Sitting of 30 October 1989

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

    London Regional Transport
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chair of London Regional Transport; and what matters were discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I last met the chairman of London Regional Transport, Mr. Wilfrid Newton, on 17 October. We discussed various issues relating to LRT's finances.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Secretary of State comment on LRT's waste in pulping thousands of fare rise tickets which were scrapped because they did not have the Minister's approval? Will he assure the House that fare rises will be kept below the rate of inflation? Will he undertake to provide the substantial new public investment called for today by the London Regional Passengers Committee so that a start can be made to end the squalor on London's public transport?
    Mr. Parkinson: I have had discussions with the chairman about all aspects of LRT's finances —its fares, investment programmes and overall finances—and the
    2
    results of those talks will be announced in due course. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we plan to maintain the tradition of huge increases in public investment in LRT.
    Mr. Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware how grateful I am to hear his answer to that question? Will he stress that the provision of public transport to the east of London is among the Department's priorities, given the existing imbalance between east and west London?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When people talk about the Jubilee line as a line for developers, they ignore the impact that it could have on the lives of the many people in east London who are looking forward to its arrival.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State admit that he has instructed LRT to produce fare increases substantially below the 15 per cent. that LRT believes that it needs? If LRT carries out his wishes, does he intend to make up the difference between that fare increase and the 15 per cent?
    Mr. Parkinson: I have had discussions about the whole range of LRT's finances, its investment programme and. so on, as part of the public expenditure survey round. The result of those discussions will be announced shortly. I hope that if fare rises are lower than they would have been the hon. Lady will not be critical, because her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in his previous incarnation as spokesman on energy, was constantly accusing me of trying to push prices up. If they go down—I am not saying that they will—I hope that the Opposition will give us credit for that.

    London Traffic
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how new technology is being used to improve traffic management in London.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): New urban traffic control systems and traffic lights that adjust to changing conditions are planned to be installed at 700 junctions by 1993. Delays at these junctions should be reduced by about 12 per cent. Police traffic controllers

    3
    use closed circuit television to monitor key locations. A large-scale pilot scheme for the autoguide electronic guidance system is being planned for 1992.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that the great merit of this new technology is that it maximises existing road capacity and greatly improves traffic flow along existing roads? Will he give the House further details about the new Scoot system for improving the flow through traffic lights?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. The Scoot system is working extremely effectively. We have already installed about 180 signals and it is our intention to install more. My hon. Friend touches on an important point when he says that new technology can relieve congestion. He is quite correct.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing traffic chaos in London? He surely must be. What discussions is his Department having with the Home Office to try to get some police priority for traffic management in London? Is he aware that unless there is an all-out campaign involving his Department, the Home Department and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the traffic will get worse and worse and in the end people will have to walk over the roofs of the cars because that will be the fastest way of getting along the roads?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He will not be surprised to learn that, since taking office, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been looking at these matters with a great deal of urgency. We hope to be able to say something about them soon.
    Mr. Cormack: When my hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he seriously consider a ban on deliveries between 7 am and 7 pm or 8 am and 8 pm because delivery vehicles are responsible for much of the chaos and congestion in London?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and it is one of the maters that we shall be considering.

    Road Building
    Mr. Prescott: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the new roadbuilding programme, outlined in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parkinson: The expanded programme set out in "Roads for Prosperity" is one of the Government's priorities. We are making good progress in preparing the schemes.
    Mr. Prescott: I express my sympathy with the Secretary of State for being with us today. It must have been most disappointing for him last Thursday when he awaited the call that never came, especially as the Treasury is breaking all the commitments made by his predecessor. Is the Secretary of State now backtracking on the plans in the White Paper? Was not his predecessor quite wrong to believe that the private sector would always provide the necessary private finance, as can be seen by the chaos and confusion surrounding the tunnel links in the central
    4
    London rail study? Is it not time for the Secretary of State to tackle the Treasury like a rottweiler rather than the Prime Minister's poodle?
    Mr. Parkinson: I was thinking of buying a lead for my favourite rottweiler, but he is sitting opposite me and Ministers do not exchange gifts with Opposition Members. My predecessor produced an excellent White Paper. So far, we have commissioned studies and assessments on more than 40 of the schemes. I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman is reading a better class of newspaper these days. If he keeps on reading it, he will become increasingly disappointed as the good news emerges.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need roads not just for prosperity but for safety? I had just managed to convince his predecessor to come and look at the St. Michael's bridge, which is a menace. Fortunately, I do not need to ask my right hon. Friend to come because he will know it well from his youth. Will he please ensure that Lancashire county council does not rat on us and that we get the bypass because somebody will be killed if two cars meet on that terrible hump-backed bridge?
    Mr. Parkinson: I know the hump-backed bridge at St. Michael's, which is near my home town, and I will do my best to ensure that my hon. Friend is happy about the future arrangements.
    Mr. Alex Carlisle: Has the Secretary of State had any further studies done, to add to the studies upon studies, to estimate the extra cost to industry in Wales and the north-west of England of sitting in traffic jams on the M6 and the M1 which inhibit movement of goods to the Channel ports? Is the Secretary of State aware that ports in my constituency will have no benefit from the Channel tunnel unless drastic action is taken to improve communications?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am glad to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's endorsement of the White Paper, which makes proposals for the great improvement and widening of the two roads that he mentioned. We look forward to having his support in the months ahead for the work that is to be undertaken.
    Mr. Lord: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the A140, which runs through Norfolk and Suffolk, is probably one of the most dangerous roads in East Anglia? This results from a staggering increase of traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles and, more sadly, has led to a large number of fatal accidents. There was great amazement and not a little anger when it was announced that the A140 would be dualed north of Scole in Norfolk, but not south of Scole in Suffolk. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are hoping for an announcement later this year that the whole of that road will be dualed, to everybody's satisfaction?
    Mr. Parkinson: One of the main features of the White Paper was its recognition that East Anglia has an inadequate road infrastructure. There are substantial plans set out in the White Paper to produce an improvement, and we shall honour them.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the likely increase of (a) road users and (b) public transport users in London as a result of the construction of the Channel tunnel terminal at King's Cross.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Department is examining the impact of the proposed terminal on the surrounding road network. The impact on the public transport network is expected to be small.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Minister recall that when I saw him nearly a year ago I reported that the Channel tunnel and second London terminal projects would be chaotic and that political intervention would be required? Is he aware that confusion is now upon us and that we are in great danger of having three quarters of a tunnel, half a fast rail link and no second London terminal? When does the Minister intend to intervene to bring central political decision-making into the free market chaos which now surrounds us?
    Mr. Portillo: Decisions on all these matters will be made shortly. The hon. Gentleman is alway urging me to take a strategic view, but I believe that it should he for British Rail to propose the railway line and the terminal that it wishes to build, see whether it can get private sector participation and then take a Bill through the House. If that is not successful, it is for British Rail to consider the options. If a strategic view were to be taken, I am not sure that one would not conclude that King's Cross, with its good access to the north, would be a better proposition.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: As British Rail's half-baked ideas for a Channel tunnel rail link terminating at King's Cross are now in disarray, having failed to attract any private financial support, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the available options where there is private backing for viable plans that will serve the entire United Kingdom?
    Mr. Portillo: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern and the assiduous way in which he represents his constituents on these and other matters, but the project has not reached the stage that he suggests. We shall have to wait and see whether British Rail will make an announcement in the coming days and weeks about a partnership with the private sector and whether it will wish to propose a Bill. If it proposed a Bill and that measure was not successful, it would then be appropriate to consider the options. A proposal has been worked out with a great deal of time and effort and I believe that it should be considered fully.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that King's Cross is already the most congested location in London both above ground and below? Is it not sheer folly to propose funnelling a further 10 million or 15 million passengers per year through an over-congested location by locating the second Channel tunnel terminus there? Is it not time to think again and consider other options?
    Mr. Portillo: King's Cross is extremely well connected in terms of public transport. There are more tube lines there than in any other place in London. There are also extremely good connections to the north of England. In
    6
    that sense, it is very well connected. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to traffic congestion, he should remember that that problem will arise with any site that is chosen. My Department will be giving evidence to the Select Committee on Transport on the railway proposal and to the London borough of Camden on the lands development proposal, which will be a matter for Camden to consider.

    Severn Crossing
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has drawn from the la test round of public consultation meetings in connection with revised routes for approaches to the proposed second Severn crossing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: We are still considering the many helpful comments received following the exhibitions held in June and July. I hope to issue a statement shortly concerning modifications to the routes of the approach roads.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider with some sympathy the suggestions being made for an intermediate link between the industrial areas of the north of Bristol and the southern relief road linking the second Severn crossing to the M5, which would be welcome to industry and commerce in the area?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes a plea for his constituents and for others nearby. The plan has considerable merit. I shall be looking to local authorities and developers to provide the resources for such a link
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that extra roads mean extra hazards and that this weekend we took a step that will involve extra danger on the roads when we put the clock forward by one hour? Does he recall the transport and road research laboratory saying that daylight saving, would reduce the numbers of serious and fatal accidents by 600 per year? Will he therefore impress on other members of the Government the need for daylight saving, which will mean life saving?
    Mr. Atkins: Such matters are for the Home Office. One of the reasons why that Department is currently involved in a number of consultations is that there are many differences of opinion—not least among trade unions and between people living in the north and those in the south. No doubt common sense proposals will come out of those consultations, and I look forward to that happening as much as the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that river pilots are very concerned about the siting of the bridge and, in particular, about its effect on access to the port of Sharpness in my constituency? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that their views will be taken fully into consideration before any decision is taken?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir.

