes the North East Thames regional health authority has allocated funds from its AIDS budget in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table shows the funds allocated for AIDS to the North East Thames RHA.

  £ million

  1987–88

  6·163

  1988–89

  11·417

  1989–90

  16·655

  We do not hold centrally details of the region's AIDS expenditure by district and on its specific capital and revenue schemes held. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the North East Thames RHA for this information.

  Computerised Information (Confidentiality)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulatory guidelines are issued to general practitioners who store confidential patient data on general practitioner personal computers.

  Mr. Freeman
  All general medical practitioners who control the contents and use of automated data (including data held on practice personal computers) are required to be registered under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. The general medical services committee of the British Medical Association has drawn up guidance, working in close consultation with the Data Protection Registrar's office and the Department of Health.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protection from unauthorised internal and external access is afforded to computerised testing information on pharmaceuticals for approval.

  Mr. Mellor
  Access to confidential information relating to medicinal products which is held on the licensing authority's computerised database is protected by the appropriate physical and logical security controls. The effectiveness of these controls is kept under active review.

  Ambulance Journeys
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department holds regarding the number of ambulance journeys made in each of the last five years in(a) England and Wales and (b) each regional health authority area; in each case, what proportion of these

  Ambulance services

  Number of patients-journeys by regional health authority (Thousands)

  Regional health authority and patient-journeys1

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  South East Thames Total

  1,125·0

  1,128·1

  1,054·8

  1,026·2

  841·5

  Journeys by private ambulance

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  South West Thames Total

  3,649·1

  3,624·4

  3,528·2

  3,136·4

  3,063·6

  Journeys by private ambulance

  113·4

  112·7

  110·4

  121·6

  121·0

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  3·1

  3·1

  3·1

  3·9

  3·9

  Wessex Total

  1,359·9

  1,408·0

  1,454·5

  1,412·5

  1,106·9

  Journeys by private ambulance

  0·9

  8·7

  8·3

  8·8

  22·4

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·1

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  2·0

  Oxford Total

  947·3

  914·9

  934·9

  863·1

  826·4

  Journeys by private ambulance

  4·3

  3·4

  3·4

  3·3

  3·6

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·5

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  South Western Total

  1,917·4

  1,967·6

  1,960·3

  1,795·3

  1,443·6

  Journeys by private ambulance

  0·3

  0·4

  0·3

  0·1

  0·4

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  West Midlands Total

  2,012·9

  2,000·3

  2,009·3

  1,976·1

  2,041·7

  Journeys by private ambulance

  133·5

  134·0

  102·9

  105·2

  125·7

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  6·6

  6·7

  5·1

  5·3

  6·2

  Mersey Total

  1,126·8

  1,103·8

  1,147·5

  1,235·8

  1,267·4

  Journeys by private ambulance

  0·0

  4·9

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·0

  0·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  England Total

  21,271·1

  21,281·7

  21,364·2

  20,685·8

  19,669·5

  Journeys by private ambulance

  351·0

  345·1

  296·8

  307·4

  312·4

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  1·7

  1·6

  1·4

  1·5

  1·6

  Northern Total

  1,610·4

  1,567·9

  1,600·6

  1,622·3

  1,568·5

  Journeys by private ambulance

  0·5

  0·6

  0·5

  0·1

  0·1

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Yorkshire Total

  1,847·5

  1,840·5

  1,873·6

  1,888·4

  1,837·2

  Journeys by private ambulance

  6·0

  3·5

  0·9

  0·0

  0·0

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·3

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Trent Total

  1,802·0

  1,838·3

  1,877·7

  1,930·1

  2,061·9

  Journeys by private ambulance

  2·3

  3·3

  2·2

  2·2

  1·9

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  East Anglia Total

  953·8

  997·4

  1,016·7

  944·2

  877·8

  Journeys by private ambulance

  3·4

  3·0

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·4

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  North West Thames Total

  476·4

  469·6

  464·2

  470·0

  508·7

  Journeys by private ambulance

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  North East Thames Total

  548·0

  547·7

  559·3

  575·0

  557·8

  Journeys by private ambulance

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  North Western Total

  1,894·7

  1,864·1

  1,882·7

  1,801·0

  1,666·5

  Journeys by private ambulance

  79·2

  76·7

  67·6

  66·1

  32·4

  Journeys by private ambulance as a percentage of total

  4·2

  4·1

  3·6

  3·7

  1·9

  1One patient-journey is defined as one patient carried in one direction. A patient taken to a hospital and later in the same day taken home again counts as two patient-journeys.

  156
  journeys were made in a private ambulance contracted to the health authority concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information for England is given in the table. Figures for the London ambulance authority are included with those for South-West Thames. The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will extend the range of hearing aids available on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) on 13 March.

  Physical Measurement Technicians
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to address the high vacancy rates of physical measurement technicians (audiology) in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 29 November to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) at column 197.

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the prescription cost per head for each family practitioner committee area, and for each health region for 1988–89 and as estimated for 1989–90, both on a current and standard price basis; and if he will provide exemplifications of per capita allocations to regions and districts on the same current and standard price bases and on the basis of the same resources assuming the same weights as for the weighted capitation system proposed for hospital services and disregarding the effects of temporary residence and cross-boundary dispensing.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not yet have available information about the net ingredient cost of drugs per head for FPCs or regions for 1988–89. Estimates of prescription costs for future years are not available below national level. The indicative prescribing budget scheme will not start to operate until 1991. It is too soon to say what the regional allocations will he at that time.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding prescription charges.

  Mr. Mellor
  During the last month I have received 27 letters about prescription charges from hon. Members. I have also received a further 48 letters from members of the public and interested bodies on the same subject.

  Old Red House, Whitby
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the care and well-being of the residents of the Old Red House private aged persons' home, Bagdale, Whitby are being properly safeguarded following its deregistration.

  Mr. Mellor
  North Yorkshire county council, which is the local social services authority for Whitby, has confirmed that it is closely monitoring the care and well-being of the residents remaining in the home pending arrangements for their future care.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been done on the proportion of elderly 158
  people admitted to hospital who are admitted as a direct result of the adverse effects of medication; and what were the finding of the research.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department has commissioned no research on this specific issue but doctors are responsible for considering the risks of known adverse reactions when they write prescriptions, and the published data sheets draw attention to such reactions.

  Psychiatry (Old Age)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health districts have currently a specialised service for the psychiatry of old age and of those which do not; how many have plans to establish such a service within the next three years;

  (2) how many consultants are currently working within the National Health Service in the field of old age psychiatry; and how many more are needed to ensure that every district health authority has sufficient consultants specialising in old age psychiatry on the basis of consultant cover of one session for every 2,000 elderly people.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally. In a joint report published in February this year the Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists and Physicians estimate that there are currently 243 consultants working in old age psychiatry and that 152 district health authorities have specialised services. These figures represent a considerable advance in recent years. Detailed planning and provision of services is a matter for individual health authorities. The appointment of at least one psychogeriatrician in each health district is a key priority in our policy to provide a comprehensive range of services for the elderly mentally ill.

  Rail Accidents
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the times at which yellow and red alerts were received at St. George's hospital, Tooting, and the Mayday hospital, Thornton Heath, respectively, subsequent to the recent rail accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  At the Clapham rail accident a yellow alert was given to St. George's hospital, Tooting at 08.23 and a major accident was declared at 08.48. In the incident at Purley a yellow alert was given at 13.50 and a major accident was declared at 14.20. The term red alert is not used by the London ambulance service.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings took place between Ministers in his Department and appointed members of the South West Thames regional health authority concerning the budget of the London ambulance service for the year 1988–89; and what meetings have taken place, or he expects to take place, concerning determination of the budget for the year 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  No such meetings have taken or will take place. The determination of the London ambulance service revenue budget is a matter for the South West Thames regional health authority in consultation with the other three Thames regions.
  159
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the general reason why between 50 and 160 out-patient appointments per week were cancelled in the north-east division of the London ambulance service in January and the first fortnight of February because no ambulance was available; and what steps he or the South West Thames regional health authority intends to take to eliminate such cancellations throughout the area of the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The principal reason for these cancellations was a shortage of staff. I understand there are currently 43 vacancies—out of a whole time establishment of 248—in the north-east division of the London ambulance service. Every effort is being made to fill the vacancies.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his reply of Wednesday 1 March,Official Report, column 251 concerning the proportion of emergency calls for ambulances diverted to recorded message machines at the headquarters of the London ambulance service, he will publish what figures are available in respect of the use of this service during the month of February, including the proportion of time when calls were diverted to it and an indication of the range of wait for callers before being able to communicate details of emergencies.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected routinely and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South concerning the 1989–90 budget of the London ambulance service,Official Report, 1 March, column 251, he will state when discussions with the non-managing Thames regional health authorities will be concluded; what information has been supplied to the other named consultants and by what date they were asked to give their observations; when the South West Thames regional hospital authority will decide on the budget; when he expects to receive its request to him for the sum required; and on what date its estimates will be made public.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the South West Thames regional health authority and the hon. Member may wish to contact the regional chairman, Mrs. Julia Cumberlege.

  Hospital and Community Health Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what has been the level of expenditure in each year since 1978–79 on the hospital and community health services adjusted by the HCHS pay and prices deflator.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

  Gross Current Expenditure

  Cash

  £ million Adjusted using HCHS pay and prices deflator

  1978–79

  4,522

  10,896

  1979–80

  5,395

  10,790

  1980–81

  7,097

  11,089

  1981–82

  7,835

  11,322

  1982–83

  8,439

  11,450

  160

  Gross Current Expenditure

  Cash

  £ million Adjusted using HCHS pay and prices deflator

  1983–84

  8,882

  11,461

  1984–85

  9,386

  11,446

  1985–86

  9,886

  11,469

  1986–87

  10,623

  11,522

  1987–88

  11,730

  11,730

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to review his Department's policy for residents of nursing homes for the elderly presently not covered by the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind residential care homes rather than nursing homes. The report of the committee chaired by Lady Wagner "Residential Care—A Positive Choice" contained recommendations on the regulation of these homes. We are giving careful consideration to the recommendations in the report before deciding whether any change is desirable in the current arrangements.

  Pay and Price Deflator
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's estimate of the hospital and community health service pay and price deflator for 1988–89.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1989]: The deflator is expected to rise by some 10·5 per cent. in 1988–89. A large part of this increase is attributable to review body pay awards, including the 17·9 per cent. award to nurses.

  Official Secrets
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the advisory committees coming under his Department and concerned in some way with public health which are covered by the Official Secrets Act whose members are required to sign the Official Secrets Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 24 February 1989]: Not all members of the following committees, which are concerned with various aspects of public health, will have signed the Official Secrets Act declaration, but the provisions of section 2 of that Act would apply in respect of sensitive official information entrusted to them on a confidential basis:

  Academic Forum

  Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee

  Advisory Committee for Medical Manpower Planning

  Advisory Committee on Assessment of Laboratory Standards

  Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances

  Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening

  Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens

  Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards

  Advisory Committee on Ethics of Gene Modification Therapy in Humans

  Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  AIDS Services Working Group

  British Pharmacopeia Commission (BPC)

  BPC—Committee A. Medicinal Chemicals

  BPC—Committee B. Medicinal Chemicals

  161

  BPC—Committee C. General Chemicals

  BPC—Committee D. Steroids

  BPC—Committee E. Antibiotics

  BPC—Committee F. Pharmacy

  BPC—Committee G. Crude Drugs and Galenicals

  BPC—Committee H. Biological Materials

  BPC—Committee J. Immunologicals

  BPC—Committee K. Blood Products

  BPC—Committee L. Surgical Dressings

  BPC—Committee M. Nomenclature

  BPC—Sub Committee N. Medicines and Doses (Veterinary) Building and Engineering Research and Development Committee

  Building Legislation Working Group

  Building Notes Consultative Group

  Cardiology Liaison Committee

  Central Manpower Committee

  Chief Scientists Organisation (CSO)—Childcare Research Liaison Group

  CSO—Physical Disablement Research Liaison Group

  CSO—Procurement Directorate Research Liaison Group

  Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising

  Committee on Carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment

  Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials

  Committee on Gynaecological Cytology

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA)

  COMA—Committee on Recommended Daily Amounts of Nutrients

  COMA—Contamination of Air, Soil and Water

  COMA—Panel on Child Nutrition

  COMA—Panel on Sugar

  COMA—Radiation in the Environment

  COMA—Sub Committee on Nutritional Surveillance

  Committee on Mutagenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment.

  Committee on Research into Behavioural Aspects of Smoking and Health

  Committee on the Review of Medicines

  Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM)

  CSM—Sub Committee on Adverse Reactions to Vaccines and Immunisations

  CSM—Sub Committee on Biologicals

  CSM—Sub Committee on Chemistry Pharmacy Standards

  CSM—Sub Committee on Safety, Efficacy and Adverse Reactions

  Committee on Toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment

  Dental Advisory Committee

  Dental Auxiliaries Committee

  Dental Estimates Board

  Dental Formulary Sub Committee

  Dental Rates Study Group

  Elderly Research Liaison Group

  Expert Advisory Group on AIDS

  Health Advisory Service

  Hospital Engineering Technical Support Group

  Hospital Infection Working Group

  Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health

  Information Advisory Group

  Joint Monitoring Group for "Achieving a Balance"

  Joint Planning Advisory Committee

  Legionnaires Disease: Code of Practice Working Party

  Maternal Mortality Committee

  Medical Advisory Committee

  Medical Practices Committee

  Medicines Commission

  Mental Handicap Research Liaison Group

  Microbiology Advisory Committee

  National Biological Standards Board UK

  National Development Team for People with a Mental Handicap

  National Fire Policy Advisory Group

  Neurosciences Liaison Committee

  Ongoing Review Panel on Diet and Cardiovascular Disease

  Panel on Leprosy Opinion

  Panel on Novel Foods

  Physical Disablement Research Liaison Group

  Prescription Pricing Authority

  162

  Radiological Advisory Committee

  Rural Dispensing Committee

  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical Education

  Standing Dental Advisory Committee

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee

  Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee

  Standing Panel on Hazards from Microbial Contamination of Food

  Standing Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee

  Standing Sub-Committee on Cancer

  Supra Regional Services Advisory Group

  Training Allowance Advisory Committee

  Transplant Advisory Panel

  UK Transplant Management Committee

  Working Party on Continuing Education of GPs

  Listeria
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct clinical staff to ensure that perinatal deaths, still births and miscarriages are examined for the presence of listeria monocytogenes.

  Mr. Kenneth Clark
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: My Department has already drawn the attention of the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to possible under-reporting of maternofoetal listerial infection. Further advice to doctors was given by the Chief Medical Officer on 16 February 1989.

  Abortions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of abortions performed in Basildon health authority area from April 1968 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: The total number of abortions performed in a particular area is not released for reasons of confidentiality. However, information on the number of abortions performed upon usual residents of Basildon and Thurrock district health authority (Basildon urban district (including Basildon new town) plus Thurrock urban district 1968–74; Basildon and Thurrock health district 1975–81; Basildon and Thurrock district health authority 1982–87.) from 28 April 1968 to 31 December 1987 was 12,179.

  Eye Tests
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage proportion of(a) a weekly income of £814·56, and (b) a single basic state weekly pension of £41·15 would have to be used in order to pay for an eye test from 1 April.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The question gives insufficient information about the personal circumstances of the individual concerned to allow me to answer. Furthermore, questions as to whether there will be or will not be an eye test charge will be determined by the retailer. It is possible no charge may be made at all.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of food poisoning during 1988 were traced to(a) food eaten outside the home, (b) chilled prepared meals eaten in the home and (c) retail packs of food;
  163
  (2) how many outbreaks of food poisoning were reported in 1988; how many were caused by chilled prepared meals; and how many by food eaten in restaurants and so on.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: Provisional data show that there were 472 outbreaks of food poisoning reported to the public health laboratory service in 1988. Information on the number of reported outbreaks associated with the consumption of food in the home or elsewhere is not yet available. Reports to the public health laboratory service do not usually provide information on the way a suspect food was processed or sold.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific evidence he has suggesting that listeria monocytogenes can be eliminated by cook-chill catering that operates within his Department's 1980 guidelines.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: Studies by the Camden Food and Drink Research Association and the agriculture and food research council, Institute of Food Research, Norwich have shown that the heating and reheating temperature recommended in the 1980 guidelines will destroy listeria monocytogenes.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has studied the survey of the microbiological quality of airline meals carried out jointly with the food hygiene laboratory, Colindale and the health departments of the London borough of Hounslow and Spelthorne borough council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: I have not yet received a copy of this survey.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Mathematics and Science
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that sufficient time will be available after the date of the first national curriculum orders being made for mathematics and science and before the start of the autumn term this year in order to permit(a) the preparation of in-service training courses for the teachers concerned and (b) the subsequent preparation by teachers of suitable schemes of work for their classes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend is today laying the final National Curriculum Orders for mathematics and science. The general nature of the requirements has been known for some time, and a number of LEAs have already prepared in-service training courses. To support such courses, the National Curriculum Council has commissioned subject-specific in-service training materials which will be sent to all schools during the summer term. It is for local education authorities and schools to ensure that the non-teaching time available before the autumn, which may include two extra closure days, is used to best effect in helping teachers to prepare for the introduction of the new requirements.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assumptions have been made 164
  by his Department in relation to the availability of non-contact time for primary school teachers in order to prepare suitable schemes of work for the national curriculum in mathematics and science; if he will estimate the typical number of non-contact hours available to a primary school teacher for such work before the start of the autumn term this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Results of the 1987 primary school staffing survey show that teachers in maintained primary schools in England have on average two hours of non-contact time within the average pupil's week of 22½ hours of taught lessons. There is further non-teaching time available within teachers' annual 1,265 hours of directed time for tasks such as preparing or revising schemes of work. In addition to the five annual days available for in-service training, schools may close for two days in 1989 specifically to prepare for the introduction of the national curriculum. There should be plenty of scope over the coming six months for primary teachers to prepare, or revise as necessary, schemes of work to incorporate the national curriculum requirements in mathematics and science.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what number and proportion of primary school teachers expected to be concerned in the implementation of the national curriculum orders for mathematics and science this year have no formal training or qualification above O-level in either mathematics or science; what assessment he has made of particular training needs for such teachers in the preparation of suitable schemes of work for their classes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  In March 1987 there were an estimated 115,400 full-time and 26,100 part-time teachers in maintained nursery and primary schools in England who had no qualification above O-level in mathematics or science and had not attended an in-service course of at least one term's full-time duration or equivalent in the previous five years. These represent 72 per cent. and 78 per cent. respectively of the total number of full-time and part-time teachers in primary schools. However, initial training for primary teachers is designed to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary to teach across the full range of primary subjects. It is for LEAs to assess the training needs of their teachers, including the particular needs of those teaching five-year-olds in September 1989 who will have to implement the national curriculum programmes of study and attainment targets in mathematics and science from that date, and to meet these needs using funds available through the LEA training grants scheme. My right hon. Friend has allowed for two extra closure days for in-service training in 1989, and the National Curriculum Council is preparing subject-specific training materials for use in schools.

  University Salaries
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that salaries for academic and academic-related university staffs are adequate to maintain excellence in teaching and research in British universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has recently informed the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and
  165
  Principals that limited additional funding will be available for pay increases for university staff after the staff's industrial action ceases. It is now for the vice-chancellors to reach a settlement with the Association of University Teachers.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implications for the working of the formal salary negotiating machinery of the university authorities' unilateral withdrawal from the machinery.

  Mr. Jackson
  The salary negotiating machinery for university non-clinical academic and academic-related staff is voluntary. Although the university authorities are not at present willing to operate it, I understand that they are in active, informal discussion with the staff representatives.

  School Transport (Disabled)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responsibilities a local education authority has for transport to school in cases where(a) the child is disabled, (b) both parents are or the sole parent is disabled and (c) one parent is disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  In assessing a child with special educational needs under the provisions of the Education Act 1981, a local education authority is required to take into account any non-educational provision which may be necessary to enable the child to gain access to the curriculum. This includes the need for transport, which must be provided free to children whose needs require it.

  Local education authority

  Primary expenditure

  Secondary expenditure

  Primary cost per pupil

  Secondary cost per pupil

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (£)

  (£)

  Barking

  13,428

  14,623

  1,010

  1,470

  Barnet

  22,111

  27,691

  1,060

  1,510

  Bexley

  15,042

  21,751

  915

  1,370

  Brent

  22,485

  23,465

  1,105

  1,805

  Bromley

  17,531

  24,971

  925

  1,420

  Croydon

  22,519

  28,750

  935

  1,535

  Ealing

  27,336

  20,702

  1,135

  1,650

  Enfield

  18,180

  24,422

  890

  1,380

  Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  16,484

  15,951

  1,020

  1,600

  Havering

  16,804

  27,189

  905

  1,510

  Hillingdon

  17,248

  21,811

  1,000

  1,520

  Hounslow

  17,837

  20,181

  1,065

  1,505

  Kingston- Upon-Thames

  8,248

  12,252

  915

  1,530

  Merton

  8,075

  16,548

  950

  1,325

  Newham

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Redbridge

  14,847

  20,485

  935

  1,465

  Richmond-Upon-Thames

  8,973

  9,137

  1,000

  1,330

  Sutton

  9,049

  14,723

  855

  1,300

  Waltham Forest

  18,390

  25,719

  1,095

  1,915

  ILEA

  228,423

  267,983

  1,460

  2,345

  Birmingham

  79,083

  97,401

  835

  1,345

  Coventry

  23,725

  33,032

  910

  1,485

  Dudley

  21,960

  26,361

  830

  1,350

  Sandwell

  25,633

  31,856

  960

  1,410

  Solihull

  14,528

  21,290

  845

  1,280

  Walsall

  23,304

  32,155

  970

  1,430

  Wolverhampton

  21,824

  26,635

  985

  1,395

  Knowsley

  15,064

  18,309

  960

  1,515

  Liverpool

  42,123

  49,740

  980

  1,445

  St. Helens

  14,231

  20,211

  860

  1,340

  Sefton

  19,223

  27,700

  800

  1,275

  Wirral

  22,856

  30,524

  815

  1,280

  Bolton

  18,668

  25,003

  780

  1,230

  166
  The law governing home to school transport for other children is laid down by section 55 of the Education Act 1944, as amended by section 53 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Parents of children who do not qualify for free transport under section 55(1) may ask the LEA to exercise its discretion under section 55(2). Each case is considered on its merits in accordance with the policy of the authority. Section 55(2) applies as much to disabled parents as to other parents.

  Veterinary Schools
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the number of veterinary schools in England and Wales and the amount of Government funds given to each in the last financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are four veterinary schools in England and Wales. Funding for them is not earmarked within the block grant to their parent universities.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how much money each education authority spent during the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) how much money each education authority spent per pupil for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  The latest available information is for 1986–87 and is given in the table. The data for 1987–88 has been received from most authorities and is in the process of being analysed.
  167

  Local education authority

  Primary expenditure

  Secondary expenditure

  Primary cost per pupil

  Secondary cost per pupil

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (£)

  (£)

  Bury

  11,242

  16,852

  795

  1,340

  Manchester

  39,971

  48,448

  1,020

  1,660

  Oldham

  18,396

  20,869

  870

  1,255

  Rochdale

  15,439

  24,643

  850

  1,460

  Salford

  17,080

  23,034

  840

  1,385

  Stockport

  18,581

  26,133

  805

  1,270

  Tameside

  17,542

  21,190

  910

  1,325

  Trafford

  13,523

  17,584

  855

  1,315

  Wigan

  23,111

  37,513

  860

  1,460

  Barnsley

  16,827

  23,015

  925

  1,325

  Doncaster

  24,698

  30,734

  980

  1,325

  Rotherham

  19,806

  25,649

  890

  1,230

  Sheffield

  42,999

  49,878

  1,060

  1,490

  Bradford

  33,447

  55,704

  945

  1,235

  Calderdale

  15,636

  19,239

  895

  1,330

  Kirklees

  28,315

  37,932

  875

  1,250

  Leeds

  43,042

  72,881

  905

  1,230

  Wakefield

  23,300

  31,551

  955

  1,290

  Gateshead

  16,580

  18,724

  980

  1,360

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  20,381

  28,254

  1,020

  1,530

  North Tyneside

  14,348

  22,966

  995

  1,455

  South Tyneside

  12,650

  15,469

  965

  1,430

  Sunderland

  23,535

  29,347

  855

  1,305

  Isles of Scilly

  198

  280

  1,330

  2,205

  Avon

  61,396

  78,703

  850

  1,310

  Bedfordshire

  32,068

  57,332

  875

  1,250

  Berkshire

  47,560

  63,167

  845

  1,280

  Buckinghamshire

  48,713

  48,573

  845

  1,320

  Cambridgeshire

  42,736

  51,556

  815

  1,205

  Cheshire

  64,458

  88,656

  810

  1,235

  Cleveland

  47,632

  60,934

  890

  1,355

  Cornwall

  27,981

  37,487

  795

  1,175

  Cumbria

  35,560

  46,706

  915

  1,315

  Derbyshire

  65,292

  86,618

  875

  1,305

  Devon

  55,428

  75,465

  800

  1,225

  Dorset

  32,151

  50,312

  870

  1,190

  Durham

  46,919

  52,441

  920

  1,225

  East Sussex

  34,858

  46,952

  825

  1,235

  Essex

  97,210

  137,617

  820

  1,255

  Gloucestershire

  32,901

  44,985

  835

  1,260

  Hampshire

  98,524

  115,162

  825

  1,220

  Hereford and Worcester

  36,013

  62,091

  815

  1,180

  Hertfordshire

  66,576

  97,646

  870

  1,350

  Humberside

  60,831

  92,339

  915

  1,270

  Isle of Wight

  4,952

  12,168

  785

  1,150

  Kent

  84,843

  127,039

  760

  1,145

  Lancashire

  89,592

  120,712

  780

  1,255

  Leicestershire

  63,054

  91,834

  885

  1,390

  Lincolnshire

  35,044

  47,236

  795

  1,185

  Norfolk

  49,465

  55,767

  850

  1,230

  North Yorkshire

  42,998

  60,308

  850

  1,240

  Northamptonshire

  37,617

  58,560

  815

  1,250

  Northumberland

  16,132

  35,690

  840

  1,230

  Nottinghamshire

  72,276

  100,530

  935

  1,365

  Oxfordshire

  32,845

  50,752

  905

  1,350

  Shropshire

  26,541

  39,976

  850

  1,285

  Somerset

  25,232

  36,771

  780

  1,195

  Staffordshire

  69,558

  102,039

  880

  1,255

  Suffolk

  33,558

  58,509

  830

  1,165

  Surrey

  59,913

  63,151

  820

  1,260

  Warwickshire

  36,196

  36,347

  845

  1,220

  West Sussex

  37,688

  52,407

  785

  1,220

  Wiltshire

  35,330

  46,162

  850

  1,230

  Notes:—These figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DOE and pupil number returns to DES.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much the capital allocation was for each education authority for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 21 December 1988 at columns 287–90.

  Capital Allocation
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much the capital allocation was per head of school population for each education authority for the latest year for which figures are available.
  169
  Mr. Butcher
  Following is a list of figures showing how much the capital allocation was per head of school population for each education authority for the year 1989–90.

  Individual authorities' allocations are calculated not pro rata to population, but by assessing their capital expenditure plans, which they supply to the Department each year in a common form, against a consistent and well-publicised set of criteria.

  1989–90 Notional schools capital allocation per head of maintained population

  LEA

  £

  Barking

  11

  Barnet

  25

  Bexley

  27

  Brent

  10

  Bromley

  19

  Croydon

  12

  Ealing

  8

  Enfield

  30

  Haringey

  68

  Harrow

  16

  Havering

  36

  Hillingdon

  21

  Hounslow

  16

  Kingston

  11

  Merton

  226

  Newham

  103

  Redbridge

  67

  Richmond

  30

  Sutton

  30

  Waltham

  275

  ILEA

  42

  Birmingham

  31

  Coventry

  55

  Dudley

  49

  Sandwell

  39

  Solihull

  21

  Walsall

  19

  Wolverhampton

  13

  Knowsley

  69

  Liverpool

  7

  St. Helens

  26

  Sefton

  39

  Wirral

  47

  Bolton

  29

  Bury

  24

  Manchester

  71

  Oldham

  38

  Rochdale

  62

  Salford

  107

  Stockport

  36

  Tameside

  21

  Trafford

  94

  Wigan

  26

  Barnsley

  7

  Doncaster

  15

  Rotherham

  15

  Sheffield

  26

  Bradford

  100

  Calderdale

  77

  Kirklees

  12

  Leeds

  61

  Wakefield

  60

  Gateshead

  33

  Newcastle

  38

  North Tyneside

  54

  South Tyneside

  134

  Sunderland

  44

  170

  LEA

  £

  Isles of Scilly

  530

  Avon

  29

  Bedfordshire

  24

  Berkshire

  54

  Bucks

  84

  Cambridge

  58

  Cheshire

  22

  Cleveland

  53

  Cornwall

  90

  Cumbria

  71

  Derbyshire

  61

  Devon

  106

  Dorset

  36

  Durham

  24

  East Sussex

  99

  Essex

  65

  Gloucester

  78

  Hampshire

  35

  Hereford and Worcester

  26

  Hertford

  29

  Humberside

  53

  Isle of Wight

  96

  Kent

  39

  Lancashire

  65

  Leicester

  49

  Lincoln

  37

  Norfolk

  35

  North Yorkshire

  22

  Northampton

  40

  Northumberland

  19

  Notts

  21

  Oxfordshire

  44

  Shropshire

  79

  Somerset

  48

  Staffs

  31

  Suffolk

  66

  Surrey

  47

  Warwick

  21

  West Sussex

  21

  Wiltshire

  34

  Expenditure
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how much money per pupil each education authority received from the Government for the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) how much money each education authority received from the Government for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is not available. Whereas specific grant payments for education activities made to each local education authority can be separately identified, the much larger block grant payment is not hypothecated to individual services, and it is not therefore possible in the case of multi-purpose authorities to separate the element of grant paid to support education from that paid to support other services.

  Examinations
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school leavers in each education authority achieved two or more A-level passes in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information is given in the table. The figures are presented as a three year average over the academic years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87, to reduce the effects of sampling error in the data relating to a 10 per
  171
  cent. sample of school leavers. Sampling error is a particular problem for local education authorities with relatively small numbers of school leavers.

  Maintained secondary schools in England: aggregation of school leavers and the proportion gaining two or more A-levels over the academic years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87

  Local education authorities

  Numbers of school leavers (thousands)

  Percentage of school leavers with two or more A-levels

  Barking

  6·68

  4·6

  Barnet

  10·35

  25·4

  Bexley

  10·40

  11·5

  Brent

  8·68

  9·9

  Bromley

  10·27

  16·4

  Croydon

  12·88

  11·5

  Ealing

  9·77

  10·2

  Enfield

  10·40

  14·2

  Haringey

  6·05

  7·9

  Harrow

  6·01

  18·3

  Havering

  11·03

  11·7

  Hillingdon

  8·81

  10·3

  Hounslow

  8·31

  9·3

  Kingston upon Thames

  4·65

  16·1

  Merton

  6·13

  12·2

  Newham

  9·08

  4·6

  Redbridge

  8·29

  14·1

  Richmond upon Thames

  4·39

  0·0

  Sutton

  6·22

  21·2

  Waltham Forest

  7·19

  5·0

  Inner London

  73·43

  7·4

  Birmingham

  48·88

  7·6

  Coventry

  14·27

  8·5

  Dudley

  14·52

  6·9

  Sandwell

  14·54

  4·7

  Solihull

  10·82

  15·8

  Walsall

  14·87

  10·1

  Wolverhampton

  12·9

  7·2

  Knowsley

  7·98

  4·1

  Liverpool

  21·10

  9·2

  St. Helens

  8·87

  11·8

  Sefton

  13·77

  15·1

  Wirral

  15·47

  12·3

  Bolton

  12·93

  12·5

  Bury

  8·09

  14·3

  Manchester

  22·23

  10·0

  Oldham

  9·78

  6·6

  Rochdale

  9·38

  8·4

  Salford

  11·03

  10·9

  Stockport

  12·82

  13·8

  Tameside

  11·56

  9·3

  Trafford

  8·63

  14·9

  Wigan

  17·29

  9·4

  Barnsley

  11·28

  7·0

  Doncaster

  13·50

  10·0

  Rotherham

  13·54

  9·7

  Sheffield

  25·64

  9·5

  Bradford

  22·22

  9·6

  Calderdale

  9·01

  10·7

  Kirklees

  18·26

  11·0

  Leeds

  30·57

  10·5

  Wakefield

  16·09

  4·4

  Gateshead

  9·35

  8·1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10·32

  7·8

  North Tyneside

  8·85

  10·8

  South Tyneside

  7·14

  7·6

  Sunderland

  14·82

  6·8

  Avon

  37·28

  11·9

  Bedfordshire

  22·42

  12·3

  Berkshire

  29·00

  14·4

  Buckinghamshire

  24·90

  16·9

  Cambridgeshire

  24·31

  10·8

  Cheshire

  44·91

  13·3

  Cleveland

  29·60

  12·0

  Cornwall

  20·70

  10·4

  Cumbria

  21·55

  12·2

  Derbyshire

  43·65

  9·1

  Devon

  38·27

  8·8

  172

  Local education authorities

  Numbers of school leavers (thousands)

  Percentage of school leavers with two or more A-levels

  Dorset

  25·27

  11·1

  Durham

  27·86

  8·1

  East Sussex

  22·63

  13·8

  Essex

  66·24

  10·9

  Gloucestershire

  21·82

  13·0

  Hampshire

  66·78

  10·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  27·54

  12·7

  Hertfordshire

  43·45

  14·3

  Humberside

  41·81

  10·4

  Isle of Wight

  4·93

  8·7

  Kent

  65·93

  14·2

  Lancashire

  62·58

  7·7

  Leicestershire

  38·28

  13·3

  Lincolnshire

  24·93

  12·1

  Norfolk

  31·34

  8·3

  North Yorkshire

  29·25

  15·7

  Northamptonshire

  26·16

  10·0

  Northumberland

  12·90

  14·6

  Nottinghamshire

  46·85

  9·4

  Oxfordshire

  22·94

  14·1

  Shropshire

  19·32

  11·3

  Somerset

  17·79

  6·3

  Staffordshire

  48·29

  10·8

  Suffolk

  25·80

  10·6

  Surrey

  37·43

  18·0

  Warwickshire

  21·04

  13·4

  West Sussex

  27·20

  15·8

  Wiltshire

  21·43

  8·2

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school leavers in each education authority achieved five or more GCSE passes or equivalent qualifications, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is not readily available but I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magistrates (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the names of the members of the local advisory committee which offers advice on the appointment of magistrates in the Nottingham area.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Advisory committees have until the end of 1992 to make their membership known. The Nottinghamshire advisory committee has not yet decided to do so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retired people depend entirely on state benefits; and how many depend on state benefits for 80 per cent. of their income.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1986, just under 20 per cent. of all pensioner tax units received income only from state benefits; 53 per cent. of pensioner tax units were in receipt of state benefits greater than or equal to 80 per cent. of their gross income.
  173
  Source: Family expenditure survey 1986.

  1. A pensioner tax unit is a single person of state pension age or over, or a married couple where the man is of state pension age or over.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the value of the state retirement pension in April 1989 if it had been uprated in line with prices since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The value of the state retirement pension in April 1989, based on annual upratings in line with prices since 1979, would be £41·70 for a single pensioner and £66·80 for a pensioner couple.

  Income Support
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much income support or supplementary benefit was paid to people looking after elderly persons in each year since 1974–75, in cash and constant 1988–89 prices, and how many people were paid the benefit in each year.

  Index of the number of claimants receiving supplementary benefit or income support: 1979 to 1988 (using 1979 as the base year)

  Year

  Social security region

  11979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21988

  North Eastern

  100

  112

  134

  151

  155

  164

  166

  170

  167

  146

  London North

  100

  112

  135

  152

  158

  167

  170

  174

  172

  141

  London South

  100

  109

  127

  144

  149

  158

  162

  167

  163

  133

  Wales and South Western

  100

  108

  127

  142

  145

  156

  158

  161

  156

  137

  Midlands

  100

  114

  142

  164

  170

  179

  181

  186

  181

  152

  North Western

  100

  110

  132

  150

  155

  163

  165

  170

  167

  149

  Scotland

  100

  109

  131

  149

  157

  167

  170

  187

  186

  169

  1Figures for 1979 to 1981 are reworked data.

  2 Figures for 1988 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Sources: November/December quarterly count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where benefit payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Full figures set out in the reply on 6 March.

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of war pensioners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We calculate that there were 258,300 at the end of 1988. This number is made up of 197,800 war disablement pensioners, 57,500 war widows and 3,000 other dependants receiving a war pension.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to advise potential claimants of family credit that child-minding expenses may be deducted from earnings in assessing entitlements; whether existing claimants of family credit have been so advised; and whether his publications will be revised.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no provision in legislation for child-minding expenses to be deducted from earnings in assessing family credit.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to notify women who would be entitled to invalid care allowance on the basis of the settlement of case CG/15/1987; and whether he proposes to revise his Department's publications.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr.
  174
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available. The supplementary benefit annual statistical inquiry identified only carers under pension age who cared for severely disabled people aged 16 years or more and who would otherwise have been required to be available for employment. The figures therefore included carers of people under pension age, and excluded carers who were not subject to the condition of availability for employment. The cost and numbers requested, for identified supplementary benefit carers, could be obtained but only at disproportionate cost. Information for income support, which will be available later this year, will not identify carers separately.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, of 6 March,Official Report, column 446, he will express the number of supplementary benefit/income support claimants for each region as an index figure with 1979 as the base.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows.

  Morris) on 21 December at column 306. Any follow-up action which may be necessary will need to await the outcome of related cases currently before the social security commissioner and the Court of Appeal, also affecting the entitlement of women over pension age.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to increase mobility allowance next month by an amount close to the current rate of inflation rather than that prevailing in September 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  No. Price increases from September 1988 to April 1989 will be taken into account at the next benefits uprating. Between November 1979 and April 1988 mobility allowance rose in real terms by 9·4 per cent. The estimated average number of people receiving mobility allowance has increased from 95,000 in 1978–79 to 530,000 in 1988–89.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis he calculates the levels of expenditure in table 15·8 of Cm. 615.

  Mr. Scott
  The levels of expenditure in table 15·8 were determined by a breakdown of the totals in table 15·1. The
  175
  methodology is described in the footnotes. Forecasts throughout chapter 15 are consistent with the economic assumptions described in paragraphs 45–48.

  Chief Adjudication Officer
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the fourth annual report of the chief adjudication officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  The report which is being published today provides an authoritative account of the standards of social security adjudication. We welcome the report and the recognition that the replacement of supplementary benefit with income support, as part of our reform of the social security system, has produced encouraging signs for further improvements in the standard of adjudication. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by district the income level at which a single person over 25 years of age with no savings would lose entitlement to a rebate from the community charge.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 8 March 1989]: These figures assume that the claimant is under pension age, is not disabled, is in full-time work and has no children. The tax and national insurance rates current at 9 March 1989 have been used in calculating gross income.

  Gross weekly earnings

  District council

  £

  Berwickshire

  64·43

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  66·04

  Roxburgh

  66·04

  Tweeddale

  66·19

  Clackmannan

  78·39

  Falkirk

  70·14

  Stirling

  79·90

  Annandale and Eskdale

  67·43

  Nithsdale

  66·26

  Stewartry

  65·97

  Wightown

  66·41

  Dunfermline

  76·88

  Kirkclady

  77·64

  North East Fife

  80·95

  Aberdeen City

  76·73

  Banff and Buchan

  70·39

  Gordon

  68·53

  Kincardine and Deeside

  66·77

  Moray

  68·24

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  65·89

  Caithness

  64·43

  Inverness

  64·58

  Lochaber

  66·19

  Narin

  64·87

  Ross and Cromarty

  66·48

  Skye and Lochalsh

  64·43

  Sutherland

  61·65

  East Lothian

  89·10

  Edinburgh City

  91·81

  Midlothian

  87·59

  West Lothian

  86·84

  Argyll and Bute

  72·20

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  77·49

  Clydebank

  77·34

  Clydesdale

  77·94

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  71·90

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  72·05

  Cunningham

  72·34

  176

  District council

  £

  Dumbarton

  77·49

  East Kilbride

  80·50

  Eastwood

  75·07

  Glasgow City

  78·69

  Hamilton

  76·43

  Inverclyde

  76·43

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  71·02

  Kyle and Carrick

  78·99

  Monklands

  76·73

  Motherwell

  78·54

  Renfrew

  77·03

  Strathkelvin

  77·64

  Angus

  76·43

  Dundee City

  81·11

  Perth and Kinross

  77·34

  Islands Council

  Orkney

  52·27

  Shetland

  50·13

  Western Isles

  54·47

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what future provisions his Department is making to pay full housing benefit to tenants in receipt of housing benefit in private rented accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: The Government have given a firm commitment that housing benefit will continue to be available to help those on low incomes with their reasonable housing costs up to market rent levels.

  However, housing benefit is not intended to enable claimants to occupy, at public expense, accommodation which the majority of people could not afford. The Government have therefore announced that they intend to introduce formal limits on benefit for properties at the top of the market, once sufficient information is available about the level of market rents.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will be fully reimbursing all local authority resources paid out in housing benefit to private tenants under the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: From April 1989, under the arrangements for subsidising local authorities' housing benefit expenditure, full subsidy at the rate of 97 per cent. will be payable, up to the level determined by the rent officer as representing a reasonable market rent, on housing benefit awarded to claimants with deregulated tenancies created under the Housing Act 1988. Benefit above that level will not attract subsidy unless the local authority has paid benefit, above the level of the rent officer's determination, to a person in a vulnerable group, when 50 per cent. subsidy will be paid. For housing benefit claims on deregulated tenancies created before April 1989, until such cases are referred to the rent officer, 97 per cent. subsidy will be payable on benefit awarded on rents up to the subsidy rent threshold for the area and 25 per cent. subsidy above that level. Housing benefit expenditure not met by direct subsidy is reflected in the rate support grant arrangements.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom in the latest available year.

  Mr. Cope
  A total of 8·7 per cent. of the establishments on the wages inspectorate's register, covering 329,591 workers (an estimated 13·1 per cent.) were inspected in 1988. If the hon. Gentleman wishes I will arrange for divisional figures to be published in the Official Report.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no such thing as a Council of Europe decency threshold for a minimum acceptable level of earnings.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the west midlands.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no such thing as a Council of Europe decency threshold for a minimum acceptable level of earnings.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the Wales.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Scotland.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the west midlands.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Great Britain.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time 178
  female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the northern region.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in(a) Great Britain and (b) the north-west region.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of the full-time workforce earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 8 March 1989 at columns 569–70.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Great Britain.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Scotland.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the south-east.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Wales.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Greater London.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the east midlands.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Wales.
  179
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Greater London.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the north-west.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in Scotland.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the northern region.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the north-west.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the east midlands.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the northern region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 8 March 1989 at columns 569–70.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work places were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work places were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work places were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work places were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the east midlands.
  180
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work places were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the north-west.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Greater London.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying, for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the northern region.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Greater London.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the east midlands.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the north-west.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics for Great Britain are not compiled for areas smaller than the inspectorate's nine divisions. The number of workplaces visited in 1988 for the purpose of checking pay and the number where underpayments were found was included in a reply given in the Official Report of 1 March at columns 201–26. The number of workplaces visited in 1988 for advisory purposes was:

  Number

  London

  10

  South East

  9

  Eastern

  10

  South West

  69

  Midlands

  103

  North West

  33

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25

  Northern

  5

  Scotland

  29

  Northern Ireland has a separate wages council system which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but it is understood that in 1988, 944 workplaces were visited and 112 were found to have underpaid one or more workers.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the
  181
  full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the north west.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the south-east.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the west midlands.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the northern region.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of the full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the west midlands.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of the full-time work force earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the north-west.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 8 March 1989 at columns 569–70.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering the northern region in the latest available year.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed in the most recent year for which figures are available on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering the north-west.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom in the latest available year.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on 182
  employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom in the latest available year.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering Scotland in the latest available year.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering the west midlands in the latest available year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering Yorkshire and Humberside in the latest available year.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering the northern region in the latest available year.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering the north-west in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering Scotland in the latest available year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering Wales in the latest available year.

  Mr. Buckley (Hemsworth)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering Wales in the latest available year.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed on employers found to be illegally underpaying within the wages inspectorate divisions covering the east midlands within the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics are not kept for areas smaller than the inspectorate's nine divisions. The average total fine on employers prosecuted for underpayment in 1988 is given for each of the divisions in the following table.

  Northern Ireland has a separate wages council system which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I understand that in 1988 there were no prosecutions.
  183

  Division

  Average fine

  £

  London

  No Prosecutions

  South East

  200

  Eastern

  750

  South West

  150

  Midlands

  150

  North West

  215

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  350

  Northern

  No Prosecutions

  Scotland

  No Prosecutions

  Wales

  1100

  Great Britain

  328

  1 Wales figures are also included in the Inspectorate's North West and South West divisional statistics.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentages of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions in the south-east in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Scotland.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom in the latest available year.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering East Anglia in the latest available year.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the north-west in the latest available year.

  Mr. Foot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Wales in the latest available year.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the north-west in the latest available year.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the northern region in the latest available year.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the west midlands in the latest available year.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workplaces and workers were inspected by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Yorkshire and Humberside.
  184
  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics are not compiled for areas smaller than the wages inspectorate's nine divisions. The percentage of workplaces known to the inspectorate which was checked in each division of Great Britain in 1988 was:

  Per cent.

  London

  6·6

  South East

  6·2

  Eastern

  15·1

  South West

  7·3

  Midlands

  8·6

  North West

  7·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9·5

  Northern

  8·2

  Scotland

  9·6

  Wales1

  7·7

  1 Wales figures are also included in the inspectorate's south west and north west divisional statistics.

  Northern Ireland has a separate wages council system which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but it is understood that in 1988, 13·6 per cent. of workplaces known to the inspectorate were checked.