    Underground Railways (London)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning future plans for new underground railways serving east London.
    Mr. Portillo: We are considering the cases for schemes proposed in the central London rail study and for extending the Jubilee line to docklands and Stratford. A

    7
    key factor for the Jubilee line will be the contributions forthcoming from developers who will benefit from the line.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that there is also an important cross-rail link? Does he recall that the concept of such a link dates back to the Royal Commission on London traffic of 1905? Which does the Minister regard as more important? The Waterloo to Canary wharf line is concept of Messrs. Olympia and York and essentially a developer's railway. If the Minister gives preference to that rather than to the cross-rail link, will he not be favouring the stockbrokers and providing them with seats for tomorrow, rather than seats for east London straphangers of today?
    Mr. Portillo: The Jubilee line is important in public transport terms and would provide an important connection to Stratford, which I thought would be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who spoke earlier. I feel sure that the people of east London would find it of considerable value. It would be of value also in terms of regenerating the inner city, which the Labour party supports. I cannot make a statement about our priorities as between the Jubilee line and the east-west cross-rail—that decision will be made shortly—but as developers also benefit from the Jubilee line it must be right that we should attempt to secure the maximum contribution from them and to minimise the contribution that the taxpayer will have to make.
    Mr. Haselhurst: I am embarrassed to be in even partial agreement with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but is my hon. Friend aware that however admirable the idea of extensions to the Underground system, which I support, they are no substitute for the east-west cross-rail tunnel, which would do much to relieve pressure on Liverpool Street station and thus assist commuters entering London from Essex constituencies?
    Mr. Portillo: The east-west cross-rail showed up very well in the central rail study as being a decongesting railway. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that the Jubilee line also provides an important link between east London and the west end, and its extension would help to establish docklands even more firmly as a new centre of activity. That in itself could also help to relieve congestion in the central area.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that south-east London is the forgotten corner of the city when it comes to the tube system? Can he give any grounds for hope that the proposed extensions through east London will cross the river, to give hundreds of thousands of south-east Londoners more alternatives to British Rail services?
    Mr. Portillo: There are two proposals on the stocks. One is to route the Jubilee line through the Greenwich peninsula, but that is a more expensive option which would not provide good connections to the rest of the network south of the river. The other is a Lewisham extension of the docklands light railway, on which I recently received representations from a number of hon. Members and others—but as I have not received a formal proposal from London Regional Transport I am not in a position to comment on that scheme.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that while many people living outside London view investment in its infrastructure with sympathy and hope, they too have their priorities for modernisation? I refer principally to the cross-city line in Birmingham. I hope that if my hon. Friend approves all the Underground schemes proposed for London there will be a few shillings left in his coffers to undertake investment schemes in our area.
    Mr. Portillo: The Government are extremely even-handed in such matters. Only last week it was my great pleasure to announce our investment in the Manchester metrolink, which I am sure is a popular decision. The proposal for the Birmingham cross-city electrification has just arrived on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I am sure that he will deal with it quickly.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the need for a fast rail link between Scotland and the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Parkinson: We have received a small number of such representations.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the uncertainty hanging over the link between in the tunnel and London threatens to make nonsense of British Rail's plans to run a through service from Scotland to the continent? Does he agree that such a service is vital if Scotland and the regions are to benefit from the single market and the tunnel? Will he undertake to ensure that it will be in place by 1993, as BR plans, whatever the problems may be about private finance for the link with London?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. The position has been completely misunderstood. The high-speed link is not the only proposed link with the Channel tunnel and in fact will not be available until around the turn of the century. Arrangements are now being made, and large sums are being invested in both road and rail infrastructure, to ensure that Scotland and the regions have access to the tunnel from the day it is opened.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, the east and west coast routes into Scotland are extremely good. British Rail has a statutory obligation to present its plans by 31 December to ensure that the regions—including Scotland—benefit, and it will be doing just that.
    Mr. Amos: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a second terminal at King's Cross is vital to meet the needs of the north of England and Scotland? Will he examine the quality of service on the Newcastle-Carlisle route, which is appalling at present?
    Mr. Parkinson: As I said earlier, British Rail is under an obligation to present its plans, and it is working hard on that. I cannot honestly answer my hon. Friend's question about the Newcastle-Carlisle line, but if he would care to write to me I will certainly look into the matter.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State is well acquainted with the city of Aberdeen through his previous job as Secretary of State for Energy. Will he now look

    9
    particularly at the rail communication links from Aberdeen, and at the clear demand that has emerged from Grampian regional council for a scheme to link Aberdeen with Edinburgh and the Channel tunnel through electrification?
    Mr. Parkinson: I will bring the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of British Rail. As part of the plans for Scotland, two major freight terminals are being considered, one of them at Gartcosh; I cannot remember offhand the site of the other. The Government's whole aim is to ensure that the regions benefit from the best possible access to the tunnel.

    Road Building
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles the expanded road programme will add to the trunk road network; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: The expanded programme will add more than 2,700 miles of new or widened roads to the trunk road network.
    Mr. Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the increase in capital expenditure by the present Government is nearly 60 per cent. higher than that in 1978–79, the last full year of Socialist government? How much of the proportion that my hon. Friend has to spend will be spent in Yorkshire?
    Mr. Atkins: The expanded programme will result in 51 new miles of road in Yorkshire, together with 51 miles of improved roads. All in all, that is worth some £430 million. We put our money where our mouths are.
    Ms. Quin: Is the Minister aware of the strength of feeling in the north-east about the fact that the expanded road programme does not deal properly with the upgrading of the A1, either in Yorkshire or between Newcastle and Edinburgh, and also about the failure to address the problem of a proper cross-country road between Newcastle and Carlisle? Will he review the programme to meet those concerns?
    Mr. Atkins: I spent all of Thursday in Newcastle talking to a wide variety of people—about the A1, among other things. They were quite satisfied with the commitment that I offered them, which was also offered in the White Paper —that we were reviewing the whole of the A1 in regard to motorway status. As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will know, making a motorway from an existing trunk road is not as easy as it may at first appear. All those points are, however, being considered urgently.
    Sir Hal Miller: Is the Minister aware that any delay in the expanded programme will prolong uncertainty and blight for those affected and add to the costs of congestion and later construction? Will he therefore do his best to ensure that construction is carried out as per the programme?
    Mr. Atkins: That is certainly my intention.
    Mr. Snape: Is it true that the Minister's mouth is not big enough to take the Birmingham northern relief road which has been delayed for a considerable time while the project has been hawked around the private sector? If and when it
    10
    is eventually built, will the developers pay for the cost of providing policing, ambulances and lighting services along that road, or will those charges fall on the taxpayer?
    Mr. Atkins: I should say that many of my hon. Friends and I are delighted with the number of people who have expressed interest in the Birmingham northern relief road. We are very pleased to have been approached by three major consortia. If that demonstrates how this scheme and many others will work, we shall be delighted. While I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's quip, I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is known as "Humber mouth".

    British Rail (Public Service Obligation)
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in reducing the central Government public service obligation grant to British Rail in line with financial targets set in 1986.
    Mr. Parkinson: The objectives that we set in 1986 called for a 25 per cent. reduction in British Rail's grant requirement by the current financial year. British Rail succeeded in achieving this target a year early, in 1988–89.
    Mr. Sumberg: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer? Is not the way forward a combination of public and private capital? In that context, may I say how grateful my constituents are to his Department for the investment in the Manchester metrolink which will considerably improve communications between Bury and Manchester as well as in the south of Manchester?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, the metrolink is a good example of how the public sector and the private sector can co-operate to produce an improved service for the citizens of a very fine city.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not clear to the Minister that every time the PSO grant is cut while British Rail is asked to improve its investment in new services, and improve safety and services to the customer, the customer pays through the nose? Is he aware that British Rail is in danger of becoming one of the most expensive, but not one of the best, railway systems in Europe?
    Mr. Parkinson: I have to admit to the hon. Lady that there is a difference in philosophy between her party and mine on this matter. We believe in cutting the grant and increasing investment. The Opposition believe in increasing the grant and reducing investment. The net result of that was ever more heavily subsidised lines getting into ever greater disrepair. We thought that that was a foolish policy, so we changed it.
    Mr. Franks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that British Rail operates under the apparent inconvenience of having customers, not least the inconvenience of having customers who expect a modicum of service? When he next talks to the chairman of British Rail, will he inform him that while the first faltering steps to improve the service have been taken, there is still a long way to go before the appalling service is improved?
    Mr. Parkinson: British Rail is certainly open to criticism, and I have received many letters. But it is quite wrong to pretend that the system is not slowly but steadily improving. A large investment is being made, and I wish

    11
    that once in a while people would give British Rail credit where it is due for improvements in services—and there is credit due.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State asking us to believe that it is pure coincidence that countries such as West Germany and France, which have a higher PSO level, also have lower fares, higher quality and a safer system? That fact has been confirmed by the Government's own central transport consultative committee. As he is about to abandon the plan for the privatisation of British Rail, will he now set British Rail new financial targets that do not lead to exorbitant fare increases accompanied by a poorer quality of service?
    Mr. Parkinson: We shall shortly announce the new objectives for British Rail. We see no point in subsidising journeys for which people are prepared to pay a fair price, but we see the case for subsidising rural areas where it is impossible to make the service pay. We think, and I repeat, that the policy of the Greater London council—the last example of the Labour party in charge of a public transport system—of increasing subsidies and cutting investment produced disastrous results for London Transport, which is why we are having to sort it out.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British Rail's capital investment programme is running at record levels? Has he been able to approve any specific additions to it recently?
    Mr. Parkinson: British Rail's investment programme is running much higher in real terms than it was under the last Labour Government. When the public expenditure settlement is announced, my hon. Friend will note that those figures have increased. Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), we do not dream up schemes that will never come to fruition. Since I arrived at the Department, I have approved orders for more than £1 billion worth of new equipment for British Rail, LRT and local authorities.