  No information is available on the percentage of workers in each wages inspectorate division whose pay was checked because statistical returns of the number of workers employed in establishments covered by wages councils are not collected. However, in 1988 an estimated 2,472,400 workers aged 21 and over were employed in establishments covered by wages councils in Great Britain and checks covered 11 per cent. of that total. In 1987 an estimated 36,065 workers aged 21 and over were employed in establishments covered by wages councils in Northern Ireland and in 1988 checks covered 18 per cent. of that total.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Wales.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the northern region.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the west midlands.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be
  185
  illegally underpaying and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the northern region.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying; and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the north-west.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics on compliance with wages orders are compiled on the basis of establishments rather than employers and are not kept for areas smaller than a wages inspectorate division. With those provisos, the information requested is given in the following table.

  Northern Ireland has a separate wages council system which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I understand that in 1988 112 establishments were found to be underpaying. There were no prosecutions.

  Establishments found to be underpaying in 1988

  Prosecutions for underpayment in 1988

  London

  317

  —

  South-East

  537

  1

  Eastern

  462

  2

  South-West

  1,156

  2

  Midlands

  747

  1

  North-West

  869

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  631

  2

  Northern

  369

  —

  Scotland

  509

  —

  Great Britain

  5,597

  10

  Wales1

  446

  1

  1 Wales figures are also included in the inspectorate's south-west and north-west divisional statistics.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many West Midlands employers have been prosecuted by his Department's wages inspectorate in the past three years for underpaying wages; how many were found guilty; and what was the average level of fines imposed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics are not kept for areas smaller than the inspectorate's nine divisions. In the three years from 1986 to 1988, two employers in the midlands were prosecuted for offences which included underpayment. Both prosecutions were successful. The average total fine imposed by the courts was £125.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 8 March 1989 at column 569–70.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are undertaking training on employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  The number of people on employment training at 24 February 1989 was 157,000. This is a tremendous achievement after only six months of the 186
  programme's operation and reflects the great interest shown by unemployed people in getting high-quality training to help them back into a job.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give figures for the current percentage take-up rate under employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information about the take-up rate under employment training is not available. It is not possible to estimate the total number of people in the employment training client group. There are currently over 157,000 on employment training. This is a heartening response by unemployed people who clearly acknowledge that the programme's provision of quality training will be a great help in their efforts to find work.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen since June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,988,100 compared with 2,857,200 in June 1987 on the same basis, a fall of 869,100. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for eight years.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of young people aged 18 to 24 years unemployed in(a) January 1983 and (b) January 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants aged 18 to 24 years in the United Kingdom was 595,743 compared with 1,004,212 in January 1983—a fall of 408,469. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people in employment aged 24 to 35 years in(a) January 1983 and (b) January 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated from the 1983 labour force survey (LFS) that in spring 1983 there were 5,042,000 persons aged 25 to 34 in employment in Great Britain. An equivalent estimate for spring 1988, from the preliminary results of the 1988 LFS, is 5,980,000.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of the fall in unemployment in the United Kingdom in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to January 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom fell by 531,300 on a consistent basis. At 1,988,100 unemployment is now at its lowest level for eight years.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the numbers of people aged 16 to 18 years in employment.
  187
  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated from the preliminary results of the 1988 labour force survey (LFS) that in spring 1988 there were 1,475,000 persons aged 16 to 18 in employment in Great Britain.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportions of those in employment in the United Kingdom are self-employed; what this figure was 10 years ago; and what is the comparable change for other OECD countries.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows, for the United Kingdom and major OECD countries, the proportion of those in civilian employment who were self-employed in 1976 and 1986 and the change in the proportion over the 10-year period. 1986 is the latest year for which the information requested is available for the other OECD countries. In September 1988, the latest date for which United Kingdom figures are available 11·6 per cent. of the civilian work force in employment were self-employed.

  Percentage of civilian employment self employed

  1976

  1986

  Change (percentage points)

  United Kingdom

  8·0

  10·8

  2·8

  Canada

  8·4

  9·2

  0·7

  USA

  8·4

  8·5

  0·1

  Germany

  9·6

  9·6

  0

  Japan

  17·7

  15·6

  -2·1

  France

  17·8

  15·8

  -2·0

  Italy

  29·2

  24·5

  -4·7

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in Bury, North since July 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in Bury, North constituency was 2,474 compared with 4,607 in July 1986—a fall of 2,133, or 46·3 per cent. The comparison is affected by seasonal influences as well as by the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to the new benefit regulations affecting those aged under 18.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the percentage fall in unemployment in each of the Liverpool parliamentary constituencies since June 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is also available from the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in June 1987 and January 1989 for each of the Liverpool parliamentary constituencies, together with the percentage change over the period. The figures are affected by seasonal influences as well as by the change in the coverage of the count due to new benefit regulations from September 1988 for young people aged under 18.

  Constituency

  June 1987

  January 1989

  Percentage change

  Liverpool Broadgreen

  8,149

  6,689

  -17·9

  Liverpool Garston

  7,456

  5,812

  -22·0

  Liverpool Mossley Hill

  7,070

  5,923

  -16·2

  Liverpool Riverside

  10,764

  8,960

  -16·8

  Liverpool Walton

  10,303

  8,300

  -19·4

  Liverpool West Derby

  8,795

  7,161

  -18·6

  188
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have become self-employed during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In the year to September 1988 there was a net increase of 125,000 in the estimated number of self-employed people in Great Britain. It is estimated that nearly 3 million people are now self-employed and the number is still rising. The numbers of self-employed people have risen by over 60 per cent. since 1979 and they now represent almost one in nine of the work force in employment.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the numbers of people in employment in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region was 2,148,000. This represents an increase of 179,000 or 9 per cent. since September 1983. The civilian workforce in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen over the past year in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of the fall in unemployment in the last 12 months in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to January 1989, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the north-west fell by 61,100 or 17·5 per cent. on a consistent basis.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between March 1983 and September 1988 the work force in employment in Great Britain increased by 2,809,000 to 25,807,000, the highest level on record. This rising trend has now continued for more than five years. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's Forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were in full-time and part-time employment, where identifiable, in each standard planning region of the United Kingdom in June 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  For the dates specified, the only available information about full and part-time employment in the regions is for female employees in employment. The information is not available for Northern Ireland. The information is as follows:
  189

  Female employees in employment regions of Great Britain

  Thousands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  June 1979

  September 1988

  June 1979

  September 1988

  South-East

  1,899

  2,210

  1,279

  1,392

  Greater London (included in South-East)

  —

  1,105

  —

  496

  East Anglia

  163

  201

  122

  160

  South-West

  382

  430

  295

  325

  West Midlands

  533

  541

  370

  405

  East Midlands

  376

  404

  265

  309

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  453

  452

  362

  395

  North-West

  666

  607

  471

  496

  North

  298

  278

  208

  237

  Wales

  250

  217

  165

  185

  Scotland

  565

  529

  332

  382

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in the west midlands over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to January 1989, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the west midlands fell by 65,900 or 25·6 per cent., on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of the fall in unemployment in the last 12 months in the east midlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to January 1989, the level of unemployment seasonally adjusted, in the east midlands fell by 34,300 or 21·9 per cent. on a consistent basis.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people who were classified as long-term unemployed in January 1983 and January 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for more than 12 months in the United Kingdom, was 821,419 compared with 1,106,771 in January 1983. The comparison is affected by the 1983 Budget measures for certain older men, mostly aged 60 and over, who no longer need to sign on to get their benefits, the change in compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording, and the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to new benefit regulations affecting those young people aged under 18.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the percentage fall in unemployment in the parliamentary constituencies in the city of Birmingham since June 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is also available from the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in June 1987 and January 1989 for each of the Birmingham parliamentary constituencies, together with the percentage change over the period. The figures affected by seasonal influences as well as by the change in the coverage of the count due to new benefit regulations from September 1988 for young people aged under 18.

  Constituency

  June 1987

  January 1989

  Percentage change

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  5,001

  3,548

  -29·0

  Birmingham Erdington

  7,359

  5,196

  -29·4

  Birmingham Hall Green

  5,314

  3,700

  -30·4

  190

  Constituency

  June 1987

  January 1989

  Percentage change

  Birmingham Hodge Hill

  7,081

  5,152

  -27·2

  Birmingham Ladywood

  8,892

  6,606

  -25·7

  Birmingham Northfield

  7,663

  5,630

  -26·5

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  7,400

  5,301

  -28·4

  Birmingham Small Heath

  9,599

  7,344

  -23·5

  Birmingham Sparkbrook

  8,566

  6,188

  -27·8

  Birmingham Yardley

  4,721

  3,185

  -32·5

  Birmingham Selly Oak

  5,750

  4,203

  -26·9

  Sutton Coldfield

  3,243

  2,156

  -33·5

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment now; what was the level in June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,988,100 compared with 2,857,200 in June 1987 on the same basis, a fall of 869,100. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for eight years.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people included in the unemployment count are early retired people or those in receipt of the carer's allowance not seeking work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, according to preliminary results of the labour force survey for spring 1988, in Great Britain there were some 60,000 claimants in the unemployment count who were not unemployed on the ILO/OECD definition and who gave retirement as their main reason for not seeking work in the previous week.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an up-to-date statement on the employment situation in West Norfolk.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available information from the September 1984 census of employment shows that there were 41,000 employees in employment in the West Norfolk local authority area compared with 39,400 in September 1981, an increase of 4·3 per cent. between the two census dates. Estimates from the 1987 census of employment will become available later this year.

  More recent information is available about unemployment. In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the West Norfolk local authority area was 3,148 compared with 4,876 in January 1988, a fall of 1,728 or 35·4 per cent.
  191
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of vacancies in Kent.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in Kent was 6,937. Vacancies at jobcentres do not represent the total number of vacancies in the economy. Recent research shows, nationally, only about one third of vacancies are notified to jobcentres. This proportion will tend to vary between different areas.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment, expressed as a percentage, according to the latest available figures for the Sheffield travel-to-work area; and what was the figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the Sheffield travel-to-work area was 31,687 or 11·2 per cent. of employees in employment plus the unemployed. The corresponding figure for the Sheffield 1978 travel-to-work area in January 1979 was 13,771 or 4·6 per cent. The figures are affected by the changes in the boundaries of travel-to-work areas as well as in the coverage of the unemployment count, and are therefore not comparable.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in Basildon; and what were the corresponding figures for the same period in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in Basildon local authority area for each January from 1986 to 1989. The figures are affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and by the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to the introduction of new benefit regulations for young people aged under 18.

  Unemployment in Basildon local authority area

  January

  Number of unemployed claimants

  1986

  9,073

  1987

  8,695

  1988

  6,287

  1989

  4,145

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people in employment in London.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available the civilian work force in employment in Greater London was 4,014,000. This represents an increase of 253,000 or 7 per cent. since September 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of employment in the east midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available the civilian work force in employment in the east midlands region was 1,836,000. This represents 192
  an increase of 219,000 or 14 per cent. since September 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment in the north-west in January and February; and what was the rate recorded in January and February 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the north-west was 9·6 per cent., compared with 11·6 per cent. and 11·4 per cent. on the same basis, in January and February 1988 respectively.

  The February 1989 unemployment figures are not available until 16 March.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which regions of the United Kingdom the rate of unemployment has fallen fastest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to January 1989 the largest falls in the regional seasonally adjusted unemployment rates, were in the west midlands, 2·5 percentage points, and Wales 2·2 percentage points, compared with the United Kingdom average of 1·9 percentage points.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the numbers of long-term unemployed aged 16 to 24 years in(a) January 1983 and (b) January 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants aged 16 to 24 years who had been unemployed for more than 12 months in the United Kingdom was 136,969 compared with 258,470 in January 1983. The comparison is affected by the change in compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to new benefit regulations for those young people aged under 18.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current employment position in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between March 1983 and September 1988 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased by 2,813,000 to 26,374,000, the highest level on record. This rising trend has now continued for more than five years. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, HM forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women are now working; how many were working in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1988 the latest date for which figures are available the female work force in employment in Great Britain was 11,059,000. In September 1986 it was 10,276,000. This represents an increase of 8 per cent.
  193
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of employment in the south-west of England.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the south-west region was 1,982,000. This represents an increase of 224,000 or 13 per cent. since September 1983. Th civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered dock workers have been recruited in the last 12 months by the dock labour scheme port of Tees and Hartlepool.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the port of Tees and Hartlepool 12 registered dock workers have been recruited in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many dockers were employed by dock labour scheme ports in 1979; how many are currently employed in those ports; and if he will estimate similar figures for non-scheme ports.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Dock labour scheme ports employed 25,770 registered dock workers in 1979, in 1989 they currently employ 9,471. Comparable figures for non-scheme ports are not available.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to seek to amend the dock labour scheme with a view to implementing the free movement of labour provisions of the Single European Act in 1992.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to review the operation of the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government's position on the scheme remains unchanged as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed in the House on January 19 1989, at columns 481–82.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the National Association of Port Employers to discuss the future of the dock labour scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the National Association of Port Employers to discuss the future of the dock labour scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the national average age of registered dock workers in dock labour scheme ports.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1987 (the latest available date) the national average age for registered dock workers in dock labour scheme ports was 46·7 years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the future of the dock labour scheme.
  194
  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the future of the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the 1988 average wage of registered dock workers in dock labour scheme ports.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average earnings of registered dock workers in the last quarter of 1988 was £341·83 per week.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of the dock labour scheme on the creation of real jobs in port areas.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Where the dock labour scheme has sustained inefficiency in dock work leading to loss of business, and has acted as a disincentive to investment in adjacent areas, there is no doubt that local job prospects have suffered.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many demarcation disputes exist at the present time in relation to registered dock workers claiming work that is currently undertaken by other workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Four cases arising from disputed definitions of dock work under the dock labour scheme are currently under litigation.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reports he received of the National Dock Labour Board's monthly meetings.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no requirement for the National Dock Labour Board to provide me with reports of its monthly meetings.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the fishing industry in Grimsby or Aberdeen on the future of the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received a number of representations about the operation of the dock labour scheme on the fishing industry in Grimsby and Aberdeen.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to examine the operations of the dock labour scheme on the River Thames; and whether representations have been made to him about the effect on businesses along the Thames brought about by the operation of the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has received and noted several representations about the operation of the dock labour scheme on the Thames river.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now covered by the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of registered dock workers in ports covered by the national dock labour scheme was 9,741 on 28 February 1989.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average daily surplus of labour in dock labour scheme ports during 1988.
  195
  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1988 the average daily surplus of labour in dock labour scheme ports was 932.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of working hours lost each year from drug misuse.
  196
  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to estimate with any accuracy the effect of drug misuse on working hours lost. No one knows the full extent of drugs misuse in this country but it is clear that this serious problem affects a significant number of people who are or who otherwise could be in employment.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has that the abolition of wages councils will result directly in employment growth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is now a large body of research which establishes that there is a link between the level of pay and jobs and there are studies by academics and others which point to the adverse effects on jobs of statutory minimum rates. Employers also report that the levels at which wages council minima are set influence the amount of employment that they are prepared to offer.

  Tourism
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to change the grant structure of the tourist boards for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  A wide range of issues is being looked at as part of the tourism review announced last July. The review report is currently under consideration.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of capital investment in the tourist industry.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board's "Tourism Investment Report" shows that the total amount spent on tourism projects in England, with a value of £0·5 million or more, which were completed in 1988 was £605 million. Investment in such projects which were still under construction at 31 December 1988 totalled £2,114 million.

  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the moratorium on section 4 grants has had any effect on the levels of capital investment in tourism and hospitality developments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The suspension of the section 4 scheme was announced some seven weeks ago and it is too early to assess what effect this has had on the level of capital investment. However, the £13·2 million spent on the section 4 scheme in the current financial year is minuscule compared with total new capital investment in tourism and leisure, estimated to be worth £2·5 billion in major projects in England during the last six months of 1988 and thus the moratorium is unlikely to have had any significant effect.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the prospects for the tourism industry in 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  Levels of investment and forward bookings show that prospects for the domestic tourism industry in 1989 are excellent. A recent survey carried out by the English tourist board indicates that there has been an upsurge in bookings for holidays in Britain. Operators are reporting increases of up to 50 per cent. on 1988 so far this year and coupled with approximately £2 billion worth of facilities due to come on stream make the prospects for 1989 very promising.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the BTA to discuss the promotion of Britain in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.
  198
  Mr. Lee
  Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I frequently meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. There are no plans for a separate meeting to discuss this specific issue.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the British Tourist Association to discuss promotion of tourism from Japan to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I frequently meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority to discuss aspects of promotion of tourism from overseas and we are both aware of the great potential of the Japanese market. In June I hope to lead a delegation of senior figures in the tourism industry to Japan to explore ways of encouraging more Japanese visitors to Great Britain. This will build on the Government's wider "Opportunity Japan" campaign of which tourism is an integral part.

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average annual number of working days lost through stoppages for the period of the past nine years; and what was the figure for the preceding nine years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average annual number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes for the period 1980 to 1988 is provisionally estimated as 7,562,000; the figure for the period 1971 to 1979 was 13,081,000.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work clays lost in(a) January 1979 and (b) January 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in January 1979 was 2,966,000. The most recently available figure relates to December 1988, for which it is provisionally estimated that 35,000 working days were lost; the January 1989 figures will be published on 16 March in the labour market statistics press notice.

  Retirement Policy
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to encourage workers over 60 years to remain in their jobs and not retire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 14 February 1989 at column 154.

  Trades Union Congress
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss vocational qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general
  199
  secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the current employment situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a meeting in the immediate future.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers have been prosecuted as a result of investigations by Her Majesty's factory inspectorate and Her Majesty's agriculture inspectorate in each year since 1973 for alleged offences in connection with the employment of children; with what result; and what was(a) the highest, (b) the average and (c) the lowest penalty imposed following a conviction.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to information in the reply to his question by the Secretary of State for Health on 16 February,Official Report column 327, in respect of industrial and agricultural undertakings. Prosecutions of industrial undertakings by the Health and Safety Executive were as a result of investigations by the factory inspectorate, and those of agricultural undertakings as a result of investigations by the agricultural inspectorate.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his campaign to reduce unemployment benefit fraud.

  Mr. Lee
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his reply to my hon. Friend's question of 14 February 1989 at column 145 on 15 February the drive against fraudulent benefit claims is being intensified. In the nine months from April 1988 325,000 cases were investigated compared with 286,000 in the same period in 1987. Increased resources have been devoted to fraud detection, particularly in the south-east, and a new inner London fraud team has been established to pursue investigations into the hidden economy.

  Sir John Stokes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for savings for 1988 as a result of investigations of fraudulent claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The net benefit saving from my Department's fraud investigation work during 1988 was £65 million.

  Local Employer Networks
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the establishment of local employer networks.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of February 1989, 118 local employer networks were operating throughout Great Britain. Some may form the nucleus of a training and enterprise council. The Government will be encouraging the new councils to make the best use of the expertise of these employer networks.

  YTS
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for YTS trainees going into work, further education and training; and if he will make a statement.
  200
  Mr. Cope
  The latest figures show that 86 per cent. of young people completing full YTS training and 78 per cent. of all leavers went into either employment, full-time education or further training.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently benefiting from YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of January 1989, 413,300 young people were recorded in training on YTS.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people went into employment, full-time education or further training on leaving YTS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest figures show that 86 per cent. of young people completing full YTS training and 78 per cent. of all leavers went into either employment, full-time education or further training.

  "Employment for the 1990s"
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received following the publication of the White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  We have received several hundred representations following publication of the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", the majority of which have expressed interest in and support for the introduction of training and enterprise councils. The prospectus inviting local groups led by employers to submit proposals for forming training and enterprise councils in their areas was published on 10 March.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people he estimates are employed in the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available.

  Vacancies
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies were notified to jobcentres, and what proportion these constitute of the estimated number of vacancies in the economy in the last months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the level of unfilled vacancies, seasonally adjusted, at jobcentres in the United Kingdom was 229,200. A survey in January 1989 showed that only about one third of all vacancies in the economy are notified to jobcentres.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment from which sources he derives information about the number and proportion of disabled people of working age who are unemployed; and what is the latest information provided by these sources.

  Mr. Lee
  The only count made of unemployed people with disabilities is of those who choose to register for work
  201
  at jobcentres and careers offices. The latest figures available show that on 6 January 1989 there were 50,219 unemployed people with disabilities registered for work at jobcentres and careers offices. There is no count made of the total number of people with disabilities of working age.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs are currently in operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  At 31 January 1989 there were 1,220 job clubs in operation. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 27 January 1989,Official Report, column 810.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many enterprise agencies are currently operating in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  We know of 437 local enterprise agencies operating in the United Kingdom. Of these, 396 are approved under provisions of the 1988 Income and Corporation Taxes Act (previously under provisions of the Finance Act 1982), which allows business sector sponsors tax relief on their contributions to such bodies.

  Workfare
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made a study during the last 12 months of workfare schemes in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I have not made a study of workfare schemes in the United States of America during the last 12 months. Some two years ago Professor John Addison of the university of South Carolina completed a study of such schemes as part of a wider research project commissioned by my Department. A summary of his findings were included in the Blaug report on workfare and a summary was published in "Economic Affairs" in May 1988.

  Closed Shop
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has come to any conclusions on the future of the pre-entry closed shop; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The examination of the operation of the pre-entry closed shop which was announced in our White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" is now nearing completion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to make a further announcement shortly.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have been helped to start a business during the last 12 months through the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In the year to March 1989, 99,070 unemployed people set up their own businesses with the 202
  help of the enterprise allowance scheme. Since the scheme began in 1982 over 421,000 unemployed people have been helped to create their own business.

  Restart
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the restart scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  Since the introduction of the restart programme in July 1986, some 5·4 million interviews have been carried out, of which just under 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made.

  The restart programme now offers interviews at six-monthly intervals to everyone who has been out of work for six months or more. In addition, certain clients are now offered follow-up interviews in order to provide further guidance and support.

  Since September 1988, the programme has delivered the Government's guarantee to people aged between 18 and 24, who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months, of the offer of a place on employment training, or in a job club or on the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed have been offered help under the restart programme since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Since 1 July 1986, some 5·4 million interviews have taken place under the restart programme of which just under 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made. There is no record of the number of people who have been interviewed as some will have been interviewed more than once.

  Business Starts
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many businesses were started during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1987, the latest year for which figures have been published, the estimated number of new registrations for value added tax was 205,000. The net increase in the number of VAT registered businesses in 1987 was 45,000, or nearly 900 a week on average. The indications are that the rate of increase during 1988 has been faster.

  Trade Union Representatives
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to ensure that time off rights for trade union representatives will be equal to those enjoyed by safety representatives under the Health and Safety at Work Regulations.

  Mr. Lee
  Time off rights for trade union representatives will be provided under the Employment Bill, amending the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which will not affect the provisions for safety representatives in the Health and Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations.

  Wages (Northern Region)
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited, and how
  203
  many of them were found to be illegally underpaying, for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the northern region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1988 the wages inspectorate visited 1,004 workplaces in the northern region for the purposes of checking workers' pay and found 369 were underpaying one or more worker. However, this cannot be taken as representing the general level of non-compliance with wages council orders because the wages inspectorate targets its checks by visit on those workplaces thought more likely to underpay workers. The wages inspectorate also visited five workplaces in the northern region for advisory purposes.

  Dock Labour Boards
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed by the National Dock Labour Board and the 20 local dock labour boards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The National Dock Labour Board and the 20 local boards employed a total of 234 staff on 31 December 1988.

  Community Insulation Projects
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the introduction of the employment training scheme on the operation of community insulation projects.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am aware that some community insulation projects operating under employment training have had difficulty attracting trainees. Community insulation projects have an important role to play in employment training and on 10 February at column 868 my right hon. Friend announced a range of measures specifically aimed at supporting and maintaining the present community insulation project network.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to funding directly the community insulation programme, along the lines of the funding arrangements of the action for community employment scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the measures I announced on 10 February at column 868, which reinforce the generous support available for running community insulation projects in Great Britain through employment training. Different employment and training programmes operate in Northern Ireland so different funding arrangements are appropriate there.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to create training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on his proposals to create training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  On 10 March I published a prospectus inviting local groups of employers to submit proposals for 204
  forming training and enterprise councils in their areas. The TECs will represent a fundamental change in the way training and enterprise activities are managed and developed. The idea has captured the imagination of employers throughout the country and we have already had many inquiries. I have invited the first formal applications for development funding by the end of April. I expect the first TECs to be in operation by early next year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contributions training and enterprise councils will make to meeting skill shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to establish training and enterprise councils to deal with skill shortages.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline his proposals for employers to direct training for jobs on a local basis through training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Training and enterprise councils offer employers major opportunities to improve the supply of skills and to promote enterprise. They will be well placed to identify key skill needs in their localities. They will manage and develop the training and enterprise programmes previously run by the Employment Department so that they meet local needs more effectively. The TECs will also be able to take new initiatives, in partnership with others, to promote more effective training and small business support, using public and private funds. They will have a key role in helping to stimulate greater investment by employers in training their employees. The TECs will greatly increase employers' ability to mould the training system to meet their needs.

TRANSPORT

  Ports (Statistics)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of United Kingdom trade passes through(a) dock labour scheme ports and (b) non-scheme ports; and what was the comparable figure in 1965.

  Mr. Portillo
  The percentage of trade tonnage (including oil) passing through dock labour scheme ports and non-scheme ports in Great Britain are given in the table for 1965 and 1987. Northern Ireland is not covered by the dock labour scheme legislation.

  United Kingdom Foreign trade through ports in Great Britain

  Percentage of tonnage

  Dock labour scheme ports

  Non-scheme ports

  1965

  88

  12

  1987

  62

  38

  Computerised Information (Confidentiality)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the air
  205
  traffic control system is adequately protected from unauthorised entry by computer hackers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is for the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence acting through the management of the national air traffic services to ensure adequate protection.

  Vehicles (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the numbers of vehicles seeking to travel from the home counties to north Yorkshire and the north in the coming 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department prepares forecasts of national traffic. Where specific trunk road improvements are being assessed, local traffic forecasts are prepared. Projections are not otherwise made for traffic between specific regions.

  Motoring Mileage
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has of the total mileage driven by the average motorist per annum; and how this estimate is arrived at.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am advised that the average motorist drives about 6,000 miles per annum, while the average household car travels 7,700 miles per annum. Mileage per car is higher than mileage per driver because there is more than one driver per car. These estimates are derived from the latest national travel survey carried out in 1985–86.

  Drivers (Eyesight)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent random tests to determine whether drivers' eyesight is defective are carried out in England and Wales; with what results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Last month I placed in the Library two transport and road research laboratory reports on eyesight standards for driving—"A Re-analysis of Californian Driver Vision Data" and "A Survey of Visual Acuity of Drivers"—together with a paper entitled "Vision and Driving" prepared by the Department's medical adviser. These documents show clearly that defective eyesight is not a problem in the general driving population as a whole.

  We are not aware of any random testing of driver eyesight standards. We know that some police forces carry out occasional surveys of driver eyesight using binocular screening devices.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any proposals to seek to amend the law so as to make it an offence for a person to drive a vehicle while having defective vision, whether known to that person or not; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is an offence under section 91 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to drive with defective eyesight, whether known or not, to the extent that the driver is unable to meet the number plate test.
  206
  It is an offence to refuse to submit to any eyesight test required by a police constable. The maximum penalty is £400, as well as an obligatory two penalty points.

  Around 300 people each year are prosecuted for these offences.

  Fishermen (Pots)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to require potting fishermen to mark their pots clearly.

  Mr. Portillo
  The need for the efficient marking of lobster and crab pots will shortly be drawn to the attention of fishermen by the circulation of advice to the local sea fisheries committees, and attempts are also being made to stimulate interest in the subject in the fishing press. It remains the case however that progress can best be made through better communications locally between fishermen, yachtsmen and others concerned.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision is being made for the laying of submarine high voltage cable in the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  The use of the Channel tunnel for purposes such as the passage of electricity cables is a matter in the first place for Eurotunnel's commercial judgment. I understand that it has considered the possibility of entering into arrangements with CEGB, and it seems that overall the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. There would be considerable technical problems to be overcome, for example in making space available, coping with the heat generated, and avoiding interference with signalling equipment.

  M11 Link
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in discussions between his Department's officials and Beazers Ltd. to achieve environmental improvements to the proposed M 11 link road through Leyton and Leytonstone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Discussions between officials of the Department of Transport and Beazers Ltd. have taken place against clearly set out criteria that there should be no delay to the road scheme nor any extra risk of cost falling upon my right hon. Friend.

  The costs and feasibility of Beazers' tunnelling proposals were agreed. Beazers has been unable to agree financial terms which would meet these criteria. Beazers has now been advised that its proposals could not be incorporated in the scheme without delay to its completion.

  Refurbishment Costs
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide precise details of refurbishment/upgrading costs expended over the past five years on the following stations(a) Hartland MSRC-to 6 December 1988, (b) Ramsey MRSC-to 17 January 1989 and (c) Peterhead MRSC-to date.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 March 1989] Over the five-year periods specified, expenditure on refurbishment/upgrading of the buildings concerned has totalled:

  207

  £

  Hartland MRSC

  54,634

  Ramsey MSRC

  4,723

  Peterhead MRSC

  5,196

  Roads (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish statistics indicating the increase of traffic in Hampshire (i) in the county as a whole and (ii) in the local authority districts of the county for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: The Department carries out surveys designed to measure traffic growth only at the national level. For counties, estimates of traffic levels are made annually for major roads (class A and motorways). These levels estimates are subject to wide margins of error and do not provide a reliable basis for measuring year-to-year changes.

  For 1987 the level of traffic on major roads in Hampshire is estimated at 7·2 billion vehicle kilometres. No estimates are made of traffic levels for the local authority districts within a county.

  London Underground (Security)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total extra amount spent by Her Majesty's Government on police and improved security on the London Underground since the publication of the 1986 report "Crime on the Underground".

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 10 March 1989]: The Government have made available to London Underground Ltd. £15 million specifically for additional passenger security measures recommended by the 1986 report. In addition the increase in complement of the London Underground division of the British Transport police from 350 to 400 officers will cost an extra £1·5 million in a full year.

  Elveden Junction
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his request to Suffolk county council to investigate what action can be taken to improve the A 11/B1106 junction at Elveden, if he has received the council's recommendations; and what steps he is now taking to bring about an improvement in road safety at this junction.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 March 1989]: Suffolk county council has recommended that a roundabout be built at this junction. At the Department's request it is now carrying out an economic evaluation of the proposal in relation to any possible longer-term major improvements to this section of the trunk road.

  We expect to have the evaluation in a few weeks and shall then be able to give further consideration to the possibilities for improving the junction.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for the publication of the 208
  Nature Conservancy Council's report on the future of its reserves; when he intends to respond to this report; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on the future of Britain's state-owned nature reserves.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 February 1989]: My right hon. Friend proposes to discuss this report with the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council as soon as we have completed our initial examination of it and before making any announcement of the Government's response. At that time I would expect to place a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  UK 2000
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the Government funding for UK 2000 in 1987–88, 1988–89, with plans for 1989–90 and (b) the number of people employed on programmes under the UK 2000 initiative in each of these years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department's grant to UK 2000 in England was £1·381 million in 1987–88 and £1·805 million in 1988–89. In each year UK 2000 matched this grant with private sponsorship. In 1987–88, 10,300 community programme (CP) trainees were employed on projects supported by UK 2000, with 12,500 volunteers also involved. In 1988–89 some 9,000 CP trainees were employed, reducing to under 6,000 trainees following the introduction of employment training, with an estimated 15,000 volunteers also involved.

  I have not yet formally offered grant or approved plans for 1989–90. I have however indicated to UK 2000 my intention to continue funding at the same level as in 1988–89, as a declining share of the overall budget for the initiative.

  UK 2000 also operates separately in Scotland and Wales, receiving grant from the Scottish and Welsh Offices respectively.

  Lowermoor Treatment Works
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the water being supplied from the Lowermoor treatment works now meets European Community standards;

  (2) if he will publish the latest details of samples taken by the South West water authority in the Lowermoor treatment works distribution area; and if he will make a statement on the proposed programme of sampling intended in the area for the seven months period from 1 March 1989 to 30 September 1989.

  Mr. Howard
  I understand from the South West water authority that for the week commencing Monday 27 February, 23 samples of water issuing from the Lowermoor treatment works all complied with the standards of the EC drinking water directive. The 89 samples taken during the same week from the distribution system served by the Lowermoor treatment works complied with the EC standards except for one sample from an old property with lead plumbing which exceeded the standard for lead and four samples which exceeded the standard for iron. It is not unusual for the iron standard to be exceeded occasionally in distribution systems with iron mains. Those results which did not comply with a directive standard have been notified to the local environmental health officer.
  209
  I am informed that the authority's current sampling programme has a daily target of 10 routine samples. In addition, samples are taken in response to customer requests to investigate problems and to monitor the effects of mains cleaning operations. This level of sampling will be maintained until the authority, North Cornwall district council, and Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority are satisfied that it can be reduced.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what consideration there has been of rural housing policy as part of his Ministry's annual review of alternative land use.

  Mr. Chope
  Evidence on land use change in the countryside is collected regularly by my Department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, and taken into account in policy formulation. It is too early to assess the implications for land use of the announcements about rural housing which my right hon. Friend made last month.

  BISF Houses, Bilborough
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the meetings which have taken place between his officials and(a) building societies and (b) Nottingham city council, on the question of mortgages for BISF houses in Bilborough, Nottingham, since he met a delegation of residents in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have written to the hon. Member.

  BNF (Nuclear Fuel Cycle Production Plants)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)Official Report, column 493, 20 February, he will set out the policy considerations underlying his decision not to conduct an environmental audit of British Nuclear Fuels plc's nuclear fuel cycle production plants.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no reason to believe that these plants release nationally significant amounts of carbon dioxide or chlorofluorocarbons.

  Hazardous Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting between EEC Environment Ministers and African Environment Ministers held in Dakar in January to discuss the international trade and regulation of hazardous waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The conference on hazardous wastes held in Dakar on 26 and 27 January this year issued a communiqué requesting the Secretary General of the Organisation of African Unity, in collaboration with, among others, the executive director of the United Nations environment programme, to assist African countries to establish appropriate mechanisms for monitoring and control of movement of nuclear and industrial wastes in Africa and calling on all countries to participate in the diplomatic conference expected to be held in Basle later this month under the auspices of the United Nations 210
  environment programme to negotiate a global convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in the United Nations on the development of an international convention to regulate hazardous and toxic waste disposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A diplomatic conference is expected to convene in Basle later this month for the purpose of adopting and signing the global convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.

  Housing (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many units of accommodation have been started and completed by the private sector in each local government district in Hampshire in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many units of accommodation have been started and completed by the public sector in each local government district in Hampshire in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: The reported annual housebuilding figures for public and private sectors since 1980 appear in "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas: 1980 to 1987". Figures for 1979 were published in "Local Housing Statistics" issue 59 and figures for the first half of 1988 were published in "Local Housing Statistics" issue 87. Copies of these are in the Library.

  Brundtland Report
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans Her Majesty's Government have to review progress at all levels in respect of their achieving the goals set by the Brundtland report; and when they expect to publish their first review.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom is one of the few countries around the world to have produced a detailed response setting out the steps being taken to follow up the Brundtland report. The Government believe that the most effective way to promote the call in the report for policies of sustainable development to be adopted on a global scale is through concerted action by the international community as a whole. Our recent conference on saving the ozone layer was one practical and highly successful demonstration of this.

  The United Kingdom is taking a leading role in international organisations such as the United Nations and OECD to ensure that sustainable development is integrated into all their activities. We have also recently commissioned Professor David Pearce of London university to review current work on the tools needed for measuring progress towards sustainable development.

  Low Frequency Transmissions
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the effects of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic radiation on plant, animal and human life.
  211
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has no information regarding the effects of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic radiation on plant, animal and human life. The National Radiological Protection Board is under a statutory duty to inform and advise Government, and others, on any hazards which may arise.

  Sewage Works Discharge Consents
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many relaxations in sewage works discharge consents are currently being allowed in each water authority or water company area; and, of this number, how many are temporary and how many permanent.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: Authorities may apply for time-limited variations to discharge consents in cases where they plan to complete improvement schemes by March 1992. In addition, some small works may also be eligible for longer-term variations in those limited number of cases where it can be demonstrated that investment to meet current consent requirements would produce negligible environmental benefits. In all cases, HMIP will consider applications on their merits before granting revised consent conditions. At this stage, I cannot say how many applications will be made or granted—either in total or for any water authority.

  Capper Pass Works, North Humberside
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the reasons for the delay in the publication of the HMIP report on the subject of the emission of radiation from the Capper Pass works in north Humberside, which his Department stated it expected to receive in November 1988,Official Report, 1 November 1988, column 564.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The first part of the HMIP report on emissions from the Capper Pass works on north Humberside was completed in November. Completion of the second part, concerning non-radioactive emissions was unfortunately interrupted by an injury to the inspector who was dealing with it. This was overcome and the two parts of the report assembled into a single report. I have already indicated that I hope to place this single report in the Library of the House shortly.

  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his consideration of the consultations concerning the General Development Order 1988 in respect of clay pigeon shooting.

  Mr. Chope
  Within the next few weeks.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy on major retail development in the green belt.

  Mr. Howard
  Major retail development proposals have no place in the green belt. The Government's commitment 212
  to upholding this policy is demonstrated by my right hon. Friend's dismissal in February of proposals for a major shopping and leisure complex at Bricket wood near St. Albans, and by his dismissal today of similar proposals at Hewitts farm near Orpington. Both sites are in the metropolitan green belt. In both these cases my right hon. Friend has ordered the prospective developer to pay the cost incurred by the local planning authority at the public inquiries held to consider these proposals.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the volume of chlorofluorocarbons which are at present in use in refrigeration units and other domestic and industrial equipment in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no estimate of the volume of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) at present in use. The Montreal protocol, and the European legislation which implements it, restrict the overall supply of CFCs. The European Community Environment Council, in response to a United Kingdom initiative, has called for the protocol to be strengthened so as to reduce supply by 85 per cent. as soon as possible and to eliminate it altogether by the end of the century. This will increasingly encourage the recycling of existing material wherever possible.

  Power Boats
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many accidents involving injury have been reported during the past five years involving powered boats travelling close inshore off bathing beaches.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been about 700 incidents in total each year involving powered pleasure boats, but records are not kept of those occurring close to bathing beaches.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made by the biogeochemical ocean flux study in assessing the use of coccolithophores to fix carbon dioxide.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Studies have shown that the natural abundance of coccolithophores could increase under conditions of increasing carbon dioxide. Studies are under way on the suitability of these organisms as food for zooplankton and protozoa. Coccolithophores are only one component of ocean life taking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; the biogeochemical ocean flux study's 1989 cruises will measure these processes.

  Climatic Change (Study)
  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom contribution to the joint global ocean flux study investigating the role of oceans in global climate change.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The biogeochemical ocean flux study (BOFS) of the Natural Environment Research Council provides the United Kingdom component of the joint global ocean flux

  213
  study (JGOFS). The BOFS involves 60 scientists and 14 laboratories, and expenditure of at least £3 million in 1989–90. The United Kingdom is also represented on the joint global ocean flux study international scientific committee.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the chairmen of the private water companies whom he has called in to see him as a result of their announcing increases in water charges of more than 10 per cent. for the year 1989–90; what response they gave to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply 23 February 1989, c. 733]: The Water Companies Association indicated in its statement of 5 February that statutory water companies were likely to raise their charges this year by 30 per cent. or more. In some quarters, increases of 50 per cent. or more were anticipated. I have now met almost all the chairmen of the companies to discuss their proposals. The Department's financial advisers, Deloitte Haskins and Sells, have also scrutinised the companies' proposals and the reasons for the increases.

  Some companies already had fixed their charges and were unable to reduce them. However, following the meetings that I have had with them, most companies proposed lower increases and the majority seen by Deloitte have agreed to reduce their proposals further. I now anticipate that the average increase in charges for the statutory water companies will be about 22 per cent. Since Deloittes began its scrutiny, consumers have, therefore, been saved at least £16 million in increased charges.

  The Government have always made it clear that water charges will have to rise to meet the higher quality standards which are being demanded of the water industry. The preparation of asset management plans, as part of the new regulatory framework being established by the Water Bill, has also identified in a number of cases serious backlogs of maintenance of underground assets, which mean that companies will have to spend substantially more to maintain existing levels of service. In reviewing the companies' charging proposals, Deloittes sought in particular to identify the increase which could be attributable to these factors; it also sought to avoid
  214
  recommending any action which would be imprudent when set against the likely sustained higher levels of capital expenditure in future.

  The extent to which investment is needed to meet existing requirements and maintain standards indicates underinvestment in many of the statutory water companies which shows just how inadequate the existing system of regulation has been. Such sharp increases in one year should not have been necessary and some of the increases which companies have announced are higher than these considerations alone would justify. Under existing statutory controls, the Government have no power to reverse these decisions.

  We shall scrutinise this year's increases in charges very carefully in the light of the new system for controlling these charges which we are introducing in the Water Bill. Where price rises this year cannot be justified, appropriate adjustments will be made to the price ceilings which we set.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of aluminium in water supplies taken at regular intervals by each of the local authorities in Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Iancashire and Merseyside; and how often the samples taken are in excess of the recommended safety levels.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The available information is listed:

  It is not the practice of many local authorities to carry out extensive monitoring of public water supplies. Water undertakers monitor their water supplies regularly.

  Supplies taken by the North West water authority in Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Iancashire and Merseyside have shown that the aluminium standard of the EC drinking water directive is regularly exceeded in parts of the following local authority areas:

  Sefton (Southport).

  Stockport (excluding Reddish, Heaton Mersey).

  Bolton (excluding Westhoughton, Lostock, Heaton Moor).

  Tameside (Ashton, Stalybridge, Dukinfield, Mossley) Oldham (excluding Royton and Chadderton).

  Lancaster (Lancaster City and parishes of Slyne with Hest and Bolton-le-Sands).

  The levels of aluminium detected in these supplies have not been judged to constitute a health risk.

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

Base Rates: Cost to Industry
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the cost to industry of the rise in base rates since March 1988.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the cost to industrial and commercial companies to date of the changes in bank base rates since March 1988, compared with the cost if bank base rates had remained the same since March 1988, is estimated to be about £0.8 billion.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall the euphoria that occurred exactly one year ago today when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Budget that was supposed to herald a new era in sustained and sound growth? Does he agree that the worst feature of that Budget has been to expose the weakness of the supply side of British industry? In those circumstances, does he agree with the CBI that the nine increases from 7.5 per cent. to 13 per cent. have caused, and are causing, serious under-investment in British industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have continued to see sustained growth in the past 12 months. The noble Lord says that interest rates have increased from 7.5 per cent. to 13 per cent. That is of course true from June. But if the base date is taken from March, the figure was at that time 9 per cent. I do not agree with the noble Lord's conclusions. The recent CBI and DTI surveys are consistent with strong manufacturing investment growth which we hope will continue.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a year ago today, as my noble friend has pointed out, the Budget forecast a trade deficit of about £4 billion whereas that deficit has in fact risen to over £14 billion for the year? Is that not the cost borne by industry arising from the increased interest rates? Is not that cost also shown in the smaller figure for exports from this country compared with the much larger figure for imports?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, exports are performing well. We always knew that strong growth in domestic demand would lead to a rise in imports. I must point out that imports of non-consumer goods have also risen, reflecting a rise in output and investment. So long as the Government maintain a firm fiscal and monetary policy we do not believe that there is a great problem.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain to the House the point of raising interest rates? Is it to dampen down demand and economic activity? If so, why does he tell us that demand and economic activity have not been dampened down? May we have some enlightenment on that point?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the aim of interest rate policy has always been to keep down inflation. Perhaps I may point out that a one percentage point increase in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, costs companies far less than a one percentage point increase in pay settlements.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be far more realistic if one mentioned in that context the enormous budgetry deficit of the United States of America and its method of financing it; namely, by raising interest rates and sucking in money from the rest of the world?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I broadly agree with the noble and learned Lord's comments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why he broadly agrees with his noble and learned friend when interest rates in the United States are distinctly lower than they are in this country? We should be very happy to have interest rates as low as those of the United States, as would the CBI. Perhaps the noble Lord will also enlighten us on that matter.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, obviously matters are entirely different in the United States. This Government's policy has been to seek to keep inflation as low as possible by the mechanism of interest rates.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord seriously asking the House to believe that the Government do not think that a £14 billion trade deficit over the year is something to worry about?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course it is something to worry about, but, as I said, exports are performing well and we believe that, so long as the Government maintain a firm fiscal and monetary policy, the problem is not as great as the noble Lord suggests.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the world's economy is an enormously complex, self-interacting network of practices and that it is over-simplistic to try to isolate one or two of them, in a cause-relation effect?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl's comments are absolutely correct.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the increase in interest rates is designed to reduce inflation, will the noble Lord indicate the level of interest rates that will produce the Government's target of zero inflation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I believe the noble Lord well knows, we never speculate on future interest rate movements.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, so far as one can see a policy here, whenever anything seems to be doing well the Government appear to want to stop it. When at last unemployment begins to drop, they shove up interest rates to stop it dropping. When we have a lovely summer, they discover a hole in the atmosphere and say that they must stop that too.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall not comment on the latter part of the noble Lord's question. As to the first part, unemployment is of course continuing to fall.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the express purpose of the present high interest rates is to dampen down domestic demand? That being so, what has he to say about the report—at least according to The Times today—that retail sales are continuing to increase? Will he say to what extent interest rates will be used in order to achieve that objective?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the interest rate is used to keep down inflation. The February retail figures are only one month's figures. In the three months to February, retail sales were unchanged from the previous three months.

Universities: Administration
2.38 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reduce the burden of administration from which universities suffer.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are confident that, from 1st April, the new Universities Funding Council will follow the University Grants Committee in seeking the correct balance between freedom of action for independent institutions and the proper stewardship of the considerable public funds put at their disposal.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that his optimism is not very widely shared? At the moment the universities are snowed under with returns and demands of one kind or another, nearly all emanating from the Government or their appointed bodies. The problem has become so bad that there is talk of making the position of the principal of the vice-chancellor's committee a full-time job for a year, taking him away from his university duties so that he can deal with this mass of administration. Would this not be a complete waste of time, money and talent?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not share the noble Lord's pessimism. The universities together receive £1.7 billion of public funds. Most of that is distributed as block grants, allowing universities considerable freedom on how it is spent. However, your Lordships would rightly criticise the Government if there were no means of accounting for the considerable sums that had been spent. A suitable flow of information from the universities to the UGC and the new UFC is thus necessary.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply will cast further gloom into an already gloomy university world? It is simply untrue that universities need to fill in endless forms in order for public money properly to be controlled. The Government's purpose in getting universities to teach more students and to do more and better research is being frustrated by the need to switch people from their proper jobs to unnecessary form filling to please the bureaucrats in Elizabeth House.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that it is not bureaucrats in Elizabeth House who are issuing these forms. They are being issued by the UGC. As the UFC will, like the UGC, involve university interests, it seems to me that it will be the first to recognise the issues that are being discussed today.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Viscount told us that he was confident. That is the reply we receive frequently from the Front Bench. The Government never tell us why they are confident. We are not interested in their state of mind but in the reasons behind it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am smiling, and that reflects confidence.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that exactly the same problem—only more so—now afflicts the polytechnics, which are supposed to be becoming independent on 1st April? Is he aware that they are snowed under with demands from the new funding council for development plans, mission statements, and heaven knows what? Such jobs are taking hundreds of manpower hours throughout the country which should be spent on teaching. What is the good of removing the servitude to a local authority and putting in its place servitude to a bureaucratic layer between the Government and the institutions?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we spent many hours in this House debating the university funding provisions of the Education Reform Act, which, in accordance with the wishes of Parliament, leaves the UFC with substantial autonomy in the way it manages its affairs. The balancing judgment—to which I referred in my first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—is properly one for the UFC, which may adjust that from time to time in the light of its dealings with universities.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister not feel it is very sad that a distinguished vice-chancellor has to go away from his university for one year to deal with all the bureaucracy that is coming from various offices in Whitehall?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I said that it was not coming from the Ministries in Whitehall. Perhaps noble Lords would like to show me examples. I shall certainly look into the matter and write to them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, although I am partially retired as an academic, even I am snowed under with filling out such forms? It deflects me from my main job of asking the noble Viscount difficult questions! More seriously, does he recall that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness who was the Minister at that time both reassured your Lordships when we were debating these matters that we would not be snowed under with these bits of paper when the Bill became an Act? It looks as though the promises they made have not been fulfilled.
I am aware of the role of the UFC and of the PCFC. However, I ask the noble Viscount to draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the problem, which I assure him is not a fiction but an absolute fact in universities. I ask him to draw his attention to these problems and to ask him whether he will use his good offices to have a word with the UFC.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not believe that filling in forms has deflected the noble Lord from asking me difficult questions. However, I should like to see some of the forms that he has had to fill in. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what he has said.

European Monetary System: Membership
2.49 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that "the time is now very right indeed" for Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, as stated by Sir Leon Brittan in a public speech on 3rd March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the view of the Government remains unchanged. We shall join the exchange rate mechanism when the time is right.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that to join the exchange rate mechanism now would take pressure off sterling, enable interest rates, which were discussed earlier this afternoon, to be reduced below their present very high level and prepare us more effectively for the competition that will arise from the single market? Furthermore, perhaps he can explain something which is puzzling me and maybe other noble Lords. Why is it that when ex-Cabinet Ministers go to Brussels to become commissioners, thereafter the Government generally ignore their advice?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a number of questions. It is impossible to say whether membership of the ERM would prevent sterling fluctuations in the market. Countries within the ERM engage in realignments from time to time and ERM membership has no
82
bearing on sterling/dollar fluctuations. As to taking the pressure off higher interest rates, joining the ERM would not be a soft option. Countries in the ERM change their interest rates too. I cannot answer for my right honourable friend Sir Leon Brittan or say what his views are now that he is in Brussels, so the noble Lord should perhaps ask him.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if we join the EMS we would certainly be giving up an option to deal with our problems in a way that we think would be the best for the United Kingdom? Will he not agree that, with all our problems, this is not the time to give up any option if we want to overcome the troublesome and difficult times that face the whole of Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes some good points. There is very little that I can add to what I said in my original Answer, which is that we still intend to join the ERM when the time is right.
Lord Stoddard of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I entirely agree with him that to join the ERM will not be a panacea for all our economic ills? Is he also aware that between 1980 and 1987 countries inside the EMS, such as Germany, Italy and France, had lower manufacturing output increases than we did in this country? In Germany, manufacturing output was 5.6 per cent.; in Italy, it was 2.6 per cent.; and in France it dropped by 1 per cent. All those countries are inside the EMS. In Britain, which is outside the EMS, manufacturing output rose by 9.6 per cent. Does the noble Lord not agree that, among the welter of bad decisions, the Government made at least one good decision by not joining the ERM?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I confess that I am somewhat surprised. That is the first time from the Benches opposite that I have heard those kinds of figures quoted at us over here. I am very pleased that the noble Lord should choose to do so. I would not know whether membership of the ERM has much bearing on those figures, but it is very encouraging to hear good news relayed back from the Benches opposite.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as was said by my noble friend, we cannot speak for our colleagues on the Continent, but is it not most extraordinary that a fairly recent member of the Government—who are supposed to have a collective view on these matters—now expresses a totally contrary opinion to that which he apparently held some 18 months ago?
Lord Bruce of Donington: He is no longer afraid, my Lords.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should not say that he holds a totally contrary opinion. Sir Leon is entitled to his own views. In his speech he said that he felt the time was now very right indeed. What I have said at Question Time on innumerable occasions in this House is that we shall join when the time is right. It is purely a matter of timing.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, what could be more contrary than for Sir Leon Brittan to say that the time is ripe, and for the Government to say that it is not ripe? I cannot see anything more contrary than that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, what I said was that we would join when the time was right. Perhaps we disagree slightly about the timing.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, on this difficult question where the arguments are not one way or the other, cannot the Government help those of us who are rather simple about these matters by telling us the criteria by which the Government judge whether the time is ripe? Is one criterion the level of the exchange rate? Is one the degree of productive capacity in this country? Is one the level of interest rates? What combination of these or other factors will tell us and enable us to judge, as well as the Government, whether the time is right?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's interest in this matter. The problem of course is that if one were to declare the exact circumstances that made the time right, that would possibly give rise to difficulties in the markets.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the analogy of this problem of ripe time is with fruit? If one waits too long it goes rotten!
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that to delay joining the EMS makes solving our already difficult agricultural problems even more difficult?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot necessarily see a connection between our agricultural problems and membership of the exchange rate mechanism. My noble friend will no doubt have the opportunity of pointing out the connection.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in this matter do not our major exporting companies desire a stable exchange rate, particularly in relation to the German mark? May not the difference between a rate of 2.98 marks to the pound sterling in December, 1987, compared with 3.20 marks in December, 1988, have made all the difference between success and failure in striking deals of great potential value to this country's balance of trade?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course we appreciate the importance of a stable exchange rate, but our overriding priority is to maintain an anti-inflationary stance. We are not willing to see sterling depreciate, which would only add to inflationary pressures, which would be even more damaging to British industry.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, leaving aside, as the noble Lord did, the sterling/dollar rate, are we to understand from the noble Lord's Answer that he is quite willing to continue, by means of higher interest rates, to sustain an exchange rate with our
84
EC colleagues which is artificially high, thus subsidising imports into this country? Is he aware that in the past year with the EC alone our deficit was some £15 billion? Surely the noble Lord must be able to do a little better than that. Does he desire to keep a high exchange rate so that imports may be subsidised at a low price, thus helping him to use the trade deficit as some kind of aid to keeping down inflation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government will not allow the exchange rate to depreciate to accommodate inflationary pressures.

Aerospace Industry: Output
2.57 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give figures for the output of the aerospace industry in the last five years.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, based on 1985 being 100, the index of production for the aerospace industry was 90 in 1983 and in the following years 93, 100, 113 and 129 in 1987: a growth of around 10 per cent. per annum.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the productivity in the aerospace industry is an example to all British industry? The productivity per man in real terms has risen by 100 per cent. in the last decade. Surely there could be no better testimony to the Government's policy.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend and I thank him for bringing that information to the House's attention.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what proportion of output of the aerospace industry is attributable to British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. I am afraid that I am unable to do that. If the noble Lord wants those figures, I should be delighted to write to him and put a copy in the Library.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment three European parliamentary constituencies orders and the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (United States of America) Order 1989 will be taken.

Business of the House
3 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill through all its stages this day.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to resolution), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
3.1 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 Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 53A:
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 as guests of members of the scheme.;").
The noble Lord said: The Committee returns to consideration of the group of individuals which I believe need not be members of the football membership scheme in order to gain admission to a match.
On an earlier occasion the Minister was helpful to the Committee when he dealt with a range of exemptions which he and his colleagues believed to he sensible. On that occasion the Minister said:
"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".—[Offical Report, 7/3/89; col. 1394.]
He itemised the disabled, guests of clubs, organised school parties and foreign visitors. In all those exemptions he laid great store on the club taking responsibility for the issuing of guest cards.
I hope the Minister will acknowledge the fact that many people are not regular supporters of football but could be induced to become so if, in a casual way, they are introduced to the game in a good atmosphere and in a sensible way. That is the raison d'être of the group of people to which I refer.
The Minister and his colleagues must be aware that a member of the scheme may be at home or at his club with friends who are not members. On the spur of the moment they may decide that they would like to see the local team play. That often happens. Some of the big clubs tell me that 15 per cent. of their attendance figures at home matches is made up of casual supporters.
I have been in touch with a club which I hope the Minister will accept has impeccable credentials in relation to the argument; it is Luton Town. That club runs a scheme which has the approval of the Minister and his colleagues. I inquired about the way in which it dealt with casual supporters. A representative told me that members of its scheme may buy seats and guest tickets for all areas from the ticket office until kick-off. I should like to stress the point that previously some nonsense has been talked about a casual visitor becoming an authorised spectator by going through a procedure on the morning of the match. If he wanted to see the match he must attend in the morning with the required validation and would be given some kind of admission ticket. He must then return in the afternoon to see the match.
No one has experience of the way in which the scheme will work. The Committee will discuss the phasing and testing later in the debate. However, Luton Town does not believe that the suggestion is sensible. A member of its scheme can go along with his validation and, in effect, buy three pieces of plastic. They are the admission cards for his guests.
Luton Town Football Club has sent me copies of its available literature, in which it is stated:
"A member may invite up to three guests, not necessarily Luton Town supporters, to each match on condition that he is responsible for his guests' good behaviour. Members must accompany guests at points of entry to the ground. Luton Town will refuse entry to anyone whose appearance or behaviour could provoke a disturbance, including supporters of visiting teams".
We know what Luton Town has done and I respect its decision. It has experience and it has prohibited all visiting supporters from gaining admission.
More than once the Minister has said that the Government wish to have football run by football authorities. I assure the Minister that there is not an element inside football administration—whether supporters, police, or whoever—which would object to a method whereby a bona fide, clean member of the new scheme could bring along his guests. One must bear in mind that in order to do so the member must have applied for and been given a valid ticket. He must have satisfied the FMA, and thereby the Secretary of State, of his bona fides. He must not have been the subject of an exclusion order or a term of imprisonment or have been involved in violence. He is one of the 9,999 out of every 10,000 people in respect of whom there is no difficulty. We ask the Minister whether there is not to he some trust somewhere.
Given that the Bill will become an Act, under my amendment it will be possible for any Member of the Committee to become a member of a scheme. It is also possible that their guests may behave in such a manner as to cause them to be the subject of ejection, arrest, conviction, and so forth. In that case the club will not be responsible. The responsibility will lie with the individual member.
I asked the Luton Town representative about the club's experience of problems caused by members' guests. He said "There is no trouble at all". The member realises that there are serious penalties. If the member says, "I am prepared to vouch for the good behaviour of my guests", and those guests turn out to be troublemakers, the Luton supporter loses his right of membership. The membership provides certain benefits. Luton are doing very well. They are reaching cup finals and there are a number of benefits which the member would lose. This will apply to every club—that is, that there will be a penalty. I do not object to that.
I shall be happy to withdraw this amendment if the Minister tells me that among the generality of exemptions which he will bring forward at the next stage—and let us bear in mind that until we see his form of words we must rely on his good faith, which of course I accept—will be the guests of members of the scheme. A member has a lot at stake because he can lose his membership. Members will want to encourage their friends, neighbours and relatives who may perhaps say, "I have never been a member of the scheme although I should have been. There is a good match on this afternoon, how can I go?" Instead of having to go through a lot of bureaucracy, I should like it to be possible for such a respectable person, man or woman, to say, "Come along with me," and to go along to the proper place and show his validated card to enable his guest to enter the ground.
I realise that the Goverment may say that one cannot be sure that the guests of members will not cause trouble. We know that at present only one out of 10,000 causes trouble. I should think that a person who has his own membership at stake will be careful. The member will not take in a person off the street who has asked him to do so. Somebody who is stupid enough to do that will have to take the consequences. We are talking about a genuine member who wishes to protect his reputation, the reputation of the club and the good name of football by taking in bona fide guests who may attend for the first time and like the atmosphere. I believe that the Minister and his colleagues have abysmally failed to take on board the atmosphere, partly of confrontation, partly of partisanship but partly of excitement, which is all part of the ambience to which those of us who follow football wish to introduce our friends. I hope that the Minister has something helpful to say on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should have thought that the principle behind this amendment would be acceptable to my noble friend. It is in keeping with the undertakings he has already given on other amendments. I believe that it would remove much
88
of the doubt which many people have as to the scheme being too restrictive and too bureaucratic.
I do not know of any established club which does not allow a member to take a guest under laid-down conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said that if the wording of this amendment is not correct then he is prepared to accept other wording provided the principle of being able to take in a guest is retained. I should have thought that that would be acceptable in the light of what my noble friend has said on previous amendments and would be most helpful in getting through the Committee stage of this Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I am glad to take this early opportunity today to restate the Government's intentions in relation to exemptions from the national membership scheme. In our debate last week, I accepted the amendment moved by the noble Lords, Lord Graham, Lord Harris and Lord Carter, whose effect was that the scheme must make provision for exemptions of specified descriptions of persons on the terms and conditions specified in the scheme, rather than that it may do so, as the Bill was first drafted.
I also undertook to consider the possibility of a further amendment, which we would bring forward at Report stage, to refer specifically, on the face of the Bill, to two categories of exemption from the scheme, subject to terms and conditions to be laid down in the scheme—for disabled people in designated areas and for guests of the club.
Members of the Committee will not be surprised if I also repeat now a point which I made more than once last week about membership. We want as many of those who attend football matches as possible to become members of the scheme and to enjoy the benefits which the scheme will provide; above all the benefits of protection from hooliganism and violence. The only people whom we really want to see excluded from the scheme are the hooligans.
At the same time, the Government accept that there are practical reasons why certain groups need exemption from the scheme: disabled people who cannot go through turnstiles and need access to special areas of the ground; and guests of the club to whom temporary membership cards would be issued and for whom the clubs would take responsibility. This category of guest might deal not only with guests of the directors and of sponsors but also with organised school parties and occasional foreign visitors. It could also be relevant to this amendment, as I shall explain in a moment. The club would wish to ensure that the arrangements for temporary membership cards were satisfactory, not least because its licence to admit spectators might be at stake if they were not.
I have promised to consider an amendment that would refer by name to the disabled and guests of the club on the face of the Bill. But I have also been careful to stress that these exemptions must be subject to the terms and conditions specified in the scheme. This brings me to an important point which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has raised, and I hope that I can answer him very clearly. It will be for the

89
FMA, in other words for the football authorities, in drawing up the scheme to propose what the terms and conditions of the exemptions should be.
The initiative in drawing up the scheme will be for the FMA, within the framework provided by the Bill. It will propose how to deal with the exemptions specified in the Bill and with any other special arrangements which it considers necessary; for example, to deal with international matches at Wembley. I have made clear that we would resist blanket exemptions that would put both the general concept of membership and the security of the scheme at risk, but we expect the FMA to come up with detailed practical proposals on how specific exemptions will work.
This has always been the Government's wish and that of the football authorities themselves. Yes, the football authorities are unhappy with the principle of the scheme but, if there is to be a scheme, they want to be responsible for running it. They have requested, and received, an assurance that they should have first refusal on setting up the FMA. We and they share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that, if I may quote him, football should run football, subject of course to the requirements of the Bill.
I have dwelt on the FMA's role in drawing up the scheme because it is relevant to many of the amendments which we are to discuss today, including this one. I am afraid that the amendment as drafted is not one that we could accept. A general exemption for guests of members of the scheme would provide no means of checking who a member's guests would be. In particular, it would provide no means of preventing someone who had been banned from the scheme from evading the effects of his ban by presenting himself as a member's guest, perhaps with the member's willing co-operation, perhaps even with his unwilling co-operation. I do not think that it would be practical to make individual members of the scheme responsible for the behaviour of their guests.
I am afraid that for these reasons I cannot accept this amendment. But I recognise the argument that members of the scheme may wish to bring to an individual match a guest for whom joining the scheme may not be a sensible option, perhaps because he or she lives abroad. In such circumstances, if the host club is willing to accept responsibility for that person and issue him with a temporary membership card, then I should have thought that it should be possible for it to do so. This is precisely the sort of matter that I think we want the FMA to look at in drawing up the scheme. If it can devise sensible proposals—and of course there must be a reasonable limit on the number of temporary membership cards if the scheme is to remain secure—then I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to approve them.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, drew the attention of the Committee to Luton Town Football Club. I was somewhat surprised by that because the Benches opposite do not usually use Luton Town as their favourite example of the implications for the future of football. The argument deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is based on a scheme at Luton
90
which, as he described it, is very different from the scheme proposed in the Bill. It is not entirely relevant to the discussion on this amendment.
I hope that we can agree that we have a sensible approach in dealing with this amendment. "Guests of members of the scheme" is too wide and vague a notion, but if there is a good and practical reason why individual members should want to bring along occasional visitors and the club is willing to let the visitors have temporary membership cards, they should be able to do so. The exemption we are considering for guests of the club will cover the situation and it will be for the FMA to work out the details.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, also drew attention to what he referred to as the bureaucracy of acquiring a card. It is not difficult to fill in an application form, acquire a photograph and collect one of the cards. The Government's position is straightforward. The intention of the Bill is to exclude soccer hooligans. To maintain the integrity of the Bill we need a limited number of exclusions. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendmentt.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has not made a good case in regard to the central point of my amendment, which is to trust a member of the scheme with his own intelligence and to be aware that his membership of the scheme is at risk if he in any way introduces a potential hooligan into the ground.
I like the way in which the Minister in this amendment, but not in others, relies heavily on the sagacity, good sense and experience of the FMA. I ask the Minister this direct question. If the FMA decides in its wisdom that it would like the kind of exemption which I have put forward—that is, the right of a member to bring along not someone from far away or abroad but his neighbour, a work mate or his club mate—will the FMA be able to introduce that exclusion into the scheme? If the Minister says that that can be done I shall withdraw my amendment. However, the Minister has said, in as many words, that that is not possible.
The Minister nods his head. In other words, the Government are prepared to leave football to manage football as they see it, but before they give football that remit it is told that there are certain aspects that are not within its purview. One of those aspects is that clubs cannot give to ordinary, honest-to-goodness, law-abiding citizens the right to take along a neighbour, friend or relative who might turn up accidentally or who might have been thinking of joining the club scheme.
The Minister referred to Luton as not being a good example. The Minister for Sport has held up Luton as a good example, not of the scheme, but—
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is slightly confusing what I said. We have the greatest admiration for Luton. What I said was that Luton's scheme is not comparable or applicable to the scheme we are now discussing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister will understand that he is losing friends at Luton with every statement that he makes. The people of Luton are saying that they have done everything that the Government want. They have a scheme, they have excluded potential hooligans and encouraged the good supporters of football. The Minister is saying that that is not the kind of scheme that the Government have in mind, so the people of Luton, for whom I have the greatest respect, will be unhappy because they cannot win at any level.
The Minister has failed to make out a good case. I intend to test the feeling of the Committee.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the noble Lord does that, I was not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in interpreting what my noble friend said. It is within the recollection of the Committee that my noble friend said that he was not against guests going to a match provided that the club itself was satisfied. Therefore, if my hearing is right, it would be better not to put this amendment to a vote which would make it much more difficult to obtain the compromise we want. It is the principle we want to achieve and that is why I supported the noble Lord a few moments ago. If we can have confirmation that at some stage my noble friend can find the words which will give effect to the impression that he certainly left with me, then I should have thought there is no need to take this amendment to a Division.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. We are not opposed to guests in principle. It is how the guests achieve admittance to the ground which is the area of disagreement, as my noble friend points out. I am slightly curious as to whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be tabling an amendment at a later stage which will ban all away supporters at soccer matches. He appears to accuse me of on the one hand not supporting Luton and on the other saying that it is an admirable scheme.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord invites me to table amendments and I shall think about it. I am not holding up the Luton experience, as the Minister of Sport has done, as a scheme to be replicated. I simply point out that the Luton supporters of the Government's attitude to football will be bitterly disappointed because, as the Minister said, away fans are not going to be banned, which is part of the Luton experience. The present Luton experience is that a member of the scheme per se is able simply to go along before the kick-off and in effect buy, say, three guests' tickets.
I should like to be clear on this. Is the Minister telling me that when these matters are referred to the FMA it will be within the FMA's power to recommend what I propose in my amendment? Is the Minister saying that the FMA can recommend that a club can issue tickets for casual, one-off attendances by guests of members, however it is dressed up? If that is possible, I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hesketh: So long as the club is the issuer, that is correct. The point we desire is that the club should be responsible.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. He said that provided the club takes the responsibility of allowing a member of the scheme to bring along his guests, the club will be—
Lord Hesketh: That is not what I said. I said that the club must take responsibility for the guest, so the guest must be issued with day membership by the club.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I want to get this clear. In future, when the scheme is in operation, a club will be able to issue an admission ticket to the kind of people I have in mind—that is, casual supporters—and there will be no limit on the number, because one cannot anticipate the number. I have already given a figure of 5,000 or 6,000 for a club with an attendance of 20,000 to 25,000. Is the Minister saying that a club will be empowered to issue guest tickets to casual supporters?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord wants to go too fast. He has won the battle in terms of the general principle. My noble friend said that he does not accept the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that guests should be accepted at the behest of the member. My noble friend said that provided the club, through the member, approves the guests, then that will be acceptable. Tactically, I suggest that we leave the matter there and see how we interpret what has been said before the next stage. To go into the sort of detail that the noble Lord with his enthusiasm and great knowledge is doing is not in keeping with the Committee stage.
Lord Underhill: Before my noble friend speaks again, can the Minister correct a statement I believe he made? I believe he said that the club will need to have a photograph and that the details of the guest will be checked. However, that is totally different from his later reply.
Lord Hesketh: I am slightly confused about what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says that I said because I do not think I said that.
Lord Underhill: If the Minister gives me an assurance that what I said is incorrect I shall be quite happy. Hansard will prove that he said quite definitely that the temporary day card will not require a photograph and will not need to be checked by the club against previous information.
Lord Hesketh: As regards previous information, the computer system will have records on it because there has to be a comparison of information in order that people who are banned from the scheme and who are not members can be checked on the black list. I believe that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls expressed very clearly what I thought I was explaining. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear. The basis of the admission of guests is fine as long as the club accepts the responsibility.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is if there are no ifs or buts and provided a club says, "We shall take responsibility for issuing guest cards to guests of the club who are friends of members or even not friends, but who are casual spectators". If the Minister is saying that or something like it, I shall withdraw my amendment. We are speaking about the possibility of between 2,000 and maybe 5,000 people wishing to attend matches casually. They turn up now. If we are to be told that a club is able to issue 3,000 or 4,000 guests' tickets without the paraphernalia required to be a member of the scheme—in this amendment I am speaking about casual visitors who are guests of members—provided those people will be accommodated by the route the Minister has described and not by my route, I shall be satisfied.
Lord Hesketh: I would not wish the Committee to suffer from a misapprehension here. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has not drawn our attention to an important proviso that is very straightforward. I have consistently said that the club will have to accept responsibility. That responsibility carries with it penalties if certain matters go wrong. I do not want the insinuation to go out to the Committee that a club can happily issue 5,000 or 6,000 guest tickets. I do not believe that any club will issue guest tickets with quite the free abandon that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is indicating because of the responsibilities attached to each of the guest passes.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I suppose that strictly it is nothing to do with the Bill, but many a good deal has been lost through niggling over detail too early in the discussions. We are right at the beginning of this Bill. I believe that the noble Lord has gone some way towards accepting the general principle. Rather than try to argue it out on our feet, so to speak, I say leave it. We have all the time in the world to find out exactly how it can be done. For what it is worth, my advice is that, in the light of the advance that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has already made, we should let it go.
Lord Hughes: As an interested spectator but not an applicant for an ID card, I ask the Minister whether the admission card of a guest of the club will have to have a photograph attached to it. If so, that will rule out the people about whom my noble friend is asking.
Lord Hesketh: The guest card will not have a photograph on it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Can I be clear on what the noble Lord has just said? Perhaps he can confirm whether my analysis of his last statement is correct or otherwise. We have a situation where a member of the scheme wants to take his own guest to a match. As I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, at its discretion the club can decide whether or not to allow that person into the ground as a guest of a member. As regards the club, the penalty will be if it lets in individuals who thereafter commit offences. It will be exclusively at the discretion of
94
the club whether it did or did not admit a person. I assume that is a correct reading of the situation, and perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely correct.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 53B:
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 membership card of an existing local football membership scheme, that is to say a scheme for the time being in force made by a football club being the owner of a sports stadium which has accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to exempt from the scheme the people who are already members of a reputable membership scheme run in a proper way by a club. I have already indicated to the Chamber on other occasions (I shall be happy to indicate further) that there are very few clubs in the country that are not into the business of running some kind of scheme. If I were to use the Luton experience, there are various kinds of members. There are junior members and old-age pensioner members. I believe at Watford they are called the Hornets. There are variations, and it is part of the nexus of giving the club back to the community.
As regards Millwall—I know I have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, at this moment—that is one of the clubs that has gone out of its way not only to produce a scheme for its own sake but to bring into the nexus of football all kinds of people.
It includes schools, old-age pensioners, youth clubs, and the disabled. They are members of a scheme. The reputation of the club, of the individual and of the group is at stake. My amendment says that if it is possible to satisfy the FMA that a sensible scheme is in operation we should exempt the members of the particular schemes from being members of the FMA. That will encourage people to become members of currently operating successful schemes.
I know that there are many local authorities involved. I was written to this week by Sheffield. It is working with Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, the police and the schools. They have got together a scheme that is literally policed by the community. If the Minister wishes to keep out hooligans and is looking for people to help him, he has local authorities, football clubs and many others. They detest as much as the Minister the bad things that are done to the good name of football in the name of so-called football supporters. I look forward to the Minister saying something helpful; namely, that among the exemptions from having to be members of the national scheme will be those who are already members or will become members of schemes that are run by football clubs. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that we have covered the issue of exemptions very thoroughly. I have explained that the Government see membership of the national scheme not as a burden but as a benefit. Those who are presently members of individual club schemes will certainly appreciate this. They have joined their club's scheme because of the benefit it offers. They will wish to join the national membership scheme for the same reason. The Government accept that there are good grounds for certain groups to be exempt from the scheme. We have listened to the arguments the Committee has advanced and I hope noble Lords will agree that our response on exemptions has been more than reasonable. We have undertaken to deal effectively with the needs of a number of groups the Committee has suggested should be exempted.
I do not believe that there are good grounds for exempting the category of spectator proposed in this amendment; that of members of existing membership schemes in place at clubs with a ground capacity of over 10,000 people. Let us look briefly at the practical issues involved here. How would the clubs validate the existing club membership cards? Are these cards going to be machine readable? If they are, would clubs have to install special readers to check them? If they are not, would turnstile attendants have to disrupt the flow of members of the national scheme, whose cards can be read quickly by the electronic readers, to make visual inspections of the cards of members of other schemes? We should remember too that it would not simply be a case of an individual club having to check its own membership cards and the national membership cards. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out, nearly all of the 92 clubs in the Football League have some form of membership scheme.
If cards from any of these clubs were to be acceptable as an alternative to the national membership card, every club would have to make arrangements to check cards from all the other clubs. I suggest to the Committee that there is more than just a little room for chaos here.
There is too the matter of security. We must ensure that exemption arrangements are not open to abuse and that they do not allow the hooligan to cheat the scheme. It is difficult to see how individual club membership schemes could be applied nationally with anything like the degree of security which the national membership scheme offers. Applications for individual club schemes would not be subject to the checking process we envisage that the Football Membership Authority will undertake for the national scheme. The club card could not be subject to the validity check made on entry to the grounds as the national membership card will be. It could not be checked against the list of banned and invalid cards which the Football Membership Authority will regularly send to the clubs. By accepting individual club membership cards under the national scheme we could run the risk of encouraging troublemakers to attempt to become members of individual club schemes. As the amendment is drafted there would be nothing to prevent someone convicted of a football-related offence and disqualified from
96
membership of the national scheme from joining a local scheme and avoiding the effects of his ban.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that there is no case for exemption here and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister referred to room for chaos with this amendment. I assure him that the application of the scheme will provide plenty of opportunity for chaos without the amendment. I understand the noble Lord's reticence about accepting the amendment because it covers too wide an area of potential exclusion. That is a good thing in the sense that literally thousands of people already see the advantages of membership of a scheme of this kind. I am willing to withdraw the amendment. I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord said and I reserve my right to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 53C:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) providing for the admission as spectators, without their being members of the scheme, of female persons").
The noble Lord said: Although we had a brief discussion on this matter in conjunction with the debate on Amendment No. 53 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, it is necessary for me to say a few words in support of the amendment. I do so for two reasons. First, since last Tuesday a number of people have said to me that perhaps I am guilty of wanting to impose positive discrimination. I deny that straightaway. I do not believe in positive discrimination. There is only one kind of discrimination; that is discrimination full stop. Therefore, I would not be likely to move an amendment positively to discriminate for or against anyone.
Secondly, I am accused of sexism, whatever "sexism" may mean. If it is sexist to try to exempt a section of football supporters when, as I shall show, there are good reasons for exempting them, then I am sexist. But how can I be more sexist than my noble friend Lord Graham was "ageist" in moving Amendment No. 49? That amendment sought to exempt people in receipt of retirement pensions. I move this amendment not because I believe in positive discrimination or because I am in any way sexist. I believe in complete equality of the sexes; no more and no less.
Why then do I move the amendment? I do so because it is the rational thing to do. We are talking about a football scheme which attempts to deal with hooliganism. I find that women have not been involved in football hooliganism. There are no cases of women being arrested for, or convicted of, any offence concerned with their attendance at football matches. Therefore, why on earth should we include this section of the population—about 10 to 15 per cent. of women attend football matches—in a football membership scheme when it is shown clearly that they have not been involved, and are not likely

97
to be involved, in violence? Women in our society are fortunately not violent. That view has been confirmed by a senior police officer.
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, agreed at col. 1462 of the Official Report of 7th March 1989 that there was no difficulty about identifying women. He said:
"It is a relatively simple matter to identify women".
Therefore the same arguments cannot apply to women as apply, for example, to retirement pensioners because, as the noble Lord agrees, women are easily identifiable. Even in these days of unisex haircuts and clothes styles, they are still easily identifiable in a number of ways with which we are all familiar. It may be argued that men wishing to attend football matches without being members of the scheme will dress up as women. I do not accept that argument. The young men who indulge in football hooliganism want to portray a macho image. They are unlikely to go to football matches in drag.
I hope I have made the case for exempting the female of the species. I feel sure that all Members of the Committee would not wish to discourage women from attending football matches. Women have a calming effect on the male of the species and would therefore have a calming effect on football hooligans. I hope that the amendment will be considered. Indeed, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. If he is unable to accept it, I trust that he will be able to give some good reasons.
The Earl of Onslow: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am totally sexist on this issue. When I was a young man it was always a compliment to call someone "discriminating". Indeed, it meant that a person had taste and finesse and knew the difference between beauty and ugliness. Moreover, it meant that that person was generally of some intellectual calibre.
It seems to me very sensible that women should be excluded from the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart has drawn a wonderful picture of beer-bellied hooligans with tattooed arms dressed up in drag trying to get into football matches wearing high heels and straw wigs and carrying broken bottles. That is almost what the noble Lord is suggesting will happen: he believes that hooligans will try to get in under this amendment if women are not excluded.
My noble friend's answer to the problem earlier in the Bill's proceedings was really awfully unsatisfactory. I have a terrible sinking suspicion that the same answer will again be given; namely, that it will be of immense benefit to all ladies, be they aged 100 or 103. Perhaps my noble friend can tell the Committee what will be the minimum age for young ladies going to matches. Let us take for example, the case of the mother referred to in our previous debate—she with a baby in a pram in the family enclosure. If that baby is going to be feminine, are we really going to ask a nappy-clad three month old in a pram—or a lady, woman or girl—to go through and apply for a football membership scheme card?
If that is the case, what my noble friend is doing is making a mistake with what is basically a good idea. In other words, they are spoiling a ship for a
98
ha'porth of tar. We know that there is a problem; indeed, all of us who support the idea know that there is a hard core of unattractive people who wish to go to football matches in order to create mayhem and trouble. We also know that they are all male and that they are all probably under 30, or perhaps 40, years of age.
Therefore there can be no advantage either for the female baby in nappies or, again, the lady I have mentioned—namely, my 101 year-old great aunt Vera—neither of whom are likely to cause mayhem or riot. There is no advantage to either of them, or to anyone in that category. Indeed, there is no advantage to women on the whole. Therefore, it seems to be very sensible to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as a good idea. However, I have a terrible feeling that my noble friend will not do so. Moreover, I have an equally terrible feeling that he will produce exactly the same bad arguments that he produced on the last occasion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Oh dear!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: In supporting the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I must stress that I do not necessarily associate myself with his views as regards women and violence. As a boy I remember going to a match where a woman was so incensed by a referee's decision that she rushed across the ground and started to belabour him with her umbrella. I should add that I was not that referee, nor was it the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, because the incident took place at a rugby not a soccer match.
I agree with the noble Lord when he stresses the importance of encouraging women to go to football matches; indeed, they do bring a more civilised influence to the proceedings and make it into a family occasion. Moreover, they should be encouraged to do so for the sake of football and football spectators.
I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will tell the Committee once again that it is the Government's view that the membership scheme is being put forward for the protection of spectators. Therefore the Government want all law-abiding spectators to be members of it. However, there is another side to that argument. The membership scheme certainly restricts and reduces the freedom of the individual. In this case it is very likely that many women who have been accustomed to attending football matches will not go through the process of taking out membership cards. Many women are casual supporters, though not all—indeed, some are regular—and they will not go to the trouble of taking out membership cards.
If the Government do not accept the amendment they will be extending that restriction on the liberty of the individual to go to a football match on a Saturday afternoon to women spectators. I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us a single instance of any female who has ever been prosecuted for violence as a result of an incident at any football ground. I have never heard of such a case; indeed I do not believe that there has been one. Further, if that is true, and there has never been any arrest or

99
charge against a female, I suggest that it is our duty to preserve the liberty and freedom of the female sex to go to football matches when they wish to do so. The Government's argument that there is an element of violence among football spectators certainly applies only to the male sex and has never been seen among the female sex.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to express my support for the amendment moved by my noble friend. I do so especially because I would not like to see him labelled as sexist. That is certainly nonsensical and is obviously a term used by the kind of person who likes to be called "Ms" and who talks about a "chairperson". That is not what the argument is about.
I should like Members of the Committee to envisage some spectators who will be at our local Fulham football ground. I plead again the fact that I am not talking only about the rich clubs; we should be thinking of some of the smaller ones which will be completely bankrupted by the scheme. However, that point is by the way.
My son will be taking, as he always does, his 13 year-old daughter with three of her friends to the match. Sometimes there will be two friends, sometimes three, and sometimes four. They will be visiting Chester the following Saturday and they will go with several other people. They are very typical of the females who go to football matches. Of course they thoroughly enjoy themselves and there is certainly no question of violence.
It is interesting to put on the record that we are obviously not the violent sex; we can do pretty well with our tongues, but we are not the violent sex. Moreover, as I recall, there is only one prison for women, compared to a very large number for males. I see that certain Members of the Committee are not in agreement with me on that issue and I wonder how many prisons there are for women.
A noble Lord: Six!
Baroness Phillips: As I was saying, I understand that someone said it is overcrowded; that, of course, is a different matter. In any event, there are fewer prisons for women than there are for men. Therefore certainly the small number of women who go to matches now—as we have just heard from the noble Lord—will not go if they have to pay to join the membership scheme in addition to paying for a ticket. That is the whole point. Moreover, we do not yet know how much such membership will cost, but it will all add to the cost. If the Minister can only see his way clear to make this small exemption, then he will really be showing us that the Government have the interests of football spectators in general at heart. Indeed they need the popularity.
It was most interesting to see on the television screen last week when watching a football match that protesters were so well organised that every now and again they produced banners which read, "No ID cards". This is not a popular measure and the Government should take that fact on board.
4 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: We discussed this amendment in Committee last Tuesday. I explained then the Government's general position on exemptions and why we do not believe that there are good grounds for exempting women from the scheme. The central premise stands repeating. We want as many law-abiding spectators as possible to join the scheme and enjoy the benefits of membership.
We certainly do not suggest that women pose a special threat of hooliganism. I entirely accept that women on the whole commit less crime than men. The Association of Chief Police Officers does not distinguish between men and women in the summary information on football-related arrests that it collects centrally, but I have no doubt that arrests among women at football matches are low. This is the impression which ACPO also has, though, as I say, there are no central figures on the point.
On the other hand, crime among women is not unknown. The totals for indictable offences in England and Wales in 1987 record some 209,000 female offenders. That figure represents about a quarter of the total for male offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, in making the point that not all women are necessarily an advertisement for their sex acknowledged that those who are not constitute a very small proportion but should not be under-estimated.
I do not wish to make too much of this point and of course I accept that the majority of football spectators are men. All I am suggesting is that the scheme would be weakened if from the outset we were to deny ourselves the possibility of disqualifying women who were found to be closely involved in hooliganism. The Committee will appreciate in this context that there is no such exemption in the existing exclusion order powers under Part IV of the Public Order Act 1986.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, also made the point that the notion of blanket exemption of women smacked of sexism. This is not a frivolous point. There is no practical reason for exempting women from the scheme. As I said last week, I do not wish to exaggerate the extent to which an exemption for women would create an extra burden of checking people at the entry to grounds; but there would be some practical implications. It is essential that the flow of spectators through turnstiles should move as smoothly as possible. The technology is available to provide for this provided that everyone has the same card. Large-scale exemptions are bound to have some practical effects on the scheme and exempting half the population is an exemption on a very large scale.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Onslow wittily denigrated the idea of anyone attempting to enter a ground dressed as a female, which is far more to the point than a female hooligan. My noble friend Lord Onslow painted an attractive picture of how ridiculous it would be to expect anyone with a beer belly and tattoos to be dressed in high-heeled shoes. I found that a reasonable point of view; but I would remind noble Lords who have taken an interest in soccer hooliganism that it is a speciality of the "Inter-City

101
Firm", in order to obtain entry to grounds, to look as unlike the description of a yobbo that my noble friend gave. It perceives the way to gain entry to football as being well dressed and looking highly respectable.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, spoke of women casual supporters. The guest card is the example to think of in terms of the casual lady going to watch a game. My noble friend Lord Onslow also asked about a child in arms. I can assure him that that will not be the case, but that I shall be coming to that point on a later amendment. I hope that he will accept that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, also spoke about safety. The Government's primary reason for resisting the amendment has nothing to do with their feelings about women and trying to exclude them or make life difficult for them. The Bill's intention is to exclude hooligans and to protect the individual and the weak. The integrity of the Bill and the scheme depend upon limiting exclusions which make it more difficult to operate the scheme. Most women football spectators are law-abiding people whose very presence at a match can do so much to curb bad behaviour and improve the atmosphere at the ground. Women can benefit from being members of the scheme, and the scheme will gain from having them in it. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: As the Minister referred to what I said, will he tell the Committee how a woman spectator will be any safer with an identity card than without one?
Lord Hesketh: For the simple reason that the purpose of the scheme is to exclude hooliganism. That is the threat.
Lord Wigoder: Leaving aside the fact that the official statistics might not disclose the proportion of male and female offenders at football grounds, does the Minister's department have a single press cutting to show a single conviction of a single woman for a single crime of violence at a single football match?
Lord Hesketh: I have always tried to emphasise that our purpose in resisting the amendment, as we have in other areas—for example, in relation to old age pensioners—is to ensure the scheme's integrity. We resist the amendment for that and no other reason.
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble friend answer the point? The integrity of the scheme argument sounds similar to the reason why the Bourbons did not return to France in 1870, which was because they could not agree on the flag. My noble friend has produced an argument which has nothing to recommend it, but he goes on proposing it. We all want to keep football hooliganism outside football matches. I accept that one of the ways to do that is by football identity cards.
There is no point in giving football identity cards to people who are not hooligans. My noble friend
102
says that there is no record showing the difference between male and female offenders. I do not believe him. He just has not got hold of the figures. When someone is arrested, the name is taken. If they are male, they are put in a male cell, and if they are female they are put in a female cell. Otherwise people might get up to hanky panky. I am sure that my noble friend does not want that in the nick. Presumably the police must know who is arrested and charged and whether they are male or female. Will he ask his advisers and tell us the answer?
Lord Hesketh: I am interested in what my noble friend says. His proposition, which I understand but with which I disagree, is that all groups which are clearly not a threat to the scheme should be excluded. All the advice given to the Government was and is that if we are to attempt to introduce a scheme it must have universality. It is for that reason only that we resist the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: What is the object of the Bill? As I understand it, it is to prevent hooliganism at football grounds. Upon what does the Minister base his argument? It is not now about violence at football grounds. He is talking about the scheme's integrity. What does that mean? As I said last week, it seemed to me that the Minister and his colleagues were so much in love with the bureaucratic procedures of the scheme that they had lost sight of their objectives.
I asked the Minister two questions last week. First, I asked him, as did my noble friend Lord Wigoder a moment ago, how many women have been arrested for violent offences at football grounds. The Minister was unable to answer the question. I then asked him a different question. I asked him to ask ACPO what its impression was of the number of offences committed by women at football grounds. The Minister said:
"The very straightforward answer is that I do not have that information with me at this moment. I shall write to the noble Lord".—[Official Report, 7/3/89; col. 1466.]
Rather to my surprise, I have unhappily not received a letter from the Minister. Perhaps one is on its way. Has he asked ACPO what its impression is of the number of women committing offences at football grounds? What is its answer?
Lord Mellish: Before the Minister answers, I wish to put this on record. The debate we have had on the amendment shows the futility of the Minister's scheme. So many people would be eligible, if we are talking of exemptions. The Government have got it into their mind that this is the only way in which we can deal with hooligans. I have said to the Minister and to the Government that I accept at once that there is a problem with hooligans. We must deal with them. I beg the Minister, even at this late stage, to understand that there is no point in having a specialist committee such as is proposed in the Bill unless it is given authority and power to make recommendations which will be accepted by the Secretary of State. That is not a lot to ask.
If the Minister wishes to get rid of this or any other amendment, all he need say is, "I shall put this to the specialist committee considering the matter".