    Women and Transport
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken or plans to undertake into women and transport; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: The Department has undertaken, and is undertaking, research into various aspects of transport. The needs of women as one category of user are always taken into account.
    Mrs. Mahon: I welcome any research into this much-neglected subject, but will the Minister give an assurance that the conclusions of the research will be properly resourced? More important, will he say why, in view of the Home Office's launch last week of a drive to make London a safer place in which to travel for women, Southern Region is cutting staff? The Dartford line may have no staff at night or at weekends. Sexual attacks have been prevalent on that line in the past.
    Mr. Portillo: It is important to see the whole pattern of events. The resources of the British Transport police are being increased. Network SouthEast is lighting car parks and stations and improving the environment for its pasengers. The article that appeared in the Evening
    12
    Standard, on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) leapt with such alacrity, referred to an internal consultation document that is yet to be considered even by the trade unions, let alone passengers. It was therefore premature to react to that article. There are already a number of unmanned stations on British Rail. Ticket barriers are to be phased out. Throughout the European Community, such barriers exist only in this country and the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. David Martin: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he were a woman he would find what we men find when travelling on the A3 between Portsmouth and London—unacceptable traffic jams on the Guildford bypass? I hope that my hon. Friend will do all that he can to sort this out as soon as possible.
    Mr. Portillo: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that women have become not less but more fearful of travelling on public transport in London over the past few months? His recent announcements about increases in the number of London Transport police do not go far enough. What will he do to ensure a proper level of policing at Finsbury Park tube station, which many women in my constituency are frightened to use?
    Mr. Portillo: I recently had the pleasure of visiting Finsbury Park station, at which a new British Transport police station has recently been established, and from where it will police the Victoria, Northern and District lines. The hon. Lady said that women have become more fearful, but I must tell her that the figures are much better. For example, for the first six months of 1989, robbery on the tube is down by 42 per cent.; assault on passengers is down by 13 per cent.; and total crime on the Underground is down by 8 per cent. I attribute that to the many measures that have been taken by the British Transport police in increasing its complement, and by the fact that it has set up 42 deep-level stations, from which radio systems can now operate, thereby bringing fast response to crime.

    Buses (London)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure a more flexible approach to the planning of bus transport in London.
    Mr. Portillo: The restructuring of London Buses Ltd. into separate subsidiaries will encourage further competition. London Regional Transport plans to increase the proportion of the network contracted out to 40 per cent. by 1992.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that ultimately an improvement in London bus services depends upon much greater deregulation, a tantalising example of which was seen during the bus strike when the Grey-Greens were able to run? In the meantime, will my hon. Friend urge on London Regional Transport a policy of listening to its new and excellent area managers, who are listening to the public and offering to provide services that the public want and will use, such as a minibus service through Battersea square? Will he encourage London Regional Transport to give such schemes the go-ahead?
    Mr. Portillo: I think that London Regional Tranport listens carefully to its area managers. The background to

    13
    the position in my hon. Friend's constituency is that London Regional Transport has been conducting a major survey into the services that should be provided in that area. It intends to come forward with proposals for consultation in the new year. It has also announced its intention to put the new network in Wandsworth out to competitive tender during 1990. I think therefore that in every respect that meets my hon. Friend's wishes. London Regional Transport is considering proposals from residents for a minibus service for north Battersea.

  THE ARTS

    Victoria and Albert Museum
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of the Victoria and Albert museum to discuss the future funding of the museum's photographic collection.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I meet the director of the Victoria and Albert museum from time to time to discuss current issues, but I have no plans at present to do so specifically to discuss the future funding of the photographic collection.
    Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the curator of the photography section at the Victoria and Albert museum on his excellent work, especially in putting on the 150 years of photography exhibition? I understand that there is strong support in the Victoria and Albert for photography. All I would ask the Minister to do in terms of funding is to ensure that there is no fall in funding for the gallery. However, while I have his ear, may I ask him whether, given that our proceedings in the Chamber are now being televised, he will support my plea to allow still photographers to take pictures in the Chamber as well?
    Mr. Luce: I shall think about the hon. Gentleman's last question. On the first, I know the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in photography. I join him in congratulating the Victoria and Albert and its curator on the work that they do. There has recently been an excellent photographic exhibition and there are plans for relocating the photographic gallery, which shows the very strong support there for photography.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as photography has a proud British heritage, it is right that the Victoria and Albert should celebrate this in its exhibition? Does he agree that the museum can rely on the Government's good will for funding, especially as the revenue funding has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms and the capital programme by 50 per cent. since the Conservative party came to power?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is no shadow of doubt that there has been an overall increase in real resources. Resources for the V and A's running costs have increased by 28 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. There is also, as my hon. Friend knows, an important centre for photography and television in Bradford, which is an extension of the national institution and which does much good work.

    National Museums (Funding)
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission to discuss the level of funding of national museums.
    Mr. Luce: I meet the chairman of the Museum and Galleries Commission regularly and discuss a wide range of subjects, which have included museum and gallery funding.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Did the Minister discuss with the chairman of the commission its claim that the Government are grossly underfunding our largest museums? When will the right hon. Gentleman face up to the crisis in our museums? The director of the Tate has accused the Government of making their calculations on the back of an envelope. Half the Tate's British collection is in store because the building is falling apart.
    Mr. Luce: I am surprised that the hon. Lady says that there is gross underfunding and that she does not welcome the recent decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to invest an extra £21 million in a major extension and redevelopment of the national museum of Wales. The hon. Lady accuses the Government of underfunding and cannot even welcome that investment. That is extraordinary. It is extraordinary also that she accuses the Government of underfunding, when in 1979–80 funding for museums and galleries was £54 million whereas today it is £158 million—a real increase of 25 per cent. If the hon. Lady thinks that the Government are underfunding the museums, what does she think that the Labour Government were doing at the end of the 1970s?
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the drain of our artistic heritage overseas as a result of the recent rise in the price of goods at auction and the inability of our museums and galleries to bid competitively to retain those art treasures in this country. Will my right hon. Friend review that situation and consider whether to review the whole procedure for the licensing of artistic exports?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to put his finger on the fact that the dramatic increase in the prices of works of art puts extra pressure on the available resources for saving our most important works of heritage. However, throughout the 1980s, we have had the national heritage memorial fund, which has spent well over £100 million in saving important works of art for this country. If my hon. Friend intended to put his finger on the level of the purchase grant, I must point out that I said a year ago that I would look at the way in which the purchase grant was working. I ask him to be patient for a little longer, while I try to take decisions. The first priority must be to find money for the fabric, building and maintenance of our national institutions.
    Mr. Fisher: It is clear that the Minister thinks that he knows better than the chairmen of the five national galleries who told him and the Prime Minister in July that unless he provided enormously increased funding for those museums and galleries, the effects would be disastrous. Did the Minister give a specific assurance to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in January 1988, when he announced three-year funding, that if there were exceptional circumstances, such as a rise in inflation,

    15
    he would reopen the books for the national museums and consider their funding again? Will he now redeem that assurance to the Select Committee, reopen the books, pay attention to what the chairmen of those galleries are saying and provide the extra funding needed?
    Mr. Luce: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not join me in confirming the figures, which show a real increase in support for the national museums and galleries, although he knows perfectly well that there has been an increase. Having said that, it was two years ago that I introduced three-year funding. I hope that I read in the hon. Gentleman's question the fact that he does not disagree with the concept of three-year funding. It is right to say that the levels of inflation in recent months have undermined three-year funding to some extent. The Government as a whole are clearly committed to maintaining support for the arts.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health of our museums is best shown not only by funding, but by the number of museums that have opened in recent years and the number of people who attend those museums? Will he also take the opportunity to reject the suggestion made recently by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that there is a Government plan to introduce compulsory admission charges? Will he confirm that it is still a voluntary scheme?
    Mr. Luce: On the latter point, it is wholly for the trustees to decide whether admission charges should be introduced. That remains our policy and it is the right policy. We should let them decide how best to proceed with that matter. The Government have a fine record in terms of the catalogue of refurbishment of our national institutions—our museums and galleries. There have been extensions, such as Bodelwyddan castle, the national portrait gallery and the Tate gallery in Liverpool, various redevelopments at the Tate gallery itself, the Clore gallery extension and many other redevelopments. In the past decade, about 10 galleries at the British museum have been refurbished.

    Arts Funding
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the level of arts funding.
    Mr. Luce: I meet the chairman regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Haynes: I want to know what the Minister is playing at as regards the Arts Council. He makes statements in the House and statements in Select Committees. He knows full well that inflation is running at 7·6 per cent. and that the Arts Council is looking to him for additional funds, yet he offers a measly 2 per cent. What is he playing at?
    Mr. Luce rose——
    Mr. Haynes: I have not finished yet. The Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and say that he is going to help the Arts Council—or else I shall be having a word with him afterwards.
    Mr. Luce: I shall really miss the hon. Gentleman when he retires from the House.
    16
    We have increased resources for the Arts Council in real terms. The Government are committed to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts. In 1987, I introduced three-year funding for the arts for the first time ever, with a 16 per cent. overall increase for the Arts Council for that period. That is a fine record and I reiterate my statement that the Government are committed to maintaining support for the arts.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service trade unions; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Luce): I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters is raised. I met the Civil Service unions in June this year to discuss planned changes in Civil Service recruitment.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister give an assurance to civil servants working at the south bank complex and in the national galleries and museums that their pay arrangements will be conducted and their pay negotiated nationally, that their employers at the south bank complex and in the national galleries and museums will honour those national rates of pay and that there will be no detriment or severance of those conditions?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in extending arts questions into Civil Service questions. I recognise the significance of his remarks. He rightly implies that the national galleries and museums operate Civil Service pay and conditions. Of course, the national structures continue but within that context the whole Civil Service is moving to a more flexible pay system. That is being developed not only in agencies but within the Civil Service, and the same applies to the national galleries and museums.
    Mr. Barnes: Was the issuing of fire certificates discussed? Has the Minister issued fire certificates or been involved in the issuing of fire certificates for all the buildings for which he is responsible, as required by the Fire Precautions Act 1971? If such certificates have not been issued, will he prosecute himself?
    Mr. Luce: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to national museums and galleries or whether his question goes wider. If he is talking about the museums and galleries, his question goes beyond the Civil Service in the broadest sense. The whole question of fire regulations is of concern. The local authorities have conducted a review of the institutions. They have given their views and they are being taken into account in the discussions.
    Mr. Higgins: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he draw their attention to his excellent response to the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee this afternoon, which shows that

    17
    considerable progress is being made in the "next steps" programme, which under present plans will affect no fewer than 180,000 civil servants?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will, of course, have seen the reply that has now been given to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. Since the House last discussed these issues in July, there have been further changes and more progress on "next steps". Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is launching the Laboratory of the Government Chemist as an executive agency, while the Historic Royal Palaces Agency was launched as an executive agency of the Department of the Environment on 1 October. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has announced five new candidates to become defence support agencies and they will be established in due course. By July next year about 20 agencies will be established.
    Mr. Holt: My right hon. Friend has had conversations with the trade unions. Does he agree that at no time has there been any truth in the rumours that civil servants do not wish to move to the north of England, and that the moving of the Departments earmarked for the north of England will go ahead?
    Mr. Luce: I can assure my hon. Friend that I know of no evidence of people refusing. Of course there is an option in relocation for civil servants working in London and the south-east not to go with the job if it is moved elsewhere. Only a week or so ago I opened a new headquarters for the occupational health service in Edinburgh and that service is part of the Cabinet Office. It is important to note that 34,000 jobs are under review for relocation. That does not mean to say that they will all he relocated, but that number are under review for relocation outside the south-east.
    Dr. Marek: I welcome the fact that the Minister says that the issue of fire certificates is a matter of concern. He will be aware that the Home Office has responsibility for issuing fire certificates for most Civil Service buildings outside the Ministry of Defence. He will also know that there is a four-year backlog for that. As the Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service, is he concerned about that? I hope that he is. What proposals does the Minister have to ensure that that backlog is dealt with as expeditiously as possible?
    Mr. Luce: Each Secretary of State must answer for his own Department. I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will take it seriously and let him have a reply. Each Minister is responsible for his Department and the standards within that Department. In reply to an earlier question, I could respond only in connection with my direct responsibilities for national museums and galleries.

    Civil Servants (Discipline)
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many past or present members of the Civil Service have been disciplined for incidents of political bias or breach of confidentiality since 1979; and what channels of communication are in place for civil servants who wish to make representations that Ministers are making improper use of their ministerial powers.
    Mr. Luce: About 10 on average each year, but only limited information is held centrally. There are guidelines set out for civil servants for dealing with matters of conscience.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his rather partial answer. As there are two sides to the playing field, when civil servants want to make representations about a Minister abusing his power, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is a level playing field for them as there is for the Minister if a civil servant should abuse his basic right or obligation to neutrality?
    Mr. Luce: Of course every Minister is accountable directly to the House of Commons and the House can hold every Minister to account. However, there are special rules and conditions for civil servants. Those guidelines, of which the Armstrong guidelines are the most recent, give civil servants the option to appeal first to their manager and then to their permanent secretary. There is an ultimate right of appeal on matters of conscience. They can go to the professional head of the Civil Service. No one, I might point out, has yet done that.
    Mr. Rooker: How many of those incidents have involved civil servants who have refused to carry out politically biased work for their Ministers?
    Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman keeps a sense of perspective, he will appreciate that there have been 10 cases of breaches of confidentiality of one kind or another out of a total Civil Service membership of 567,000. We really must keep this in proportion. The vast bulk of civil servants are loyal and impartial to the elected Government of the day. That is my experience and I am sure that that was the experience of Labour Governments.

    Plain English
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in his campaign for plain English in, and ease of completion of, Government forms.
    Mr. Luce: Since 1982 we have saved about £14 million on our review of Government forms. We have made them easier to understand and we regularly win awards from the plain English campaign. We are keeping up this pressure.
    Mr. Hague: The fifth progress report on Government forms states that 40,000 Government forms have been reviewed, 15,000 have been redesigned and 9,000 have been scrapped. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to continue the momentum of that excellent work, and be particularly vigilant with the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security whose forms must be completed by the public?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right and the figures to which he referred show what we have achieved in the past 10 years in redesigning or scrapping forms. We regard that task as a relentless obligation. I am inclined to follow the advice of Winnie the Pooh by A. A. Milne when Pooh said, "Long words bother me." That is good advice when considering Government forms.
    Mr. Vaz: I support the Minister's campaign for plain English in Government forms. When can we look forward to a campaign for plain Gujarati, plain Punjabi and plain

    19
    Urdu in Government forms? Many people speak those languages, but they are not, unfortunately, spoken by the Minister.
    Mr. Luce: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman in that I cannot speak evey language under the sun. I am a great believer in keeping to plain English. That is our objective. There is a plain English campaign and we should make forms as simple as possible. We should keep the words and the language simple. That is our objective.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although long words may bother him, many of his ministerial colleagues do not suffer in a similar manner? Only last week we had an extraordinary array of words —for example, "hospitalisation"—and we heard "level playing field" this afternoon. Could every member of the ministerial team be supplied with a copy of Sir Ernest Gower's "Plain Words" and be asked to use it, mark it, learn it and inwardly digest it?
    Mr. Luce: I still stick to the view of Winnie the Pooh that "Long words bother me." If everyone follows that advice, we will be much better off.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister agree with the plain English of Lord Hailsham, who said that it was no business of the press office of the Prime Minister to undermine the authority of Ministers? Does Civil Service discipline apply to Mr. Ingham?
    Mr. Luce: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asked that question about Mr. Ingham, of all people, who served the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) with great distinction in a former Government, as well as serving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If anyone could have shown his impartiality to an elected Government today, he has done just that.

    Ambulance Service
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Government concerning a statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Health in The Sunday Correspondent to the effect that the Army has been put into preparedness, in case "some hothead somewhere" starts putting public safety at risk in the ambulance men's dispute? I am sure that you will be aware that such a move by the
    20
    Government would be extremely dangerous, particularly when the ambulance men's union is merely asking for the dispute to be referred to arbitration, and that at no stage, at no time and nowhere have the ambulance men refused to answer 999 calls and undertake 999 duties. I am sure that you will agree that it is important to have a statement on this matter.
    Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement, and I do not think that much has changed since we had a statement on this matter last week.

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1501) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

      CUSTOMS DUTIES
      That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 5) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1610) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Garel-Jones].
      Question agreed to.

    European Community Documents
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I will put together the three motions relating to European Community documents.
    Ordered,
    That European Community Document No. 8819/89 relating to gas appliances be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
    That European Community Document No. 8446/89 relating to nutrition labelling be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
    That European Community Document No. 5032/89 relating to public takeover bids be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL [Lords] (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Allocation of time to Bills),
That the Report [18 October] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That—

(1) The order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be amendments to Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1. Clause 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 to 13, New Clauses relating to Part I of the Bill, New Schedules relating to Part I of the Bill amendments to Clauses 14 to 22, New Clauses relating to Part H of the Bill, New Schedules relating to Part II of the Bill, remaining New Clauses, amendments to Clauses 23 to 26 and remaining New Schedules.

(2) On the allotted day which under the Order [17th July] is be be given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, the proceedings on Consideration shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of that Table

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendments up to the end of Clause 13, New Clauses relating to Part I of the Bill, and new Schedules relating to Part I of the Bill

9 p.m.

Remaining proceedings on Consideration

10 p.m.

Orders of the Day

  Football Spectators Bill [Lords]
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  Football Spectators Bill [Lords]
    Clause 1

      SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION OF THIS PART
      3.32 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
      '( ) The Secretary of State shall not make a designation under subsection (2) above without giving the Football Membership Authority an opportuniy to make representations about the proposed designation, and taking any representations he receives into account.'.
      This is the first of many amendments which carry forward undertakings which I gave in Committee. The House will be discussing several Government amendments today, many of them tabled in response to points raised by hon. Members in Committee. Other Government amendments are designed to clarify the drafting of the Bill and to spell out rather more of the workings of the Football Licensing Authority than we had time to do in Committee. I hope that the House will regard them as helpful. Amendment No. 1 is in response to a proposal made by the Opposition.
      When the Standing Committee discussed the Secretary of State's designation of matches to which the provisions of the Bill would apply, I promised to consider tabling an amendment on report which would ensure that discussions with the Football Membership Authority would take place before any such designation was made. Amendment No. 1 gives effect to that undertaking. It requires the Secretary of State, before designating any matches, to provide the FMA with the opportunity to make representations about the proposed designation. The amendment also makes it clear that any views expressed by the FMA must be taken into account by the Secretary of State before he makes a designation order in accordance with clause 2(1).
      I am sure that the House will agree that the advice of the FMA should be available to the Secretary of State to assist him in reaching such decisions. The amendment ensures that that will be the case, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Denis Howell: Both in this and in other amendments the Minister has sought to meet points that were made in Committee, and we thank him for doing so. It gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister about a statement that appeared on the tapes in the late morning to the effect that the Secretary of State has agreed that there should be pilot schemes with one club in each division, and that they should last for 12 months. I should like to know whether that statement is correct. Can the Minister confirm that he will be taking that line of action and recommending it to the House during the afternoon?
      Mr. Moynihan: I am more than happy to assist the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell)