103
I note that the Leader of the House is listening intently to me. There is no point in having a specialist committee if it is not to be given authority and is not able to make recommendations. I do not think that the Minister is qualified to answer the debate as it now stands.
I have been listening and smiling all the way through the debate at the very idea that if women are exempt as a class—for which I understand the reasons—then all the villains at Millwall will be dressing up in drag, and high-heeled shoes to gain entry. I cannot believe that; but it is what has been said. It shows how silly the debate is becoming. Will the Minister please stop it? Will he understand that we share with him the responsibility; we agree that hooligansim must be removed. We ask that the appropriate committee be given the authority and power to examine matters like this and to make recommendations. In that context, this and every other amendment should fall to the ground.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, before turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The committee to which I was referring was the Minister for Sport's advisory committee; we feel strongly that the success of the scheme depends on it being universal. I quite understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, does not agree, but that is what we believe. It is the basis on which we are proceeding.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if he has not received the letter. I can assure him that I addressed it to him and signed it; so it is en route. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the remarks I made when I began to reply to the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If we could be told what was in the letter I think we should all be interested.
Lord Hesketh: I am just coming to the point the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made. With regard to the impression of the ACPO, to which he referred, it is that the number of arrests among women at football matches is low. I shall repeat that; it is the answer I suspect the noble Lord wanted.
Lord Mishcon: If Lewis Carroll had been living at the moment and had been seated in the Gallery of the Chamber he would have rushed out and written a book called, "Alice in Football Land".
Before the Committee decides on the matter perhaps I may remind the Minister of the argument he has advanced. It has not been dealt with in the last two speeches. The argument is that if women were members of the scheme they would supply, as I understood it, a gentle atmosphere in the audience at the football match. That would therefore encourage peace in football grounds. Will the Minister examine the logic of that argument? I say that with respect. Will there not be many more women at football grounds if they are not required to have membership cards? If therefore we are encouraging the greater attendance of women at
104
football matches in order to produce tranquility, will not this amendment have the very purpose that the Government have in mind?
Lord Hesketh: The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are, as always, very seductive. But the objective of the Bill is to reduce violence. We believe that it will do so and that because of the membership scheme we shall increase the number of ladies going to football matches.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is entirely right. The clubs have stated and the Government have accepted that the effect of the Bill overall is likely to be that there will be fewer casual spectators. If the Government resist the amendment the result will therefore be, as a matter of elementary logic, that fewer women will go to matches.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, says, "We want more women at football grounds because they will induce more peace and harmony", he will surely be eager to accept the amendment—that is, if the central objective of the Government is to lower the amount of violence at football grounds. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, can see the logic of the argument.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I quite understand the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but in terms of achieving a reduction of violence at football grounds, the primary means will be through the scheme. A welcome additional improvement will be the presence of ladies at football matches. However, in order to make football "user-friendly"—for want of a better phrase—we must exclude hooligans. That is the object of the legislation; that is what we are trying to achieve.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This has been a fascinating debate. It has lasted much longer than I expected. My noble friend Lord Mishcon's arguments were not only seductive; they were very convincing. That is important. Nothing that the noble Lord has said invalidates the point made by myself and all other speakers that the presence of women at football matches will have a good influence and a calming effect on the football crowds. That must surely be good for football.
The noble Lord says that he wishes to maintain the integrity of the scheme. He says that the integrity of the scheme will be undermined if we exempt 50 per cent. of the population. With respect, what we are doing is to exempt 10 to 15 per cent. of the football-going crowd, not 50 per cent. of the population. Therefore, what he said was misleading.
Although in respect of other groups such as retirement pensioners the noble Lord's argument that they may be difficult to identify has some justification, in respect of women and girls there is no justification. As I have pointed out, the noble Lord accepts that. Since he accepts it, there can be no delay and no suggestion of delay. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene, but perhaps I may finish the point. There is no suggestion of delay at

105
the turnstiles through exempting women from the scheme.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may return to the very early part of the debate on the amendment when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, quoted me, saying that I used the words "relatively simple". I used the word "relatively" advisedly. It is relatively simple, but not that simple. Part of the difficulty about all groups of exemptions—glossed over by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, if I may say so, in summarising the debate—is that at Second Reading in your Lordships' House a tremendous amount of time was given to the problems caused by any scheme where hold-ups occurred because alternative forms of identification had to be used. That is a fact we cannot get away from. It is one of the reasons why we are resisting the amendment on grounds of practicality.
Lord Stoddart of Swindow: I do not think that I can go into the theory of relativity in relation to women and whether one can recognize them easily or not. The Minister and the Government are being unduly rigid, as has been pointed out. This is an exemption which they could, and should, allow. Under all the circumstances and bearing in mind the weight of opinion in the debate, I believe it right to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Airedale, L.

Galpern, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Alport, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amherst, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Attlee, E.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blease, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hayter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hooson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hughes, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hunt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hylton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carter, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jacques, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jeger, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ennals, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ezra, L.

Longford, E.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

McGregor of Durris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Fitt, L.

McNair, L

106

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stallard, L.

Mellish, L.

Stedman, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Mulley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Swinton, E.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Onslow, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whaddon, L.

Raglan, L.

White, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wigoder. L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Willis, L.

Rugby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Seebohm, L.

Winterbottom, L

Sefton of Garston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Kimberley, E.

Aldington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Long, V.

Allerton, L.

McAlpine of Moffatt, L.

Annan, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Arran, E.

McFadzean, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mackay of Clash fern, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Middleton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mostyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mottistone, L.

Braye, B.

Mountevans, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Munster, E.

Caldecote, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norfolk, D.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pennock, L.

Dundee, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Porritt, L.

Elibank, L.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Pym, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Quinton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Rodney, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grantchester, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shannon, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Havers, L.

Stafford, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Stockton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hives, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Holderness, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hood, V.

Teviot, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ingrow, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kimball, L.

Trafford, L

107

Trefgarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Tryon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.28 p.m.
[Amendment No. 53D not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 4, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 95. These amendments move us to another part of the Bill. I remind the Committee that Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are designed to take out of the Bill some of the mandatory aspects of the scheme. I ask the Committee to agree to remove paragraph (c) of Clause 5(2). The paragraph provides for,
"the exclusion from membership, for a period determined under the scheme, of persons who are, by reference to circumstances specified in the scheme, determined under the scheme to be unfit for membership".
Amendment No. 55 seeks to delete paragraph (i) of Clause 5(2). The paragraph provides for,
"establishing a tribunal to hear and determine appeals from decisions made under the scheme refusing or withdrawing membership of it".
Paragraph (c) paves the way for the kind of discretionary power which was suggested by the working party of the Minister for Sport; for example, to disqualify anyone arrested at or ejected from a ground, whether or not convicted of an offence. It would also cover the use of confidential police records of past convictions. Deletion of the paragraph would not affect the automatic disqualification prescribed by Clause 6, but it would reduce the risk of a person being banned on the basis of unreliable information or information that could be withheld in the event of an appeal against disqualification. I believe that the only ground for withdrawing membership should be a conviction for a serious football-related offence. Paragraph (i) sets up a tribunal which would be redundant if the FMA no longer had discretionary powers. Amendment No. 56 creates a new tribunal and Amendment No. 95, which is the new schedule, takes that a little further forward.
The appeal tribunal which we are setting up in Amendment No. 95 begins to widen the range of people who will be running the scheme beyond simply members of the FMA. We are concerned here to allow some element of independence, and certainly some element which represents the football supporters. We shall be moving an amendment in a moment or two to add a little more flesh and substance to what the Minister has said more than once—and I agreed with him—that we want the scheme to be run for football by football. A prime requisite of that is not just the players, the administrators, the police or the parliamentarians, but the supporters themselves.
In Amendment No. 95, which we are taking in this group, there are some significant aspects. It states:
"The tribunal shall consist of at least three persons of whom more than half are not members or employees of the authority."
In other words, we want to introduce some element of independence into the tribunal. The amendment goes on:
"The tribunal shall be empowered to seek evidence from any person who witnessed an incident leading to exclusion from membership under section 5(2)(c) of this Act."
We have to take on board the possibility, when we are talking in terms of evidence, that it will be catastrophic for the football fan to be excluded from the scheme and we have not merely to have the words of a player, of the police, or of someone who is of course telling the truth, but who may very well come from one side of the argument; we also want to have people who can be called in aid by the person whose life inside the scheme is threatened. We want to be able to introduce the element of independence in that way.
We also say in Amendment No. 95:
"The tribunal shall disclose to the appellant all information and sources of information used by the authority in deciding to exclude him from membership, notwithstanding the provisions of section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1984 which might otherwise apply."
In other words, we want as full a disclosure as possible to the person whose interest will be vitally affected. We want all that to be made available.
This is a much more democratic and judicially acceptable scheme. It may not suit the book either of the FMA or of the Minister, but we are anxious that the football fans, who are the ones who will be subject to a tribunal, should feel that this is fair and reasonable from the beginning. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are concerned with the discretion which the FMA would have to withhold or withdraw membership from the people who misbehave at football matches, but who have not necessarily been convicted of a criminal offence. The question of the treatment of convicted hooligans is the subject of Clause 6 of the Bill on which we have other amendments to consider.
Noble Lords have expressed concern at the possible extent of the discretion which the FMA may have to deal with people who misbehave at football matches. I hope that I can allay that concern by explaining how we envisage this discretion will operate under the scheme. I would not wish to rule out the possibility that certain limitations on the FMA's discretion should be built into the Bill itself.
However, there is one point upon which we need to be very clear. Clubs already have the right to ban anyone they deem unsuitable from entering their club premises and they exercise that right now. No one at present has an absolute right to go to a football match. As I say, clubs can and do ban people whom they do not wish to enter their premises. In theory under the present law all clubs could come together and exchange information as to the undesirable characters.
In practice what happens now when an individual club bans someone from its ground is that he is free

109
to go somewhere else and cause trouble. The Bill offers the means by which we can prevent this and I suggest to noble Lords that it is right that it should do so. If someone behaves in such a way at the Arsenal that the club decides to ban him from its ground, he should not be able simply to switch the focus of his activities to Tottenham Hotspur or West Ham.
There are several types of behaviour which may fall short of a criminal offence but which are entirely undersirable at football matches: for example, the obscene chanting, the racial abuse, the threatening and abusive gestures which still disfigure many matches. Behaviour of this kind is unacceptable both for its own sake and because it may lead to more serious criminal incidents. Then there are people who are persistently and unpleasantly drunk at matches. It can only be in the best interests of football as a whole that it should be possible for people to be banned not just from individual clubs but from all clubs.
However, it is essential that there should be procedures to ensure that people are not banned unfairly. I entirely accept that there must be rules and criteria by which the Football Membership Authority should exercise its discretion. These rules must be clearly set out in the scheme submitted to the Secretary of State for approval; and well publicised at football matches. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport has made it clear that the Government will expect the maximum period for discretionary disqualification to be set at two years. In the light of the remarks already made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I will undertake to consider the possibility of an amendment to the Bill to specify this maximum.
The Football Membership Authority will also need to establish proper procedures for dealing with recommendations from the clubs to disqualify people for misbehaviour They must give those concerned the chance to make representations on their own behalf to claim mistaken identity, for example, or to question the evidence laid against them. I should emphasise that we envisage that it will be the clubs which will make the reports to the FMA recommending disqualification, rather than the police. But those concerned must have the right to challenge the evidence on which a decision to disqualify them has been taken.
It is also essential for the integrity of the scheme that it should be open to the FMA to refuse membership to well-known hooligans at the outset. Of course we must be careful to ensure that the FMA does not refuse an application for membership unfairly, or without giving the person concerned a chance to question a refusal. But it would be highly unsatisfactory if there were no means of excluding from the scheme well-known hooligans who might have a long record of misbehaviour, or people who have been subject to exclusion orders and whose names are already known to the Football Association.
I am not for a moment suggesting that anyone who has ever been subject to an exclusion order should be denied membership of the scheme. But information on exclusion orders is already provided
110
to the Football Association under the Public Order Act. It will therefore be available to the FMA and they may take it into account in considering applications for membership. Anyone whose application is refused will have the right to challenge that refusal and the reasons for it.
The operation of the FMA's discretion to disqualify people from membership will be a crucial aspect of the national membership scheme. It must be subject to proper procedures, but we must be careful not to impose too elaborate an appeals mechanism on the FMA. If we attempt to do so, we shall not create guarantees of civil liberties; we shall simply ensure that the elaborate procedure is never used because neither the clubs nor the authority will use the power that the Bill provides to ban troublemakers from the scheme. The clubs will rely on their existing rights to ban people from their grounds without any procedures for appeal. The opportunity that the Bill offers to create an effective and fair deterrent to hooligan behaviour will be lost.
There is attraction, too, for the appellant in keeping relatively simple the procedure by which he would challenge the FMA's decisions. A complex appeals process would inevitably accumulate substantial delays. In the context of a temporary disqualification from membership, justice would most certainly be delayed and denied. We need to strike a balance to find a procedure for people who are disqualified which is fair without being over elaborate and which allows the person concerned to state his case to an independent adjudicator and to challenge any evidence brought against him.
The detailed rules and procedures will need to be spelled out in the scheme, but it may be that we should deal with certain aspects more fully in the Bill than we do now and I undertake to consider the possibility of bringing forward amendments to this effect at a later stage. I shall look in particular at the possibility of spelling out that the maximum period of disqualification that the FMA will be able to impose should be two years; that those concerned should have a right to be notified of the reasons for their disqualification; and that the criteria by which the FMA's decisions are taken should be reasonable ones.
I have explained the importance that the Government attach to the FMA's discretion to disqualify people from the scheme. But I also recognise the case for imposing clear limits on that discretion. I think that we can strike a reasonable balance and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like to ask one or two questions that arise from the Minister's comments. I welcome his statement that there will be some government amendments spelling out a number of the issues in greater detail. No doubt we shall consider them at Report stage.
I accept everything that the Minister said about obscene and racist chanting. It is highly objectionable. But people who become involved in such conduct at present render themselves liable to arrest. I am not sure what the noble Lord is suggesting when

111
he implies that, without such a provision, racist and obscene chanting can continue. Clearly, if a person is arrested and charged with a criminal offence, he can be excluded from the ground in any event by order of the court. That is what we should all prefer.
As I understand it, the Minister argues that the person concerned will not be arrested but that the club will make a complaint to the Football Membership Authority; the chap will be debarred and will then have a right of appeal. I am sure that the police will be gratified to learn that they will be excluded from having to take on any responsibility for that matter. However, in certain circumstances a policeman may be one of the witnesses to what happens but decides for various reasons not to arrest the person concerned. It seems clear to me that in a situation of that sort he will have to give evidence because, without his evidence, no case can be made out to the satisfaction of the authority. Perhaps the Minister will clear up that point. Is he giving an absolute guarantee—it would be welcome if he could give a guarantee—that the police will in no circumstances be involved in the matter?
As the noble Lord will be aware, the police are very aware of the resource implications of the legislation. If policemen are called to give evidence, perhaps from some of the most distant counties of this country, there will be great concern about the resource implications of such a procedure. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would spell out the situation in more detail.
I agree with the Minister that one does not want too elaborate a mechanism. But one also wants to be sure that the principles of natural justice are followed. Perhaps he will tell us whether his department is now consulting the Council on Tribunals whose former chairman is sitting behind him. I believe that if a new body of that sort is to be established it will be highly desirable to take its view of the matter before a final decision is made. I should be grateful if he would assist me on that matter.
Lord Hesketh: To answer the noble Lord's question, I need to return to the current situation; namely, that all clubs have the right to exclude anyone whom they consider to be a menace. The noble Lord says that we know that, but it is important in the context of what follows; otherwise, it is as if we are to impose a scheme that does not already exist. At the moment there is no right of appeal or opportunity to give one's side of the story, but under the new proposals we are essentially trying to codify what already exists and put it on a universal basis so that it can be effective against persistent hooligans.
At the moment it is quite likely that a police officer will go to a servant of a club and say, "X has been behaving in a disgraceful manner, but not to the point at which I feel that I can carry out an arrest". That evidence could be used by an employee or a director of the club and that information will be provided by the club to the FMA. Only in that context would the police go—I do not wish to be misunderstood: only in that context would the police appear to have an involvement. We are not talking about cases in which the police are involved and a
112
crime has been committed. We are trying to formalise the situation and at the same time provide protection for those who are banned by the FMA. We are not trying to extend the present situation and it is fair to say that we are in effect trying to limit the powers which are at present unlimited. With regard to the noble Lord's final point, we are in correspondence with the Council on Tribunals.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am grateful for the Minister's final statement. Perhaps I may take him back to the statement that he made a little earlier about a situation in which a policeman hears someone involved in uttering racist abuse but decides for various reasons not to arrest him. The Minister told us that the policeman concerned would go to a servant of the club—I believe that that was how he described him—and tell him that Mr. X, Mr. Y or whoever it might be, had been involved in just such behaviour. The club would then take action.
With great respect, that cannot be right because such evidence is known as hearsay evidence, which is automatically disqualified from consideration by any tribunal. One cannot say that X said something to Y and then allow Y to use that information as evidence in proceedings of any kind. I must assure the noble Lord that that is right. A policeman's statement to a servant of the club could not possibly be used in evidence before a tribunal. Perhaps the Minister will assist me on that matter. I believe that those advising him will assure him that what I am saying is correct. I should be very surprised if they said that it was incorrect. If they said that it was incorrect, it would cause great anxiety on this side of the House. Perhaps the Minister will assist us on that matter.
Lord Hesketh: As I understand it, the situation that we are discussing does not involve the judicial process. We are essentially codifying the rights that the clubs already have. That is why I believe that the matter does not quite fit the criteria described by the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, if the noble Lord reads what I said tomorrow morning, he will find that my point is an altogether different one. We accept that we are not talking about proceeding before a magistrates' court or anything of that sort, but about a situation—these are the Minister's words, not mine—in which a policeman hears someone shouting what he believes to be racist or obscene abuse. He knows who he is. No servant of the club hears it, but the policeman does. That situation will often arise when one considers the number of policemen who are on duty inside a football ground. The policeman goes to a steward and says, "I have just heard that young man using racist abuse. For various reasons I do not propose to arrest him but I am notifying you that that was what he was doing." If the servant of the club did not hear that statement made he cannot possibly be a witness in any proceedings before the tribunal because the evidence is hearsay evidence. That is automatically disqualified from consideration by any tribunal.

113
If the noble Lord has any doubts on the matter, I can assure him that the Council on Tribunals can confirm the accuracy of that statement. Can he assist us in this matter also? The police service will be concerned about any suggestion that its officers will be summoned to give direct evidence in a situation such as I have just described.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is correct. It would normally be a matter of hearsay evidence, and the police pointing out misbehaviour would then lead to a club official seeing it for himself. The police officer would therefore draw it to the attention of the club official and, as a result, it would have to be the club official who acted on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, the police officer would not be involved in any subsequent action because the club official would himself have had to see the evidence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sorry to persist with this point but there are many outside this Chamber who will be concerned to know the precise position of the Government. I am asking for a clear undertaking from the Minister—I believe that I have it, and he will no doubt confirm whether that is so—that the police will in no circumstances be involved in having to give evidence before the tribunal. As I understand it, the noble Lord has said just that.
I apologise if I am involving myself in wearisome repetition on this point. The servant of the club does not hear the young man shout the obscene abuse; the policeman does. By the time the incident has taken place the young man is almost certainly not involving himself in shouting abuse of this character. There is no way, as I understand it, that the evidence of the club servant could possibly be used at a tribunal unless he personally heard the words. The policeman will have heard it, but the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh has given me an undertaking that in no circumstances will he be asked to give evidence before the tribunal. Is that right?
Lord Hesketh: It would be very dangerous and foolish of me to rule that never, ever would the police be asked to give evidence. However, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made is correct. If the club official did not appear—he is entirely right—the club official would not be able to present evidence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall not persist with the matter. However, I suspect that the police service will be very anxious to receive a clearer undertaking than the noble Lord has found it necessary to give on this matter of policemen giving evidence. It is already concerned, as the noble Lord will be aware, about the very heavy manpower resources that have to be made available at football matches. If it discovers that some of its officers will be summoned to tribunals, that concern will increase very considerably, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise.
I have made the point. I do not propose to follow it up any further.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has gone some way towards meeting the point of my amendment. The impetus for the amendment has come from a number of quarters, not least the National Council of Civil Liberties, which has studied these matters with care.
The genesis of our amendments is this. Because the withdrawal of the card is so important, it ought not to be undertaken other than by a decision of a court, with the opportunities that a court can provide for the defence of the defendant. My argument is that this is not within the competence of the FMA. However, the Minister has agreed to consider some of the other amendments. He saw the unease that I had at the exclusion from the judicial procedure under the FMA of those whom I believe are primarily involved—the supporters.
Without attempting to use the precise words of the Minister, I accept that he and his advisers are prepared to look again at the judicial procedure whereby an alleged offender may lose his licence to attend—that is, his card. It would be churlish of Members of this Committee not to give them the opportunity to do so.
The noble Lord relies on the present position. I have a copy of the ground regulations for 1988–89. They are quite clear. They state:
"Any person who fails to comply with instructions from a steward may be ejected from the ground. In general the right of admission is reserved to the club management. The club reserves the right to refuse admission to or eject any person who refuses to be searched",
and so on.
The Minister is quite right. Under the existing provisions people who are accused of doing something have very few rights. However, just as other people see an opportunity for involvement when a Bill is going through, the National Federation of Supporters' Clubs has seen an opportunity and wishes to become involved. I have pointed out on a number of occasions, and will be happy to do so again at a relevant time, that a new opportunity exists. In addition to considering whether or not we shall have the card—which the Minister supports—there is a new atmosphere which I believe will be for the good of football. One element of that is the introduction of consideration of supporters' rights. The bodies which represent supporters wish legitimately to have a slice of the action in the future.
Not only has the Minister done his best, but he has made the offer that without prejudice he will look at all the arguments. He has specified the lines along which he wishes to work. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said more than once, until we see the colour of his money—with reference to the words of the Minister's amendments—we must reserve our right to decide whether we wish to amend them. I am satisfied that a good purpose has been served by giving this aspect of the Bill an airing at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 4, line 25, leave out paragraph (i) and insert—
("(i) providing for the exercise of the rights accorded to members of the National Football Membership Scheme as specified in Schedule (Rights of Members of the National Football Membership Scheme) to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 55A and to speak to Amendment No. 96.
Amendment No. 96 is a new schedule which provides for the rights of members of the national football membership scheme. I shall be satisfied if the Minister states that these are matters which should be left to the FMA. When that is said with sincerity, I am very happy to leave the matter there.
I have already raised the flag on behalf of football supporters. Perhaps the Members of the Committee may benefit if I state simply what this amendment is seeking to provide. It provides the right to participate in the election of representatives to a body that may be established by the administrator—that is, the FMA—to advise on the management of the scheme. We are not taking away anyone's powers. We are not laying down powers that this new body may have. However, through this amendment and through my words, the supporters' clubs want to have an opportunity to help to adminster the scheme. We are not talking about usurping the powers of Parliament of the FMA. The Supporters' clubs want to have the right to participate in the election of a committee to monitor the operations of the scheme; the right to call a meeting of members of the scheme; the right to be notified in writing of the reasons for any proposed withdrawal from the scheme; the right to present a defence before any decision regarding withdrawal of membership is made; and the right of appeal against any withdrawal.
If one considers that 1,000 exclusion orders were issued in the 1987–1988 season, but that the position will get "better" in the future—that there will be not thousands but hundreds of people who may have their membership withdrawn—this amendment provides for those who have the interests of supporters at heart to be involved in some way in such withdrawals.
I can assure the Minister that the people who dislike more intensely than he or anyone else the inconvenience that the good supporters are put to by the bad supporters are the vast majority of good supporters. I was given an interesting illustration in the recent England v. Albania match. There was no encouragement for British supporters to go abroad, but some supporters went and the vast majority of them were what the Minister would call a credit to British football. I was told as recently as today that a tiny minority were members of the National Front. They misbehaved absolutely appallingly and abused the privilege of entering a foreign country. Fortunately there was no international incident. Besides the local police, the people who disliked that behaviour were the recognised good supporters. They know as well as anyone the bad eggs, who do not have any credence anywhere.
I shall be happy to withdraw this amendment as it is not one I wish to press, but the purpose of it is to persuade the Minister to tell me that this is the
116
kind of matter he would expect to be taken on board by the FMA in carrying out its duties and functions. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I explained when we were discussing the noble Lord's previous amendments that the Government regard the operation of the FMA's discretion to disqualify people from membership as a crucial aspect of the national membership scheme. I have told the Committee that I entirely accept that there must be rules and criteria by which the FMA should exercise its discretionary powers. Clearly it is important that anyone who is disqualified from membership by the authority should have the right to make representations against its decision.
I explained in our discussion on the noble Lord's previous amendments, Nos. 54 and 55, that the detailed rules and procedures by which the FMA will exercise its discretion to disqualify people from membership will need to be spelt out in the scheme. I have said that it may be that we should deal with certain aspects more fully in the Bill than we do now. I have undertaken to consider the possibility of bringing forward amendments at a later stage. I have a good deal of sympathy with the principles behind the proposals the noble Lord makes concerning the rights of members to challenge decisions by the FMA to withdraw membership.
I shall take full account of the noble Lord's proposals in taking another look at the FMA's discretionary powers. I see that an important issue here is the need to be fair to the people affected by the decisions of the FMA and the need to ensure that arrangements do not become over-complex and bureaucratic.
The other provisions in the noble Lord's proposed schedule dealing with rights for members seem to me to raise considerable practical difficulties. I am not sure whether the proposals are intended to compel the creation of a body to advise the Football Membership Authority on the management of the scheme and a committee to monitor the operation of the scheme at an individual club. It will of course be the FMA which will be responsible for the management of the scheme. It will be for the authority to decide with the clubs how best to go about this. It will be for the club to devise its own arrangements on the day-to-day running of the scheme. The authority and the clubs will clearly wish to monitor the operation of the scheme.
Whatever arrangements the FMA and the clubs make to manage, operate and monitor the scheme, they will wish to take full account of the interests of members of the scheme. It is in the interests of the authority and the clubs to do so and they will wish to work out the best way of consulting members. It might be possible for the arrangements to involve elections in the way the noble Lord proposes. This is something that the Football Membership Authority should be looking at. It will be for the authority and the clubs to come up with sensible arrangements for consulting members of the scheme. I do not think it would be helpful to tie football's hands by attempting to spell out detailed consultation arrangements on the face of the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful for what the Minister has said about the amendment, fully recognising that he has sympathy with the desire of members of the scheme to influence their own scheme. The Minister understands that if the scheme becomes a reality we are expecting a group of people who together will total 500,000, 600,000 or even 1 million individuals. It is a colossal voluntary body—voluntary in the sense that they are compulsorily made to join the scheme—that will have the opportunity to use its muscle. The group recognises the propriety of these matters, the sovereignty of Parliament and that it very much depends on the good will of the clubs. I liked what the Minister said; he thought it sensible that the clubs would influence the FMA. The FMA could decide how best to get the fans on its side. That does not need to be spelt out in precise words at this stage.
We wanted to test the attitude of the Government, not necessarily their views. I am satisfied that the Minister has conveyed to me that the attitude of the Government is that they see the sense of discussions between the FMA and whoever is seen to be the most appropriate body. One of the problems is that there is no cohesive body representing football fans. Some clubs have good groups, but others have not. I make no claim for their cohesiveness, but they will want to try to make a scheme work if it is implemented. They are opposed to the scheme. As my badge says, "Fans say 'No' to ID card". At least that is off my chest, although the badge is still there. The fans are saying to me and to the Committee that when the dust settles they want to make sure that their interests are protected. The Minister agrees that that is a reasonable request, but it is something to he taken on board by the FMA, so I am satisfied to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert ("and
(j) that citizens of other countries of the European Community are entitled to attend on presentation of a passport.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has been tabled to find out the Government's precise position in relation to foreign visitors. I quote the opinion of the Minister of Sport's working party in paragraph 17 of Chapter 2 It reads:
"Exemption may also be justified for foreign visitors attending a single domestic match, at the discretion of the club. Clubs could maintain a small stock of temporary membership cards, valid for one match only, which could be issued to foreign visitors, against proof of their identity (passport or national identity card). The club should be responsible for their behaviour".
That is the view of the working party and the amendment is addressed to the position of a citizen from a country in the European Community.
How precisely will the Government administer this? On previous occasions I have asked about Italian waiters, for example, living in London, possessing an Italian passport. If the working party's recommendation is accepted, I understand that if
118
they wish to attend a single match they will be entitled to do so. Is that correct or not?
I am not quite clear how the club is compelled to be responsible for people's conduct while in the ground. I can understand it in relation to some of the other exemptions, but how can a club possibly be responsible for the behaviour of an unknown foreigner who presents his passport and asks to be admitted? I should be grateful if the noble Lord would assist us.
However, it is not just a question of an Italian waiter who lives in London and wishes to attend a single match. The position remains the same for the possessor of an Irish Republic passport who lives in Manchester. Is he also to been enabled to attend a single match without any difficulty? His next-door neighbour who does not have the good fortune to hold an Irish Republic passport will not be able to get into the ground on that basis. Indeed he will commit a serious criminal offence if he tries to do so. I find this Bill generally, and our discussions on a whole series of issues (particularly those at the beginning of this afternoon), rather like wading through thick glue.
I find the issue to be one of the more perplexing. I understand the goodwill of the Minister for Sport's working party in relation to foreign visitors. However, I find it exceptionally difficult to understand how the scheme will be administered with any fairness and justice. I should be grateful if the Minister will assist the Committee by saying how it will be done. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I need not rehearse the Government's position on exemptions—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Hear, Hear!
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be grateful. Members of the Committee will be clear about that. It is a central premise of the scheme that everyone—of whatever nationality and wherever they live—who intends to visit Football League matches on a regular basis should join the scheme. This principle certainly extends to member states of the European Community.
As far as the occasional foreign visitors are concerned, we think that the best way of fitting them into the scheme is as guests of the club, with the club issuing temporary membership cards.
Tour operators already make arrangements with clubs about handling organised parties of foreign visitors. That principle could be extended under the membership scheme. The tour operator could provide the club with a list of names, against which the club would issue temporary membership cards. We envisage the FMA devising appropriate arrangements for organised parties and individual foreign visitors under which temporary membership cards would be issued. It is possible that the presentation of passports might have a part to play in this process; that is something which the FMA will wish to look at.
One final point that we ought not to lose sight of is the fact that there may come a time when foreign

119
visitors may not always be in possession of a passport when in this country
I hope that Members will agree that it is sensible, and in the best interest of the foreign spectators and the clubs, for the Football Membership Authority and the clubs to work out arrangements for treating foreign visitors as club guests. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned citizens from the Irish Republic. As far as I am aware, they do not need a British passport to visit this country but can come whenever they wish. Four of the largest clubs in the country are situated in the North-West. They are the two Liverpool clubs and the two Manchester clubs, and they provide the largest catchment areas in which people from the Irish Republic can come and settle. Many supporters have lived in this country for many years and have become British citizens.
However, a surprising number of people from the Irish Republic class themselves as being regular supporters of Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool or Everton. They are not so insignificant in number. What would be the situation in respect of those people? If one meets them on holiday they will immediately say, "Whenever I can I come over pretty regularly to watch United". I am sure that the same applies to Liverpool. Some of them can be classed as regular supporters of those four clubs. I do not know whether the same situation applies to clubs in other parts of the country but it could create a problem in the catchment area of those four clubs.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: In my opening reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I pointed out that it is the intention that those who regularly attend a club—for example, Manchester United or Manchester City—regardless of whether they are English or foreign nationals, should have a regular membership rather than try to use the temporary membership scheme.
The clubs will keep lists of their temporary membership scheme. They will be in the business of discouraging people from using that scheme because it involves them in "bureaucracy"—to use a word which is being used often this afternoon—and they will encourage people to join the scheme as a full member.
Alternatively, if a foreign visitor goes to a club with a friend who is a member of a scheme, the club will be far more likely to grant him a temporary guest card. It is unlikely that an unknown person attending the club will persistently do so as an unknown figure. If he intends to support a particular team he will wish to take advantage of the scheme, because it will be simpler for him to hold his own card permanently rather than go through the process of trying to acquire a temporary membership card.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister has put forward a complicated idea. However, if the person is a citizen of the Irish Republic is it not possible that, under the Bill as it now stands, he would be
120
outside the jurisdiction of the law? I do not know the answer and I am asking the Minister to reply.
Is it not right that if an indigenous Englishman attempted to break the law, he and the club could find themselves in court concerning the activities of a non-applicant trying to gain entrance to the ground? In respect of a citizen of the Irish Republic only the club could be deemed to be in criminal conflict. It is a difficult situation. Can a citizen of the Irish Republic be prosecuted under the Bill? Laws have previously been passed in this country exempting citizens of the Irish Republic but how do they stand under this Bill?
Lord Hesketh: If a foreign passport holder acquires a guest membership card, which was issued in good faith by the club, and then commits an offence, the club will have the defence of saying that it issued the card in good faith. However, the fact of the matter is that the clubs will not wish to issue endless repetitive temporary membership cards because it will be troublesome for them to do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Does the Minister make that statement on the basis of what he has been told by the Football Association or the Football League, or is it his judgment on the matter?
I should like to take the Minister through his speech. I understand the first point that he made concerning what he described as "organised parties" from abroad. A number of London clubs and others elsewhere have regular group visits from people in other countries of the European Community. I understand that if they are "one off visitors they will be admitted. However, some may wish to return several times during the season. I am not clear whether they will be causing the Government offence by being what is described as "regular visitors".
I fear that the Minister did not attempt to answer the point I made in the second leg of my argument, except by saying that he thought clubs would not wish to encourage irregular visitors from the European Community who were not part of an organised party. Why should they not do so? What is the conceivable objection to allowing a businessman who visits this country once a year to go to a football match and say, "Here is my passport. The Government have made an exclusion for foreign passport holders and I wish to be admitted to the ground"? Surely the Minister will not say that such people should be debarred.
In fact the Minister did not say that they should be debarred; he said that the clubs would not wish to entertain such applications. I should like to know whether that is the view of the Football Association and the Football League, or whether it is the view of his department.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will not be surprised if I say that, in my present position, I cannot speak on behalf of the Football League or the Fooball Association—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I asked whether they had been consulted. When the Minister said that clubs would not wish to do this, that and the other

121
I assumed that he did so on the basis of having been so informed by the clubs. Is that right? Has he even asked the clubs for their view on the matter?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Very dangerous!
Lord Hesketh: At the start of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, drew our attention to paragraph 17 of the report on which the FA and the league were represented. I may have expressed myself badly with regard to the individual attending a soccer match in the United Kingdom in good faith. If the club gives a temporary membership card in good faith and the individual subsequently commits an offence, the club's defence, which is entirely reasonable, is that it gave the card in good faith.
Perhaps I may return briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the position of Irish passport holders living in the United Kingdom. As I have said, we envisage that it will be possible for a club to issue a foreign visitor a temporary membership card valid for one match only on the production of proof of identity, which might be his passport. It will be difficult to prevent Irish passport holders living in England making use of such a procedure. However, I do not believe that that need cause us too much concern. I should expect the FMA to ask clubs to maintain lists of those to whom they have issued temporary membership cards, given the need to adopt appropriate safeguards in relation to their licence. The clubs will want to maintain such lists. Therefore, the Irishman will not be able to continue obtaining temporary membership cards from the same club.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I take the noble Lord's point, but it depends on one's definition of "regular attender". Does it mean one match in the season, or four or five matches? I understand the logic of the noble Lord's point when he says that if a person goes to every home game he should not be able to obtain entry on the basis of being a foreign passport holder. However, he may be a person who visits this country two or three times a year and wishes to attend a match. As I understand it, that would be a matter for the club.
The noble Lord earlier indicated that clubs will take a certain view about people who regularly use that procedure. However, when I challenged him as to whether or not he had consulted the Football Association or the Football League he said that he was not speaking for them. It did not occur to me that he was, because, as he knows, both are passionately opposed to this Bill. Therefore, he does not have to reassure us on that point. However, I expected him to say whether they had been consulted. Perhaps I may ask him that direct question on the issue of foreign passport holders and the view which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that clubs will take. Did he say that on the basis of his own opinion of the matter, or did he make the point following discussions with the Football Association and the Football League?
Lord Hesketh: We are proposing that the FMA and the clubs will agree this among themselves.
122
Perhaps I may move to the grey area, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, points out, between a man who goes to a game once a year and a man who goes to every home game. For example—and I take the example used by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—the club would issue to a French businessman a temporary membership card. That would be no problem, and if no offence was committed, he would be able to proceed. However, if he committed an offence, the next time he tried to obtain a temporary membership card he would be unable to do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have now twice asked the noble Lord a direct question. I hope that on the third occasion he will answer it. Did he consult the Football Association and the Football League before he made the statement which he did this afternoon yes or no?
Lord Hesketh: As I said earlier, I do not speak for either of those bodies. We propose—and they will be able to read this debate—that the FMA, which will be run by the FA and the league, as I pointed out earlier this afternoon, will want to happen that which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, wants; namely, that football will be run by football. That is a problem which is perfectly suited to them to sort out.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have now asked the question three times and on each occasion the noble Lord has declined to answer. He was the one who prayed in aid the attitude of the clubs to this position. I simply asked him whether he had consulted the Football Association or the Football League. I assume that he has not. If that is so, why does he not simply say so?
Lord Hesketh: At the start of this debate I repeated to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, with the greatest respect, paragraph 17 of the Minister's working party on which the football authorities were represented.
Lord Underhill: In the light of what the Minister has said on this amendment, perhaps he will look through his replies to amendment after amendment. He may then realise the number of occasions where he wishes to have temporary membership cards for particular matches and the number of categories he wants to be guests of the club. We have said that the small clubs are in danger and he wants them to keep lists of temporary memberships and guests. Does he realise what that will mean for small clubs? I shall not mention the name of my club, which is popularly known, but it has an attendance of between 3,500 and 4,000. It is one of the few clubs which has a full-time female secretary and also a female assistant. I do not have the faintest idea what other clerical staff there are. However, does the Minister realise how much bureaucratic administration special guests and temporary membership will create, particularly for the smaller clubs?
Lord Hesketh: I am slightly confused by the noble Lord. One reason that the Government have resisted so many exemptions is in order to prevent the scheme being too bureaucratic. On the other hand,

123
the noble Lord draws to our attention an example of its being made more bureaucratic. I should like to think that we are somewhere in the middle of that and casting the right course.
This has not been mentioned on the Benches opposite but I strongly believe that the result of this scheme will benefit particularly the small clubs, because the reputation of football will be restored and that will have a direct economic result.
Lord Underhill: It may be that I did not make myself clear. We are not worried about the exceptions, but the way in which the Minister proposes to deal with them. That is a problem which will create difficulties for the smaller clubs.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may offer a few words of solace to the Minister. He referred to the general exemptions for foreigners who come here as part of the tourist industry. I have been approached by the British Inward Tour Operators Association (BITOA), which is very concerned about the damage that may be done to its ability to induce foreigners to come here with part of the package being attendance at a big match. It told me that the clubs which visitors most frequently wish to see are Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United.
I have had no reaction from that association, but I am sure that the proposal by the Minister that the tour operator will take responsibility for submitting to the club a list of the people on whose behalf it wishes one guest ticket to be issued, with the reputation of the club and the tour operator being bound up in that, will be very well received by that very important and influential body in the tourist industry. That is completely separate to the point here, but I believe that now and again the Minister should feel that something can be said in favour of what he has said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have rarely had to ask a Minister the same question four times and at the end of that not receive an intelligible reply. The Minister attempted to indicate that paragraph 17 of the report answers my question. As he well knows, it does nothing of the sort. I find it disturbing that he was not able to rise and justify the assertion which he made earlier. We shall certainly return to this matter, because having listened to the noble Lord, I believe that he has raised more questions than he has answered.
The Committee should be well aware of what is involved in the situation now confronting us. First, there is no difficulty as regards organised tours of foreign visitors. All of us recognise the special position of such people. What the Minister has confirmed is that a foreign passport holder, be he Italian or a citizen of the Irish Republic, who is resident in this country will be able to enter a football ground under the provisions of the Bill on presentation of his passport or other identity document. Such people will be in a happy position because, unlike citizens of the United Kingdom who will have no such right, they will be able to enter the grounds
124
without being members of the scheme. They will not be able to do it on a regular basis but perhaps three, four, five or six times a season. It is a matter of some interest that we are solemnly discussing an arrangement whereby foreign nationals will have rights in this country that are denied to citizens of the United Kingdom. I find that, like most of the provisions in this Bill, truly astonishing.
I have made my point. We shall be coming back to this matter and asking far more detailed questions in future when I hope we shall get more persuasive answers than we have had today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the Committee decides on that, can my noble friend on the Front Bench ascertain before the next stage of the Bill what will be the effects of the article in the European treaty which requires that there shall be no trade discrimination and how this will affect the Bill? We shall look seriously silly, if it is possible to look sillier in regard to this Bill, if we are carted off to the European Court and told that we are conducting trade discrimination. I believe my noble friend should look at that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 58A:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert—
("(j) providing for representation for club members on bodies or groups established within football clubs to administer and run membership arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is another which seeks to advance and enhance the interests of football supporters. We are asking that the clubs should have a mechanism which provides for bona fide supporters clubs with members of the national scheme within a football club to be involved in administering and running membership arrangements.
Again, I expect the Minister to say that these are matters that are best left to the FMA. I seek to write them on the face of the Bill. I can understand the Minister resisting the amendment, but I should be grateful if he could say something helpful. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment would mean that the scheme must provide for representation of club members on bodies or groups established within football clubs to administer and run membership arrangements. As with the suggested bodies and committees proposed in the previous amendment concerning members' rights, we are not sure whether it is the noble Lord's intention that football clubs should be compelled to establish the bodies or groups envisaged in this amendment; but that is what the amendment would appear to attempt to achieve, and I cannot commend it to the Committee. However, I shall come to the hope and aspirations that the noble Lord mentioned.
Individual football clubs will wish to decide within the terms of the scheme how to go about the day-to-

125
day running of the scheme and how best to administer it. In doing so we very much hope that the clubs will consult their members and take full account of their views. Some clubs may see the need to establish a special body or group as envisaged in the amendment. We hope that those who do will provide a way of representing the interests of members on it. It will be in everyone's interests that they do so.
However, other clubs may prefer to handle matters differently and not set up a formal body. We hope that those clubs will nevertheless pay the same attention to the interests of their membership. Clubs will wish to develop their relationships with their members in their own way and in the light of what best suits the club and its membership. We do not think, therefore, that it would be helpful to attempt to make a body such as that referred to in the amendment a compulsory feature of the scheme.
We are not saying that the interests of members of clubs are unimportant—quite the reverse. We hope clubs will realise that members are extremely important. If the club takes a positive attitude towards the development of the scheme, it can work to the benefit of both club and members. Clubs will be doing themselves a disservice if they do not take advantage of the opportunity that the scheme offers to know their members and develop their relationship with them. Those clubs which do this successfully will be able to look forward to expanding their membership.
Any club wishing to make a success of its business will of course pay full heed to the interests of its members. It would be foolish not to do so. Clubs will know that in complying with the scheme it will be in their interests to take into account the views of their members. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, this is a matter for football. The Football Membership Authority and the clubs are the best people to devise sensible consultation arrangements.
In view of the arguments I have expressed, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: The Minister has made heavy weather of the subject. I put to him and the Committee that supporters clubs are prevalent in every section of football. Not only are there local football clubs but there is a national association co-ordinating their activities. It is a very responsible body. I hope that the Minister will take that into account when we come to the next stage of the Bill.
I am president of a supporters club and therefore I must declare an interest, being a Capital Canary. There are many others which are all very well run organisations devoted to the service of football and to the clubs. I highly recommend any move in the direction proposed by the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may say without offence that I am grateful for what the Minister said. It is common sense. I use the phrase, which may be clumsy, that there will undoubtedly be a new era in the running, supporting and perhaps the playing of football after the legislation is enacted. It is right that the Minister should say what I consider
126
to be helpful words and give a nudge or a push to the FMA.
It is more important for the individual clubs, because although my noble friend says that in his experience, which is long and valuable, there are clubs which treat their supporters generously or helpfully, there are, I am sorry to say, others where the relationship between the club and the body which seeks to represent the supporters is far from ideal. That may well be due to clashes of personality or it may be due to a schism created 10 or 20 years ago which has never been healed. I believe that the relationship between a football club and its supporters will be given a shot in the arm by this amendment.
However, the Minister said all that I could reasonably expect him to say at this stage. I hope that all concerned outside this Chamber will read what has been said and if they want my advice I shall certainly give it. You do not look a gift-horse in the mouth; at least not more than once or twice a night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert—
("(2A) In the application of subsection (2)(h) above, the contents of a membership card shall be limited to the holder's name, address and club affiliation, the date of issue of the card, and if necessary the date and place of the previous match attended.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first crucial amendment to an important element of the Bill. Clause 5 deals with those parts of the scheme in which it is mandatory to include certain provisions. At the moment Clause 5(2)(h) contains a mandatory provision in the scheme, before it is approved by the Secretary of State, which reads:
"regulating the form and contents of membership cards".
What we are asking the Committee to accept is,
"In the application of subsection (2)(h) above, the contents of a membership card shall be limited to the holder's name, address and club affiliation, the date of issue of the card, and if necessary the date and place of the previous match attended".
I am certain that, without having had any discussion, the Minister realises that we are moving into an area of possible infringements of civil liberties and possible resentment that has been expressed even this afternoon as regards the objection of individuals of whatever sex to giving more detail than is necessary.
This amendment seeks to limit the amount of information contained on the membership card. We must bear in mind that cards can be stolen, lost, bought, exchanged or forged. We are mindful of the fact that there will be some people who will deliberately seek to abuse and exploit a card. I very much hope that the Minister will recognise that this is a valid point. At the moment there is no limit on the face of the Bill to the data that can be stored on a card with or without the holder's knowledge. That is very important.
We believe that the card is literally a sacred document. If the Minister wants a piece of card made of plastic or otherwise that is the passport to

127
get into a football ground and to demonstrate that the holder has a clean record, then it does not need to carry any more information than that which is specified in my amendment. We have yet to come to the use to which a club may put the information that is given to it. The question of data protection is the subject of later amendments. I believe that this amendment is sensible. It is raised by the National Council for Civil liberties, which is mindful of these matters, and quite rightly so. I, too, believe it to be a very sensible amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment prescribes the details to be carried on the national membership scheme card. It limits these to the owner's name and address, club affiliation, date of issue of the card and the date and place of the previous match attended. I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I fully understand his concern at the prospect of the membership card carrying details of its holder's attendance at past matches and the possibility of cards being programmed with other information unbeknown to the holder. I share that concern. In our view the information contained on the card should be the minimum necessary to ensure that the membership scheme is effective. I accept that there is no need for a record of attendance to be maintained on the membership card. All that is necessary is that the system provides for the latest use to be recorded so that the card cannot be passed to an unauthorised user for re-use at the same match.
If the membership scheme is to be effective, it is essential that, as far as possible, the membership card is impervious to forgery and fraud. I would remind the Committee of the conclusion reached by the Minister for Sport's working party, which received the main principles of the scheme last summer. The working party concluded that a combination of both a photograph and electronic readability offered the best means of restricting admission to matches to holders of valid cards. If the card did not meet both of these requirements, the opportunities for abuse would be unacceptably wide.
This amendment would not allow a photograph to be used on the card. I am aware that the football authorities doubt the need for a photograph. Their representatives on the Minister's working party made this clear. It was, however, the view of the Government representatives and the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, that a photograph was essential to the integrity of the whole scheme, both to deter fraud and impersonation and to aid identification if the holder were involved in disorder. I have quoted the police view. I wish to emphasise that it is very much the view of the Government as well. If the scheme is to be effective the card must carry a photograph.
I believe that it is worth making one other point about the card carrying a photograph. A photograph is a common feature built into many cards to prevent abuse. The Committee's passes for this House and London Transport cards spring to mind as examples. There is a general acceptance of the value of a
128
photograph in preventing abuse and—this is another importantpoint—getting a photograph is today a very simple matter.
I have another concern about this amendment. It would prevent advertising on the membership card. Many Members have expressed concern at the financial implications of the scheme for football clubs. I have explained that this need not be a problem if the clubs and the Football Membership Authority take a positive approach to the commercial opportunities presented by the scheme. There is surely commercial potential in the membership card carrying advertisements or a sponsor's message as so many clubs' existing membership cards do now. This amendment would deny the football authorities the opportunity to develop this likely and welcome source of income.
There is no question here of riding roughshod over the important issue of data protection. We have accepted that those members who do not want their names to be put on mailing lists should be able to say so. Amendment No. 62 is on this very subject. Part of this amendment would prevent clubs selling advertising space on the cards themselves. There seems no case for that. The amendment also makes no provision for the member's national football allegiance to appear on the membership card. The Minister for Sport's working party recognised that this could prove helpful in the segregation of supporters at international matches and I do not think that we should rule out the possibility of that at this stage.
I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee. In our view the Football Membership Authority should be free to consider the form of membership card which will best suit its needs and those of the scheme, while at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of the members. To restrict it as the amendment proposes could cause harm both to football and to the scheme itself. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is interesting how the Minister picks and chooses the parts of the Minister's working party report that he pleads in aid in support of his proposals. The Minister read first from paragraph 9 on page 9:
"The football representatives did not accept the necessity for the card to carry a photograph of the applicant.".
That is part of the report of the Minister for Sport. The noble Lord then says that the police say a photograph is necessary. Ipso facto, he pleads in aid the report of the Minister's working party where in fact there is a difference between the two views.
I have with me a photocopy of the Luton Town Football Club card. The front of it states:
"This card must be produced at all matches. It does not guarantee admission. Season 88/89. Membership card number (and) member."
There is no more detail than that on the card. The only club that can remotely give the Minister the experience of operating his scheme in one form or another is Luton Town Football Club. There is no

129
other club that can be remotely seen by the Minister as doing anything like what he proposes.
The Minister is right as regards the back of the card: it proclaims:
"Techcard supports The Hatters",
which is the nickname for Luton Town. The advertising on the back of the card continues:
"Photo ID Card Systems
Card Design & Development".
and so on. That is the advertising aspect of it.
It is quite remarkable that the Minister produces a scheme and then pleads in aid for it that it need not cost the clubs any money because somebody else will pay for the hardwear to operate the scheme. They would not have to pay for the hardware if there was no scheme. So who is to decide what is to go on? You need the hardware to operate the scheme and you pay for it by advertising that is supported on the back of the scheme. I believe that that is a nonsense. The card itself can carry advertisements, but if the purpose of the scheme is to validate a person's admittance as an authorised spectator, we do not have to have advertisements on the back of the card to do that. The Minister is trying to justify the fact that there will be no expenditure from the Government.
The noble Lord says that all other cards have a photograph. Of course they do. The purpose of the photograph is to identify people. When we enter this building we are asked from time to time to show our passes. The passes have a photograph. Very often different policemen will be on duty and they must check the photograph on the card. Is the noble Lord telling us that those operating the turnstiles will be required to look at the card—not necessarily every card but perhaps at random—to ensure that it is in order? That is a recipe for chaos.
I do not object to the fact that the Government want to deal with hooliganism, but what they propose is disastrous for football and is unworkable in practice. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill there has not been one full-hearted speech from behind the Minister in support of the scheme. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has been a regular attender. He is not present at the moment but, to be fair to him, he has said that he supports the principle of the Bill. However, he says that before he puts in the boot. He stands up to say that he supports the principle but then punches hard at the Minister because the way the scheme will operate causes him great anguish.
I wait with interest to hear what other Members of the Committee have to say. If, in spite of what we and the FMA say, the Minister takes the view that a photograph will be part of admission, that will be very dangerous indeed. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,80; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mellish, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ezra, L.