      23
      on that point. If the right hon. Gentleman has accurately outlined it, and I am sure he has, and if it is as he has stated it, the statement is totally without foundation and inaccurate. There will be an opportunity to discuss other amendments relating to the phasing in of the technology, but the position remains as was stated by me in Committee and as it was placed on record last Friday. Whatever the source, I can categorically state that the statement is inaccurate.
      Mr. Howell: I shall not detain the House on that point. I am sorry that that is not the case, as we should have welcomed it. Since every other Minister of independence in the Government has declared his independence this weekend, I am sorry to find that the Minister for Sport intends to be the last poodle in the Government.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 1, line 15, after 'above' insert—'(a)'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 to 30.
      Mr. Moynihan: The amendments relate to the application of the national membership scheme to international matches and to matches between Football League and non-league clubs. The question how best to treat these matches was considered at length in Committee. The Government have made it clear that their intention is that matches played at Wembley and matches between league and non-league teams played at a league ground should be designated and that the scheme should apply to them. However, we have always emphasised that, when it comes to how the scheme should be applied to such matches, special arrangements will be necessary.
      It would be unreasonable to expect, say, Italian supporters making a one-off trip to Wembley to see their national team play England to be members of the scheme. Similarly with supporters of a non-league team who do not attend Football League matches but who wish to see their team in what may be their only game against league opposition. There must be special arrangements for these categories of spectators so that they can be authorised to attend designated matches without being members of the scheme.
      As I explained in Committee, this is where the Football Licensing Authority has an important role to play. The amendments will enable the Secretary of State, when designating a match or matches, to provide that spectators admitted to a ground are authorised spectators, subject to special conditions, and that they should be treated as part of the licence.
      No doubt the Football Licensing Authority will wish to discuss with the local police, with the club or, in the case of Wembley, with the Wembley authorities just what the special arrangements for the matches should be. They will be able to take full account of the circumstances of the individual match and of the ground and decide the most appropriate arrangements under which a particular game can be played. They may wish to make different arrangements at different matches and for different parts of the ground. It is important that they must be free to
      24
      decide what is best in any particular case—a point put very strongly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in Committee.
      Therefore, I commend the amendments to the House. I hope that it will share my view about the importance of the FLA being able to decide, in consultation with the interested parties locally, the most appropriate arrangements under which a particular match in these categories should be played. It is important that appropriate measures to minimise the threat of violence at these matches are put in place. The amendments mean that the FLA will be able to achieve that in the most appropriate way.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      '; and

      (b) may provide, in relation to the match or description of match designated by the order or any description of match falling withint the designation, that spectators admitted to the ground shall be authorised spectators to the extent, and subject to any restrictions or condidtions, determined in pursuance of the order by the licensing authority under this Part of this Act.'.

      No. 27, in page 2, line 2, after 'if, insert—
      '(a)'
      No. 28, in page 2, line 4, after 'match', insert
      ';or

      (b) he is an authorised spectator by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above,'.

    Clause 2

      OFFENCES RELATING TO UNAUTHORISED ATTENDANCE AT DESIGNATED FOOTBALL MATCHES
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 2, line 40 at end insert—
      '( ) Where a person is charged under subsection (1) above with an offence of entering or remaining on premises, and was at the time of the alleged offence not disqualified from being a member of the national football membership scheme, it shall be a defence to prove that he was allowed to enter the premises as a spectator by a person reasonably appearing to him to have lawful authority to do so.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 32, 33, and 34.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 5, line 29, at end insert—
      '(2A) In case of serious emergency or the failure of computer equipment the senior officers 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, section 2 and 7 of this Act shall be of no effect during the period of suspension.'.
      Mr. Lloyd: Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 provide in one form or another for emergency admission to grounds. Considerable thought was given in Committee to whether it was right for the offence of unlawful entry in clause 2(1) to be absolute—that is, to have no defence provided in the Bill.
      The Government have reflected further in the light of these debates and believe it right to provide a defence, which amendment No. 31 achieves. Hon. Members were rightly troubled by the possibility of a dangerous crush developing outside grounds, despite everything that we are

      25
      doing to try to avoid that, and it becoming essential to reduce the risk of serious injury or loss of life for those outside the ground to be admitted quickly and safely without proper checks on membership.
      In such circumstances it would be impractical to distinguish properly between members and non-members of the scheme. We therefore feel it right to exempt from the offence innocent people who were not members of the scheme—those who had perhaps joined the queue unaware of the requirement for a card or who were unintentionally caught up in the crowd.
      There is one important qualification to this defence. The House will agree that it would be nonsense to extend the new defence to persons disqualified from the scheme. That would create an incentive for the very hooligans whom the scheme would seek to exclude to kick up enough trouble outside the grounds for the club and the police to let them in. They may indeed try that on, but with the defence as proposed here they could not be let in free of the criminal offence of unlawful entry; and if they were not seeking admission, it would be difficult to justify their presence in the midst of a crowd queuing at the turnstiles for that purpose.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: The Minister suggests that someone be let in without a card because of possible problems outside, but how will anyone know that such a person is disqualified—since he will not have a card, or will claim not to have one?
      Mr. Lloyd: That is right. The whole purpose of the amendment is to permit clubs not to be in breach of their licence in an emergency by letting in such people, since there will be no opportunity to check, but the person who has come in and is disqualified can be prosecuted if it becomes apparent at some stage that he is disqualified. But the law cannot be used against the club.
      The Government have consistently maintained that any provision for adapting admission procedures in an emergency will not be covered in the Bill because the aim of the Bill is to ensure that the licence is the means whereby the detailed requirements are made. So amendment No. 32 introduces the mandatory requirement for the scheme so to provide. Amendment No. 33 qualifies the offence in clause 9(1) of admitting spectators to unlicensed premises by the new defence that the responsible person did so in an emergency.
      Amendment No. 34 requires the licensing authority to consider arrangements to deal with emergencies when granting a licence to admit spectators. Implicitly, that puts within the scope of a licence the provision to admit spectators in an emergency, safeguarding the licensee from an offence under clause 10(10) in such circumstances.
      I should explain two additional points to make the new arrangements clear. I mentioned that the new defence of acting on lawful authority would not and should not apply to those disqualified from the scheme, and I am sure that that is right. However, the same is not necessary in respect of offences by the club, which could not be expected to discriminate between disqualified persons and others in an emergency. The offences in clauses 9 and 10 should reflect that, as provided by amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
      My other point is about the practical meaning of the term "emergency". The Bill does not explicitly define the term and I suspect that the search for a precise definition would prove fruitless. There are many degrees of
      26
      emergency, and in my perception they all carry a genuine risk of injury or loss of life, whether actual or potential. The term is not a convenient form of shorthand simply for an operating delay or incovenience. The various provisions for emergencies in the Bill and, in due course, in the scheme, will come into play at a football ground only when such a risk actually arises. The Bill does not set out who should declare whether an emergency exists. It is the club's responsibility to get that right, since it as the club's licence that is at stake and it is the club which would risk committing an offence under clauses 9 or 10.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend confirm that an emergency means just that, and that in terms of the spirit of the Bill such a situation arises only at the last minute? Does he agree that the Government view the events in Stockholm and the decision by the police there to let in people without tickets to that rather sad game as totally exceptional? Will he confirm that the main thrust of his argument and of the Bill is that such an occasion would be very rare and would be discouraged by the Government?
      Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend well understands the Government's position. It is not our perception that the solution to problems that arise is to let people in whether or not they are members or whether membership cards are inspected. The club authorities and the police will have to take sensible and responsible decisions about what to do in an emergency when it has materialised, or when it looks as if one is about to occur.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: Perhaps the Minister would give us a practical explanation, because we are all anxious to get the matter right. If the chief police officer at the match saw many people outside the turnstiles and the possibility of a crush, could he declare that an emergency? Could he have the gates opened in order to reduce the risk to life and limb of people who were outside the turnstiles?
      Mr. Lloyd: If in his judgment the responsible police office thought that there was a real possibility of injury, he would recommend the right steps, which could well be to open the gates and let people in under the emergency provisions that I am introducing. That is what the amendment allows, and what it is for. I should emphasise that it is for the club authorities and the police on the spot to make the judgment. It is for them to judge the situation and decide whether a real emergency exists or is about to occur. There does not need to be injury before this provision comes into effect, but there must be a real possibility of it. As I said earlier, it would not be triggered by a small inconvenience or difficulty and a little crowd building up outside. There has to be the possibility of an emergency.
      Mr. Randall: May I again press the Minister on the practical details? He made it quite clear that it would be for the senior police officer or a certain police officer and the club to make the decision that an emergency existed and that action should be taken to open the gates. How does the Minister envisage that taking place? We know from other incidents, certainly from what happened at Hillsborough, that one needs to deal with these matters expeditiously. How does he imagine that happening on a

      27
      day on which there is a crush outside a turnstile which the police officer sees, when perhaps an officer of the club is not around? In practice, how would the decision be made?
      Mr. Lloyd: With intelligence and forethought. These people have reached their positions in the police force because of their judgment, experience and ability to make decisions. The hon. Gentleman has followed the Bill and served on the Committee. I, alas, did not have that advantage, but it is clear to me that what is required from a club by the membership authority is that the club should have thought about what emergencies might occur, and how they should be met in the circumstances of the ground. All grounds differ, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, one needs to know not merely the situation at that point, but the layout of the ground and the possibilities of it, and the club and the local police should have thought out the possibilities in advance. I would rather rely on the good sense of police officers who have thought through such circumstances than on my efforts to give a recipe for each different ground from the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am not the only one concerned about the absence of any attempt to define an emergency. If the club gets an emergency wrong or considers a certain set of circumstances to constitute an emergency when, on another view, it does not, as I understand the Minister that is a breach of the licence. That may be a serious matter. In those circumstances, is it not necessary for the Bill to contain some set of principles or criteria by which clubs can give forthought to the circumstances in which an emergency might arise? What concerns me, and I am sure others, is that clubs are being cast loose, with no set of principles against which to test their conduct.
      Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have missed what I said earlier. We proceed in this matter not primarily through the Bill but through the licence. This makes it mandatory for the licence to go into more detail for each club on these matters. He is right to say that forethought should be given in these matters. They will be required in more detail through the licence, but the responsibility of the licensee—the club—and the police authority, is to think through in great detail what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested. I have sympathy with what he said, and the end result, but the Bill and the Dispatch Box are not the places to do it.
      Mr. Ian McCartney: As a supporter of rugby league, I am also concerned about the lack of definition of emergency. The Minister is leaving the matter to be determined by courts if a dispute arises either because someone has decided to appeal against conviction or because a club has decided to appeal against the accusation of infringement of the conditions of their licence. Surely the priority at the time must not be whether there might be a breach of the conditions of the licence, and so an offence, but whether there is a safety risk. By excluding a definition, the Minister puts on police officers, and the chain of command, an unnecessary restriction, and intervenes in their determination of what should be safety matters. The courts will determine, after an accident,
      28
      whether a breach has taken place, and that is serious, given that the Bill was introduced to prevent accidents and serious disorder.
      Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is not right. We are not leaving it to the courts to decide. We are requiring the licence to specify these matters as a mandatory requirement. The licence for different clubs will differ in different places. The right place to make these differences is through the licence, so that each will be tailormade for the club to which it applies. I accept the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he is wrong to think that these things will not be gone into more thoroughly. They are matters for the licence and for those police officers with this responsibility.
      Mr. Randall: The Committee stage finished some time ago, so will the Minister refresh my memory on one point? Who is the ultimate authority on the definition of emergency? Will it be the police or the club? There could be a dispute between the police and the club: what would happen then? If there were a dispute, there could be risk to people. How would dispute be resolved?
      Mr. Lloyd: The final authority will be the police. There must, however, be close co-operation between club officials and the police, and the nature of that co-operation will be laid down in the licence. The worry expressed in Committee, that there was no clear-cut responsibility, is one that we have taken on board, and it will be dealt with in the way in which I have described.
      Mr. Peter Pike: The judgment that there is an emergency on a match day will be made as events take place and as they are seen to take place. When a few days have passed, the judgment of the moment may be called into question by those who have the benefit of hindsight. Those who are called upon to take a decision as the match is taking place will know that it could pose a threat to the club's licence.
      Mr. Lloyd: If a club makes a decision in good faith and on good grounds and there is an argument afterwards that a slightly different decision should have been taken, the club's licence will not be at risk. We need the report of the inquiry and its recommendations before we can come to detailed conclusions on some of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me—his emphasis appeared to be somewhat different from that of some of his hon. Friends—that detailed decisions cannot be made at the Government Dispatch Box that relate to specific circumstances at a certain time at a particular ground. Such decisions must rest with the police and the club officials.
      Mr. McCartney: Is there not a classic conflict of interest that could put a police officer in an invidious position? An officer may have to determine in a matter of moments whether an offence may or may not take place or whether there is a serious possibility that injury may ensue. That was the conflict of interest that existed at Sheffield and which has existed elsewhere. When the conflict arises, it is the spectator who suffers. We should not be inserting in the Bill further conflicts of interest that will be faced by the chain of command when it comes to determine safety priorities.
      Mr. Lloyd: There is not the conflict of interest that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is not a question whether

      29
      there is the risk of injury or the risk that the law will be broken. If a police officer decides that there is an emergency, or the risk of one, and he recommends that advantage should be taken of the provisions that are set out in the amendment, there is no question of an offence being committed. That is with the exception of someone who has been disqualified who slips in with the crowd. Only he would be committing an offence.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions so far on Hillsborough have been somewhat less than fortunate, in that they almost fully blame the police for the Hillsborough disaster? I refer to the conclusions that are set out in his interim report. That being so, this admirable and sensible amendment may be prejudiced. The Opposition take a different position from ours when it comes to support for the police—[Interruption.] That is in the spirit of what my hon. Friends and I have been hearing. Perhaps Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions so far have not assisted the passage of the amendment. His final conclusions, however, may mute the half-time conclusions, if I may so describe them, that attach criticism to the police at Hillsborough.
      Mr. Lloyd: The police have an extremely difficult job. In the circumstances that we are considering, they have a central and crucial role. It is understandable that the first comments in Lord Justice Taylor's interim report were on the police, when we consider that their role is central. I understand that my hon. Friend is saying that the shortcomings and the difficulties that formed the background to the tragedy stemmed from a number of failures and were not confined to failures on the part of the police. Alas, the police were responsible for some failures. The licences will make the role of the police and of the club authorities much clearer.
      Mr. Steve Norris: I ask my hon. Friend to comment on amendment No. 55. Whether or not the wording of the amendment is correct, it is clear that it is designed to determine who shall be the ultimate arbiter on what I shall loosely call the declaration of emergency. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have sought clarification, and while I entirely accept the spirit of the Government amendment, which I clearly welcome, will he explain why he is not minded to accept amendment No. 55?
      Mr. John Greenway: I have not yet proposed amendment No. 55.
      Mr. Norris: It would seem desirable to determine in advance whether the club authorities or the police have the ultimate say in declaring a state of emergency.
      4 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: I shall not address amendment No. 55 until my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has spoken to it. I answered earlier the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—although I have now forgotten what it was.
      Mr. John Greenway: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) that it is not my intention that clubs should be authorised to declare an emergency, for that is for the police to do. That is the spirit of amendment No. 55, to which I shall speak in due course.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, for reminding me of the point with which I dealt earlier, when I said that the licence wil make it clear where responsibility lay. It will be primarily a matter for the police, but club officials will also have a degree of responsibility. If they see an emergency developing, they will obviously want to speak to the police in deciding what should be done. If there is not sufficient time to do that, the club officials will have the responsibility for taking a decision. It is intended that the licence will make it clear that that responsibility will be primarily with the police.
      The Government amendments meet the concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and although there will be extensive debate on the new subsection introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, I hope that amendment No. 31 as it stands commends itself to the House.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in not having served on the Committee as a representative of the Home Office, but hon. Members on both sides of the Committee made the point that neither the Bill nor future legislation should create more offences of strict liability. Also stressed was the importance of providing a defence for those caught in situations that they could not control.
      I am grateful that the Minister has moved on the point of strict liability, but his proposals will not meet the objections that have been raised. It goes to the ethos of the Bill that the Government believe that the creation of more criminal offences will solve the problem of hooliganism, which we do not believe. We do not accept that the drafting of a subsection to create a new offence will overcome the problems arid difficulties that have arisen in the past few years and which led to the Bill's introduction. Instead, the new subsection will criminalise football supporters and place them at risk, and it will make them more confused and concerned about the possibility of committing offences through no fault of their own. It will place a greater burden on both the police and the courts.
      I am very concerned about the drafting of the final sentence in the amendment: I believe that it puts too much onus on identification evidence when it comes to court. Let us suppose that a spectator who is arrested tells the police officer that a certain person allowed him to enter the ground, and had lawful authority to do so. If, given the circumstances of the arrest, the officer feels that the time is not appropriate for him to take such information, the spectator will be arrested and detained, and will have to go to court. The defence provided will be a defence in the court, and it will be up to the spectator to prove that the person who let him in had lawful authority to do so.
      It may be very difficult for the spectator to remember exactly who let him in, and to work out whether that person in fact had lawful authority. We shall get into difficulties with definitions and with identification evidence, and the drafting of that sentence will not help. It will impose a greater burden on the Crown prosecution service, which will have to consider whether to prosecute, and will have to examine the possibility of different kinds of identification evidence. I urge the Minister to look again at that definition, and to consider whether he is really satisfied that its wording will solve the problem.
      Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not want us to create a new group of offences, and I