Phillips, B.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Fitt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Rugby, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Dundee, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dunrossil, V.

Allerton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Alport, L.

Elibank, L.

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Blyth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Borthwick, L.

Grantchester, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Greenway, L.

Braye, B.

Gridley, L.

Brentford, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Havers, L.

Butterworth, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Caithness, E.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hesketh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hives, L.

Carnock, L.

Holderness, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hood, V.

Constantine of Stanmore,

Hooper, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ingrow, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Croft, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Cross, V.

Kimball, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Knutsford, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Derwent, L.

Lawrence, L.

131

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rees, L.

Long, V.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Renwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rodney, L.

Marley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Merrivale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mostyn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stockton, E.

Mountevans, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Munster, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nelson, E.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Swansea, L.

Norrie, L.

Swinton, E.

Onslow, E.

Terrington, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Thurlow, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trafford, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pym, L.

Trumpington, B.

Quinton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Radnor, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Redesdale, L

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert —
("(2A) In the application of subsection (2)(c) above the authority shall seek the advice of clubs participating in the scheme but may not make use of police records on individuals, nor shall clubs be given information on such records.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make it compulsory for the scheme to include certain provisions. Clause 5(2)(c) says that the scheme shall provide:
"for the exclusion from membership, for a period determined under the scheme, of persons who are, by reference to circumstances specified in the scheme, determined under the scheme to be unfit for membership".
What we seek to introduce is:
"In the application of subsection (2)(c) above the authority shall seek the advice of clubs participating in the scheme but may not make use of police records on individuals, nor shall clubs be given information on such records".
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, went some considerable way earlier in the debate towards satisfying me that there is a genuine desire on the part of the Government to see that the FMA tries to be fair and reasonable in its disciplinary procedures. However, under the proposed procedures we can see no occasion when the FMA has before it the possibility of a hearing at a tribunal and determining appeals from decisions made by it. Therefore, we believe that it is wholly unnecessary for there to be access to police records on individuals. Moreover, we do not think that clubs should be given information on such records, I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): Clause 5(2)(c) to which this amendment relates is the provision that enables the FMA to impose disqualification of its own discretion. That is
132
separate from the automatic disqualification which can take place as the result of a relevant conviction in Clause 6. The amendment would constrain the exercise of the FMA's discretion by requiring it to seek clubs' advice. It would also preclude police records being taken into account or being passed to clubs for the purpose of FMA disqualification.
As regards the police records point, perhaps I may make one general observation. The general principle is that information which is held on police records is confidential and may be released only where there are pressing considerations of public interest so to do.
With regard to the amendment itself and the first limb of it—namely, that the clubs should be consulted—I am bound to say that I am a little uncertain as to whether the amendment is intended to stipulate that the FMA should consult the clubs about the police on disqualification in general or whether it should be in relation to individual cases. Either way I hope that I can set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, at ease.
Certainly clubs should have a say in the policy on disqualification, not least because the FMA is envisaged as closely involving the clubs. I am quite sure that under any arrangement the clubs would wish their views to be taken into account and that the FMA would do so. In most cases of FMA disqualification the source of information would be the club or clubs at which a person's alleged misbehaviour took place. But I would be reluctant to agree that disqualification could never result from information from another source.
The second limb of the conditions—that police records should not be taken account of or disclosed to clubs in the context of these disqualifications—seems to be based on a slight misapprehension. The disqualification in this clause will arise from a request by a club to the FMA. The club will obviously have to put forward grounds for such disqualification and the case may include information supplied initially by the police to them about the behaviour of the individual. Such behaviour might well have caused offence but might not have been so serious as to justify a charge. For instance, it may well have resulted in the individual's rejection from the ground, and details of such circumstances are routinely made known to club officials. We think that a club should in those circumstances be able to seek disqualification, especially if the behaviour was persistent. But, as we discussed under Amendments. Nos. 54 and 55, hearsay evidence would not be acceptable before a tribunal. That means that normally a club official would have to witness the misbehaviour which led to a request for the FMA to exercise its discretion.
There is no question of the police providing anything other than the information which is relevant for that purpose. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the FMA will not have access to police records.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The last sentence of the noble Earl's speech is, if I may say so, by far the most important in the statement which he has just

133
made. I think that there was considerable concern as to whether there would be pressure on the police to make their records available. Further, as he will know from the report of the working party—which included an assistant chief constable—in paragraph 7, Chapter 5, it points out that:
"Police records are regarded as confidential, and have been disclosed only on grounds of national security, for the protection of the vulnerable, and to assist in the administration of justice. Disclosing them to assist the football authorities with a membership scheme would be a significant step, and one which could have wide implications".
I must say that I found that sentence to be one of the few in the entire working party report with which I was in total agreement.
However, perhaps I may invite the noble Earl to assist Members of the Committee a little further on the matter. I shall be most grateful for some guidance from him on this issue. When it is a question of a person being convicted of a "football related offence" in the courts, who will have the responsibility for notifying the Football Membership Authority? As he will know, this matter was considered by the working party and it was pointed out that it would be extremely difficult for the police to have the responsibility of notifying the FMA because in many cases, since the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service, the police are not in court when there is a conviction. Therefore I think it would greatly help if the noble Earl could assist the Committee on this matter. Perhaps he can tell us what the outcome of the discussions have been because, as he will know from the recommendations of the working party, there was a suggestion that the various interests involved, including the Crown Prosecution Service and the court authorities, should discuss such questions. Can he tell the Committee the outcome of those negotiations?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord produces a description of what could or might happen in a way that never crossed my mind when I read the Bill. Moreover, I do not think that it has much to do with this amendment. We ought to face up to the fact that the Bill, when it is enacted, should seek to do the job we want; namely, to minimise hooliganism. It is the FMA which is important. It is the FMA which will have to do the job; it is the authority which will make a success or failure of this effort to minimise hooliganism.
I do not think that we should start anticipating what the role of the FMA should be. We should concentrate on seeing that the authority is authoritative and one which has the experience and knowledge to carry out what is a most important task.
It is not even for Parliament to start to anticipate such matters. The speech that the noble Lord has just made bears no relation to the amendment. We will injure the work that we want the FMA to do if we clutter it up with all kinds of restraints and suggestions in advance of its formation. My noble friend's answer was fair enough in all the circumstances. It is not a bad thing to probe in Committee. The amendment would injure the results that will flow from setting up the FMA, whose job it will be to see that we minimise the danger that can arise from crowds at football matches.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I accept the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. We have yet to see an amendment, which will be tabled on Report, about the creation of the FMA. The noble Lord believes that the FMA should be given the job of running the scheme. The Minister will not have that for a moment. Never mind that the Secretary' of State has the power to accept or reject the scheme; the Minister seeks to give the FMA a blank sheet with certain caveats and restrictions about what it should and should not do. Clause 5 provides that the scheme must include certain points. They may not all be to the liking of the FMA, but whether it likes them or not it must include them. There is a list of points which it may or may not include. The Government are saying—I understand this point—that they do not want the opprobrium of dotting every "i" and crossing every "t". They want someone else to do that. If there are any problems, those people will carry the can. However, the Government also like the idea of saying to the FMA that there are some things it can do and some that it cannot do.
I take seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He is saying that once we have a Bill, we should leave the experts and their advisers to produce a scheme which the Secretary of State can amend or reject. That is all right; but the Minister has not said that during the past three days nor will he say it during the next few hours. He reserves the right to tell the FMA what the Government believe should be in the scheme. The working party report is the most selectively quoted document. The Minister will pooh-pooh some of its recommendations and grab some of the others. That is the sad part. We say that the FMA should not be influenced by police records.
The Minister was careful when he talked about relevant matters. Who is to decide what is relevant? The person may well have a criminal record for an offence which is not remotely related to violence at football matches, but which when revealed will begin to colour the adjudicators' attitude towards the nature of the man. They may say that if he could commit that offence he might commit the heinous crime of trying to get into a football match without a ticket, or whatever it might be. That is why we say that the FMA should not have access to police records. We have made out the best case we can.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I was hoping that the Minister would be able to assist me. If he would prefer that I deal with the point on clause stand part, I should be happy to do so.
Earl Ferrers: I should be delighted to assist the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I was happy to do so earlier, but the debate then went slightly down a siding. The noble Lord reasonably asked who would notify the FMA of the convictions, and so forth. It will be the courts. If the noble Lord will be good enough to look at Clause 6(8)(b), he will see that it says:
"Where a court convicts a person of a relevant offence, then … the clerk of the court … or the appropriate officer … (shall as soon as reasonably practicable) give to the administrator of the scheme and to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence was committed notice of the conviction and

135
sentence and of the giving of any certificate that the offence is a relevant offence".
In other words, the court will give the FMA that information.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said he was worried because I had used the word "relevant". He felt that that word had a hazy connotation. I know he realises that when we talk about something being relevant in relation to the Bill we are talking about a relevant offence, which is a relevant football offence.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is Clause 19.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know why the noble Lord has said that it is Clause 19. I cannot read it all while I am on my feet. A relevant offence is a relevant football offence. That does not include stealing someone's radio from his car. That is not a relevant offence. The offence must be one which is relevant to the scheme. If the noble Lord is worried about that point and wants to explain his worry to me afterwards, I shall be happy to meet him. I do not believe that it is a concern of substance.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for offering to satisfy my fear that matters which might not be strictly relevant could be pleaded in aid. We are worried that the tribunal could give them some substance even though they are not strictly relevant.
The Minister will recall that on earlier amendments we sought to ensure that the punishment, which ultimately means withdrawal of membership, can be meted out only as a result of a court case. We sought to exclude Clause 5(2)(c), which gives the FMA the power to exclude from membership persons who are, by reference to circumstances, determined under the scheme to be unfit for membership. We believe that that point is so important that a court should decide. However, we have passed that point, which remains in the Bill. We are trying to ensure that a non-judicial body which has powers as draconian as those which would deprive a football fan of his opportunity to go to a match should not be influenced by a police record. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall take him up on his offer to discuss the matter later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 59B:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("will").
The noble Lord said: Clause 5, at page 4, line 28, provides that the scheme may make provision. I am trying to write on to the face of the Bill the fact that the scheme will make provision.
We suggest that all the paragraphs in Clause 5(3) should not be left to the discretion of the FMA but shall be mandatory. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this amendment would be to remove any significant distinction
136
between those matters listed in Clause 5(2) of the Bill for which the scheme must make provision and those listed in Clause 5(3) for which it may make provision. I am not sure why the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton has chosen to substitute the word "will" for "may" rather than "must", but I am advised that the effect is much the same.
Leaving aside the provision for exemptions, on which I have already accepted an amendment, the Bill provides that the scheme may, rather than must, make provision for three matters. Paragraph (a) deals with the discharge of functions under the scheme by specified persons on terms to be agreed between the administrator and those persons and approved by the Secretary of State. This paragraph is designed to allow for the FMA to give the clubs reponsibility for certain aspects of the scheme—maintaining its equipment, keeping up membership records, for example. I have no doubt that the FMA will wish to devolve such responsibilities to the clubs and I expect that they will be able to agree the terms. But the Bill as presently drafted allows for this, and I do not see the need for compulsion when the devolution of responsibility will in any event ultimately rest upon agreement.
Paragraphs (b) and (d) contain the other matters for which the scheme may make provision under the Bill as drafted. They deal with possible charges for membership cards and with the setting of "reasonable fees" for appeals against decisions of the FMA. I do not think that it would be at all helpful to amend the Bill so as to make it mandatory that the scheme should set charges for membership cards of fees for appeals.
It may be that the FMA will decide to finance the scheme in such a way that no charge is made for membership cards or that no fee is levied for appeals. I do not wish to anticipate those decisions now. It seems to me appropriate to leave them to the discretion of the FMA. The Bill as drafted would leave that discretion; the amendment would take it away. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham may see his way to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am not clear on one matter; that is the question of a hearing before a tribunal. Obviously the young man who may not have been convicted of a criminal offence will be very concerned to ensure that he does not become disqualified from the scheme. It seems necessary to ensure that there is no question of the authority imposing any charge on a person whom it is considering disqualifying from the scheme. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh takes the point. It seems to me that that would be an intolerable burden. Can the Minister give any form of undertaking that there is no question of that being done? If he can do so we shall be reassured. We should be even more reassured if we had something on the face of the Bill. Can the noble Lord help us in the matter?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Keeping strictly to the amendment before us, I would be very reluctant to remove any discretion from the FMA. I should give it more discretion. I am sorry that Clause 5(2) does

137
not include "may" instead of "must", but it looks as though we are stuck with it. The FMA will be the key to all this. I should not remove the discretion which the "may" now gives to the FMA.
I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on most of these points. The difference between the FMA having discretion and the matter having to go to a court, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was saying on the last amendment, is this. When the FMA is formed I expect it to wish to encourage people to go to football matches. Its interest will be not to keep them out. All the amendments seem to give the impression that the FMA will have the power or will have instructions to make it difficult to get in.
The idea behind the legislation and the reason why the football authority is to be in charge of the scheme is to get as many people as possible through the turnstiles. I wish to leave more discretion to it in order to get more people through than would be the case if judicial procedures applied.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, were very impressive. However, one would not have to listen to him for long before recognising a Home Office man. The whole of his argument stems from that view. He is a very experienced Home Office man but this is not a Home Office matter. We are trying to find a reasonable, friendly way of removing hooliganism from football grounds. I do not anticipate all the problems with people going to the courts. We should be well advised to leave the discretion which the FMA has under the present wording rather than stymie the authority by inserting a mandatory instruction.
Lord Northfield: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has made that speech at least six times in my hearing. He keeps saying, "Let's leave it to the Football Membership Authority". He has not grasped that the authority does not have discretion. It must submit a scheme through the Minister who can turn it down.
The purpose of all these probing amendments is to find out in advance what the Minister will turn down if the FMA has the courage to propose a course. The amendments are important. They are to probe what the Minister will allow if the FMA recommends it. I wish the noble Lord would stop making the same speech. He has not realised that, unhappily for us, the FMA does not have discretion.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord is not for a minute suggesting that we take away powers of the Secretary of State to have the ultimate word. That is in the Bill; we have agreed it. How can we expect the Secretary of State, in advance and with the advice of a government department or anyone else, to know how he will react to something which has not been submitted to him?
We must approach the matter with a certain reasonableness. I am making the same speech over and over again because the noble Lord seems to be ignoring the point. I have to repeat it until I have got it into his skull. It is not for Parliament to decide in this Bill. All our fire must be reserved to see that we get the right FMA. Everything depends upon
138
having the right people with experience. This is where the reasonableness comes in. I am hoping that no Secretary of State will deliberately turn down advice from such an authoritative source as I trust the FMA will be.
Lord Northfield: That is precisely where the noble Lord is wrong. When we were moving amendments about possible exclusions from the scheme under the earlier part of Clause 2, the Minister made it clear, as a result of our probing, that if the FMA made certain recommendations he would veto them. We did not know that until we explored the matter by probing amendments. That is important. The noble Lord does not seem to realise that there are gross infringements of personal liberty within the Bill. We are trying to discover to what extent those can be ameliorated. We can only do so by ascertaining whether the Minister will veto some of the ameliorations we hoped for.
The Earl of Onslow: I have been accused by the Front Bench opposite of putting the boot in. I shall now take it right out again because I strongly support my noble friend in resisting the amendment. It seems very silly, if one is complaining about the scheme being too wide, that when there is a discretionary clause which allows one to narrow it one then says that the narrowing should be widened. It seems a totally illogical attitude for Members opposite to take. My noble friend on the Front Bench was on this occasion talking sublime common sense.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is always very good to hear compliments of that kind from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I was accused by the noble friend of the noble Earl of being a Home Office chap or a Home Office fellow. I do not regard that as one of the most deadly insults to which I have been subjected in my life.
I do not wish to reopen a long and wearisome debate, but I must say that a number of the speeches contained the theme that it was just as satisfactory to have one's case considered by a tribunal appointed by the Football Membership Authority as by a court. That is the argument. But there is of course a major distinction between those two cases. The distinction is that in a magistrate's court one can receive legal aid, there is a right of appeal, and one has the opportunity of being represented by lawyers. At the moment there is no certainty as to what procedure will apply in the case of a tribunal appointed by the FMA. That is one of the many issues we shall have to come back to on Report. I hope that by that time the Government will have received some advice on this very important question from the Council on Tribunals.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.].
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert ("and for the purposes of this paragraph the person designated as licensing authority shall be an officer of a local authority.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72B. Amendment No. 60A concerns the person to be designated as the licensing authority. Clause 5(3)(a) states that the scheme may make provision:
"for the discharge of functions under the scheme by persons specified in the scheme on such terms as may be agreed with the administrator of the scheme and approved by the Secretary of State".
Clause 10 deals with the functions of the licensing authority. Subsection (1) states:
"The functions in relation to licences conferred or imposed by sections 8 and 9 above shall be functions —

(a) of the Secretary of State, or

(b) if the Secretary of State appoints a person to discharge those functions on his behalf, of the person so appointed for so long as the appointment continues in force".

We propose that the licensing authority shall be:
"a metropolitan or non-metropolitan district council"
within whose area the football ground lies.
The basis for this suggestion is perfectly simple. We do not want layer upon layer of additional bureaucracy. We already have councils of a mixed political complexion. The members of councils change from time to time. But, within a community, a council has the status of what one might call a licence-giving body. Of course, magistrates and other people also grant licences.
The Committee knows that local authorities, including the police and fire authorities, already exercise a licensing function under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in respect of Football League grounds. That function already exists. It would be to these authorities that the administrator of the scheme would turn for relevant information. Therefore, it is superfluous and expensive bureaucracy to require the issue of separate licences by different offices.
This is a genuine amendment. It is a probing amendment. We want the Minister to say a little more about the body which is called the licensing authority. Someone has to perform this function. It is not the function of the Secretary of State or those at No. 2 Marsham Street. Someone has to exercise this function. We are saying that appropriate bodies to exercise the function would be the metropolitan and non-metropolitan district councils. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, pointed out, these amendments seek to involve local authorities in the running of the scheme by giving them licensing functions under the Bill. I am not clear from the drafting of Amendment No. 60A whether the licensing authority mentioned is meant to be the same authority as that dealt with by Clauses 7 to 10 of the Bill, or a new, separate authority which would have an additional role in checking the performance of the clubs under the scheme.
140
Any such new authority would have a separate and ill-defined role between that of the FMA, the authority which will license grounds under Clauses 7 to 10 of the Bill and the Secretary of State. The Bill provides for the FMA, in taking responsibility for monitoring a club's performance under the national membership scheme, to devolve certain responsibilities to the club in respect of the scheme. I do not see that it would be helpful to involve local authorities in monitoring a club's performance; for example, in keeping its membership records up to date.
I wish now to turn to the licensing provisions in the Bill as presently drafted. The Bill proposes that the spectators should be admitted to a designated football match only if the club or other body hosting the match has a licence to do so. The authority which would issue such licences would be the Secretary of State, or another body appointed by him. One possible alternative for the Secretary of State would be the Football Membership Authority, although so far the position of the football authorities has been to resist taking on this job.
Amendment No. 72A would give the licensing function to local authorities with no role for the Secretary of State. I recognise that local authorities are already involved in the licensing of football grounds through their duties under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. These duties fit in well with their responsibilities under other legislation for the safety of other premises such as fairgrounds, cinemas and other places. But they are no reason to involve local authorities in this legislation.
I suggest there is a great advantage in retaining the licensing responsibility within a small centralised authority which can apply standards uniformly to grounds throughout the country, rather than splitting the responsibilities between many different local authorities and devising some additional means of achieving a uniform approach. Such arrangements can be made to work and do work in other cases. But the chances of achieving consistency and fair treatment between different clubs are much greater with a single authority which will employ a small inspectorate for the purpose.
We are frequently told that government legislation imposes too many duties on local authorities. In this case we believe that a central authority is more appropriate. I do not accept the argument that the responsibilities of the licensing authority under the Bill will cut across those of local authorities under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. The two authorities will have to co-operate in operating their licences, but there are plenty of precedents for different authorities working together in relation to the same premises. Fire officers, the Health and Safety Inspectorate and local authorities' own environmental health officers often work together in relation to a factory or a restaurant, for example. Planning and building control regulations apply to new buildings and they are operated by different people and sometimes by different authorities without conflict.
There is no reason to suppose that the licensing authority proposed by the Bill will not operate in tandem with the separate responsibilities of local authorities and others. I have explained why the

141
Government do not consider it necessary to involve local authorities in the running of the scheme itself. I certainly do not see a good case for giving the responsibility for licensing grounds to local authorities. I suggest it is in the interests of football clubs, and of the consistency between them, that the authority should be a central one, as the Bill provides.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If that is the case, as the noble Lord suggests, I wish to ask him one or two questions about what he has just said. He will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. The statement that football is going to run football is one of the favourites of the noble Lord, although we know it to be entirely false because the Secretary of State will run football under this Bill.
As I understand it, the FMA will not take on this licensing responsibility if the football authorities themselves are the FMA.
So now we know that the FMA will not do this job. The amendment suggests that it should be the local authorities, with their proven track record as far as the Safety of Sports Grounds Act is concerned. I waited to hear a powerful argument deployed by the noble Lord as to why local authorities should not take it on. But I did not hear one. One good argument would be that they did not want to take it on; that the noble Lord had consulted the local authority associations and they said that they preferred not to do it. But has he consulted the local authority associations or is he just opposed in principle to their doing this? As I understand it without them we shall have the Secretary of State himself taking on this role. That the gentleman in Whitehall knows best is one of the central beliefs of this Administration.
It seems to me astonishing that local authorities, with their substantial experience of dealing with similar issues in the safety at sports grounds legislation, are to be debarred from taking on this function, and that it will be officials of the Secretary of State, or presumably some new authority set up for this special purpose by the Secretary of State.
It seems to me that the Government would lose nothing by allowing local authorities to take on this role if they were prepared to take it up. I very much wish that the noble Lord had not been quite so emphatic in his speech a few moments ago, explaining why that was totally inconceivable. I cannot see any overwhelming argument against them doing it. In fact the situation will be that there will be two separate authorities doing remarkable similar work. There will be the local authorities, which are responsible for the safety at sports grounds legislation, and there will be a different authority involved in licensing under this Bill. This seems to me a fairly daft way of setting about things.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is on to a good point here and I hope that my noble friend, whose speech certainly did not turn him down completely, will look at it again. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, listens only to the part of my noble friend's reply that seems to be adamant about the Secretary of State. What my noble friend said was that it will be the Secretary of State or someone designated by him. The whole indication
142
was that he will designate the task to somebody. Indeed, he would be silly if he did not do so. He cannot be responsible for the whole of the country. So we must apply common sense to this. My noble friend said that the licence will be given by the Secretary of State or someone designated by him. So we ought to concentrate, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, did, on to whom the Secretary of State should designate.
There is a strong case for the local authorties being brought in. We own some hotels and until quite recently, when we were asking for entertainment licences and things of that sort, they used to be given by the magistrates. But a few years ago there was a change and the local authorities, under statute, now have to set up an entertainments licensing committee of the councillors, and they do it. I would have thought, football being an entertainment as well as a sport and a recreation, that it could be added to that committee's work without any trouble, because they would be dovetailing all the general entertainment in the area and football could be put down as one form of entertainment.
My noble friend did not rule out completely a local authority being the designated authority for giving a licence. Can he find it possible to say, in the light of the possibility at this stage of their being as likely as any other group to have this power, that the Government will look at this again? The machinery of local government is such that it could embrace this task without any extra bureaucracy at that end and it would just be another item on its agenda.
There are not a thousand football grounds in an area; there is usually only one. I have Wolver-hampton and Peterborough in my area and the authority that has to do with hotels and other things could easily deal with them. I hope that my noble friend can find it possible to say that he will look at the amendment again, with the idea of not ruling out that a local authority could be the body which would have this power.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Northfield: May I join the noble Lord in pressing the Minister to reconsider, for reasons that I mentioned on an earlier occasion? I hope that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, is only a temporary measure. I hope that after two or three years, when we have calmed down the whole situation, we will revert to something much more normal in football.
I made the point on an earlier occasion concerning Wembley, that the most hopeful sign is that Wembley, because of its impact on the area in which it exists, has had to—and has had to gladly—build up good relations with the local authority. That relationship is not only about safety at football grounds—of course it was the GLC originally but now it must be the London boroughs —and it deals with many other matters. In the case of Wembley there are agreements about how many events shall be taking place in the complex on a particular day because of the number of people coming in and out and the number of cars. There is a relationship between Wembley and the local authority about holding fairs and a market at the huge 60-acre site

143
at Wembley. For all these and other reasons the local authority and Wembley are gradually, steadily and successfully building up a very good relationship.
So would it not be much better to look towards the phasing out of this Bill and to say what will succeed it when the time has come that we can rule out much further violence? As I said on a previous occasion, should we not be building a growing relationship between football grounds and their local authorities so that they will make major decisions about the sort of matters that are involved and that concern the Government? I should like to see that developed. I do not like to see it pushed aside. For that reason alone, looking towards that sort of future, I hope that the Minister will go away and say that he will reconsider whether in the long run it would be a good idea to begin looking at local authorities as possible football licensing authorities.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support my noble friend on the Front Bench on this amendment. Surely the difference, when it comes to safety at football grounds, is that the grounds do not move. The grounds are static and stay there, whereas the people who go there are quintessentially mobile. Therefore it seems logical to me that there should be a central authority which pools all the data and runs things properly.
Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that the construction of the FMA is immensely important. If the construction of the FMA is right, it will then give consistent decisions, whereas if the decisions are left to various local authorities they will automatically come to different conclusions, however good and upright they are. It is the essence of a local authority that it should come to a different conclusion on various aspects. Football grounds are in the constituencies of local authorities and they do not move and get on trains. Human beings do move and get on trains and other forms of transport. Therefore in this case the ID card should be centrally administered. That makes a lot of sense and I hope that my noble friend will resist this amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I hope that the Minister will discount what his noble friend has just said, because any scheme that is brought forward—and we have to keep saying this—has to have the rubber stamp of the Secretary of State. So it will be a centralised scheme. I have to say, as a former member in my local government days of a licensing committee, that such committees are not allowed to give local interpretations of national schemes. They have to work within the tramlines that are set within the orders.
I recall that when we were debating the Bill on alcohol control at sports grounds, the Government made great play of the fact that, while it was a national scheme and had to be applied, local authorities and local licensing magistrates had areas where they could vary the scheme slightly. At first, there were some silly actions and over-reaction to the Bill by some licensing authorities which were a little too enthusiastic about what was not in the Bill.
144
I believe that Wembley stadium was one of the first to suffer as a result of being refused a licence by the local licensing magistrates when, under the legislation as it stood, it could have been given a licence without any problem. Nevertheless, such problems were eventually ironed out.
Whether the Minister and the previous speaker who supported him like it or not, the measure involves setting up a separate organisation that will need funding. I should like to ask the Minister whether one particular point has been considered. As a layman, I believe that the licensing body about which he speaks will have all the appearances de facto of a quasi-judicial body. We still live in a democracy, although in some areas that might seem doubtful with the present centralisation of government. So what would happen if a centralised licensing body treated a club a certain way and the club thought it had been treated rather badly? What would happen to the club? Where would it go? Would it obtain a judicial review or could it go to the civil courts to take out an action? Criminal proceedings could be involved in the Bill, so would it have to appeal to the criminal court against a quasi-judicial body? I call the body quasi-judicial. I do not know whether it is anything more than that, but I do not believe that it is anything less. I ask these questions now so that, even if the Minister chooses not to answer them, there will be an opportunity to take them on board.
Finally, I have had experience in local government of a variety of licensing activities in local authority areas. Such activities have been placed under their responsibility. When local authorities and licensing magistrates are given such duties, they do not become part of the general run-of-the-mill activities; there is a tendency to appoint sub-committees which acquire a special expertise in handling the subject with which they are appointed to deal. As local authorities already have a good idea of the concerns of their particular areas, I should have thought that, despite the fact that this is a centralised scheme, the Government would have done well to let this responsibility go to the local authorities and, if necessary, the local licensing authorities. I hope that the Minister will think seriously about what he has said tonight and perhaps give an indication that he may come back with another proposal.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, I became convinced that the local authorities had a role to play. Everything that he said led one to that conclusion. It is unfortunate that he will not listen to the argument and agree to the amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that this should be a matter for national administration. I am afraid that I simply do not agree with him. Football is a local activity; it is not a national activity. It may well be that football clubs belong to the Football League and the Football Association, but football is essentially about the locality in which it is played. To make it subject to a great national body is therefore absurd. If the Government want to be seen to be serious about controlling football hooliganism and about involving local people, they should accept the amendment.

145
My noble friend Lord Northfield is a great optimist. He said that he hoped the Bill would last for only about three years. I am afraid that once it is on the statute book it will be with us for a very long time. It may well be that at a later stage we could insert the title "Football Spectators (Temporary Provisions) Bill", which would limit its effect. We should think about that and see what the Government's attitude is.
As the Minister said, local authorities already have the administrative set-up to deal with the licensing of football clubs. They are the best people to administer it. Furthermore, if a football club has to be closed down or some other count is drawn up against it, that will be done by the local authority, not by the national authority. It will be more likely to be accepted in the locality without too much opposition. I urge the Minister to consider that point seriously because in my view—perhaps I should not say this—if he accepted it, he might do the Government a good turn.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he confirm that the Football Association is a national association and that the Football League is a national league rather than a local league?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I accept those points. Football clubs belong to the national association and the national league on a voluntary basis, but football is essentially a local activity. People do not support football per se. They do not say, "I'm going to a football match"; they say, "I'm going to watch Arsenal", or Reading, Swindon or Millwall. We have heard a great deal about Millwall football team during our debate. Football is essentially a local matter; that is the point that I am trying to put across to the Government.
Lord Hesketh: If the prediction of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is correct, the scheme will have been an unparalleled success. To answer the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, we shall deal with the question of the licence when we come to Amendment No. 72A.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for the point that he raised. I have tried to make clear the Government's position. This is a national scheme. We believe that it must by definition be centrally administered. That is why we have not to date had any disscusions with local authorities, about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked me. However, if they wish to talk to the department, we should be more than happy to discuss the matter with them.
It is most important that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls heard what I said. I shall repeat what I said: one possible alternative to the Secretary of State would be the Football Membership Authority. I went on to say that the football authorities had so far not been keen to take on the job, but the Government have certainly not closed the door to the possibility of the FMA being the licensing authority.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the Minister has not closed the door to the possibility of the FMA being the licensing authority, have the Government closed the door to the possibility of local authorities being the licensing authority? We come back to the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that the Government want a hands-off situation. I recall that, when Mr. Colin Moynihan held a big press conference in Westminster Hall to explain the scheme to the football administrators, he told them what could and would happen if they failed to carry out their responsibilities: they would lose their licences. A ground could have its licence taken away by Mr. Moynihan or the Secretary of State.
I do not argue about the ultimate power, but let us make no mistake. We are talking about very serious matters. For instance, Clause 7 refers to a person who is responsible within a club; namely, the secretary, the directors and the officials of a club. If they are found to have been guilty of the heinous offence of allowing into the ground spectators who have proved to be hooligans, it results in a black mark and an enormous fine; they can even be sent to prison. Under Clause 7(3)(b) such a person shall be liable,
"on conviction or indictment to a fine or to imprisonment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both".
We shall be dealing with amendments on that point later this evening. It is quite incredible. Let us make no mistake about it. The licence holder has enormous responsibilities. We have gone through a series of amendments for which I am grateful to the Minister, in particular with regard to the very first debate about providing a club with the opportunity to issue cards of admittance to casual guests provided that it takes ultimate responsibility. If the licence holder is let down, and is unable to plead, as Clause 7(2) states,
"that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence",
that person is not only likely to be fined—and there is no limit—or to be sent to prison but, as Mr. Colin Moynihan, who has some responsibility in these matters, said, the club can lose its licence.
If that is the situation, I make a genuine offer to the Minister. I shall withdraw this amendment because we are not at the stage of futile exercises of clocking up victories or defeats. I know where I should stand if there were a vote. However, if we are serious about trying to make progress and to find the best forum to issue licences, I want the Minister to say that his mind is not closed with regard to which forum that should be. We are contemplating the possibility that the FMA—the league and the association—will take away the licence from one of its members. The Minister may think that is possible, but I do not.
Alternatively, a local authority has the good name and reputation of its town to consider, and the peace and good will of its residents, which may be jeopardised because some license holder to which it has given a licence is failing to carry out its functions. I can see the local authority being much more likely to take away the licence than the FMA. I blanch at

147
the possibility of either of them having to consider doing so.
I want the Minister to say that consideration of the future licence issuer is not a closed door either with regard to local authorities, the FMA, or a hybrid body which may be devised. I am not saying that the local authorities are ideal. As has been said, they do not want the task. Somebody has to do it. However, if I had to choose between them, the fairest administrators of a licensing scheme would be the local authorities. Can the Minister assist us with helpful words along the lines that I have indicated.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I correctly summarised what the Minister said in his first speech on this occasion. I was subsequently followed by the noble Lord, Lord Harmer-Nicholls, who repeated what I had said. It was that the Minister would very much like to pass this responsibility over to the Football Association and the Football League through the FMA. They have been told clearly and unmistakably that the football authorities refuse absolutely to take on this responsibility. The reason has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Why should they do the Minister's dirty work for him? Why should they be in a position whereby they would be expelling one of their own clubs from the league. That would be the effect of the withdrawal of a licence. It is to me inconceivable that the football authorities would ever have taken on this role.
That being so, we go to the second stage of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. It is that the Secretary of State would very much like to find someone to take on the responsibility. In the final analysis, he may have to do so himself. However, if not, somebody else will do it. We are interested in the other group of people who may be asked to do this. We are entitled to have a clear answer. These are the Government's proposals. This is an issue of fundamental importance, considering the significance of the licensing arrangements in this Bill.
If the Secretary of State is not to do this, who will? The suggestion made in this amendment is fair and reasonable. It is that if the local authorities are prepared to take it on, the Government are prepared to consider the matter again. When pressed on this point the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, stated that if local authorities asked for a meeting he would be glad to arrange one. I hope that it means something that the Government are prepared to leave the door open.
However, if I may put it bluntly, the noble Lord will not get away with what he has said so far. We know that the football authorities will not take on the responsibility. We know that the Secretary of State does not want to do so. It seems from the first statement of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that whatever group of people were asked to do it, under no circumstances whatever should it be the local authorities. He did not provide a great deal of argument for that refusal but subsequently made the statement that Ministers would be glad to talk to local authorities about it. I hope that it indicates some change in his position. At the moment I find
148
what has been said profoundly unsatisfactory. Although the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, may well decide to withdraw the amendment after the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, speaks, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, should have no doubt that we shall come back again and again on this issue until we have a satisfactory statement from the Government.
Lord Hesketh: There is so far in this debate a fundamental difference in point of view. Members on the Benches opposite feel that a devolved system of licensing is peferable to the point of view that the Government have held: that we should have a central system. I spoke entirely in good faith in what I said concerning local authorities if they want to come to the department and wish to specify some centralised system that might be of interest. However, that does not change the Government's position with regard to a developed system. That is the point. That is the main fundamental disagreement that exists between our two sides today.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I fear that the noble Lord did not answer this question. I hope very much that he will do so now. If the Secretary of State is no to run a centralised system—which he will have to do if the FMA refuses to take it on—there is only one circumstance in which he can escape from doing this job himself: that is, if he appoints another agency. We are entitled to ask what thoughts the Government have on this matter. Will they create yet another bureaucracy, another group of public officials, who will be asked to take on totally separate licensing responsibility? Is that their position? I should be grateful if the Minister would help us on this point.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am not with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this matter. I do not believe that that is what we are asking at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has virtually said, "For the moment, forget my amendment because in my amendment I lay down that the local authority will be the one to issue licences". In view of my noble friend's answer, he has moved from that position.
It is obvious that the power will be designated to somebody. My noble friend has said that he does not rule out the FMA. I enjoin in asking that at this stage—whatever may come later—he does not rule out the possibility of it being the local authority. That is all the noble Lord is asking. At this stage he is not asking for his amendment to be accepted but that such a possibility should not be ruled out. I do not think that is asking too much.
Lord Northfield: If the licensing authority is to be some creature of the Secretary of State, we ought to know what its powers are, how much responsibility it has and how much discretion it has. We need something in the Bill to tell us what this body is other than simply a creature of the Secretary of State. We believe that it would be much better to have some body to which the system could be devolved in a few years' time and, secondly, a body containing some democratic element to which representations

149
could be made. To say that it is some creature of the Secretary of State leaves us all rather worried as to what we are legislating about.
The Earl of Onslow: Surely this all arises in Clause 10 which provides that,
"licences conferred or imposed by sections 8 and 9 above shall be functions of the Secretary of State, or if the Secretary of State appoints a person to discharge those functions".
That, I had assumed, would be the Football Membership Authority. Surely it is at that stage that we should discuss the important and very vital decision: who will be the members of the authority? The Government's point which seems totally logical, is that it will be a centralised authority and not a local authority. What would happen, for example, if Wolverhampton District Council said that it wanted to be part of it—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Borough council.
The Earl of Onslow: Borough council, I beg my noble friend's pardon. Or it might be a city council. Norwich City Council could say that it did not want it. We would be in an even bigger muddle, if that is conceivable. Surely it is totally logical to have a centralised authority. By all means let us debate on Clause 10 stand part—because I do not see any suitable amendment on which to discuss it—who will be members of that Football Membership Authority, who will advise the Secretary of State and who will appoint the members. That seems very important. We should not go down the local authority road.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, can help us on one matter. I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we can return to this on Clause 10. But, as he will see, the last part of the explanatory memorandum deals with the financial effects of the Bill. The cost is put at £2.5 million per year,
"taking into account police, Crown Prosecution Service, court and legal aid costs",
and so on. In the final paragraph we face the possibility that if the Secretary of State becomes involved there will be minor staffing increases.
Another problem arises. This will be a direct charge on public funds. If the FMA declines—and in my view, quite rightly it will refuse—the cost of the exercise will be passed on to the taxpayer. We are entitled to know what will be the implications if the responsibility is not given to local government which could in my view take it on without any substantial increases given that it has a licensing role at present. With all their talk of value for money and that kind of thing, the Government are really suggesting that it is a totally unnecessary increase in central government expenditure.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is entirely correct to draw our attention to the final part of the explanatory memorandum which clearly sets out that that might be the outcome. However, I feel that I have gone some way towards meeting the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
150
The important point that the Government are trying to get across is that whatever the result it must be a central result. I cannot go further than that. I have tried to indicate that we are willing to be flexible.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister makes an interesting point. Local authorities have central bodies. If he is saying that he does not have a fetish against local government per se but is against it because it is disparate around the country, I am saying that were local government to decide that it was willing to take this on, it should be administered centrally. The Minister is saying that he is not in favour of devlolution of power to the perimeter. He wants it managed centrally. Is he saying that if local government comes up with a solution indicating how, with the help of the ADC, the ACC, the AMA and the ALA, or however it is done, a body is created based on local government experience, he would be willing to accept it?
The Minister has said that he rules nothing out except the local authorities. I find that very offensive. I believe that the Minister knows that it is very offensive. Even if he did not intend to be offensive to local government, that is what he is saying. He says, "Whether it is the FMA, I do not know; if it is not the FMA I do not know who else it can be, but it will not be the local authorities".
With great respect, the Minister ought not to come to the Chamber saying that he has been told to tell the Committee that if it is not the FMA and not local government, he is not prepared, or able, or competent to say what it might be. That is offensive. We are trying to engage the Minister in an argument, in a discussion. We are asking for examples of what could happen. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I, without direct authority either from the league or the association, are saying that it is unthinkable that they will take on this role. We could be wrong. Something the Minister has never been prepared to say in debate is that he could be wrong. I am prepared to say that we could be wrong and that the FMA may take on the role. That would remove the Minister. I do not believe that that would be a satisfactory solution. But the FMA may not be prepared to take it on. He has said that of all the groups that might provide the people to run the licensing scheme—which is absolutely fundamental to the future well-being of football—it is not to be the local authorities or the FMA. We are asking who it could be.
The Minister has a duty to the Committee and not least to his own reputation to demonstrate that some possibilities have been kicked around. If he is saying that it is not the FMA and he refuses to use the local authorities and he cannot say who else it might be, he is driven back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that another quango, another body, will be created. The Department of the Environment will be spread in some way or another to take on these responsibilities. It is no good Members of the Committee saying that this is not the place, that there are other places. Those making such points have been here all the time. The Minister's brief does not contain the possibility that

151
later we can discuss this freely. In capital letters at the top the brief there is the word, "Resist". If that is his brief, we are wasting our time. We are however trying to save the Government's and the Minister's reputations.
There is a way out. If the Minister were to say that should I withdraw the amendment he has an open mind about who will people the licensing authority, that is all I am asking for.
Lord Hesketh: I have said that. I go even further—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You have an open mind?
Lord Hesketh: If the Association of District Councils or the AMA wish to run the licensing authority, I will listen to any proposal they make. I cannot make a commitment, but I shall listen if they want to run a responsible national body.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is the Minister saying that he said that previously? If he is saying that he said that previously, I shall read very carefully what he said.
Lord Hesketh: I said it just now.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have had this melodrama to get him to say those words. If he is saying that the local authorities are prepared to come to him with the proposition that they shall be the licensing authority and he is prepared to listen, that is all we want to know.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord has won.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not consider that I have had a victory. At the very last moment the Minister has avoided what for himself and his colleagues in another place could have been a great problem.
Lord Hesketh: Several minutes ago—tens of minutes ago—I said that I would listen to the local authorities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister said that he would listen to the local authorities against the background that he had already ruled out that local authorities could run it.
Lord Hesketh: I must intervene. That is not what I said at any point this evening. I said that local authorities would be operating on a devolved basis. I said that in my opening remarks. That is very different.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am prepared to accept without cavil that we on these Benches, together with Members from other sides of the Committee, have completely misunderstood and misheard what the Minister said. We shall read what he said. If what he said was what he reiterated in the final minute, I believe it is a sensible way in
152
which to conclude the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert ("(the level of such fees to be determined by reference to the circumstances of appellants)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the types of punishment which will be meted out to those found to be guilty of offences. The Bill provides:
"for the payment of reasonable fees in connection with appeals and for repayment in circumstances specified in the scheme."
We seek to obtain the Minister's acceptance of the insertion of the words:
"the level of such fees to be determined by reference to the circumstances of appellants."
The purpose of the amendment is to provide flexibility for those responsible for carrying that out. What may be reasonable for the Minister and myself may, in many circumstances, be held to be punitive by individuals who are less well-off. They may be unemployed and in saying that I do not mean that they are layabouts. They may be people who have not the same ability as the Minister and myself to meet a sizeable fine. There should exist a mechanism which allows the circumstances of the individual to be taken into account. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: As placed in the Bill, this amendment would require that, if the scheme made provision for the payment of reasonable fees in connection with appeals from decisions taken at the discetion of the FMA to withhold or withdraw membership of the scheme, the assessment of what was "reasonable" would have to be based solely on the circumstances of the appellant. In effect it would require the personal circumstances of every appellant to be investigated and established before the fee for his or her appeal could be determined.
I have some sympathy with the sentiment behind this amendment. I hope that I have already made clear the importance which the Government attach to seeing that those people who are refused membership of the scheme or who are disqualified from it at the discretion of the FMA are given the right to make representations against that decision. The procedure by which they do so must be fair without being over-elaborate.
As presently drafted, the Bill requires that the scheme may provide for the payment of reasonable fees in connection with appeals. This could allow, for instance, the FMA to recover in whole or in part its costs in handling appeals by charging a reasonable fee. But there is no obligation on the FMA to include this provision in the scheme. If it does, then any fee which is set should be reasonable andimportantly—provisions must be made for repayment of the fee in circumstances specified in the scheme. This might perhaps be where an appeal is successful or where the circumstances of an appellant are such that he or she is genuinely unable to meet the fee.

153
The Bill therefore allows the authority considerable discretion in any arrangements it may make for charging for appeals. This amendment would require the FMA to investigate the circumstances of every appellant before a fee for his or her appeal was determined. It is highly likely that in many cases neither the authority nor the appellant would want, or see the need for, such an inquiry. This might in itself put people off appealing—which I am sure was not the intention of Members. The amendment would also preclude the authority from taking account of any material considerations other than the circumstances of the appellant in deciding whether to charge a fee.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about the possibility of charging for appeals. It was intended to be helpful to the FMA in order to enable it to charge for appeals if it wished. However, in the light of the noble Lord's comments I shall consider whether we need the power to charge for appeals.
Lord Harris of Geenwich: That is satisfactory—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Handsome!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We must go into a number of such questions with great care. The Minister referred to the right of an individual who may find himself before a tribunal of the authority to make representations. However, we are not dealing merely with representations. We are dealing with an issue where there is an absolute denial of the facts as put forward by some club stewards, for example. The only way in which a tribunal would be able to make a judgment in such a case would be to hear evidence from all the parties involved. It would be intolerable if, in such conditions, a fee had to be paid before an appeal could be heard.
The Minister has conceded the point and we welcome that. He will recognise the fact that there are many other issues about the tribunal which we shall wish to go into in considerable detail.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has responded generously to the points that I raised. Without reservation, I accept what he has said. We shall read it, but it sounded eminently sensible and suitable and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61B not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 4, line 47, at end insert—
("(4A) The application form for membership of the scheme shall include a clearly indicated space where the applicant may state his desire for the information supplied to be regarded as confidential, and if he so indicates then the authority shall not disclose the information to any third party.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. I may foreshadow what the Minister may say by recalling an indication that he gave
154
earlier in the debate. The amendment will put on the face of the Bill an acceptance which has been made in ministerial quarters—that is, that many members of the scheme will wish to retain their privacy and that provision should be made in the Bill to allow them to do so.
The Minister has made many references to the fact that the information collated could have a commercial value. On several occasions we have expressed our reluctance to accept that the integrity of the scheme should rest on its being financed by companies in the business of using such information. Perhaps Members of the Committee read an article which appeared in last Sunday's Observer headed: "Engulfed by a junk mail avalanche". It spoke of:
"The multi-million pound trade in your name, your address and your personal details and intimate aspirations".
I was grateful to the Observer for drawing the matter to my attention. Apparently there was a trade event last week at which many people paraded their wares. It is frightening to note how widely information which one believes to be between oneself and the receiver is capable of being spread. Sometimes the applications to which it is put are most horrendous.
The Minister may say that the amendment is unnecessary because protection exists under the Data Protection Act. That is a general surmise. I should like to read a letter which I received from the office of the data protection registrar. It was sent to the National Council for Civil Liberties by Dr. J. N. Woulds, the Assistant Registrar. He states:
"You are correct that the Data Protection Act 1984 does not contain an explicit obligation on a data user to provide an opt-out".
That is what we are talking about—an opt-out.
He continues:
"However, the Registrar's view of the 'fair obtaining' provision of First Data Protection Principle is that there are circumstances in which an opt-out would be necessary to ensure that the personal data are fairly obtained.
Generally, these are when an individual has no choice but to go to a data user for an essential service like, for example, a water supply. In such cases the Registrar would say that not permitting the data subject to opt-out of uses of the data not directly associated with providing the service would amount to unfair obtaining of his personal data.
In the context of the Football National Membership Scheme, the Registrar takes a similar view. Being able to attend a football match is a normal expectation for a large number of people, who, if the Bill becomes law, will not be able to attend designated matches unless they join the scheme. Their information would not be fairly obtained if they are required to give it for purposes other than the membership of the Scheme".
Therefore, I make what I hope will be a generally accepted point that once the form is drafted and approved and is the law of the football land, it should be possible for a person to say that he does not wish that information to be sold to any group or company which may also pass it on. There is a quite horrendous trade in names and addresses. There are agencies which specialise in buying lists of people and advertising their wares and how much they charge. I believe that is a quite disgraceful possibility which I do not say was in the mind of the Minister or his colleagues. However, writing this on the face of the Bill will ensure that that is not possible. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has made a most important and valuable point. I strongly support him on Amendment No.62, as I do on Amendments Nos. 63 and 64.
Lord Hesketh: The Government have considerable sympathy with both this amendment and the next. My noble friend Lord Caithness confirmed in his Second Reading speech that it is our intention that members of the scheme should have the full protection of the Data Protection Act 1984, in terms of access to information held about them and in relation to the use to which such information is put. If a member does not want his name and address to be disclosed to a third party—for example, for the purposes of a commercial mailing list—it is certainly our intention that he should be able to make this clear. A box on the application form of the kind envisaged in this amendment would be one means of achieving this protection.
If the application form contains such a box, it would be open to the applicant to tick it or not, as he wishes. No doubt some applicants will do so, but we should not assume that most, still less all, applicants will do so. It will be in the interests of the clubs to show them the benefits of not doing so. Of course, the clubs couldn't put improper pressure on applicants to persuade them to accept direct mailing.
However, if the clubs are sensible and positive about this, they will take advantage of the commercial opportunities of the scheme in a way that will benefit their members, not burden them. Mailing lists are not necessarily a bad thing; they can be used to offer people participation in lotteries, season tickets, information about the club and even allocations of tickets for matches like the Cup Final. If they are sensible, they will limit the direct mailing to club matters and to sponsors in whom their members will genuinely be interested. If they do so, I see no reason why the clubs and their members should not all gain from the commercial development of the scheme.
We should not assume therefore that it will be in the interests of applicants to resist the use of their name for commercial opportunities. As regards the commercial potential of the scheme the clubs will be able to sell advertising space on the membership cards to their sponsors. I see no reason why the commercial development of the scheme should be incompatible with the civil rights of its members. That is why I have no hesitation in saying that the Government will consider the principle of this amendment sympathetically. My initial contact with the data protection registrar suggests that it may not be necessary to spell out a requirement of the kind proposed in the amendment in the Bill. I understand the view of Members of the Committee that adding a provision to the Bill would remove any doubt about the rights of members. But the Bill cannot spell out every detail of the scheme.
With the Committee's agreement I should like to consider further the case for a specific provision in the Bill. If we were to make a specific provision, I should also like to look closely at its drafting. I am
156
concerned that the amendment proposed may go too far; for example, in limiting the necessary exchange of information between the Football Membership Authority and individual clubs or in hampering police investigations.
This is a matter which I should like to discuss further with the data protection registrar, to seek his advice on how best to provide the protection which I accept that members of the scheme should have without making it impossible for the scheme to operate effectively. I therefore seek the Committee's leave to take the amendment away for further consideration. Since I will be consulting the data protection registrar, I hope that Members of the Committee will understand if I do not promise to reach a definite conclusion by Report stage. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I very much hope that if we do not have the information by Report stage we shall have it by Third Reading. I believe that we should be most disinclined to allow the Bill to leave this Chamber with this important issue unresolved. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, appreciates that. I welcome his statement that he has no objections to the principle of this amendment. However, he should also have no doubt about our expectations: that is, that there should be an explicit reference to this issue in the Bill so that there can be no possible misunderstanding.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to say that the Minister has made an offer which I cannot refuse; namely, that he accepts the principle that a person who becomes a member of the scheme by one means or another can ensure that his details will not be sold for commercial purposes. I am satisfied to leave the matter to the Minister.
We are talking about a matter of time-scale. We are now in the second week of March and I realise that there may be no news within the next three or four weeks for the Report stage of the Bill. However, there is then a further stage. I understand the Minister wishing to take advice. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, there should be an amendment or something that will satisfy us—I am talking about something written on the face of the Bill, but I shall listen to what the Minister says—if not within a period of four weeks then within something like five weeks.
Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for what I consider to be an understanding of the anxiety of many people. The intrusion into the privacy and civil liberties of an individual is almost as important an aspect of this Bill as the bureaucracy entailed in becoming a member. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not underestimate—I am sure he will not—the importance attached to his satisfying the Committee and the other place on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1989
  European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1988

    European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Misellaneous Changes) Order 1989
    7.39 p.m.
    The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 1st February 1989, 25th October 1988 and 8th February 1989 be approved.
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, these orders will give effect to the final recommendations of the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales after their supplementary reviews of European Parliamentary Constituencies (or EPCs as I shall call them). The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, as amended, requires all EPCs to be made up of whole constituencies and to be as close to the electoral quota, the average electorate, as possible. Once the boundary commissions have altered the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies, and these changes have been put into an Order in Council, the commissions are obliged to look at the effect of the changes on EPC boundaries.
    The present structure of EPCs was laid down in 1984, using the new constituencies devised in the last general reviews of constituencies which were completed in 1983. Since then the English commission has reviewed 139 parliamentary constituencies and the Scottish and Welsh commissions have each reviewed 30. Many EPCs are now therefore made up of only parts of constituencies. The boundary commissions have reviewed all these EPCs: 34 in England, six in Scotland and three in Wales. They published proposals during 1988 which would re-align the EPC boundaries with the altered parliamentary constituency boundaries.
    The vast majority of these changes are quite uncontentious. Comparatively few electors are involved: no more that 375 in any one move in Wales or in Scotland. Even those few changes involving over 1,000 electors in England, with 1,924 electors moving between Cheshire East and Cheshire West and 1,030 between Lancashire East and Lancashire Central, represent less than half of 1 per cent. of the electors in the EPCs involved.
    The only area of serious controversy was in the Cornwall and Plymouth EPC, where objections led to the holding of a public inquiry in July 1988. The point at issue here was not the minor boundary changes between Plymouth Devonport and South Hams, but the principle of separate representation
    158
    for Cornwall. The assistant commissioner who conducted the inquiry considered that a strong case had been made for a separate Cornish identity but he was not convinced that this should displace the primary requirement of electoral equality. In 1988 Cornwall on its own had an electorate of 361,471; the Cornwall and Plymouth EPC had an electorate of 541,768 and the average electorate in England was 552,234. The English commission has therefore recommended, and the Government accepted, that the Cornwall and Plymouth EPC should be modified only by the boundary changes I mentioned.
    The orders all follow the same format: Article 2 provides that the named European parliamentary constituencies shall be constituted by those altered parliamentary constituencies set out in the article. The schedules to the orders set out the names and areas of the altered constituences.
    I commend these orders to your Lordships. They will ensure that the European elections are fought on the proper boundaries. The changes they introduce are not new: they follow at least two earlier boundary changes in local government and parliamentary constituences. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 1st February 1989, 25th October 1988 and 8th February 1989 be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
    Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, as I am certain is the House, for explaining these orders. I have read in complete detail the reports of the three boundary commissions. As the noble Earl says, to a great extent the numbers of the electorates involved are inconsequential.
    I looked very carefully at the report of the assistant commissioner who conducted the local inquiry into the representations on the separation of the Plymouth constituencies from Devon. I am completely in agreement with the commissioner. I know that there are certain strong feelings and believe that 15 representations were made about the possibility of separating Plymouth from Cornwall. From the figures to which the noble Earl referred, it is apparent that to do so would mean a difference of 160,000 in the single Cornwall constituency as against the electoral quota and that cannot be justified on the grounds of democracy or equitability. As that is a major consideration, I am confident in supporting the three draft orders.
    Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches also feel some sympathy for those people in Cornwall who object to the arrangements made but we find the orders in themselves unacceptable.
    They are what one would expect. The Government have no need to fiddle constituency boundaries when they have fiddled the electoral system as a whole. Once again, for the third time, we find a British Government setting out to impose on the electorate for the European Parliament a totally inappropriate electoral system which suits themselves. Once again the Government have prevaricated and delayed on the Council of Ministers to avoid the implementation of the clear provisions of the Treaty of Rome in favour of a single electoral system. Once again they have obstructed. Once again they are set to

    159
    distort the political balance of the European Parliament.
    In 1984 more Conservative MEPs and more Labour MEPs were elected than was justified by the votes they won. The Alliance won one-fifth of the votes but no seats. In the South-West and the Home Counties we won one-quarter of the votes but no seats. The Government have made themselves a laughing stock in Europe, with a reputation as Europe's prime electoral fraudsters.
    I cannot remember when, or indeed if ever, the Conservative Party has won a majority of seats at a General Election with a majority of votes. Of course it knows well that it can win a majority of seats with a minority of votes so long as it can prolong the life of its old, discredited, unfair, undemocratic electoral system known as first past the post.
    The last public opinion poll I saw, by MORI, asked the following question:
    "As you know, the next elections to the European Parliament are due in 1989. Could you please tell me whether you support or oppose introducing proportional representation for the next elections to the European Parliament?"
    After eliminating the "don't knows" the answers were: support, 78 per cent.; opposed, 22 per cent.
    However, the idea that the voters should have any influence whatever on the way that they elect their representatives to Parliament or to the European Parliament is totally foreign to the Government. The Government's view is that Members of Parliament should choose how they are elected. Conservative MPs in the majority should choose how they are elected to Westminster and to the European Parliament; otherwise they might not get as many seats.
    It is a remarkable and scandalous situation. I speak with a little personal feeling on this because I remember standing in the first European Parliament elections and winning a large enough proportion of the poll to win easily in any member country of the European Community except the United Kingdom. I had a higher proportion of the poll than hundreds of MEPs who were actually elected.
    Why are the Government doing this? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House why the Government are taking this attitude alone among all the European governments. It cannot be that they think the proportional electoral system will produce a weak government because of course elections to the European Parliament do not produce a government. It can hardly be that proportional representation is too difficult to understand when all the other electorates in Europe cope with it easily. It cannot be because under the existing system an MEP has a personal relationship with his electorate of 500,000 voters.
    What is the reason? We all know the reason. It is because the Government are afraid that if they have a fair proportional electoral system for European elections it will undermine their stern resistance to a fair electoral system for the Westminster Parliament. They know that they can get a majority of the seats with a minority of the votes with their unique and discredited electoral system. They know that they can then set up an exclusively Conservative
    160
    government against the wishes of the majority of the voters and force through legislation on the poll tax and the privatisation of water or electricity or maybe implement policies on social security, health or whatever, again against the wishes of the majority of voters.
    Ironically enough, today in many parts of the world; namely, in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and even in the Soviet Union, the idea is growing that governments should be elected by, and be responsible to, a majority of their electors; the same applies to all the European countries of the West excluding Britain and to the election of an American President. There are just a few governments in a few countries that reject the idea. The British Government are one, the Albanian Government another; likewise the Iraqi Government and the South African Government. They all say the same. A government does not need majority support. Power sharing with other parties is incompatible with firm and decisive government. Only one-party government will do.
    That is a disgrace. Even before the slightly diminished audience for this debate, I have no hesitation in speaking out at what is a grotesque scandal. I am sure that none of the governments I have mentioned—the Albanian, the Iraqi, the South African or the British—fiddle the constituency boundaries. They so arrange matters that they do not need to. That is the position of the British Government today. I have no hesitation at all in speaking very sharply about it; it is a grave scandal. I await the Minister's reply with interest.
    The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for expressing general agreement with the orders. The noble Lord has read them carefully and with diligence and agrees with what they are trying to establish.
    I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has chosen to use this instance to mount a case for proportional representation. I remind him that this evening we are debating orders made as a result of reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales. We are not debating the electoral system laid down in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. I do not propose on this occasion to go into the merits of the proportional representation system.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (United States of America) Order 1989
7.54 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the need for effective international co-operation to combat serious crime becomes ever more apparent. Those who prey on others for their profit, most notably perhaps those involved in the sickening drugs trade, are not respecters of national boundaries. On the

161
contrary, their aim is to make the most of differences in national laws and procedures, moving themselves and their money about the world with ease in the hope that the agencies of law pursuing them will be forced to stumble and lag behind.
Neither we nor our allies in other countries are prepared to let this happen. In passing the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, Parliament recognised what was needed for effective international action to curb the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking. The Act created powers to freeze and confiscate such proceeds, not only in proceedings in this jurisdiction, but also in response to requests from other countries whose traffickers have sought to protect their gains by depositing funds or acquiring property here.
The draft order now before us, which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, is the first fruit of our endeavours to make this legislation effective in its international dimension. The order, if approved and made, will enable us to fulful our obligations in respect of the provisions on the proceeds of drug trafficking contained in an agreement concluded last year with the Government of the United States.
The Order in Council designates the United States of America under Section 26 of the 1986 Act. It makes provision, first of all, for the registration and enforcement in the High Court of orders made by courts of the United States confiscating a convicted offender's proceeds of drug trafficking. I should add that before registering an order, the High Court must be satisfied that any process of appeal has concluded and that the person against whom the order is made had the chance to contest the proceedings in question. The High Court must also be satisfied that it should not be contrary to the interests of justice to enforce the order here.
The Order in Council also makes available the powers in the 1986 Act to restrain dealings in assets, in this case so as to ensure that it is available to satisfy a confiscation order which has been made, or is expected to be made, in proceedings in the United States. The High Court must be satisfied that such proceedings have been instituted and have not been concluded, and that either a confiscation order has been made or there are reasonable grounds for believing that one will be made.
I should like to add that to ensure consistency and correctness, it is intended that our own prosecuting authorities should make the necessary applications to the High Court on behalf of the Government of the United States. In addition, requests from the United States will first be checked and scrutinized by a central authority in the Home Office.
Your Lordships will notice that in applying the relevant powers in the 1986 Act, the Order in Council makes a number of modifications. These do not in any way subtract from the important safeguards that attach to those powers, including the right of people affected by a restraint or charging order to seek its variation or discharge, and the opportunity to make representations given to people claiming an interest in property which is liable to be confiscated. The purpose of the modifications is
162
simply to reflect differences of form between some of the procedures in United States' law and those in our own. For example, confiscation orders in the United States are made in respect of specified property whereas ours are made for payment of a sum of money.
I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this important step in international co-operation against drug trafficking. The order will enable the United Kingdom to deprive drug traffickers of gains they would otherwise have made safe in return for similar action taken on our behalf in the United States. We expect to bring before your Lordships in due course further orders making further advances in this important campaign. I beg to move that the order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before House on 8th February be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committed].—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the very lucid way in which he explained the order. I should perhaps make it clear at once—if it needs to be made clear at all—that in every conceivable effort that the Government make to track down drug traffickers and to trace their ill-gotten proceeds and see that they are confiscated, Her Majesty's Opposition support those efforts with all the strength at their disposal.
The order arises out of a useful agreement reached between the United States and the United Kingdom in February 1988. As the agreement was entered into in February 1988, why is the order before us after a delay of 13 months? I can well understand that this matter requires the agreement of the United States' authorities and that technical aspects are involved. I mention the point in the hope that nobody in the United States or the United Kingdom has escaped the rigours and the objects of the legislation because of the 13 months' delay. If there is a way of avoiding such delay in similar international agreements in future, I am sure that the House and the noble Earl would welcome it.
Those are the only observations that I can usefully make, except to state our complete support for the order and our hope that more international co-operation of the same kind will occur in the future.
Lord McNair: My Lords, we find this order very much more acceptable than the other three. We support it whole heartedly.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful for the general tenor of satisfaction and agreement from both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord McNair. I do not want to test the patience of your Lordships, but I should like to say that it is always encouraging to find the House once again united in support of the measures necessary to curb the evil of drug trafficking. We have so often seen how drug trafficking is a truly international business. We have seen too how the drug trafficker can be caught by his association with tainted money and how he therefore tries to salt that money away, passing it through many different countries.

163
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked about the delay of some 13 months. We should have wished the order to be brought before the House sooner. The principal reason for the delay was the need to await the coming into force of amendments made to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. We shall certainly hope to bring agreements into effect as quickly as possible in the future.
In conclusion, the order is an important step forward in the efforts of this country and the United States to make drug trafficking more difficult and less attractive. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.3 to 8.40 p.m.]

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 4, line 47, at end insert—
("(4C) A membership card issued under sections 5(2)(h) and 5(3)(b) shall become the property of the holder and may be demanded for inspection only when the holder wishes to obtain entry to a football match.").
The noble Lord said: In the pre-Bill publicity and arguments it was suggested that the police or stewards would be able to confiscate the cards of alleged troublemakers; in other words, they would be able to take them away. That instant disqualification is in our view unnecessary and arbitrary, as anyone causing trouble at a match is liable to be arrested and will be disqualified if the offence warrants it.
The amendment would also deny the police the right to see the cards of those approaching the ground. The Bill does not envisage such a procedure and it should not be allowed to happen by default. In other words, we are mindful of the possibility—no more than that—that there may be some over-zealous policemen or stewards who see it as their prime responsibility to stop trouble before it starts. Quite frankly, people must be given some licence in order to be able to approach the ground and to get into it. Moreover, they should be allowed to hang on to something which is a personal possession; namely, the card. Of course such people will lose their cards if the courts, or the tribunal procedures under the FMA, say so. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This Amendment has two effects: the first to determine that a membership card is the property of its holder; the second to stipulate that a card can be inspected only when the holder wishes to obtain entry to a match. The Minister for Sport's
164
working party took the view that membership cards should remain the property of the body which issued them—the Football Membership Authority—or that the authority might wish to pass ownership to the club. In making this proposal, the working party had it in mind that it should be possible to withdraw cards from those who are disqualified from membership in the interests of limiting the number of invalid cards in circulation. That strikes me as a sensible proposition.
The effect of the second half of the amendment is very different. It would restrict severely the circumstances in which a membership card could be demanded for inspection. I understand the noble Lord's wish to prevent such demands from occurring in circumstances unconnected with football. But the amendment would remove the possbility for the police or the club stewards to require, under the terms of the scheme, to inspect the card inside football grounds at times when it was wholly right to do so.
Clause 2 of the Bill makes it an offence to enter or to attempt to enter or to remain in a ground during a designated match except as authorised by the scheme. If this offence is to be enforced effectively, it is essential that membership cards should be available for checking not only at the point of entry to grounds but inside them as well. Even more important, the police and stewards need to be able to invoke the rules of the scheme to enable them to check the cards of those who may be involved in disorder inside the grounds. One of the great benefits which the scheme offers to effective policing is the way in which it will enable the police to identify troublemakers inside football grounds by their membership cards.
The football representatives on the Minister of Sport's working party put such emphasis on the importance of this point that they recommended that it should be a criminal offence for anyone to fail to produce his or her card on demand to a police officer or authorised officer inside the ground or to a police officer outside the ground or upon arrest for a football-related offence. They also argued that it should be an offence for anyone to fail to surrender his or her card when ordered to do so by a police officer in or around the ground.
The Bill does not create these offences. The Government believe that it is more appropriate that it should be a condition of the scheme that members should be required to show their cards on the demand of an authorised person inside the ground; and as a requirement of the scheme, this condition will apply only inside football grounds, not away from them. We accept that there will be no requirement on people to produce their cards away from grounds. But it is essential that the police should not be prevented from inspecting membership cards inside grounds if we are to deter people from trying to attend matches without joining the scheme and to enable the police to identify those whom they may arrest inside the ground. We believe that the amendment could weaken seriously the effectiveness of the scheme and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think that I understand some of what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has just said. Indeed, I accept what he said about the police or a steward having the right to look at a card within the ground. However, I am not clear about this aspect. If in fact the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, dealt with the situation both in terms of obtaining entry and in terms of requiring a person to show the card to the police within the ground, does that meet his objections?
I am concerned that a steward who does not understand the limits of his responsibilities will, in certain circumstances, confiscate a card. If a policeman were to do so, he could render himself open to a complaint which would be investigated under the police disciplinary processes. However, stewards are in an entirely different category; indeed, they are accountable to no one. I must say that I am troubled about this matter. I can see an over-zealous steward deciding to confiscate a card and I consider that situation totally unacceptable because it would be done without any form of due process.
I am not asking the noble Lord to commit himself on the matter but I hope that he will consider it between now and the Report stage. I do not think that there is a massive gulf in principle between us, but there is a matter of some concern here and if he would undertake to look into it I should be most grateful.
Lord Hesketh: I should very much like to read what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said on the matter so that I may consider the points he made.
Lord Winstanley: I welcome what the noble Lord said in response to the point made by my noble friend about the possible confiscation of cards by a steward, and so on. Indeed, I think that what he said is most reassuring. However, the noble Lord said in his earlier answer that the Government had no intention of requiring or demanding the inspection of these cards other than inside the football ground, or outside the football ground; in other words, other than in connection with a football match. I heard the noble Lord say that, but where does it appear in the Bill?
Lord Hesketh: I said inside the ground; I did not mention outside the ground.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, misheard what was said. Indeed the Minister was most clear on the matter and satisfied one of my points; namely, that inspection of the cards shall not be sought other than inside the ground, and not outside. However, the noble Lord has made a valid point: who in actual fact said that that is how it will operate? I am sure that the Minister is telling us that it is in the mind of the Government that when the FMA is established that is one of the conditions which it will lay down. Indeed, I can see that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has made a most sensitive point about the extent to
166
which football fans, the vast majority of whom are sensible, will react to demands to see cards from people who are wearing a uniform or from people who are doing their best but who have not got the full backing of the law. Nevertheless, like the Minister, I shall read what has been said. He has certainly taken away the sting from one of my main arguments; that is, that it would be absolutely reprehensible that this should apply to people who were behaving in a way which may be seen by the police to demand their inquiries near to a football ground but who may very well not be part of a football scene; in other words, they were walking up the high road and yet were asked to produce their cards. It is not ipso facto a fact of life that, if you are in Tottenham High Road between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock on the day of a big football match, you are going to or, indeed, are part of the football scene.
However, I take the point that the whole basis of the Bill is that if a person is involved in trouble the police will then have the right to say that they want to see that person's card. If he does not have a card, he is in real trouble; and if he has a card that he should not have, he could be in trouble. If the card is invalid, it is a means of identification. Because of the one in 10,000 instances where that may prove to be necessary, the other 9,999 spectators must carry a card. That is ridiculous; but I shall read what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Clause 5(5), which lays down:
"any person commits an offence who, for the purpose of being admitted to membership of the national football membership scheme—

(a) makes a statement which he knows to be false or misleading … or

(b) produces, furnishes … or otherwise makes use of a document which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular",

and so on. A number of chief officers of police have expressed concern about this matter. Their concern is not about the existence of the provision but about who precisely will be responsible for investigating the matter.
Police resources are extremely limited. Many chief officers who have substantial limitations on their manpower and who have major crimes to investigate do not want to find themselves being sucked into a number of criminal inquiries on this matter. Their view is that if the scheme proceeds and the clause remains unamended, the matter is one for the FMA and not the police. We are talking about crime. The FMA can lay an information against an alleged offender. As I have said, it is the view of a number of chief officers of police that that is how the subject should be dealt with. They are concerned that they should not be asked to take on yet another responsibility which could be manpower intensive in a number of respects. I hope that the Minister will say that on this point they are pushing at an open door.
Lord Hesketh: If it has evidence of a criminal offence, the FMA, like any private individual or body, should present it to the police. The police will then report the person for summons if they consider that appropriate, but the conduct of the proceedings will be taken over by the independent Crown Prosecution Service. There is nothing to prevent the FMA from taking a private prosecution. The normal procedure would be as I have outlined. However, I should like to study further what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am obliged to the Minister. As I have said, there is serious concern about this matter. It is the view of many of those to whom I have referred that this is primarily a question for the FMA. The sheer pressure on police resources at present is substantial. They do not want to find themselves being pushed into investigating offences of this character. They take the view that it is a matter that the FMA can take the major responsibility for pursuing. The Minister has said that he will consider the point, and I hope that he will. I can assure him that the police service is seriously concerned about this subject.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the police concern over the manpower implications. The police would need further resources to police the Bill. The Home Office is denying county police forces the number of policemen that they require at the moment. For instance, I have a letter from the Cambridgeshire County Council Director of Administration to Mr. Moynihan, which states:
"Cambridgeshire has two Fourth Division football clubs—Peterborough United and Cambridge City".
He continues to talk about the scheme, and on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, relating to police unease he says:
"The Council believes that rather than proceed with the introduction of the scheme, the Government would be better advised to ensure that police manpower levels were increased to enable the police to better control the situation outside football grounds. In this respect the Council has noted with some disappointment the recent decision of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to authorise only 15 of the 40 additional police officers requested by the police authority".
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the subject on clause stand part. I want the Minister to take on board the fact that we shall hear more about the police attitude to this matter.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Criteria for phased introduction of scheme.
. The administrator's investigation and report referred to in section 5(1)(aa) above shall examine in particular whether the phasing of the scheme should be achieved on the basis of one or more of the following—

(a) ground capacity;

(b) present membership of the club;

(c) average attendance at home games over the past three seasons.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with the amendments accepted on the first day of the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Disqualification for membership of scheme]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): I have to announce that if Amendment No. 66 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 66A to 68 inclusive.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 5,1ine 18, leave out subsections (2) to (9) and insert—
("(2) A court by or before which a person is convicted of a relevant offence or, if a person convicted of such an offence is committed to it to be dealt with, the Crown Court on dealing with him for the offence, may make an order (membership disqualification order) disqualifying him from becoming or continuing to be a member for the national football membership scheme.
(3) No membership disqualification order may be made unless the court is satisfied that making such an order in relation to the accused would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with designated football matches.
(4) The offences relevant for the purposes of subsection (2) above are those specified in the Schedule to this Act as relevant offences with a declaration of relevance.
(5) A membership disqualification order may only be made—

(a) in addition to a sentence imposed in respect of the offence of which the accused is (or was) convicted; or

(b) in addition to a probation order.

(6) Membership disqualification order may be made as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) not withstanding anything in sections 2 and 13 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (which relate to probation orders).
(7)(a) A membership disqualification order shall have effect for such period as is specified in the order.

(b) The period shall be not less than three months, or in the case of a person already subject to such an order, not less than three months plus the unexpired period of the earlier order or, if there is more than one earlier order, of the most recent order.

(c) The period shall not be more than twelve months or, in the case of a person already subject to such an order, a total aggregate of eighteen months.

(d) In the case of a person sentenced to or serving a term of imprisonment, the period shall run from his discharge from prison.

(8) The court shall, on making the order in relation to the accused, explain its effect on him.
(9) Where a court makes a membership disqualification order, the clerk of the court (in the case of a magistrates court) or the appropriate officer (in the case of the Crown Court) —

(a) shall give a copy of it to the person to whom it relates;

(b) shall (as soon as reasonably practicable) send a copy of it to the administrator of the scheme and to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence was committed;

(10)(a) A person may appeal against both the court's declaration of relevance and the making of a membership disqualification order under subsection (2) above.
(b) In section 10(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeals against sentence by Crown Court) in paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (iii) there shall be inserted "or
(iiia) a membership disqualification order under section 6 of the Football Spectators Act 1989").
The noble Lord said: Those who follow the Bill closely will see that the amendment removes a substantial chunk from the Bill and inserts a comparable number of matters. The amendment's raison d'etre is to remove the present mandatory

169
disqualification on the membership of a person convicted of a football-related offence.
In many situations there is discretion, latitude or flexibility. The Bill provides that a person convicted of a football-related offence will be automatically disqualified. In the amendment we say we want to give the court rather than the FMA the discretion to order disqualification. Only the courts will hear the full facts of the case and it is therefore appropriate that the courts be given the power to sentence according to the nature of the offence.
I also want to say something about the period of disqualification. It should be more flexible. In other words, it should not be less than three months—the present minimum figure for exclusion orders—and not more than 12 months. Again, the disqualification needs to be related to the nature of the offence. The fourth matter we seek to introduce is to allow appeals against a court's declaration that an offence is relevant and the making of a membership disqualification order. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out, the amendment proposed would replace most of Clause 6 with a significantly weaker provision. Clause 6 concerns the disqualification from membership of people who are convicted of relevant offences. Relevant offences are defined in the schedule to the Bill to include offences which are committed at football matches and offences which are committed en route to football matches, subject in the latter case to the courts making a declaration that the offences are relevant.
Under Clause 6 as drafted a convicted hooligan who is sent immediately to prison for his offence would receive an automatic ban of five years. A person who receives a non-custodial sentence on conviction is banned automatically for two years. It is for the administrator appointed as the FMA to set the date on which the ban is to begin in the scheme.
It has been suggested that these are tough penalties, but football hooliganism is a tough problem, the football representatives on the Minister of Sport's working party would have preferred longer bans. We are, after all, talking about people who are convicted of a criminal offence. If a football-related offence is serious enough to warrant the offender being sent immediately to prison, it is equally reasonable that he should be banned automatically from attending a football match for five years. If the offence is a lesser one and a prison sentence is not involved, a shorter period of disqualification is appropriate. But the person concerned has nevertheless been convicted of a criminal offence and a two-year ban is appropriate. These are the people whom we must keep away from our football grounds. For far too long hooligans have been allowed to ruin the game for law-abiding spectators.
The exclusion order provisions of the 1986 Public Order Act, which the amendments of the noble Lord, resemble, had some effect but they did not go far enough. Where exclusion orders were served, it was often for relatively short periods. The hooligans were soon able to return and cause trouble again. I am
170
not criticising the courts; they operate the law as Parliament makes it.
This amendment would curtail significantly the penalties available under the Public Order Act since it would impose a maximum of 12 months where the Act itself imposes no maximum. This is simply not enough of a deterrent or punishment to bring about the end of football hooliganism.
Clause 6 provides for disqualification from membership to follow automatically on conviction for a relevant offence. In that respect, it differs from the Public Order Act, which gave the courts discretion as to whether to impose an exclusion order. It differs from the Public Order Act in that it introduces an element of certainty in the penalty that football hooligans will face. They will know that if they are convicted of a relevant offence they will have all the normal rights of convicted people to appeal against their conviction. But if the conviction stands they will be banned from attending a football match for two or five years depending on the sentence which the court imposes.
I believe that the approach which Clause 6 takes is essential if the Bill is to succeed in deterring hooliganism. The amendment would weaken that effect because it would shorten the length of disqualifcation following conviction and remove the automatic link between conviction and disqualification.
There is, however, one aspect of the amendment with which I have some sympathy. That is the proposal to allow a convicted person to appeal against a declaration of relevance. As the Bill is drafted, certain offences are treated as relevant for the purposes of disqualification only if the court declares them to be relevant. The offences concerned are those which occur when the accused or the victim is en route to or from a football match. There may be genuine doubt in such cases as to whether the offence concerned is relevant to football or has some other cause altogether—hence the requirement for a declaration of relevance.
I have argued that it is right that disqualification from membership should follow automatically if someone is convicted of a relevant offence. The offender has the right to appeal against his conviction and against his sentence. Since it will be for the court to decide whether a declaration of relevance should be made in appropriate cases, I accept that it is also right that an offender should have the right to appeal against the making of such a declaration. I also accept that the defendant must have advance warning that the court will be asked to make a declaration that the offence of which he or she is accused is relevant to football. We will consider how best to provide for these points.
I believe that to provide for an appeal against a declaration of relevance in the way I have just described could improve the Bill. It is certainly a possibility that I wish to consider further. I am always keen to improve the Bill where possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, knows well. The rest of the amendment we believe would not improve the Bill. It would weaken it significantly. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful for small mercies. What the Minister has said in his concluding remarks indicates that we have drawn to his attention—though perhaps not originally—and we have confirmed in his mind and those of his advisers that there is a lacuna in the Bill in respect of that narrow point. It is something which needs to be corrected. We all have our definition of terms.
The Minister is also quite correct; the series of amendments weakens what we consider to be the punitive nature of that part of the Bill. I believe that many of the people who will be convicted will not be beyond redemption. As regards an offence which carries a five-year sentence, disqualification from driving or being confined inside prison for five years is an inordinately long time. I can understand the thinking of the Minister and his colleagues; it does not surprise us. But this is not a short, sharp shock; it is a long, sharp shock. In other words, a man has offended, he has been found guilty and he will suffer. That is one way in which we can seek to bring good order and discipline into a situation which the Minister believes requires that.
I honestly do not think that the nature of these offences merits that punishment. I am not talking about violence, which in certain instances will occasion grievous bodily harm and damage to property. I am talking in terms of the ability to take what I consider to be a sensible view. I know what the Minister wishes to do from the outset. He wishes to put the fear of the Government into us, the fear of penalties. The Government put the fear of something else into me at times when we look at how they are performing. They wish to frighten people off. I think that will help to bring the Bill into disrepute. The wording is far too strong and disproportionate to what I believe will be the situation. The Minister talks in terms of exclusion orders not having taken off. In 1987–88, 1,000 exclusion orders were issued. In my view, an exclusion order is the litmus paper to test whether someone has really offended against the code.
The Minister mentioned 6,000 arrests. That was significant. He was trying to frighten people by suggesting that was the real state of affairs. However, only 1,000 people finally appeared in court and had an exclusion order served against them. That latter figure is a much better test of the real situation. I shall read what the Minister has said. Clearly there is a sharp difference of opinion between the Minister, myself and those outside the Chamber whose views I seek to represent. I shall read the Minister's words very carefully. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, now wishes to be helpful to the Minister.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do indeed hope to be helpful. I hope the Minister will consider one rather bizarre element of the Bill as currently drafted. Admittedly in a minority of cases, and admittedly in relatively unusual cases, a judge may wish to indicate his approach to a case before him by giving a man who has been convicted a nominal one day's imprisonment. The noble Lord will recognise that in that case the man would be banned from entering any football ground for five years.
172
In the next case before him, the judge may take a more serious view. He may say that he has decided to make a probation order against the accused for a period of three years. In that case, the person would be banned for a period of two years. That raises some substantial questions regarding whether that is sensible. However, I have made my point and I shall leave it at that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before my noble friend decides what he is going to do with the amendment, I must say that I am very concerned about what we are doing in this matter of football and football hooligans. We seem to be treating them entirely differently from any other section of society. I think, for example, of a person who goes into Marks and Spencer, steals a jacket, goes to make off with it but is stopped by a shop assistant whom he then beats up in a most violent way. That person goes to court and he is sentenced to two years' imprisonment. That is the end of it. When he comes out of prison, there is no ban on his going to shop at Marks and Spencer. Why are we here imposing a double penalty on football hooligans? That cannot be right.
I have heard the Government argue on several Bills in this way. On the Police Bill in 1976, when I was the Whip, the Opposition in that case argued that one must not put the police in double jeopardy. But it seems to me that the double jeopardy principle applies very much in the case of this Bill and in the case of this clause. I do not think the amendment of my noble friend goes nearly far enough. However, it offers something in mitigation. I hope that the Government will take the point of double jeopardy and double punishment very much into consideration. We are entitled to have equity before the law. This does not give equity before the law. It makes fish of one and fowl of another. It is entirely wrong.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We shall not make any more progress on this matter tonight, as I said earlier. We shall read what the Minister said and take advice from those outside the Chamber who will study this very carefully. There is clearly a division of thinking and attitude which we must reflect upon. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66A and 66B not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67:
Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("offences") to end of line 31 and insert—
("6) A court may not make a declaration of relevance in respect of an offence specified in Schedule I of this Act unless the court is satisfied that making such a declaration in relation to the accused would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with designated football matches.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 67 concerns a declaration of relevance. At least the amendment touches upon that declaration. I know it is not a question of appeals against a provision. However, I would rather not move this amendment now, not only to save the time of the Committee but also to allow me to consider, perhaps with the Minister outside the Committee, whether I can bring back at

173
a later stage my intention here, in the light of what the Minister decides to do with the declaration of relevance matter.
I understood that it was for the convenience of the Committee that we should take Amendments Nos. 90 to 93 with Amendment No. 67. The Minister will see that these relate to the declarations of relevance. I shall not move those in order that we can have a chance to look at what the Minister has done. To be quite clear, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 90 to 93 when we come to them.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 5,1ine 36, leave out ("standard") and insert ("maximum").
The noble Lord said: This is a reasonably important amendment about the standard period of disqualification applicable to a person who has been convicted. The amendment is to leave out the word "standard" and to insert the word "maximum". The Minister's advisers will certainly have briefed him well on the matter. The purpose is to understand the proper meaning of the word "standard". Although we do not accept what is contained in subsection (7) because we think it very punitive, we want to have an understanding of the word "standard". I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment, and Amendment No. 66B which was not moved, take us over ground we have covered in other proposed amendments to Clause 6. The clause as drafted provides that there should be two standard periods of disqualification from the scheme for convicted offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is primarily concerned to have the answer to what the word "standard" means. I had intended to say on Amendment No. 66B that I would be willing to consider the word "standard" and that if it was not considered the best that could be used, I would hope to come back with more satisfactory terminology.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That is fine so far as it goes. However, this is not just a question of terminology; it is what precisely the Government's objective is. Is the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, saying that he will simply choose a word rather than the word "standard", or is he telling us that he will use a different word because the different word will have a different meaning within the Bill? Perhaps he can help us on that point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Both my noble friend Lord Graham and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have made the point that under the Bill people who are found guilty will be dealt with quite arbitrarily with no variations allowed. On other points of law, Members of this Chamber have asked the Government to consider certain courses of action relating to certain crimes. I have always been told by the Ministers involved that all criminals have the same rights within the law.
174
Some time ago, following a number of very serious crimes of rape—and I am talking about repetitive rape—I argued in your Lordships' House (I also wrote to the Prime Minister on the subject) that rape ought to be considered as a non-paroleable offence. The answer I received from both the Minister in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and the Prime Minister, was that you cannot treat a rapist differently from any other criminal. If parole was available, it had to be available to anyone having a prison sentence. Yet here the Government are proposing to deny people who are convicted under the Football Spectators Bill rights which are available to rapists. It takes some believing.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Why do we need the words "standard" or "maximum" in this clause? Why cannot the clause read "the period of disqualification" without either word?
Lord Hesketh: What my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has just said is what I was trying rather poorly to explain earlier.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I assume that that means we can look forward to an amendment on this point at Report stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I accept the Minister's point. He has been honest enough to say that there have perhaps been second thoughts that the word in the Bill may not be the appropriate one. I shall withdraw my amendment, acknowledging that my word may not be the appropriate one either. Whatever the words on the face of the Bill, we shall be interested to see what the Government intend the word to convey to the ouside world. We hope that the term can be interpreted as allowing a provision along the lines of the amendment to which I have been speaking. The Minister has given us no promise, although he has been gracious enough to say that, if I withdraw my amendment, he will, without commitment, consider what we have said and bring forward an appropriate rewording or an addition to this part of the Bill at the next stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67B and 68 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Offence of admitting spectators to unlicensed premises]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 6, line 36, leave out ("or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would make the offence of admitting spectators without a membership card a non-imprisonable offence. It takes some doing, but in effect the Bill says to a great many people who already have enough on their