      31
      sympathise with his view. Surely, however, a person found in a ground without lawful authority—one who had not paid the admission charge, for instance—could be charged with a number of offences at this stage, while under the amendments, which I too welcome, a person will have a defence for being in a ground without having passed through the turnstiles in the normal way. Surely that cannot be to the disadvantage of the spectator.
      Mr. Vaz: I accept that point. The problem is, however, that we are creating a new criminal offence. We have a duty to be clear: if we are not, we shall create more confusion and provide for identification difficulties. Spectators will point to people who have disappeared. After all, a spectator who has been allowed in and then arrested can hardly be expected to make a note of the name, address and designation of the person who let him in and who he claims had lawful authority.
      I feel that the word "emergencies" should be defined. I know that it is difficult, and I note what the Minister says about well-trained police officers; the problem has, however, been identified already in the interim report by Lord Justice Taylor, who makes specific criticisms of the police. The Government and their legislation will not make more resources available for the training of police officers, and it is therefore wrong for the Minister to say that police officers will be given the proper training to make a definitive decision in difficult circumstances.
      We are opening the clubs, the police and others to the possibility of judicial review—lengthy proceedings before higher courts, determining not just what constitutes an emergency but the whole question of statutory interpretation. If we are able to prevent that from happening, we should do so.
      My final point concerns the examples given in Committee. I do not think that the amendment meets the position of someone walking outside a ground who has nothing to do with football and does not wish to be a spectator, but is driven into the ground with the rest of the crowd because of an emergency. He or she will generally be pushed forward. The Minister laughs, but that point was raised by Conservative Members. My example was slightly different. If a person is outside the ground where a large crowd has gathered, and a police officer, for example, decides to open the gates, that person, who is not a spectator and therefore is not protected by the defence in amendments Nos. 31, 32 or 34 which refer specifically to a spectator, may be forced by the general melee to go into the ground. As he has nothing to do with football and does not wish to enter the ground, he is not protected.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: It may help the hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks to know that a passer-by who is swept into the ground by a crowd will have a complete defence. The only person who does not is someone who has been disqualified. Only such a person will not be covered by that defence.
      Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister, but the amendment refers to "a spectator". Unless he can point me to another amendment relating to a person or a passer-by, in the case of a person who is not a spectator, whatever the Minister says now does not bind the courts. The courts will be looking for someone who is a spectator, so a defence is not provided.
      32
      To give a bizarre example, similar to the one I gave in Committee, if a helicopter crash lands on a football ground, a person who gets out of the helicopter will be committing an offence because that person is not a spectator. Unless the Minister can point the House to the defence of a passer-by that makes no reference to the word "spectator", that defence is not provided. No matter what the Minister tells the House, we are discussing civil liberties and lengthy court proceedings that will cost the taxpayer a great deal of money.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not quite sure which sentence the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but he has mentioned the word "spectator". If a person is allowed into the premises as a spectator, that is the nature of the permission he was given. That does not mean that he was a spectator or that he intended to be a spectator, but that he was assumed to be a spectator and brought in. Therefore, he has a complete defence unless he has been disqualified from the membership scheme. I shall look at the wording again after the debate to satisfy myself that I am right to be satisfied that the Bill completely covers the eventualities that concern the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that it does.
      Mr. Vaz: I shall not pursue the matter because my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is eager to make progress. It may seem a small point, but I can envisage such a situation arising and we should cover it. I suggest an amendment to the Minister's amendment changing the wording to "a spectator or any other person who enters the ground in those circumstances". I disagree with the Minister, as I believe that a person happily walking on a street on the afternoon of a football match is not a spectator. A spectator denotes a particular state of affairs in that he is going to watch a football match. Just because a person is allowed in by a police officer does not mean that he is a spectator.
      Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 55——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move the amendment, but he is free to speak to it.
      Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 55 seeks to ensure that a serious public order problem could be avoided by the senior police offcer supervising the policing of a match being in no doubt of his powers to suspend the football membership scheme for the match he is policing, should circumstances so dictate.
      The House has spent some time discussing that issue. I welcome the attempt by my hon. Friend the Minister to rectify the situation. I do not believe that my amendment in any way contradicts this amendment. In fact, they are complementary. Hon. Members are concerned with what constitutes an emergency and precisely who would take the decision to suspend the scheme at a football ground should circumstances so dictate.
      The officer policing the match should be in no doubt of his powers to suspend the scheme in all or part of the ground, and club officials must be aware that such powers exist. Smaller clubs are already experiencing difficulty interpreting Lord Justice Taylor's interim recommendations on the policing of matches. I do not blame the police for that, but the police and clubs will have to work together. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that he

      33
      intends that the new licensing arrangements should make their duties and obligations absolutely clear, but the fact that there is concern and confusion about Lord Justice Taylor's interim report, especially about perimeter fences, shows the need to make the powers absolutely clear in the Bill.
      4.15 pm
      One of the main grounds of opposition of hon. Members who oppose the Bill is the practicality of the computer system and the problems that it could cause outside grounds. At this juncture, and in the light of the terrible Hillsborough tragedy, the safety of supporters must be paramount, which is why I tabled amendment No. 55. Concern has been expressed that the amendment might encourage hooligans to wreck the scheme, and we saw such an attempt during the recent trial scheme in Holland. I recognise that risk, but it will exist in any event, because people may try to wreck the scheme whether or not we make the powers of the police clear. That does not therefore obviate the need to ensure that the powers of the police are properly set out in the Bill.
      Recommendation No. 29 of Lord Justice Taylor's interim report says:
      "The option to postpone kick-off should be in the discretion of the officer in command at the ground. Crowd safety should be the paramount consideration in deciding whether to exercise it."
      It is incredible that that recommendation should have to be included in the report. If crowd safety is to be paramount, police officers should have the power to ensure that a match is postponed. That is a criticism not of the police but of the Football League and the Football Association. There is no doubt that they would welcome amendment No. 55 to ensure that the powers of the police are made absolutely clear.
      We are told that the Bill is an enabling Bill. We do not yet know what the technical specification of the scheme, or the different schemes, will be. The scheme could embrace a number of different schemes at different levels of football, particularly in the light of Government amendment No. 1. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that it would be extremely difficult to define in the Bill "a serious emergency".
      The amendment deals with the possibility of computer failure or failure of equipment. Such a failure need not be malicious. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) tabled amendment No. 56, which deals with the need for a prolonged test of the equipment, including throughout the winter. As we are passing this enabling Bill, it is right to consider every possible eventuality. Judging by the failures that one experiences daily in the performance of computer systems, whether they be cash-dispensing machines or ticket machines at Underground stations, failures will occur.
      We must ensure that the senior officer at a football match has the power to suspend the scheme and, therefore, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, none of the offences outlined in the Bill in relation to entering a football match would apply.
      Even at small clubs the amendment could be essential. At a big match involving clubs such as Arsenal, a commander of the Metropolitan police may be in charge of police operations. However, at a small club such as York City—of which I am president—where crowds are
      34
      smaller, only a police inspector or chief inspector may be in charge and it is important that he knows what his powers are to suspend the scheme should equipment fail.
      I recognise that the police have wide powers already, and it has been suggested to me privately that the amendment may not be necessary. However, I suggest that the amendment is appropriate in the light of what happened at Hillsborough. We know only too well that the police were criticised for treating the event as one of public order, when it was a serious problem of crowd safety. That must never happen again. As a former police officer, I deeply regret much of the criticism heaped upon the police, since in my judgment they were in an impossible position. I do not want to see that occur again.
      There are five reasons why I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will support the amendment. The first reason is because of what happened at Hillsborought. Secondly, we do not yet know what Lord Justice Taylor's final recommendation will be with regard to membership schemes and the policing of football matches. Thirdly, this is an enabling Bill. Fourthly, there is a need for clarity, and finally, there is an overwhelming need to put safety first. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) have a great deal of force and merit. He has set out to provide, in the sometimes frantic circumstances that might attend the 10, 15 or 20 minutes before the kick-off at a major football match, a degree of certainty and a clarity of responsibility. That should commend itself, even at this stage, to those on the Treasury Bench. That absence of clarity detracts substantially from the advantage that might have been conferred on the Bill by the insertion in clause 9 of the defence of what might be called, for shorthand purposes, the defence of emergency.
      The House will appreciate that clause 9(2), to which amendment No. 33 appplies, contains two defences. The onus of establishing these defences will rest upon the person charged with the criminal offence. The additional defence that it seeks to insert is
      "that the spectators were admitted in an emergency"
      That will still need to be proved, by the person against whom criminal proceedings are to be taken. If that defence is to have any substance or be of any real value, it is only right and proper that the word "emergency ", which is such a substantial part of that defence, should be further defined.
      I accept that that may be difficult. However, it is not all that difficult for a draftsman to arrive at a form of words that would give the person charged with a criminal offence some clearer indication of the factors upon which he or she might be able reply. For example, an "emergency" might be defined as circumstances in which there was a threat to public order and safety or injury to persons or property.
      Those factors are clearly defined and would make clear to a person seeking to rely on the defence precisely what the ambit of that defence was. They would also give the courts, which will be responsible for derterming whether a criminal offence has occurred, a set of criteria by which to measure the defence.
      Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to define "emergency". Amendment No. 55 refers to a "serious emergency". Is there a legal difference between the two?
      Mr. Campbell: For the moment, I am concerned with Government amendment No. 31, which provides for an additional defence under clause 9. Courts do not have any difficulty in determining what application is to be given to the word "serious". They may find difficulty in dealing with the use of the word "emergency" without any further definition of the criteria by which an emergency is to be established.
      For that reason, I hope that Ministers will consider—as I think they are still technically able to do before the Bill finally receives Royal Assent—whether a definition of "emergency" can reasonably be inserted in the Bill to provide the clarity and precision that all of us believe such legislation should have.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: I wish first to declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Clarification of the word "emergency" is necessary, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for saying that he will consider this matter again before the Bill finally receives Royal Assent.
      We all know that the police have the primary responsibility for deciding what is and what is not an emergency. That is well established. The police must make such decisions every hour of the day and every day of the week. Given everything that has happened during the past year, especially the Hillsborough stadium disaster, the utmost clarity is essential if the police are to be able to do their job properly and have the support of the public, especially those who attend football matches regularly.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has put his finger on an important point in amendment No. 55, to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will give serious consideration. My only doubt is whether the amendment will encourage those elements which we know exist to press all the more strongly in trying to wreck the scheme from its inception. I should like to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I want to be sure that the amendment does not contain anything that will have the opposite effect to the one intended. All hon. Members recognise that, unfortunately, there are hooligans in our community who are determined to wreck any attempt to impose this or any other scheme that is designed to avoid the terrible problems that we had at Hillsborough. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that specific point.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Amendment No. 55 seems very reasonable and it was described persuasively and reasonably by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I hope that the Minister will accept it. Do not the police already have such powers to act in an emergency? Hon. Members who ask for definitions of "emergency" ask for a particularly obscure form of definition. Naturally, "emergency" must cover any foreseeable or unforeseeable circumstances. A definition of "emergency" is precisely that—emergency. One does not define it further. I should have thought that in those circumstances the police would probably have such powers anyway to set aside the scheme.
      This is the real point. As we all know, the one thing about which we can be sure with a computer system is that it will break down sooner rather than later, usually sooner. There was that embarrassing experience for the
      36
      Government, including the Minister for Sport, when the computer system broke down at the Conservative party conference, and there were difficulties in getting in. Why on earth anyone wanted to get into a Conservative party conference I do not know, given that most of the violence was already occurring inside. I do not believe that the breakdown was a major problem, but it showed that computer systems can break down, as undoubtedly they will under the scheme. If the police do not already have the necessary powers, clearly they must be given them in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister can clear up this matter.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Alistair Burt: I especially welcome the Government amendments on the opportunities to evade conviction because of a good and sound defence. I especially commend to the House the Government amendments that relate to the responsibilities of club officials. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pay tribute to the club officials from whom so much will be expected through the scheme.
      Over the past 20 years, club secretaries and chairmen have had to cope with the problems of crowd control, violence and disorder. Some of them, especially at small clubs such as Bury, my own local club, were concerned that the Bill would add to their responsibilities and might lead to the problem that if there was an emergency and they let people into the ground, they might face the penalty of being fined or even going to prison. My own chairman, Terry Robinson, was especially worried about that. I reassured him that I was sure that something would be done to relieve his anxiety, and I believe that the Government amendments do that.
      May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pay tribute to the work of the various officials who have already done much for football and who will be expected to do more? Will he confirm that these proposals should remove some of the anxiety that the officials felt about what would happen if emergencies arose outside the ground?
      Mr. Roger Gale: I support amendment No. 55 and endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in his opening remarks. My opposition to the football membership scheme is on record in the House and outside. I do not believe that the scheme will work, and I believe that such money as is spent on it would be infinitely better spent on introducing all-seater stadiums and better facilities for spectators.
      Having said that, I am wholly persuaded that it would be nonsense for us to create a situation whereby the Hillsborough inquiry might recommend a scheme—I recognise that I am not the fount of all knowledge on the subject, any more than anyone else is—and we did not have the legislation in place to cater for such a scheme. For that reason alone, I shall support the Bill, although I have also made it plain that, if the Hillsborough inquiry does not recommend the introduction of a scheme, I shall not suport its introduction. I hope that, in the light of my reasonable attitude, my hon. Friend the Minister will take an equally reasonable approach to amendment No. 55.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to an incident at Blackpool, when there was a small computer failure as a result of which a large but extremely orderly body of people were required to wait on the pavement. I shudder to think what might have