175
plates that a responsible person who admits spectators without a licence or in other circumstances can be found guilty of an offence and consequently subjected to a period of imprisonment.
The Minister explained earlier how that charge can be negatived by pleading that the spectators were admitted without the consent of the person concerned or that he took all reasonable precautions. However, we believe it is absolutely horrendous that the punishment of imprisonment should be visited on the kind of people whom we are discussing. The prospect of football club directors being liable to imprisonment for up to two years because non-members have gained entry to their ground and the court considers that their arrangements for preventing entry were inadequate appears draconian. We believe that a fine—I do not say a heavy fine—would be more suitable. We do not believe that such an offence merits a term of imprisonment.
I can see the Minister trying to frighten the hooligan. I can see him trying to frighten the non-hooligan—namely, the 9,999 out of every 10,000 spectators who do not cause any trouble and have an unblemished record. I fail to see why he should extend his frightening powers to those who are trying to run football to the best of their ability. They may very well be at fault in one respect or another, but, given the overcrowding in our prisons, I should not have thought that the Government would want to add to the number of crimes punishable by imprisonment. I admit that it would be a crime because it would be against the law, but I do not believe that imprisonment is the punishment to fit that particular offence. Therefore we want to delete the possibility that a director of a club or someone who is responsible should face the prospect of imprisonment. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I confess that I had not studied Clause 7 previously. It was only when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, rose to speak that I realised that it was being seriously proposed that a person might be sentenced to two years' imprisonment for allowing somebody into a football ground. As he said, this is extraordinarily draconian, in particular as football, in one form or another, has been a public spectacle open to anybody for hundreds of years. I urge the Government to think again on this point.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, produced a persuasive argument. He said that the Government were trying to frighten people. I think that what he said has even frightened the noble Lord, Lord Monson—so much so that he rose to his feet. Perhaps I may explain the position, because I do not believe that it is all that frightening.
The amendment seeks to reduce the maximum penalty for admission of spectators without a licence by removing the option of imprisonment. This is not a case of the Government wanting to fill the prisons up, as the noble Lord suggested. In the Bill imprisonment is available only on conviction on indictment—that is to say, in the Crown Court. On summary conviction—in other words, in a magis-
176
trates' court—only a fine would be available up to the statutory maximum in the magistrates' court. At present it is £2,000.
The power in subsection (3)(b) to impose a sentence of imprisonment is there to deal with the worst possible cases, namely, the deliberate and repeated admission of spectators by a club with no licence in force. That would not only be a flagrant challenge to the Bill but also to Parliament and to the law. I do not expect this to happen, but Parliament must, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, have regard to the possibility that it could. I would only make the point that there is an important difference between the maximum sentence that it is necessary to provide in legislation and the actual sentence that courts would be likely to impose in individual cases. The maximum penalty available must be severe enough adequately to punish the most serious case. Sentencing in an individual case would take account of all the circumstances that arise and would normally be much less.
The purpose of having this offence and its proposed maximum penalty is, by deterrence, to help to persuade those who are responsible for running grounds and clubs to keep to the law. One could envisage the scenario of a rogue club which said "We may be prosecuted if we ignore the licensing requirement but it can only end up as a fine and the club will pay that". The penalty would be greatly weakened in its effect if that were so. In such a case the possibility of imprisonment would have a very particular and important part to play both in deterrence and in punishing properly a deliberate and sustained defiance of the scheme.
It is always right to stop and consider whether a maximum penalty is too severe, in particular if it includes imprisonment. I emphasise only that there is a difference between the maximum which could be applied and the level which is likely to be applied. I hope that the Committee will agree that the maximum penalty which is provided is justified. It does not mean to say that it will always be applied.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Earl referred to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, being frightened, and said that he rose to his feet to protest. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, who is well known for his care of individual liberty, is often on his feet when individual liberty is threatened. All the more power to his feet when he does so. If this place is not about that, what on earth is it about? There is no doubt that people are frightened of this kind of provision.
The noble Earl said that we must have this kind of provision to make the Bill workable; that if somebody is told the fine is £2,000 and that the club will pay that, there has to be the draconian possibility of a prison sentence as well. But I point out to the noble Earl that there are other offences far more heinous than this which attract only a fine. I believe that under the Road Traffic Acts, where lorries are not properly roadworthy a fine is the only penalty available. Yet here we say that anybody who cannot show—that is my point—that he inadvertently admitted these spectators to the ground shall be

177
guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for up to two years.
The Bill has been described as a most illiberal measure. The more it is studied, debated and questioned the more it becomes obvious that it is a very illiberal measure indeed. I have a great deal of respect for the noble Earl, but he must understand that many of us are genuinely concerned about the draconian measures contained in the Bill and the draconian punishments which are proposed. He is a decent, honourable, caring man and I implore him to think about what he and the Government are doing. I believe that in the end measures such as this, with such draconian punishments, will undermine the democracy and the rule of law which we all cherish and wish to sustain and improve.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I believe that that kind of contribution is an attack on the courts rather than on the Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The Bill does not say that everybody who is brought up under its provisions will be sent to prison for two years. It lays it down as a maximum. If it were a minimum or even a guidance, there must be a ceiling on it to prevent it from being completely illiberal. Who knows the circumstances surrounding the detail of such a case? If it is to be left to our courts, I have enough confidence in their interpretation. All they have to adhere to is a maximum. I believe they will use their judgment, as our courts invariably do, to see that the punishment fits the crime, not that it fits the wording of the Bill.
The maximum does not indicate that that is the kind of fine or punishment one would expect to be dished out regularly, if at all. But the courts must be given powers if they are to assert their decisions under the Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not believe that the noble Lord understood what I was saying. It is not a question of the punishment fitting the crime; it is what punishments are available to the court. I was saying that in these circumstances and for this offence the punishment available to the court will be excessive.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The examples that the noble Lord gave about where they could not go to prison could be wrong. In the light of what is happening in many parts of the country, it may be not that the maximum should be weakened but that the examples he gave to run alongside should be strengthened. There is a good argument for that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I respond to what the Minister has said with considerable disappointment. Despite all the problems and burdens which they carry in trying to keep football alive, the directors of clubs will be required once the Bill becomes an Act to operate in a certain way. They may not personally carry the responsibility, but as directors they are responsible if one of their servants breaks
178
the licensing law. The Bill provides for "any responsible person", so a director can be certain that in future he will face the possibility of being sent to prison.
I take account of what has been said by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. The punishments are open to the courts and in the light of their consideration of the gravity of the offence they will decide on them.
In trying to run the club, I am sure that directors would not have believed that they would be faced with an Act of Parliament which would place upon them duties the contravention of which would carry a term of imprisonment. It is not that they have done anything wrong. They will appear in court as a result of a contravention of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I believe it is sad that the Government are adding to that.
I suggested that because the prisons are already full, we do not wish to add to the burden. However, the Minister is saying that it is a decision for the courts to make. It is up to the Committee and to Parliament to decide whether they wish to give the courts such a power. If they do not have the power, they cannot send people to prison.
The Minister said that he anticipated that the punishment could be inflicted as a result of repeated or deliberate contravention. I cannot believe that there will be many, or any, such contraventions. Once offences have been committed a director or chief executive will appear in court and perhaps be fined up to £2,000. The words spoken by the noble Earl will be part of the history of this matter. It is possible that, if the offence is repeated, the director will be imprisoned. The man would be a fool if he put himself in the position of appearing again before a court with the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart said, this is a sad and disagreeable aspect of the Bill. I shall give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: I should like to try to help the noble Lord because he is concerned about the matter. I do not want his concern to be misplaced arid I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is also anxious.
The position is that if a scheme exists there must appear in the Bill penalties applicable to people who deliberately disregard it. If there are no penalties, people will say, "There is no point in having a scheme and we can do what we like".
One must start with the premise that there must be some penalty and, therefore, Clause 7 contains the penalties which will apply. It provides that:
"if persons are admitted as spectators to, or permitted to remain as spectators on, any premises during a period relevant to a designated football match without a licence to admit spectators being in force, any responsible person commits an offence".
In other words, if people who should not be allowed are admitted to football grounds—if the scheme has deliberately been disregarded—an offence has been committed. Even though some Members of the Committee may not like the scheme, it can be agreed that if a scheme exist there must be a penalty.
What happens? A person is charged with an offence under subsection (2). He puts forward a

179
defence if he can show, first, that the spectators were admitted without his consent and, secondly, that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence. That is a defence. If, at the end of all that, he is shown not to have taken all those precautions, then he has committed an offence.
What happens? He is convicted summarily at the magistrates' court. He can receive a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, which I have explained is £2,000. It is very unlikely that a first offence would be charged on an indictment. If he constantly committed the offence then it may be that he would be charged on indictment. Only then would the maximum penalty be imprisonment. That is very unlikely to happen. However, if there was a scenario whereby a person continuously disregarded the scheme, the penalty of imprisonment should be available to the courts. I believe the chances of that taking place are minimal. However, it is only reasonable that if someone is prepared to totally disregard the scheme and the will of Parliament that penalty should be available.
Lord Winstanley: Is the noble Earl in a position to tell the Committee whether the penalty of imprisonment is available to the courts in respect of directors of a football club found to be in breach of the fire or safety regulations? That is a much more serious breach: yet I believe that when the noble Earl looks into the matter he will find that imprisonment is not available in those circumstances.
Earl Ferrers: I do not have the slightest idea of the answer regarding the fire and safety regulations. I am quite happy to find out the answer and to write to the noble Lord. However, that is a totally different matter. Here we are concerned with making a scheme work. We are then concerned with what happens if the people who operate the scheme deliberately prevent it from working and refuse to make it work. I have tried to explain to the Committee that the first penalty will almost certainly be a fine. However, if a person flagrantly disregards the law and believes that the club will pay the fine and therefore it does not matter, then one has to have a higher penalty.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 6, line 41, at end insert ("; but no such licence will be needed for football matches at Wembley Stadium").
The noble Lord said: We have arrived at Wembley. During our discussions we have had an opportunity to consider the nonsense of trying to apply the provisions of the Bill to a stadium like Wembley, with all its manifestations.
The Minister tried earlier to justify the non-exemption of Wembley stadium. Although some exceptions will be made, this matter is an absolute nightmare for the country and for those who administer football to understand. Even if it is difficult, awkward and perhaps capable of causing some distress within the Department of the Evironment, the Minister should concentrate on finding a means of excluding Wembley. It may be that someone has to have egg on his face and that someone has to reflect. But that is the purpose of the Committee stage of a Bill. Powerful cases have been made by my noble friend Lord Northfield, by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and by other Members of the Committee that people who attend football matches at Wembley should not be subject to the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I have to confess that I have not been a spectator at a first-class football match since attending the Cup Final at Wembley about 30 years ago. Moreover, I have not taken part in the proceedings on this Bill until this moment and therefore I hope the Committee will agree that I approach this amendment with a fresh and open mind.
If the principles of this Bill are sound, which I think most Members of both Houses consider them to be, it is difficult—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Did the noble Lord say "sound"?
Lord Renton: That is a matter of opinion. I am judging by the operation of the democratic process by which we vote with our feet in both Houses.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I welcome the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but he must be aware from the Committee proceedings on this Bill that the Bill has so much support that he is the first to speak in support of it, from either side, other than speakers from the Front Bench.
Lord Renton: With great respect, I do not think that statement is accurate. It pays little regard to the excellent speeches made by my noble friends on the Front Bench.
182
The point is this. If the principles of the Bill are right and if this discretionary clause is sound in principle, it is difficult to see why exceptions should be made for those matches which take place at Wembley stadium, which is one of our largest football grounds. It would be a mistake to assume that passions are not roused by matches at Wembley stadium. We all know, for example, that matches between England and Scotland arouse passions which take us back hundreds of years to before the Act of Union.
I should have thought that one would need to be especially careful about the granting of licences at Wembley stadium when matches take place which arouse rivalry and passions between the spectators. Therefore, if I may say so, I believe that my noble friends on the Front Bench would be wise to resist this amendment. Frankly, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, with respect—as I so often do, sometimes agreeing with him—but the case he put forward in favour of this amendment was not a strong one.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may say a few words in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to our proceedings. It may be 30 years since the noble Lord has been to a football match but that is not necessarily a reason for disqualification from our debates. I say to him only that unfortunately he has not had the opportunity of being at some of our previous discussions. If he had, I suspect that he would have found it difficult to make the speech he has just made.
The noble Lord would have a good, logical case were all the potential spectators at Wembley to be members of the scheme; but of course we know they are not. The noble Lord referred to issues of ancient history between England and Scotland, but he does not appear to recognise that Scotland is not covered by the Bill.
Lord Renton: Matches in which Scottish teams play in England are covered by this scheme, as I understand it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They are not.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, if the noble Lord follows the argument, I am sure that he will be able to agree with me at the end that what I have said is factually accurate. Let us discuss the situation that we have already debated, of international matches taking place at Wembley. That is exactly the issue that the noble Lord has just mentioned; namely, England against Scotland at Wembley. If the Bill is not amended, English supporters have to be members of the scheme; Scottish supporters do not have to be members of the scheme. Therefore, if you are a Scot travelling to Wembley to watch the game between England and Scotland; there is no obligation on you to be a member of the scheme. I can assure the noble Lord that that is the position.
What happens? Will there be large notices saying, "Scots enter here"? Notices for the English will appear somewhere else. That is an absurdity and pure farce. Can anyone imagine some of the public

183
order implications of a procedure of this kind? Can one imagine the anger that will affect many young men from England and possibly Wales—we do not yet know the outcome of the Welsh situation—when they see for the first time in the clearest way possible that all young Scots of precisely their age group are going to be allowed in without being members of the scheme? It is absolute nonsense. I know of no other law in this country where there is such a nonsensical provision. There is no precedent whatever. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has substantial expertise in this matter and I shall be very interested if he wishes to intervene later to tell me that I am wrong. I know of no precedent for such an approach.
That is one issue. Now let us come to the question of the ticket tout, where people buy tickets outside Wembley stadium. In doing so they do not commit a criminal offence. If you buy the right Scottish ticket, it will be possible to get in at the Scottish end of the ground, again without being a member of the football membership scheme. It seems that provisions of this kind are absurd. The most sensible approach for the Government would be to exclude matches at Wembley from the provisions of this scheme.
Some people may be worried about the public order situation at Wembley, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, implied by his intervention. He will be surprised to hear that last year when there was a public order problem there, twice as many Scots were arrested as English—yet the Scots are excluded from the scheme. What is the justification for that? It may be that the Government's certain lack of popularity in Scotland is one possible explanation for this rather strange approach. There can be few others.
I should like to go on to the interesting question of what happens as regards other international matches at Wembley; for example, against Italy or West Germany. Presumably on the basis of people coming for one match and one match only, all West German supporters will be able to get in without difficulty. I presume that they will have to produce their passports or some other national identity document. Is that a sensible approach? I very much doubt it.
As I have said, there is a whole series of major problems relating to the situation at Wembley. I raised another one earlier, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will be aware: that is, the interesting question of the Sunday Observance Act. At the moment there is a statutory obligation on the authorities at Wembley to have a free gate on Sunday because they cannot require people to pay an entrance fee. Therefore there has to be a free gate.
I believe I asked the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, earlier what the arrangement was to be as regards that matter. Is the free gate to go? Is it consistent with the government scheme or is it not? As the noble Lord has now had at least a week to consider the matter, I am sure that he will be eager to explain it to the Committee. I think I said enough to indicate that there are rather more problems associated with Wembley than the noble Lord, Lord Renton, appeared to imagine.
Lord Northfield: As I indicated on a previous occasion, I have a slight advantage in that I was in charge of running Wembley for at least a couple of years. I saw for myself the problems of running cup finals and other events. The Minister and the Government should realise that Wembley does not have a history of violence. Despite the example mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, Wembley does not have problems of violence. It has not had the troubles that have led to the introduction of the Bill. That is a good starting point. Despite its size and despite the number of people who go to matches there, Wembley has learnt over the years how to handle the bouyancy and exhilaration of the spectators and to channel those feelings into something better than killing or harming each other. I should not like anyone to think that Wembley is a paragon, but it has no reason to have vengeance wreaked upon it.
I should like to see what the FMA recommends about the special problem of Wembley. The FMA will have to have a special study because, as I have made clear, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has already misled the Committee into believing that Wembley was consulted on the Bill. It was not consulted, and I should like to put that on the record for the second time. The FMA will need to consult the Wembley authorities and ask about the special problems attached to that great stadium in holding its national and international events. If the FMA then recommends that, because the problems are so hideous and so complicated, it would be much better to find a way out of this morass of difficulty for Wembley, can we have an assurance—this is an important point in view of earlier amendments—that that recommendation will not be vetoed by the Secretary of State? It is important to get that on the record as a background to the kind of study which I suspect the FMA will need to make.
I shall not go over the problems in great detail because they have been mentioned so well by previous speakers. However, we must recognise the unique position of Wembley. First, 90,000 people pour into that stadium on Cup Final day. Imagine the chaos at the turnstiles for a match of that size. Imagine the excitement on that day. The least sign of people being refused entry because they do not have cards will create riots outside the stadium and not inside it. That is the first problem the Government should face. There is such huge excitement on those great days that the trouble is more likely to occur outside as a result of the Bill than inside during the match.
Secondly, with 90,000 people coming into the stadium, imagine the number of staff Wembley will need to have on duty. People will have to examine passports if foreigners come to games. People who do not go to the ordinary matches—I am sorry about that—want to go to Wembley if they can get hold of a ticket. It is a great national occasion to which they will go, perhaps without being definite followers of particular clubs. How are they to get in? We must somehow find a way for them to be guests of whom? Perhaps they could be guests of Wembley, guests of the two cup finalists or guests of the English or Scottish teams, or whatever. How do we cope with

185
the sort of people who come here for this great national occasion, but who are not necessarily regular football supporters or parts of a football crowd?
We should also look again at responsibility. The Bill says that anyone who breaks the law—this is in Clause 7 with which we are now dealing—will have a defence if he or she can prove that reasonable precautions were taken to ensure that people who got in the ground had cards of some kind. Let us pause here for a moment. In some cases that is nothing to do with Wembley, because Wembley does not sell all the tickets for a Cup Final; they are sold by the participating clubs. Therefore, who will be held responsible in the case of Wembley? Will the chairman of Wembley Stadium be sent to gaol because the Liverpool club in the Cup Final allowed a person to enter the ground with one of its tickets who was not a bona fide holder of a membership card? We must know what the responsibility of the administrators of Wembley Stadium is, compared with that of the administrators of the clubs which are playing on that day. That fact is not at all clear in the Bill.
I have heard it said, although I do not know whether it is true, that a Minister of the Crown told the chairman of Wembley Stadium that if something were to go wrong he is the man who would be in gaol. I should like to know whether that is the case, because in many cases it will not be his responsibility at all; it will be the responsibility of some of the people who brought the teams to the stadium and who issued cards to the wrong types of people.
Further, on top of all the chaos at the gates, the dangers of riots outside the ground and the difficulty with the various kinds of people who want to come to Wembley, we have the supreme ridicule of foreigners versus Englishmen. It would seem that the average Englishman who wants to go to the great cup finals or the great international matches is the man who must be penalised and involved in delay, trouble and inconvenience to a great extent, while anyone else will be able to get in the grounds, presumably by some other gate, by just showing a passport, or something else. Is that the way we are going to encourage people to be interested in football, this great national institution, and the great matches that take place?
I shall now make my final point. It is one which I have made before, but I shall make it again. The way out for Wembley is this. If the FMA or the Minister is satisfied that Wembley can produce an agreement or a control system—and it has one—that is satisfactory to its local authority, it should be left alone and not be brought into the provisions of the Bill. Wembley has taken, and is taking, great steps to ensure that that is always the case with everything that happens at the stadium.
I shall not go on any further because the case has already been made out in detail by my noble friends about the kinds of ridiculous events which could occur under the Bill as drafted. I only hope that as I gave warning on the last occasion, in a more general debate, that I would raise these points about Wembley, the Minister has come here this time with
186
some proper answers. Moreover, I hope that he will not fumble over the issue and that he will give us a clear indication that Wembley will in some way be allowed to be excluded from the Bill's provisions.
10 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has been most consistent on this point. Right from the beginning, as he is entitled to do, as one who has been in charge of Wembley, he has talked with some authority and some detailed knowledge on the matter. He has put up a very strong argument which shows conclusively that Wembley is a special case. However, having said that, I do not think that the amendment as it stands could be accepted by the Government, because if they accepted it they would in a way be making a nonsense of the Bill.
The amendment suggests that Wembley should not have to have a licence and should be completely outside the Bill; and yet it is where one of the biggest football matches takes place. It is a magnet for the crowds which we say are a problem. The Government have said that we are to have a Bill. The Committee knows my views about its detailed application. If all at once it is said, rather as in Euclid, by a hypothesis that it is not so—we can exclude Wembley as the amendment seeks—that will be asking too much of the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that Wembley needs special consideration. Some way, short of saying that it need not have a licence, should be found to give it that special consideration which it requires for the reasons that the noble Lord gave. We must be reasonable about this matter. We are parliamentarians. We know how a Bill becomes a statute. To ask the Government to accept the amendment is to ask them to say that their Bill is a nonsense.
Lord Hacking: It is.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Many people may believe that, but it is unreasonable to expect the Government to say so. Heed should be taken of the effective arguments put forward by the noble Lord, but we should not push the amendment to a Division. It is unreasonable to expect the Government to accept it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: It was interesting to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, indicate the difficulties that Wembley will experience as a result of the Bill. He said that Wembley does not control tickets for the Cup Final. It does not. The FA controls the sale of the tickets. A large proportion goes to the participants in the final, although never as many as they would like, and the rest are distributed by various means. Even the smallest amateur club affiliated to the Football Association can apply for Cup Final tickets. Such clubs usually receive one or two tickets. I know that because I was associated with a club just after the war. People go in ones and twos from small clubs all over the country to attend the Cup Final. They do not have the time to be registered supporters. Some of them are running amateur and

187
youth teams and performing a social service in their area. It is asking too much to expect them to provide an identity card to go to Wembley.
The Cup Final is probably the one match of the year where one oftens finds representatives of another place and this House. How will they be catered for? They have cup tickets. It is no secret. The matter is open. They pay for them. How will they stand?
I asked the Minister a question last week. It is not unknown for the Prime Minister to be invited to present the FA cup. I cannot see the present Prime Minister being invited given the current friction between the Government and the Football Association, but, if she went, how would she gain admittance? Would she have an identity card or would she be invited in as a guest? An overwhelming case is being made out to give Wembley special treatment. It is football's national home. Most people know how Wembley works. It would be unworkable to try to involve Wembley in the scheme. I hope that the Government will have some regard for the amendment, will examine it and will bring it back in a form more acceptable to them. They should do the best they can for the most famous football ground in the world.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would mean that Wembley stadium need not obtain a licence to admit spectators to designated matches played at Wembley. Its effect would be to exclude international matches and cup finals from the national membership scheme. This would run the risk that the stadium could become a focus for hooligans banned from other matches under the scheme. I remind the Committee that some international matches played at Wembley can be a particular focus for trouble and call for huge police reinforcements to be deployed.
I have explained to the Committee that it is therefore the Government's intention that international matches and cup finals played at Wembley should be designated and the stadium should be licensed. The majority of spectators visiting matches at Wembley will be members of the scheme. We accept that special arrangements could be made to enable foreign visitors, who are not members of the scheme, to attend matches and that that will be a feature of the scheme.
This need not present an insurmountable problem. After all, special segregation arrangements for foreigners are made now at international matches. The Football Membership Authority and the Wembley authorities will wish to consider what checks, if any, should be made on foreign visitors entering at the turnstiles. We should bear in mind here that most foreign supporters will have purchased their tickets abroad and travelled in groups to the match.
I make no apology for the fact that we are looking at the possibility of providing special arrangements in the scheme for Wembley different from those that will be operated at club grounds. Wembley is a unique football stadium. It provides the venue for the England team's home international matches and for the major domestic cup finals. It also stages many
188
other events unconnected with football but which also attract very large and different types of crowds.
I think the sensible course here is to allow the FMA to draw up those special arrangements in consultation with the Wembley authorities and the police. The Minister for Sport has met the Wembley authorities in recent months and so too have his officials. I am sure that consultation between the interested parties as the detailed scheme is being worked up is much the best way of devising sensible arrangements by which Wembley can be fitted into the framework of the membership scheme.
Of course the Government will wish to be satisfied that any arrangements that are proposed in the scheme are as secure as possible. It is important too that the Wembley authorities are held responsible for the efficient and effective operation of such arrangements as are approved. The licensing system will ensure that this is the case.
As regards what may happen if the FMA should recommend that Wembley be excluded, of course we shall consider that recommendation. But our present position is that excluding Wembley would attract hooligans banned from all other matches in the United Kingdom towards that stadium like a magnet. We should need a great deal of persuading that that could be avoided. However, as I have said, we shall listen to any FMA proposal, although I cannot go further than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, raised the matter of responsibility at an individual match. We cannot hypothesise on what might happen if there were trouble at an individual match because that would depend on the facts of the case. Clause 7(2) allows the licence holder to defend himself on the grounds that he took all reasonable precautions to avoid the commission of an offence. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, concerned tickets acquired overseas or in Scotland. That would obviously be a very different situation from a club granting a membership card knowingly to someone who would cause trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Harris—
Lord Northfield: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I did not raise that point. The problem I raised—perhaps the Minister is coming to it—was that Wembley does not sell the tickets. The tickets are sold to a considerable extent by the participating clubs. I want to be clear as to who will be responsible in the case of a breach of the legislation. Will it be Wembley or the participating club? How do we apportion responsibility between the two?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The Government have agreed that Wembley is a special case. So we cannot definitively pre-judge what the FMA and Wembley will arrive at as their recommendations to go to the Secretary of State. I am sure that the noble Lord will concede that part of the point.
I now return to the Lord's Day Observance Society, a matter which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I understand that the Sunday Observance Act is concerned with the payment for entertainments on a Sunday. Because

189
of that Act Wembley maintains a free gate, as the noble Lord pointed out, for matches on a Sunday. But the national membership scheme is not concerned with the question of payment for admission. Provided that a spectator is a member or otherwise authorised by the scheme, the terms of the Bill are satisfied. It is entirely up to Wembley, or any other individual club, to admit people free of charge on a Sunday or any other day they wish. The scheme will not prevent that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, drew to our attention the matter of Scottish and English football supporters. With respect, I point out to him that Scottish and English supporters are segregated at this moment. That segregation is already in force. If the noble Lord is saying that Wembley's present procedures are absurd, I would only say that the situation as regards segregation would probably not change very much. The Bill will allow for special arrangements for matches at Wembley, including matches involving England v. Scotland.
The key to the Government's position is the fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, very rightly and properly drew our attention—Wembley does not have a history of violence. He is absolutely correct. But what worries the Government is that when suddenly 92 football grounds in this country become off-limits to soccer hooligans, we do not want the focus of attention to be turned on to Wembley Stadium, which might have a most unfortunate result at a ground with a hitherto impeccable record. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Does the noble Lord really believe that this great mass of football hooligans who are waiting to demonstrate at some football ground which is outside the scheme will get tickets for the Cup Final, for example? Does he have any idea what he is talking about on this subject? Has he himself ever tried to get tickets for the Cup Final and experienced the substantial difficulties in getting them?
The idea that clubs will say, "Only football hooligans need apply for these tickets", seems to me a little far-fetched. The situation is quite clear. It is extremely difficult to get Cup Final tickets. The problem which has been identified is the risk that the 'Wembley authorities face, given the way in which they sell their tickets. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was good enough to say he thought it very unlikely that any director would be sent to prison for two years. But, as far as I am aware, the noble Earl is not a football club director and therefore he does not face a substantial risk in this regard. However, the people on the board at Wembley are concerned about this. They face the risk of being subjected to serious criminal charges if something goes wrong as a result of the way in which tickets are distributed at Wembley.
Let me return now to the position of Scotland v. England matches and indeed to Northern Ireland v. England matches. The Northern Irish are a well-known peaceful group of people who would not consider involving themselves in any violence in any circumstances whatever. They of course are also
190
outside the scheme. Therefore, people from Northern Ireland can get into Wembley without any difficulty, whereas again young men from England cannot.
As I indicated earlier, young men from Scotland can get in without being members of the scheme, whereas young men from England cannot. There have indeed in the past been a number of very unpleasant assaults carried out in motorway service areas and elsewhere. Young hooligans from England have attacked coaches carrying Scottish supporters down to Wembley. A number of cases have been publicised in the press over the last year.
Does the noble Lord not recognise that by making these massive distinctions between people living in different parts of the United Kingdom, he is encouraging precisely the violence which, when we have been discussing other parts of the Bill, he has deplored so vigorously? I can think of nothing more likely to add to tension between young men from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland than the different approach of the Government to international matches.
If these arrangements are not changed there is a real risk that far from lessening the level of violence, the Government's action will sharply increase the level of violence. I hope very much that before making a final decision, the Government will reflect again upon the wisdom of their policy.
Lord Northfield: Before my noble friend speaks from the Front Bench, may I say that it seems I guessed correctly when I forecast that the Minister would say that he is to ask the FMA to make a special study of Wembley. I am much obliged; that will help. I should like to think about what the noble Lord has offered. I note that he said that the Government would need a good deal of persuading-I think those were his words—before they would accept any recommendation from the Committee that Wembley be totally excluded.
I understand the noble Lord's position. I should like to hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench who has been thinking more than most of us about this problem. That would guide us in what we do at the next stage of the Bill. At least we have made one step forward tonight. I hope that our discussions conclude in agreement. I would hate Wembley—if I may coin a phrase—to become the political football on this issue when the whole reputation of a great national institution is at stake. I hope that we can find a solution, but I am still chary of accepting the noble Lord's remark that he will take a good deal of persuading over exclusions.
Lord Winstanley: I wonder how we can possibly come to an agreement in the way the noble Lord has said. I warmly welcome what the noble Lord has said. This is a special case; it must be looked at as a special case. The FMA will be asked to look at it and perhaps come forward with a scheme. That I welcome. But we will never see that scheme; so how can we come to an agreement? We are being asked to withdraw this amendment because, clearly, it cannot be applied to Wembley. The FMA is to be asked to devise a scheme which it will submit to the

191
Secretary of State who will approve it or not approve it. We will never see it, so how can we come to the kind of amicable agreement that the noble Lord hopes we will arrive at?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have had a good debate. When the history of the Committee's proceedings is looked at, those who are concerned about the future of Wembley can be satisfied that we have done our level best. I am grateful to the Minister for using words I cannot recall having heard earlier; namely, that Wembley is a special case, that it is unique. He talked at earlier stages about the peculiarities and the difficulties. However, if he recognises that Wembley is special and unique, the very least we can expect is that the solution for Wembley will be special and unique, too. Whether it will be acceptable to the FMA, to Wembley or to football in general, we will have to wait and see.
I was interested that the Minister, stung by the words of my noble friend Lord Northfield that no consultation had taken place, was able to refer to some meetings between the Minister for Sport and Wembley. I am not privy to any of these things but one of the sadnesses is that there are groups of people who could have made a good contribution to the shape of the Bill if there had been meaningful discussions beforehand.
It is quite clear that the Minister's aspirations for the future of Wembley would not have seen the light of day unless we on this side of the House had pressed him. The noble Lord is right. I shall withdraw the amendment. I am touched by the faith of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in the Minister's ability to accept the outcome of considerations by the FMA. We firmly believe that it is possible for the Football Association and the Football League, which will form the FMA, and the Wembley directorate to hammer out something that is not only acceptable to them but seeks to interfere as little as possible with the integrity of the Bill.
The Minister has said more than once that he is concerned above all to maintain the integrity of the Bill. However, against that background—given that we are seeking a special, unique and separate way of dealing with Wembley—I believe that this is about as far as we have to go. Let us assume that the Wembley people—that is not an offensive phrase—work hard, that they convince the FMA that their case for being allowed to opt out has been substantially made, and that the FMA buys it and recommends the proposal as part of its scheme. It would be a deplorable act on the part of the Minister, who wants the scheme to work, to superimpose his will on the method of its working which will have been arranged by the FMA and Wembley.
We have gone as far as we can tonight on this matter. I recognise that the Minister has given a great deal of thought to how best to satisfy us with regard to this amendment. He has done as much as he can tonight and I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Licences to admit spectators: general]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Licences to admit spectators: revocation and suspension]:
[Amendment No. 72A not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [The licensing authority]:
[Amendment No. 72B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Northfield: I wish briefly to press a point that I raised earlier. This clause sets up the licensing authority. As the clause reads, that body appears to be entirely a creature of the Secretary of State. The clause states that the Secretary of State shall appoint those persons and that the terms of appointment shall be agreed by him. He shall give them directions, "whether general or specific", regarding their functions. Clause 10(3) states that it shall be a duty of the authority to comply with any such direction. The remainder of the clause is not relevant to the point that I wish to make.
I want to know whether, if the measure becomes the vehicle for licensing—I realise that this is only one of the options available as a vehicle for licensing—we are dealing with a purely Civil Service body which will not be open to outside pressure or representations to take evidence and understand the problem. How much freedom to manoeuvre will that body have? From the drafting of the clause it seems to me that it is purely a rubber-stamp operation performed by a little committee set up as a creature of the Secretary of State. The clause does not define the real duties of the body in a way that indicates whether it has authority and room to manoeuvre and carry out investigations so as to guide Ministers about whether the Act is working, should be amended or should be repealed. It has become a hidebound body, with very narrow terms of reference. I think that that is a mistake, if I am correct in my interpretation of the narrowness of the way in which the clause is drafted.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: It may be helpful to the noble Lord to say that we discussed the matter earlier this evening. The Civil Service alternative—to which he referred—is the last option that the Government would like to see. We said earlier that the Government's preference would be for the Football Membership Authority to be the agency. I also pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, when we were discussing the amendment with regard to the local authorities being licensed, that if the local authorities—the AMA or the ADC— wish to make a case for being the licensing authority, we should certainly listen to them.
Lord Northfield: The noble Lord has not taken my point. I was here for that debate. The point is that

193
if he ends up with this option it is too narrowly drawn. It is not the body that we should end up with as the vehicle for licensing. If it is to be the body, it should have much clearer terms of reference. Its duties should be more clearly defined. Its ability to take evidence, to undertake research and to report to the Minister on recommendations about the future operation of the Bill should be put down in the statute if we are going to end up with this kind of body. Am I not correct to say that, as it is drawn at the moment, its duties and powers are extremely narrow?
Lord Hesketh: I shall certainly read what the noble Lord has said, and quite possibly I shall be expecting a substantial amendment from him at Report stage.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause:
("Suspension of scheme in emergencies.
. In a case of emergency the senior officer of police attending premises at which a designated football match is being or is intended to be played shall have power to direct that the national football membership scheme shall be temporarily suspended in its application to those premises and to that match and, where a direction is given under this section, sections 2 and 7 of this Act shall be of no effect during the period of suspension.").
The noble Lord said: I shall be interested to know the Government's position on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, and I had some exchanges last week about the attitude of the Association of Chief Police Officers to this measure. I have subsequently received a letter from him which explains his position. I quote from it. He says:
"ACPO's main concern, as I said in debate, is whether or not the mechanics of processing membership cards through the turnstiles actually can be achieved".
Its view is that, were there to be a breakdown of the system when between 20,000 and 35,000 people are trying to enter a football ground just before the kick-off, there could be substantial public disorder.
As I explained during the Second Reading debate, the position of a number of grounds is this. They directly abut the highway. There may be a major hold-up as a result of a breakdown of the system. There is no point in the Government saying that systems do not break down. One has only to look at the moment at what is happening on the London Underground. It has just introduced a new entry system. One can see the constant breakdowns which are taking place within that system— and no doubt London Underground was given all kinds of assurances from the manufacturers that that could not take place.
The concern of the police is that if at one of these grounds that abut directly on to the highway there was a total breakdown of the system, someone would have to act immediately in order to defuse a dangerous situation. The only way in which that could be done would be to allow people into the ground by means of simply paying an admission charge.
The purpose of this amendment is to put the responsibility on a clearly defined individual who
194
should be the senior police officer at the ground. That may not be the right way to draft the amendment. One may have to give an officer of a particular rank the opportunity to make that decision, but someone has to make it.
I must make it clear that any suggestion that it will be left to the Football Membership Authority is frankly nonsensical We are discussing here a major public order problem. Decisions on major public order situations are not left to a group of people involved in the football industry, however distinguished they may be. We certainly want a clear provision in the Bill. The present amendment may not be properly drafted. I am prepared to accept any suggestion from the noble Earl, who I assume will be replying to the amendment. We cannot, I believe, allow the Bill to leave this Chamber without a clear requirement being introduced into the Bill giving a defined police officer the right to suspend the membership scheme at a particular match if there is a breakdown in the computer system. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has introduced the interesting concept of what would happen if the computer system were to break down. The obligation for the safe operation of a football ground is, and should remain, with the club or offical responsible. The noble Lord said that it would not be acceptable for it to be the responsibility of the Football Membership Authority. It is not. It is the responsibility of the club operating the ground. That is not to say that that type of person should not consult the police and listen to what they may wish to say. In many cases they would do so, as that is the sensible approach. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so.
Once a provision is introduced into a statute for the police to intervene if difficulties arise—the term "emergency" could cover almost every serious problem imaginable—to some extent there is a new obligation on the police to consider the management of the premises so that they could step in. The responsiblity of the senior club official then becomes diffused. I cannot help finding it slightly wry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has been so concerned about the demands placed upon the police by the Bill, should now be seeking to burden them with the responsibility of deciding whether or not the scheme should be suspended.
I see dangers in providing for the criminal offences of unauthorised entry and admitting spectators to unlicensed premises to be waived whenever a so-called emergency is deemed to have occured. That might be an incentive for a group of disqualified hooligans to cause enough trouble outside the turnstiles precisely in order to have the system of membership checking dispensed with entirely, as the amendment envisages.
I do not wish to give the impression of dismissing the possibility of difficulties in the operation of the scheme. Of course there is always the chance of difficulties. I have merely tried to establish that, as I see it, there are difficulties in the solution that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, proposes. I suggest that a better approach would be for these potential difficulties to be solved in a different way.

195
To my mind the club's licence and the circumstances which are laid down in the national football membership scheme for checking cards and unauthorised admission should be broadminded and realistic enough to cope with both the smooth and the rough going.
I should expect the scheme to make clear how the reasonable integrity of membership checking would be preserved at all times consistent with safety, if the computer system at the club were to fail completely 10 minutes before the kick-off, or at some juncture like that, and with a press of spectators clamouring for admission. One thing is sure: I certainly would not expect the scheme to say words to the effect that, "Thou shall admit no more spectators until the computer has been restarted". Of course you cannot do anything like that. If that unlikely situation were to arise, the answer would be to admit spectators for a while on the visual inspection of their cards. Detected or not, anyone who entered without a valid card would continue to commit a criminal offence.
I hope that a serious failure of all pieces of computer equipment at the same time is unlikely to occur. It is possible but it is unlikely. We are anxious that all reasonable steps should be taken to make that impossible. However, if it occurs the eventuality should be catered for inside the scheme in the way I propose, rather than the responsibility being placed upon the police.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Harris, rising to his feet, and I assume that he is doing so to say that he agrees with me. I hope that he will do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Strangely enough, I am not. I rise to say that that is, without doubt, the most unpersuasive speech I have heard from the noble Earl since he became a Minister in the Home Office. We are talking about a major public order problem. I do not know how detailed a discussion the noble Earl has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers. As he will recognise, its members know a fair amount about the potential public order problem which will arise if, when 30,000 people are trying to enter Manchester United football ground, for example, there is a major breakdown of the system.
As the noble Earl suggested, the system could be sabotaged by men of ill will, or there could be a breakdown of the system. However, one is dealing with a situation in which thousands of people will be delayed in trying to enter a ground in a limited space of time. The question is: what will happen in such a situation? It is no use the noble Earl saying that it is almost inconceivable that such a situation will arise. All Members know that computer systems break down regularly. There is no point in the Government uncritically accepting everything that they are told by self-interested computer manufacturers. There exists deep scepticism among many people who are not opposed in principle to what the Government are doing as to whether a fault-free system can be established.
I understand the position to be that if such a situation arises the club will be obliged to make a decision about what to do. However, it will be
196
putting itself at a substantial risk in doing so. We are talking about its licence and possible criminal penalties being imposed on its directors. I believe that the noble Earl, who, like me, is not a director of a football club, has a strangely relaxed attitude towards the unhappy position of a director of a club placed in such a situation.
The noble Earl said he is most surprised that I am placing a new burden on the police. I am doing no such thing. I am giving some senior police officer the opportunity of preventing a potential public order problem from getting out of hand. Many police officers take the matter extremely seriously. I hope that between now and the Report stage of the Bill he will look at the point and discuss it with the Association of Chief Police Officers. There is serious concern about the matter.
Obviously, the problem does not affect every football club. At some small Fourth Division clubs it will probably not arise in any conceivable circumstance. However, a major public order problem could arise in some of the larger First and Second Division clubs. Someone will be required to make an almost immediate decision about what to do if there is a breakdown of the system.
To say that that is a matter for the club and the club alone is, given the criminal penalties being introduced in the Bill, a pretty rough approach. I believe that a more sensible approach is to give the police the power to suspend the system if it is the view of the senior police officer that the situation is getting out of hand. I ask the noble Earl to agree to discuss this matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers between now and the later stages of the Bill to see whether it has any views on the matter. It may be that he will be able to persuade the association without difficulty to leave the matter to the clubs. If he is successful in that, so be it. However, I believe he will meet some very concerned people who are seriously troubled about the matter at present.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the Minister's reply is wholly unacceptable. He is inviting club directors to take upon themselves the responsibility for abrogating their responsibilities under the licence in the circumstances outlined. Let us bear in mind that the noble Earl earlier told me that the punishment of imprisonment will be visited on those directors shown to be regularly and deliberately flouting the scheme. There will be clubs regularly flouting the scheme because they are physically incapable of carrying it out between 7.15 and 8 p.m. for a match starting at 7.30. The defence for directors that they have done all they can and that they have tried to comply may be accepted the first time. However, a club like Manchester United, which is known by many Members of the Committee, will regularly come before a court or tribunal saying, "It was not me, guv. I did my best but I had to let them in." The Minister needs to take very seriously what we are saying.

197
Manchester United has written to me. The letter states:
"We have yet to be shown computer hardware that will do the work successfully. Manchester United has run a computerised Box Office for more than fifteen years now and it is well known that what is promised by computer companies rarely, if ever, performs to anything like its supposed potential in 'real' situations where they may have had no experience. Average attendances at Old Trafford are around 40,000 but on occasions this figure can go as high as 56,000. Experience shows that around 50 per cent. arrive in the last 30 minutes before kick-off and this number increases substantially for evening matches".
I was quite surprised but at a ground which opens at 6.30 for a 7.30 match, by 7.20, 10 minutes before kick-off, less than 40 per cent. of the people are inside the ground. It is not a question of computers breaking down but of computers working well but unable to take the weight of the traffic.
It is a nonsense to talk in terms of not involving the police. I know why the Minister does not wish to add to the burdens of the police. But at the end of the day, whether or not they have responsibility, they will be involved.
Perhaps the Minister will allow me to draw his attention to a Question tabled on 28th February by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. It is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement made by Lord Hesketh on 20th February 1989… during the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Bill [H.L.] that 'We shall not implement the scheme until we are satisfied that it will work effectively and efficiently' … 'and the football authorities have it in mind to test equipment' they will state when and where these tests will take place".
That is a real and possibly tragic Question. It is no good the Minister saying that we have a scheme which we believe will work well. Until it is worked in the circumstances of Manchester United or Arsenal, how can he know that the scheme will work well? Therefore, when that Question is answered—and it is a very perceptive Question—I believe we shall find that the Minister will have difficulty in putting flesh on the bones of what he said.
I beg the Minister to consider seriously giving a better answer than the one he gave tonight. As I indicated recently, I went past Arsenal when the club was at home to Liverpool in an evening match and the ground was unable to cope. All that the Minister appears to have said is that the solution for such conditions is wholly within the province of the club. The clubs are the licence holders and they must see that their obligations under the licence are carried out. If they decide that they are going to allow people into the ground without being able to check their credentials they will be responsible as licence holders for doing so.
Is the Minister saying that it is up to the club to decide when it should suspend the operation of the licence? If so, that is driving a coach and horses through the Bill. Therefore, we invite the Minister to reconsider this amendment in a real and practical way.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Perhaps I may add a few words. I have spoken within the past two or three months with chief police officers who have the job of controlling the crowds and their own men at football grounds. At the moment if there are a lot of people waiting to get into the ground the police ask
198
the club officials to delay the kick-off for a quarter of an hour, or whatever, in order to admit them.
I have specifically asked the police officers this question: if you found the computer system, or whatever system is in operation, was not working properly, would you suspend the system and let in the crowds? They said that they probably would.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, makes a serious point which is of concern to us all. Will the system work? What will happen if it does not work? My honourable friend the Minister for Sport made it perfectly clear that the scheme will not be brought in until he is satisfied that it will work. I agree with him that if the scheme does not work there will be chaos.
One must start on the premise that the scheme will not be brought in unless everyone is fairly certain that it will work. Accepting that, one then asks what will happen if something goes wrong and the system breaks down. I have the greatest admiration for the talents of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, which appear in multifarious different capacities. One of the talents of the noble Lord that has appeared during discussion of this Bill is that he has become more belligerent towards Ministers standing at this Dispatch Box than I have ever seen him before. He hammered at my noble friend Lord Arran; then he set about my noble friend Lord Hesketh; now he has started on me. He said that I had made my worst speech ever since having had the privilege of being made a Minister. That accolade is perhaps not difficult to achieve, but the noble Lord is being slightly unfair and marginally blinkered.
I ask the noble Lord to look at the position in this way. He asks what will happen if all the computers break down. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any idea of how these systems work. They do not work on an electric light circuit where, if the fuse is blown, everything goes duff. Each entry point has a computer which operates on its own. If one of the computers breaks down, very well, that entry point comes to an end. It has to be closed and the spectators must go to another entry point.
The scenario suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is that all the individual computers might break down. He asks what would happen if the crowds built up outside and could not get in. If that were to occur—it is unlikely but I accept his point that all the computers might break down—he asks what would happen. I suggest that all those responsible for the club would then say, "Let the people in". Instead of the membership cards being looked at by computers they would be looked at individually. It is possible that some people would gain entry who ought not to. If they did and were found within the club grounds without a proper membership card they are committing an offence. Of course there is the possibility that some might get in. The real point which the noble Lord is trying to make is that the decision on whether or not to let the crowds in should be taken by the police, not the club, and that the burden of responsibility should be removed from the club to the police. It is not a question of fudging or making a bad speech but of having a point of view. The responsibility for the running of the club

199
should be that of the club officials. Of course they will discuss with the police if they find a great build-up of people outside the ground. The police will say that the club must do something and let the people in; but it is the club's responsibility to do that, not that of the police. I believe that when the noble Lord has simmered down from his immediate response at the end of my previous speech and he reads what I have said in Hansard, he will realise that just for once he is wrong.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am always prepared to admit that I am wrong. I have yet to hear any member of the Government admit in this debate that there is the remotest possibility of the Government being very wrong on this piece of legislation. I would never wish to be bad tempered with the noble Earl. He is far too agreeable an individual. I had to say a few perhaps slightly harsh things about some of his colleagues only because they appeared at the time to be incapable of answering any of the questions addressed to them. I believe that a certain level of competence is necessary for Ministers of the Crown.
Turning to the point that the noble Earl has made, I say this. He appears to imagine that some kind of leisurely discussion can take place between the police officers outside the ground when the breakdown of the computer system is leading to a situation where large numbers of people cannot get through the turnstiles. The computer system cannot interrogate the national data base. That is one of the possibilities and it is one that concerns many police officers.
I asked the noble Earl whether he had had any discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers. I do not suggest that I have a detailed knowledge of what its position is. I shall be grateful if he will answer the question that I put to him: have the Government had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers on this precise point? If they have not, will they have them before the next stage of the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord likes to ask quite simple questions and I shall give a perfectly simple answer. I forgot to reply to that point simply because I was trying to answer the other point that he had made because I believed it to be one of considerably more substance. We are aware of the concern of the Association of Chief Police Officers as regards this Bill and the views that it has. We shall certainly consult it before the next stage as to its views.
Let us be perfectly clear. What the noble Lord is doing—and this is the only point of disagreement—is seeking to remove the burden of responsibility from the club to the police. I am suggesting to the Committee that if a situation such as he has envisaged were to come about, it would be the club's responsibility to say, "All right, we will let the people come in", as opposed to the police saying, "You have to let the people in".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not want to persist in this matter because the noble Earl has done what I asked him to do; namely, to indicate that he will have discussions with the Association of Chief Police
200
Officers. I would not in any circumstances wish to upset him in the slightest way. I hope he will forgive me for putting to him that he does not appear to appreciate that the difficulty I am raising is not simply a question for the football club. The problem may arise not within the football ground but in the streets ouside. Therefore, the police have the most direct interest in ensuring that immediate action is taken to defuse a potentially dangerous situation.
The noble Earl said on the first occasion, and he repeated it on the second, that I am seeking to transfer the responsibility from the club to the police. In my view matters of public order are for the police and not for football club officials. Earlier he was justifying criminal sanctions against football club directors who may be thought to have committed offences under the Bill when it becomes an Act. In that situation it seems that there will be some hesitation among football club directors or senior officials before they make a decision in this matter. If they get it wrong, they could find themselves in a criminal court. Many men would shrink from that outcome. I suspect that the noble Earl would shrink from it, and I would certainly do so. In a position of that kind I would hesitate and say to myself, "By jove, if I suspend the scheme in this fashion I could find myself facing criminal charges in a court of law".
I am perfectly content that the noble Earl should have these discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers. What he should not underestimate is the understandable hesitation among some of the directors of football clubs if the position I have described were to arise. I am not asking him to intervene again, although if he wishes to do so I shall be glad to listen to him. He has indicated that between now and Report stage he will speak to ACPO. On that basis, I should be perfectly content to withdraw the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Northfield: Before the noble Lord decides whether to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may make this point to the noble Earl. I am fortified in what I am going to say by having noticed in the newspapers in the past 24 hours that when the new chairman of London Transport went to see the operation of the computer-controlled turnstiles at Victoria station he found them all out of action. He was told by the people in charge that they go out of action every week and that the staff are fed up with them. These things are difficult to get right.
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the noble Lord and the noble Earl. There must be consultation between the police and the football authorities at the grounds if the police can see the danger of a riot occurring outside because of delays in opening the place or because of delays in the flow through the turnstiles. Because of the draconian penalties involved in the Bill, it is not right that this should be left on the basis of the statement which the noble Earl has just made about how to proceed. Before the Bill becomes an Act there should be clear guidance from the Home Office or the appropriate authority on what is to happen in those circum

201
stances. That would be much better than leaving the matter where the noble Earl has left it.
Earl Ferrers: I would not seek to minimise the difficulty. The noble Lord produced an example. Of course it is possible for these things to go wrong. However, if we follow up the noble Lord's analogy, I wonder whether it would be the responsibility of the police to tell London Transport to open up the turnstiles and let everyone in, or whether it would be London Transport's responsibility. I shall certainly look into the matter because we want to get it as right as we possibly can.
There have been occasions when people went to grounds and were unable to get in. This happened at Old Trafford in Manchester. People were turned away. There was not a fracas or a riot. It has happened before. I shall certainly look at the matter because we want to have it as near right as we possibly can.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl is quite correct. I am sure that there have been incidents of that kind at Old Trafford and elsewhere. As a child, I remember going to Stamford Bridge and being unable to get in. There were significant numbers of people in the streets outside. However, there is no comparison between that situation, where a relatively limited number of people found it impossible to gain entry to a ground, and a situation where 15 minutes before the beginning of a match many thousands of people are moving remorselessly towards the turnstiles and suddenly something goes wrong.
As the noble Earl will recognise, there is no point in pretending that computer systems do not break down. We all know perfectly well that they do. It may be that the effects of such a breakdown will in most cases be more limited than I suggested earlier. However, there is undoubtedly a view among many with whom I have consulted on this matter that if there were a breakdown it could be a total breakdown of the system. In those circumstances people could be spilling on to the highway in substantial numbers and a disturbance might arise.
All I am saying to the noble Earl is that the whole object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to lessen the risk of violence at football grounds. Further, I have indicated that unless we get this right the consequences of a breakdown in the system could be to substantially increase the level of violence at football grounds. In that situation the Government could be held entirely responsible for not having anticipated this precise problem.
I do not propose to continue with this issue. We have been discussing it for some considerable time. That is right because it is an important issue. The noble Earl has indicated that he will consult the Association of Chief Police Officers. I have indicated that I cannot pretend to know its view on this precise matter, but I look forward very much to hearing from the noble Earl at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Scope and interpretation of this Part]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 74:
Page 10, line 20, after ("in") insert ("paragraphs (d), (e), (h) and (i) of").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 74, I should also like to mention Amendment No. 76. The genesis of these amendments relates to what is held to be a relevant offence. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, indicated earlier that he would bring back some amendments at a later stage after considering the possibilities of an appeal against the relevant offences. I honestly feel that at this time of night it would be sensible for me not to move Amendments Nos. 74 and 76 so as to allow the Minister and his advisers complete freedom to look at the whole issue of what is relevant. I say that because the punishment for what is held to be relevant, and therefore the basis of a charge which upon conviction means that a person convicted of a relevant offence would lose his membership is very harsh indeed.
It is not just a question of losing one's membership; it is the imposition of restriction orders. We are now into Part II of the Bill. In my view there is a great deal to be welcomed in the principles contained in this part of the Bill. It deals with people who have been found guilty. We have some questions to ask in that respect. However, at this time of night, and on the understanding that the genesis of the two amendments will form part of the consideration that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that he would give to the issue of relevant offences, I shall not move Amendment No. 74.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 10, line 26, at end insert ("and section 1(7) above applies for the interpretation of references to periods relevant to designated football matches.").
The noble Earl said: I was just considering the ingenuity of making a speech about an amendment and then not moving it. In moving Amendment No. 74A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 75A, 79A, 79B, 79E, 79F and 79G. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 74A, 75A and 79B is to correct minor drafting omissions and their effect will be clarification rather than change.
Amendment No. 74A is concerned with the way that a relevant offence is interpreted in Part II of the Bill. Subsection (6) of the clause already applies the schedule to Part II, so specifying the offences at designated matches in England and Wales which allow a restriction order to be made. As published the Bill has no mechanism for determining who is to discharge the functions of the designated reporting agency as laid down by the Bill. Amendment No. 75A allows for the designating order to make such a determination.
Clause 13(2) establishes the duty to report initially to the agency specified by the court and thereafter as required by the agency. Amendment No. 79B, suspends that duty to report on the occasions when an exemption has been granted by the agency. The clause establishes the duty to report initially to the

203
agency specified by the court within 30 days of the making of a restriction order, or, where a custodial order is imposed, within 30 days of the date of discharge. That period also applies to the registration with a new agency or transfer. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 79A, 79E, 79F and 79G is to reduce the period specified from 30 days to five days to avoid abuse of the provision. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the Minister say a little more about the whole nexus of the designated reporting agency? There is nothing in the Bill which tells us what or who the designated reporting agency will be, let alone why there is to be one. What is the reporting agency? Is it the police? Is it the probation service? Is it the football club? Clause 11(7) provides:
"A person is a 'designated reporting agency' if that person is specified in an order".
I am not quibbling with the Minister. I take the point that he has made. He has said that many of the amendments are technical. One of them provides for a body corporate to act as reporting agency. We wonder what research the Minister's advisers have done since the Bill first saw the light of day. Can we be told what has been the result of the consulations about these matters that must have taken place with the police and the probation service?
Although there has been a change in the speed with which a restriction order must be complied with—a reduction from 30 days to five—I did not hear the Minister justify that reduction. I fully understand that the Government have reflected on the Bill, but the Committee is entitled to receive explanations.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise if I did not give that Explanation. It was done merely in an effort to be accommodating to the Committee and to be a little more hasty than perhaps prudence would have dictated.
At the moment, if a person has a restriction order placed upon him he has 30 days in which to register the fact with the reporting agency. That means that he can spend the following 30 days going around being a hooligan at other matches before he has to report to the reporting agency and register. The idea is that, if a person is so convicted, he should have to register within five days rather than 30 days. I suggest that that is reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked what or who is to be the reporting agency. No decision has yet been taken as to what the reporting agency shall be. It will not necessarily be the same throughout the country. The obvious example, which the noble Lord mentioned, is the police. The police could be the reporting agency, but that does not mean to say that they will necessarily universally be so. The noble Lord mentioned the probation service, and that is one possibility. It has not yet been decided what is to be the reporting agency or whether the same reporting agency should be universal throughout the country.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. He has knocked 30 days down to five. The Bill initially provided for 30 days, and so at some stage 30 days must have seemed sensible. I can understand that subsequently the Minister and his advisers felt that it should be five days. What has caused the Government's first thoughts, which must have been the result of a great deal of discussion, to be changed from 30 to five?
As regards the reporting agencies, I asked a direct question: what was the product of the consultations that the Government must have had with the police and the probation service? They are the prime possibilities for the reporting agencies. What have they said about the proposal? I could make a very good case, the police and the probation service will make a good case as to why they should not have this burden. Perhaps the Minister can help us.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: As to why we have gone from 30 days to five, the answer is because the Government are flexible in their approach to these matters. It is all very fine for the noble Lord to laugh and I am glad he finds humour in what I say; that is always encouraging for the ego. However, he and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have spent the whole time saying that the Government are being obstinate and will not move at all. We have shown that the original provision was a little excessive. We had thought that the 30 days would be generous because it would give everyone fair time to find the reporting agencies at which to register. However, we then realised that it gave the person who had been found guilty of a relevant offence the opportunity to spend the next 30 days committing other relevant offences before he had even registered. So we took the view that five days would be better. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in his generosity, will agree that that would be more suitable.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham asks, "What about the police and the prison and probation services, what are their reactions?". I think it is perfectly true that nobody likes to take on extra work. I do not think that there is any argument about that. But I have no doubt that, if the police or the probation service or any other groups are invited to do so, they will do the additional work in the same excellent way as they undertake all their other responsibilities.
It is one thing in discussion to say, "We don't want to do this", but it is another matter, when invited to do it, to say that one will not do it. I am certain that neither the police force nor the probation service will take that attitude. The whole purpose of the discussion is to try to find out which is the best agency to do the work under the Act. We are still seeking an answer to that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister but twice I have asked him what was the product of the consultations. By being silent on that I think he indicates that no consultations have taken place.
Earl Ferrers: No.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Ministers shakes his head and says "No". If there have been consultations, I ask him for the third time, what is the product of those consultations?
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether the noble Lord is hard of hearing. I tried to explain to him that I could not tell him the dates on which the consultations took place, but I can tell him that we are aware of the view of the police. I think that we are aware of the view of the probation service. I do not know whether the noble Lord would feel that is consultation. I do not understand how one can be aware of somebody's view without having any consultation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I know that the noble Earl has done his best. I shall be charitable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 10, line 27, after ("person") insert ("(who shall not be a chief officer of police)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals explicitly with the position of the police. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the police were not consulted on the matter at all. They heard about the possible requirements regarding themselves only when the Bill was published. That seems to me rather unfortunate, to put it mildly.
Before coming to the precise terms of the amendment, perhaps I may point out that last week I had a series of exchanges with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, which apparently upset the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I was trying to establish, without a great deal of success at that stage, I fear, what were the concerns of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I subsequently received a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Arran, of which I assume the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers has a copy. The letter stated:
"I should also acknowledge strong reservations about the implications for the police of Part II of the Bill. They do not see why the reporting agency function should fall to the police and have raised with the Home Office a number of practical difficulties".
That, I think, is an entirely accurate statement of the position. Let me make sure that everyone is entirely clear what we are discussing. Under Clause 11 a "designated football match" can be designated for the purposes of the legislation by the Secretary of State. A "restriction order" means that a court can order an individual offender to:
"report to a designated reporting agency on the occasion of designated football matches".
Clause 11(7) states:
"A person is a 'designated reporting agency' if that person is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument".
The police are concerned at the very severe manpower implications, or the possible serious manpower implications—I do not want to overstate the case—of this obligation. They take the view that many hundreds of people could be subject to orders of this kind. Indeed, possibly over a period of time, the number could run into four figures.
In some areas substantial numbers of young men would be required to report to a designated reporting agency, some of them in highly urban areas and some of them in rural areas. The question arises as to what happens when a young man against whom an order has been made does not appear at a designated reporting agency. The concern of the police is obvious. If on a Saturday—we are often talking about Saturdays—when possibly England may be playing Italy in Florence or Rome for example, and the Secretary of State designates that match, what are the police to do if one young man or possibly a number of young men do not report?
There is no difference between us on Part II of the Bill, as the noble Earl will be aware. We recognise that the objectives of Part II of the Bill, unlike Part I, are unexceptionable. But the question arises of what happens when someone does not report to the designated reporting agency. As I have indicated, the concern of the police is that they will then have to carry out an almost immediate investigation. There is no point in waiting for a day or two to pass. By that time, if the young man concerned has travelled outside the country and gone to watch the match in defiance of the order, he will be back in this country and can simply say that he was unwell on the day in question and was not able to report. The only way, therefore, that there could be any means by which the police could ensure that he was ill, assuming that he was pretending he was ill, would be for them to go to his home. But of course he may not be at his home. He may well be staying with his aunt in a different police force area.
These are not quibbling points. I hope the noble Earl recognises that. This is the concern of the police. They are concerned about the implications of this provision for their manpower at times of the day when they are already under extremely heavy pressure. For instance, to state an obvious example, if the match is played at the weekend, the drain on police resources on a Friday and Saturday night is well-known as they have to deal with the risks of violence at public houses and other places. There is always the risk of disorders on those two days of the week. They may face a situation in which they had to redeploy their resources in a substantial manner in order to follow up with proper inquiries to find out whether young men had not reported to them, if they were the designated reporting agency. These are some of the principal concerns of the police and I should be grateful if the noble Earl could help us.
I was rather troubled by his earlier statement when pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, as to who would carry out this task. He suggested, if I am right, that in some cases it could be, for the sake of argument, the probation service, while in other cases it might be the police. If he will forgive me saying so, I would find it very surprising as a piece of administration were we to have a situation where totally different agencies were responsible in different parts of the country.
It seems to me to be a very confusing situation indeed, but it may be that I misinterpreted what the noble Earl said. What I want to get from the noble Earl is an indication that he recognises the degree of concern among members of the Association of Chief

207
Police Officers on this question, and I want to ask him, in the light of their very serious concern, what he proposes to do about it. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made some interesting observations. I do not know whether he specifically addressed himself to the amendment, which states that whoever is to be the reporting agency it shall not be the police. There are a number of points about this. On Part I of the Bill, I think the noble Lord and I disagree as to the need for the scheme at all. But on Part II it seems to me that there is an important job to be done in making restriction orders provisions effective. The key to this is bound to be the reporting agency which is designated for the purposes of Part II to administer the arrangements. Where the offender does not register with the agency or does not report as directed, or makes a false statement on an application for exemption, he is liable to prosecution. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was concerned about this. He asked: what happens if somebody does not turn up? He is guilty of a criminal offence and if the noble Lord looks at Clause 13(5) he will see that it states:
"A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4)"—
subsection (4) refers to people who without reasonable excuse fail to comply with a duty to report—
"shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale".
So if people do not report they commit a criminal offence and the operation of the police has to be undertaken in order to find them, to charge them and to take them to court.
There are a number of practical considerations about this. If the requirement is to report, for instance, on a Wednesday evening at 7.30 p.m. when England are playing France in Paris, the reporting place must be within reasonable reach. It would not be right to ask someone to travel from, for example, Penzance to Plymouth for that purpose. So the agency has to have a spread of offices and at least some of them must be open out of hours as necessary. In some areas where there may be no existing services available other than the police to take this on, that would prove to be more difficult. A private sector agency may not have the right structure in all parts of the country, though it may have the right structure in some. It is for reasons of this sort that we have deliberately left the matter open.
We are discussing the details with the police and these discussions are in progress at the moment. They are not yet complete and therefore I cannot inform the noble Lord, Lord Harris, any more about that at the moment. I know he has always been anxious to know whether we are considering matters with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I can tell him that we are doing so.
It would be wrong to assume that it must in all cases fall to the police to do that job, but I do not make that assumption. Nor do I think it would be right to say on the face of the Bill that there would be no circumstances at all in which it would be
208
appropriate for the police to be the designated agency. It is no good saying that it must be someone else if one is not satisfied that the alternative would work in practice. Some flexibility is required and the Bill provides for it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will realise that we are at the moment trying to hold the discussions that he wishes us to hold in order to try to find the best possible venue for taking on that task. However, I believe that it would be wrong in the circumstances to include the amendment proposed by him.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I did not intend to press this amendment today. I was more concerned to find out the Government's position. It is unfortunate that the police read about this proposal for the first time when the Bill was published. I do not want to labour the point, but it is most unfortunate that that situation arose.
The noble Earl will find, given his own direct, personal ministerial responsibilities, that the level of concern in the police service about this matter is very considerable. There is a belief that, if the task is imposed exclusively or to any degree at all on the police, the distortions so far as concerns police manpower are potentially serious. I welcome the fact that the noble Earl is discussing this matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers and I hope that he will meet its representatives himself. I do not know whether that is possible. However, the noble Lord, Lord Knights—who wished to be here today but who unhappily is unable to be with us because of family problems—wanted to join me in pressing the noble Earl on this matter. I very much hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and I may perhaps meet the noble Earl to discuss the matter in greater detail without debating it on the Floor of the Chamber.
Earl Ferrers: I should be happy to accommodate the noble Lord on any occasion that he wishes, within reasonable bounds. By that I mean that if he wished to see me I should be delighted to see him every day, although that might be excessive. However, I shall be delighted to see him to discuss this matter if he wishes me to do so.
I sometimes think that this matter of the reporting agency may be exaggerated. A person must first of all register and say who he or she is. Thereafter, when he is told that there is a certain match overseas for which he is required to report, he has simply to go into the agency, say who he is and come out again. That task may take a minute. I agree that there is a certain amount of administrative work to do, but I do not think that the problem is as great as the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am afraid that the Minister will be told by the police service that the matter is just as I have described it. Let me deal briefly with an analogous situation; namely, the position of courts making orders to the effect that people on bail should report to police stations. It is not a totally dissimilar issue, as the noble Earl will recognise. That caused problems for the police

209
service. A considerable amount of persuasion was necessary before some courts were eventually discouraged from making orders of that sort because of the substantial implications for the police.
The problem here is that potentially hundreds if not thousands of young men could be involved in that situation. That is what concerns the police service. I believe that the noble Earl has understood the point. He need not fear that I shall ask to see him every day. It would always be a pleasure to meet him in almost any conceivable circumstances, but it would be slightly excessive to ask to see him every day. However, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and I met the noble Earl to discuss the problem, perhaps with someone from the ACPO or perhaps not, as the case may be. If the Government can meet the anxiety of the police service, we shall all be greatly relieved.
Earl Ferrers: As soon as I had mouthed the qualification that I put on seeing the noble Lord, I realised that it was an indelicate one. I did not wish him to think that I was putting a constraint. Of course I should be delighted to see him with the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and members of ACPO.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am very grateful. Perhaps I may speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and members of ACPO. They will be very glad to hear what the noble Earl has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert ("and make provision, where that person is not a body corporate, for the discharge of the agency's functions.").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 75A has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may deal with one issue. I am not asking the noble Earl to deal with this point now—I have not given him notice of it—unless he chooses to reply to it, in which case I shall be very glad to hear what he has to say.
I am unclear as to what will happen when the Secretary of State designates a match such as England versus Italy in Rome. How is that information to be carried to those against whom restriction orders have been made? Are they to be sent some form of communication? If so, who will be responsible for sending it? Clearly, if they are not notified that the Secretary of State has made a designation order, they will in many cases be entirely ignorant that he has done so. It seems to me that, accepting that there are criminal penalties involved for a breach of this section of the Bill, it is essential that these people should be notified of the Secretary of State's decision. Perhaps the noble Earl could help me on that matter.
Lord Monson: Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, what happens if the individuals are on holiday, not in Italy, but in Spain, when the date of the match is announced? This is a question that I do not think has been raised before. It will be interesting to hear the answer from the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: It will be not individual matches but the category of match which will be designated. It will be up to the agency to communicate to the individuals who have to report which matches they are expected to report for. That will almost certainly be done by post.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If that is what the Bill is designed to achieve, subsection (2) and other subsections of this clause are not too felicitously drafted. Certainly I had assumed that a designated football match meant a match specifically designated by the Secretary of State for that purpose. As I understand it, he will now designate a group of matches.
The same question arises if the Secretary of State designates a group of matches. Will people against whom restriction orders have been made receive a communication that the Secretary of State has designated that group of matches? Perhaps the noble Earl can help us.
Earl Ferrers: The people who have to report will be told which designated matches they have to report for. Different people may have to report for different matches.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall not press the noble Earl. If I had been going to make more of this point today, I should have wanted to tell him in advance. I have not done so. I shall be grateful if he will consider the record of what I have said in the Official Report and perhaps write to me. It would be very helpful by the time we discuss this measure on Report to have a clearly expressed letter from the noble Earl explaining the matter in rather more detail than it has been possible to do this evening.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Restriction orders]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 11., line 8, at end insert—
("() No restriction order may be made in respect of any offence of which the accused was convicted before the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I think it is fair to say that retrospection is a dirty word in this country, as in most Western democracies, and that all political parties in Britain are at one in deploring retrospective legislation, even if some of them when in office regrettably stray from the path of virtue on occasion. The amendment is designed to make it clear beyond doubt that retrospective legislation will not be a feature of this Bill.
As the Committee will have noticed, Clause 12(3)(a) provides that,
"A restriction order may only be made … in addition to a sentence imposed in respect of the offence of which the accused is (or was) convicted".
It is the significant phrase "or was" with which the amendment is concerned.
Without Amendment No. 77, or something very like it, there is a danger that a restriction order could be imposed in respect of an offence for which the individual had been convicted before the passing of the Bill, and quite possibly a long time before the Bill became law. Nobody can deny that a restriction order is a form of punishment, less onerous in practice than a community service order, but a good deal more onerous in practice than being bound over or being given a conditional discharge.
When the Bill becomes law, judges and magistrates will be able to take the prospect of this additional punishment into account when deciding what sentence to impose for the original offence and they may accordingly slightly decrease the fine or the term of imprisonment that they would otherwise have imposed. But until the Bill is enacted this subtle balancing act will not be available to them. It will not be within their powers. There is a danger, therefore, that people may be punished twice for the same offence—double jeopardy, I believe the phrase is—unless the amendment, or one similar to it, is agreed to. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is concerned that this power should not be retrospective. I believe that I can satisfy his anxieties. Clause 12(1) makes it clear that the courts consider making a restriction order only on conviction for a relevant offence. It will be impossible to have committed a relevant offence before the introduction of the Act which defines a relevant offence. Therefore I believe he will find that it is impossible for it to be retrospective.
Lord Monson: I am heartened by that answer. I still cannot understand why the words in brackets, "or was", are included in subsection (3)(a), because, if the restriction order is made concurrent with the sentence passed, why is not the present tense sufficient? That is the reason for my amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: What has been pointed out is that, whatever the problem in understanding the words on the face of the Bill, we now have the interpretation of those words from the noble Earl. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I was concerned about the possibility that there was retrospection, but not only has the noble Earl assured us that there is no such intention, but he has pointed to a part of the Bill which makes that crystal clear. I believe that we shall have to see the words on the paper, take advice from outside the Committee and come back again if we are not satisfied. However the noble Earl has satisfied me as to both intention and integrity.
Earl Ferrers: I am glad that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but I still have not
212
satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He is worried about the inclusion of the words "or was", which appear in brackets. They do not produce a retrospective effect. They appear becaue they refer to the case of a committal for sentence to the Crown Court where the offender has been convicted in the magistrates' court. That situation is already covered by Clause 12(1).
Lord Monson: It is a pleasure to say that I am entirely satisfied with the noble Earl's answer. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Effect of order]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("five").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79B:
Page 11, line 43, after ("(b)") insert ("subject to any exemption").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79C:
Page 11, line 46, after ("(3)") insert ("or which is substituted for that agency under subsection (4A)").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 79C, 79D, 79L, 79M, 79N and 79P. In Clause 16(3) the Bill provides for a permanent transfer to another agency where a person changes his place of residence or his place of work. It also provides in Clause 17 for the reporting agency to exempt someone from reporting in relation to a particular match if the agency is satisfied that he would not attend it. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the Bill does not at present cater for the offender who is away from home for a relatively short period, perhaps on holiday, who cannot satisfy the agency that he should be exempted, but who ought to be permitted to report to an agency nearer the place where he will stay temporarily. The Government propose to meet this point by providing that the duty to report may be fulfilled by reporting to a substitute designated reporting agency with the agreement of the agency with which the offender is registered.
These amendments would provide more flexibility in the operation of the restriction order provision. I am sure that they will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The proposed amendment meets the position of a young man who may be in a different part of the country on holiday or for some other reason. I may have been rather dense and missed what the noble Earl said but I am not clear about the situation of a young man going with his parents on a family holiday to a country other than that where the designated football match is taking place. What is the situation so far as he is concerned?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is not being at all dense—he never is. If the young man is abroad he cannot go to the reporting agency. He must first go to the reporting agency and ask to be excused reporting because he will be abroad. The agency will, in its wisdom, permit him not to report because he cannot do so in another country.
Lord Monson: Can the noble Earl define the phrase "in its wisdom"? Does it mean that the reporting agency has the option to say, "No, you may not go abroad", or is it compelled to grant permission?
Earl Ferrers: If the person concerned will be on holiday he will have a reasonable excuse for not being there. Clause 17 allows him to apply for exemption in advance.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As the noble Earl is probably aware, there is a relevant provision in the parole scheme. If someone is on parole there is often a requirement in the licence that he notifies the Parole Board before he goes outside the United Kingdom and receives the consent of the board. That is not done in all cases but it is done in many. Obviously a parolee, by definition, has committed a far more substantial criminal offence than a young man in this category. He has served a significant period of imprisonment, otherwise he would not be liable to receive parole in the first place.
One looks for an answer to the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because it seems to me that there will have to be a form of national criterion to determine on what basis the reporting agency either accepts or rejects the application of a young man to go abroad, possibly with his family. I do not press the point but perhaps the noble Earl will reflect on this matter and write to me and perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for which I should be grateful.
Earl Ferrers: I am obliged to the noble Lord for saying that he does not wish to press me. Normally I welcome that, as I do on this occasion, but the point which he makes will be met later by Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83. Amendment No. 81 suggests that the word "may" is left out and the word "shall" is incorporated. Had the noble Lord contained himself a little longer, he would have heard me say that I accept Amendment No. 81, which makes that change; in other words, the position will then be as Clause 17(2) states:
"The agency to whom an application is made by a person under this section may exempt him from the duty to report if he shows to the agency's satisfaction—(a) that there are special circumstances which justify his being so exempted".
Such a circumstance may be that he is going on holiday, perhaps to the Caribbean. Amendment No. 81 changes the "may" to "shall".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79D:
Page 11, line 46, at end insert (", as the case may be.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 79E and 79F:
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("five").
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("five").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Information]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79G:
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("five").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Functions of agencies]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79H:
Page 13, line 46, leave out ("transfer that person") and insert ("grant him a transfer").
The noble Earl said: With this I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 79J, 79L, 79Q, 79R and 79S. In order to be flexible, Clause 16 makes provision for the transfer, on application, to a more conveniently located agency. However, the provisions as currently drafted inadvertently contain an oversight in that the person subject to the order ceases to be required to report at the old agency when the transfer has been agreed and is given a period of grace within which to register at the new agency. A determined hooligan could conceivably obtain successive periods of grace by moving about the country.
The Government believe that the solution here is to provide that the duty to report to the first agency continues until the offender has registered with the new agency. Accordingly there will be no need to impose a time limit within which to re-register and consequently the offence of failing to report within that time becomes redundant. These amendments simplify the reporting arrangements and seek to close a loophole. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out to the Committee that., as the noble Earl mentioned, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 79S and if Amendment No. 79S is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 80.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: On the basis that Amendment No. 79S will be carried, perhaps I may be permitted to make a point in relation to Amendment No. 80.
At present the Bill states that if a person is found to be guilty of an offence and has a duty to report but fails to do so without good reason, he can he sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month or he can be fined an amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or both.
The probation officers feel, as I do, that a fine would be ample to deal with such an offence or indiscretion. If a person wilfully refused to pay the fine, he would be liable to imprisonment on default. However, it would be highly unusual at present for a person to be imprisoned for failing to keep a probation or a community service appointment. This is yet another illustration of where a person

215
convicted under this Bill for a soccer-related offence and given a sentence which could be compared to those for other offences could be dealt with more punitively.
Probation officers tell me that if a probation order or community service order is broken, that merits a fine and not imprisonment, but under this Bill it is possible to be imprisoned. Probation officers tell me that normally a person would be referred back to court for the magistrates to take further action. I should like the Minister to explain why he considers that again the punishment of imprisonment for failing to comply is appropriate.
Earl Ferrers: The penalties in the Bill are there only as maxima, as I explained previously. The courts are always encouraged to sentence as lightly as they consider necessary in order to punish an offender. Of necessity the maximum must cater for the worst and possibly the most persistent of offenders.
The penalty under Clause 16(1)(a) exactly mirrors that under Clause 13(5). Both are in respect of offences of failing to report to the agency. In Clause 13 that is either initially, when the restriction order is imposed, or on the occasion of a designated match. In Clause 16 it is initially on re-registration with a new agency; for example when the person subject to the restriction order moves house. It would be anomalous for that one element of the arrangements to be denied the possibility—only if appropriate—of up to one month's imprisonment on failure to report. I can only repeat the assurance I gave the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that these are maxima and it is up to the courts to decide at what level to place the punishment within those maxima.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 79J and 79K:
Page 13, line 48, leave out ("transferred") and insert ("granted a transfer").
Page 14, leave out lines I to 6 and insert—
("

(a) it shall be that person's duty to report for the purposes of registration to the other agency;

(b) on his doing so his duty to report to the transferring agency shall cease; and

(c) his registration with the transferring agency shall be cancelled as from the date of his registration with the other agency;

").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 79L to 79P:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
("

(4A) With the written agreement of the agency with which a person is registered and for a period specified in the agreement, the duty of that person to report on the occasion of designated football matches may be discharged by his reporting to an agency so specified which is a designated agency for another area ("the substitute agency").

(4B) The agency shall, in taking any decision under subsection (4A) above, have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 18 below.").

Page 14, line 14, after ("agency") insert ("or, as the case may be, the substitute agency").
Page 14, line 23, after ("agency") insert (or, as the case may be, the substitute agency").
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("to it").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments, and with the permission of the Committee I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
12 midnight
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 79Q to 79S:
Page 14, line 41, leave out subsection (9).
Page 14, line 44, leave out ("or (9)").
Page 14, line 47, leave out from ("scale") to end of line 50.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 79H.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Exemptions from requirement to report as respects a match]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 80A:
Page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) A person who is subject to a restriction order may—

(a) as respects a particular designated football match, or

(b) as respects designated football matches played during a period,

apply to the designated reporting agency with which he is registered to be exempt from the duty to report as respects that match or matches played during that period.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83A and 83B. Clause 17 enables the reporting agency to exempt someone from the requirement to report on a particular occasion if there are special circumstances which would mean that he would not anyway attend the match in question. At present it does not deal with the offender who may be unable to report in relation to a series of matches because he proposes to take a holiday abroad. Nor does it address the problem of the person who moves to a jurisdiction where there are no reporting agencies.
The Government believe that the answer would be to enable the agency to suspend the duty to report for a particular period. That is what these amendments seek to do. At the same time it also seems sensible to enable an offender to apply for exemption in advance of being called up for a particular match or matches rather than only once a notice has been served. I hope that these amendments will simplify the procedures while increasing the flexibility. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83. These three amendments hang together. They lessen the burden

217
of proof on a person to show why he should be exempted. Under the existing Bill there would be little point in a person applying for an exemption as it would be practically impossible for him to show that, though he would be abroad at the time on holiday—that is to say, he could show special circumstances falling within paragraph (a)—he would not attend a match, particularly if he were on holiday in the same country. That puts some of the burden back upon the agency to show that it has reason to believe that the applicant will attend the match for which he is seeking exemption.
I believe that the noble Earl has already indicated that we may hear good news particularly as regards Amendment No. 81. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 17 is in the Bill specifically because it would be unfair to oblige someone who is not subject to a custodial sentence to report under this Bill irrespective of circumstances, on pain of a criminal offence in default. For example, the person concerned may have suffered a family bereavement and may have to stay at home to comfort relatives or to attend the funeral. He may marry a wife. I should not wish to advance the argument to the Committee that he would commit the offence of failing to report if he devotes his attention to those other obligations provided that is agreed with the agency.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to the deliberate drafting of Clause 17(2)(b). The agency does not have to be satisfied that the special circumstances will actually prevent the person from attending the designated match, but only that he would not attend the match because of those circumstances. For example, how could he conclusively prove in advance that he would attend his mother's funeral instead of causing trouble at a match abroad? He cannot. But the chances are that he will attend the funeral, and the Bill allows for that in Clause 17(2)(b)
Nevertheless, I urge the Committee to agree on reflection that Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 go unnecessarily far. These amendments would mean that as soon as the person could demonstrate any special circumstances the onus would be thrown immediately on to the agency to show reasonable belief that, despite those circumstances, he would attend the match. Under those terms special circumstances would be very easy to demonstrate or to allege. It is not the general intention that the agency should have to decide whether somebody would in fact travel to a particular match. But the amendment could have the effect of putting the agency in just that position on most occasions. That would be a difficult burden of proof and we believe that it is entirely reasonable and equitable to the individuals concerned not to frame the arrangements in that way.
Amendment No. 81 is, as I explained earlier, different. Provided that the substantive tests in Clause 17(2) remain as they are at present provided in the Bill, if the noble Lord were graciously to withdraw Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, it would be right for the Government to accept Amendment No. 81.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 81. In those circumstances, I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 82 and 83.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 83A and 83B:
Page 15, line 11, after ("match") insert ("or matches").
Page 15, line 14, at end insert—
("(3A) Where an exemption is granted by the agency to a person under subsection (2) above the duties of the agency under section 16(5) above and of that person to report shall be suspended as respects the match or matches to which the exemption applies.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Functions of agencies: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84:
Page 16, line 2, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 3 and insert ("but no regulations under that subsection shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I are disposed not to move the amendment. Fewer than 15 noble Lords are in the Chamber at the moment. This is an issue of high principle and it would be absurd to debate the matter in a Committee so sparsely populated. We shall certainly come back to the issue, but on that basis I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Restriction orders arising out of offences outside England and Wales]:
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: I am afraid that my intervention at this point is unlikely to have the same amicable and satisfactory outcome as that resulting from my Amendment No. 77. I am staggered by the fact that the Committee does not seem to have woken up to the essential illiberalism of Clause 19. I say "illiberalism" because in Clause 19 it is seriously proposed that someone who has been duly convicted of an offence committed abroad, quite possibly a minor offence, and has served his sentence in full in that foreign country, so that for that country the slate is wiped totally clean, should nonetheless be hauled before a court, very probably after having been arrested beforehand as provided by subsection (2)(b), in order effectively to be punished a second time for the same offence.
As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 77, a restriction order is undeniably a form of punishment. This constitutes what lawyers term double jeopardy, which is anathema to most democratic countries. It

219
is interesting to note that the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution specifically outlaws double jeopardy.
Quite apart from the power of arrest contained in Clause 19, it is vital to recognise the other ways in which this clause is unique within the Bill as a whole. There is no comparison with restriction orders being imposed by English courts in respect of football related crimes within the United Kingdom where such orders will effectively form part of the sentence imposed. This will not apply in the case of foreign courts. Any sentence that they impose will be complete in itself. Outside Western Europe most courts will not even have heard of this legislation, assuming that the Bill duly becomes law, and even within Western Europe courts dealing with minor offences under paragraphs (f) and (i) of the schedule—for example, drunken behaviour on the way to a match—will not necessarily make the mental connection with football, ascribing it instead to the generalised English yobbishness, which is nothing to do with football and of which they have been painfully aware for many years.
In other words, even in those countries closest geographically and in other ways to us—the Netherlands, Belgium, France and West Germany—there is no guarantee that the courts will take the probable future restriction orders in the United Kingdom into account when passing senences for those crimes committed on their soil. I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any precedent in our legal history for what is proposed in Clause 19.
Earl Ferrers: As the noble Lord knows, the background to the matter is that we think there should be an effective means of preventing our hooligans from attending matches abroad which involve our teams, because they have brought such disrepute to English football overseas. Indeed, it would be quite indefensible to introduce a means of controlling our hooligans at home while at the same time allowing them to run rampage around the football grounds of Europe. The restriction order provision in Part II is the means by which the Government propose to meet that objective.
In Clause 19, to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention, the provision will come into effect only after we have had negotiations with countries which are of a like mind in this respect. He pointed out that a person may have completed his course of imprisonment elsewhere in a foreign country and therefore it is unfair that when he returns he should be given a second dose of punishment here.
I ask the noble Lord to consider this. If a person in this country is convicted of a relevant offence and is given a punishment by the court, he is excluded from matches for two years. Further, if he is given a term of imprisonment for that offence, he is excluded from matches for five years. Therefore, in the scenario with which the noble Lord is concerned, if a person goes abroad and is convicted as a result of an offence committed at a match in a foreign country—for example, in Germany—when he has done his time he would then come back to England,
220
but unlike the person who had committed the offence in this country he would be entitled to go back and commit more offences in Europe.
The point I am trying to make is that if Clause 19 comes into operation, after we have negotiated with other countries, it means that when a person has committed an offence and received punishment in another country, the authorities there will inform this country and the person will be taken to court when he comes back merely to have a restriction order placed upon him. That would happen in much the same way as would have been the case had he committed the offence in England. Therefore, it is simply a matter of ascribing to the person who has committed the offence abroad the same punishment—if punishment it be—of not being allowed to attend matches as would have been imposed had he committed the offence in this country.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The purpose which lies behind what the Government are striving to do here is not, in my view, unreasonable—although I am bound to say that I am extremely sceptical as to how many restriction orders would be enforced as a result of the acceptance of Clause 19. I say that for a very simple reason. When British football supporters have misbehaved outside the United Kingdom and have been arrested, in the overwhelming majority of cases they have not been brought before the courts. Indeed, they have been put on a train, often under police guard, and sent by boat-train back to this country. That is what has happened.
Therefore the idea that we shall be seeing large numbers of British football hooligans appearing in European courts is, I think, highly unlikely. It is certainly not likely on the basis of past experience. Quite inevitably police forces outside the United Kingdom have many other problems with which they are confronted and they want to get rid of such tiresome people as speedily as possible. That being so, they do not in normal circumstances bring them before the courts. However, a very substantial case has been going on recently, but obviously that is an exception.
I am bound to say that I wonder whether this very substantial procedure—negotiations with foreign governments, Orders in Council, and so on—is not a rather exaggerated response to the problem. As I have indicated, I do not oppose in principle what the Government are endeavouring to achieve here, although I repeat that I am extremely sceptical as to whether it will have any beneficial result.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I share the abhorrence felt by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the fact that punishment is apparently being visited twice upon a person who commits an offence abroad. I tabled an amendment, which I did not move, which would have dealt with the point contained in Clause 19 upon which he has decided to focus. It would have been my intention to table an amendment at the next stage of the Bill, to which we could both have put our names, to take care of the major point

221
that he has made. That is neither a threat nor a promise. I want to assure the noble Lord that he and I are at one in trying to improve the way that the Bill deals with British citizens who are convicted and serve their sentences abroad but who return only to find that, as a result of the Bill, they are convicted again. The offence is not the original offence but is the result of having been convicted abroad. That is wrong.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham, because I believe that he is wrong, that if a person commits a relevant offence at a football match in England, is taken to court, sentenced to imprisonment and serves his sentence, for five years he is not allowed to go abroad. The noble Lord says that that can happen in England but that if he commits the offence abroad and serves his term of imprisonment and returns to England, unlike his English counterpart, he does not have a restriction order for five years placed upon him and can continue to go to matches abroad. The only purpose of the provision contained in Clause 19 is to make the offence committed abroad the same as it is in England so as to prevent people going to matches.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister referred earlier to agreements with foreign governments on these matters. I can see the point if a European manner of dealing with offences of a like kind emerges and there is agreement which must be validated through both Houses of Parliament. However we are saying that if a man commits an offence in England it will carry a certain punishment. If a man commits an offence in a foreign country he will be dealt with under the law of that country. He will serve the sentence. In normal circumstances, having committed a crime in another country, having been convicted and sentenced and having served the sentence in that country, that would be the end of the matter; but the Minister has said that in this case it is not the end of the matter. That appears to be unjust. I may have it wrong. I may be looking at the issue differently from the Minister. We shall return to this matter at a later stage.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for sharing my unease over this matter. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I fully understand the Government's motives, which are admirable; I am just unhappy about the means they propose to achieve the end.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said when deciding not to move Amendment No. 84, the Committee is thin and it is not the right moment to pursue this matter in great detail. However, we must revert to it at a later stage. Meanwhile, I shall study in Hansard what the Minister said. I hope that in turn he will study what I said, especially in regard to the danger of double jeopardy. I should be grateful if he could write to me in the meantime and let me know if there is any precedent in our legal history for what is proposed in Clause 19. The time being what it is, I shall go no further.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may answer that question from the noble Lord, Lord Monson. There is a precedent, because we already have provision for enforcing orders here which are made abroad in relation to drug trafficking.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Citation, commencement, consequential repeal and extent]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 89:
Page 18, line 11, leave out ("2 and 7 and").
Page 18, line 13, leave out ("Part I and").
Page 18, line 14, at end insert—
("Provided that the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this subsection bringing into force sections 2 and 7 of this Act unless he is satisfied, as a result of carrying out appropriate trials and after consultation with the Football League and the Football Association, that the national football membership scheme approved under section 4 of this Act is effective.").
Page 18, line 14, at end insert—
("(2) Part I of this Act shall not come into force until the administrator shall have investigated and reported to the Secretary of State on the desirability and feasibility of implementing its provisions in four stages, stage I applying to football clubs belonging to the First Division of the English League, stage 2 to clubs belonging to the Second Division, stage 3 to clubs belonging to the Third Division and stage 4 to clubs belonging to the Fourth Division,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 have already been dealt with in earlier debates. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
In the Schedule:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 90 to 93:
Page 19, line 5, at end insert ("and as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance").
Page 19, line 14, at end insert ("and as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance").
Page 19, line 18, at end insert ("and as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance").
Page 19, line 22, at end insert ("and as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to and will not be moved in the light of assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that they would form part of the consideration of the whole matter.
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 93 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 96.
After the Schedule, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 4
RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL MEMBERSHIP SCHEME
The rights of a member of the scheme for the purposes of section 5(2) of this Act are the following—

223

(a) the right to participate in the election of representatives to a body which may be established by the administrator for the purpose of advising him on the management of the scheme;

(b) the right to participate in the election of a committee to monitor the operation of the scheme at any one premises, licensed under the Act, of his choice;

(c) the right to call a meeting of members of the scheme;

(d) the right to be notified in writing of the reasons for any proposed withdrawal of membership;

(e) the right to present a defence before any decision regarding withdrawal of membership is made;

(f) the right of appeal against any withdrawal of membership and the right to be represented at such an appeal.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 55A regarding the rights of members of the national football membership scheme. The Minister expressed some sympathy with the idea, but it was left to the FMA to encourage clubs to take the matter into account and work out a scheme. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past midnight.

  BRITISH HONOURS AND ORDERS OF CHIVALRY HELD BY OVERSEAS HEADS OF STATE
  BRITISH HONOURS AND ORDERS OF CHIVALRY HELD BY OVERSEAS HEADS OF STATE
  OUTER SPACE TREATY
  OUTER SPACE TREATY
  HONG KONG: ANNUAL REPORT
  HONG KONG: ANNUAL REPORT
  FIREARM AND SHOTGUN CERTIFICATE FEES WORKING PARTY
  FIREARM AND SHOTGUN CERTIFICATE FEES WORKING PARTY
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  SUBMARINE/SURFACE VESSEL COLLISIONS: IMO RESOLUTION
  SUBMARINE/SURFACE VESSEL COLLISIONS: IMO RESOLUTION
  ST. MARK'S CHURCH, HORSHAM
  ST. MARK'S CHURCH, HORSHAM
  EARNINGS INCREASE RATE
  EARNINGS INCREASE RATE
  SOCIAL SECURITY ADJUDICATION: REPORT
  SOCIAL SECURITY ADJUDICATION: REPORT