      37
      happened had such a scheme been introduced earlier and been in place at Brighton, for example, where the crowd would not have been quite so orderly, or were 40,000 or 50,000 football spectators to be kept out of a ground as a result of a computer failure and, therefore, of a membership scheme.
      It is clear that the police must have the necessary powers to act swiftly and, if necessary, an individual police officer must have such powers in what he or she believes to be an emergency. It would be quite appalling, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will accept, if a major emergency were to turn into a disaster because a single police officer was unaware that he or she had the power to fling open the gates if necessary.
      Mr. Terry Dicks: I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there are many instances in which policemen on duty at football matches do not have personal radios? Usually, there are only enough available for a particular shift, and if policemen come on duty as a result of rest day working or overtime, they are in a football crowd without any personal radio and it is impossible for them to be in contact with their senior officers.
      Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That is why I laid some emphasis on my belief that the individual man or woman on duty should have the power—and know that he or she has the power—to make an instant decision, if that becomes necessary. That is the spirit in which amendment No. 55 has been tabled, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise it as such. I hope that he will feel able to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Jim Lester: I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 55, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) because I suffered particularly as a result of the failure of the computer scheme at the Conservative party conference. My wife was excluded and I had to stand outside with her for two hours in the rain while we went through the whole procedure for the third time to try to get her admitted. I accept, therefore, that computer failures can happen and that they can have very serious consequences.
      I do not think that we should say that we cannot accept an amendment that makes sense because those who might seek to break the scheme might take advantage of it. I hardly think that those who would anyway seek to break the scheme will claim in their defence that amendment No. 55 allowed them to take on the whole scheme. Some football supporters will regard the scheme as a great challenge, as the Dutch fans did, but our job is to pass good, sound and clear legislation under which everyone knows where they stand. People's safety should be the paramount consideration. I support the amendment whole-heartedly because it clearly defines under what conditions and by whom the scheme may be declared temporarily suspended in the interest of saving lives.
      Mr. James Couchman: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Like him, I have a lower division club in my constituency and policing at its ground is under the supervision of a comparatively junior officer. It will be essential that the person in charge of the police on match days has full knowledge of what he or she may do, in terms
      38
      of allowing fans in, to bypass the equipment that has broken down. I beseech my hon. Friend the Minister to take that into account in his final thoughts on the Bill.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: Many points have been made, but I may succeed in being brief nevertheless because some of them have been fairly similar.
      The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said that he did not like the creation of what he saw as a new offence. I would say to the hon. Gentleman—at least, I would say to the hon. Gentleman if he were still in his place—that the amendment would not create a new offence but provide a new defence which has been generally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman was worried that an individual might be prosecuted and say, "Well, I am sure that there was an emergency because somebody told me so but I do not remember the name of the person who declared the emergency." The evidence that the supporter was inside the ground unlawfully will be given either by the club or by the police, one of which will have declared the emergency. The inability to identify the person who has declared the emergency should not, therefore, prove to be a problem.
      I have much sympathy with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and I understand what his worries are. He wondered who would have the primary responsibility in such cases, and wanted that to be set out clearly. As I said earlier, the primary responsibility for the declaration of an emergency will belong to the police, although there will also be a responsibility belonging to the club as the licence holder. One would expect clubs and police to negotiate.
      As I have said before, these matters will be spelt out much more fully in the licence, and it is right that they should be spelt out there, rather than in the Bill, because different circumstances pertain for different clubs and different grounds and each licence should take those circumstances into account. Most important of all, before the licence is finally approved there should be consultation, not merely with the club officials but with the police and other responsible people so that there is no doubt whatever regarding both their general responsibilities and their responsibilities by reference to the particular ground and the particular club.
      The reason that I cannot accept the amendment, although I am sympathetic to it, is that it would enable police officers—and, indeed, by implication, club officials—to suspend the provisions of the Act.
      We do not want the new Act to be suspended in an emergency. We want the police and club officials to be able to take the right decisions without the fear of innocent people discovering that they have transgressed the law. If I accept amendment No. 55, no penalties could be applied to anyone for unauthorised attendance on that clay because the Act would not have force for that particular match. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale would not want that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was understandably worried about a difficulty that fell short of an emergency in which there might be risk of injury. He referred to the possibility of a computer breakdown. If a breakdown led to huge queues which caused a police officer to believe that the situation might become an emergency, the provisions of amendment No. 31 would

      39
      come into effect. However, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has something else in mind in his amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale may have in mind a situation in which the computer system breaks down. Instead of an emergency developing, the queue may simply get longer and snake back away from the ground. At such a typical football ground, there may be no sign of disorder. The fans might be good humoured and patient, but there is a huge problem of actually reading each individual membership card. Such a situation would have to be considered within the terms of the licence. Therefore, alternative arrangements could be brought into force, short of suspending the Act.
      People should be let into the ground, but their cards will not be passed through the computer. However, each individual must show his membership card with his ticket. If he does not, he will not be allowed in. It will not be possible to read the details on each card, but that would be the best effort that the club could make in such circumstances and the law would not be breached. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) were worried about a situation which fell short of an emergency. If such a situation arises, it can be taken care of in the normal flexible course of applying the rules of a particular licence.
      Mr. Denis Howell: This is an extremely important matter. Some of our most important football grounds have 100 or more turnstiles. If a computer breaks down, it is not simply a question of one or two local police officers deciding what to do. If the computer breaks down, 100 turnstiles may be affected. If a turnstile breaks, that is a more local problem.
      The sense of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is overwhelming. There are still a few more days before the Bill goes to another place. I hope that the Minister will accept the rationale of this argument. We cannot allow a situation to develop 10 minutes before kick-off at say, Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool or Manchester United when the computer system has broken down and then discussions must take place to allow a pre-arranged system between the clubs and the police to come into operation. That is not right, and I beg the Minister to think again.
      Mr. Lloyd: I believe that it is right that the clubs should consider what might happen if there are mechanical or other breakdowns. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) referred to a turnstile becoming stuck: clubs must plan for such eventualities to deal with them when they occur. I understand the particular concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. His concern is genuine, but we do not require a special amendment—or amendment No. 55 which he has tabled—to meet his concern.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: A little earlier the Minister said that it would be an offence to be in a ground without holding a membership card. I thought that we had decided in Committee that it would not be an offence to be inside a ground without a card. It will be an offence to be inside a ground if someone is not
      40
      a member of the scheme. It will not be an offence to be inside the ground without a membership card as such. Will the Minister confirm that? A little earlier I thought that he said that people must have their cards to be inside grounds.
      Mr. Lloyd: If there was a breakdown and a member of the scheme did not have his card, he could expect to be refused admission to the ground. If he was in the ground having left his card behind—I wait to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport who has guided the Bill through Committee—I imagine that that person would not have committed an offence if he could show that he was a member of the scheme. I was referring to whether he would be allowed into the ground. Without a card, he would very properly be turned away because he could not demonstrate that he was a member.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I accept my hon. Friend's point with regard to the licensing arrangements. I am sure that he understands that we must have primary legislation in the Bill. We cannot have separate arrangements for different police forces in relation to different football grounds.
      If there is a mechanical failure at a turnstile and the machines do not read the computer cards, it need not necessarily follow that all the other turnstiles have broken down. The problem may affect only a block of turnstiles at a particular ground. Certain police officers will be presented with a difficult situation. Do they allow the fans to pass through the turnstiles? There is no question here of a suggestion that the gates should be opened, because the club will still want to collect the admission fees. However, membership cards will not be checked if there is a breakdown.
      I accept the point made by my hon. Friend that the scheme could be operated so that if someone enters a ground, but is not a scheme member, he would still be guilty of an offence even though scheme cards had not been processed. My point is that club officials need to know that the police have the power to take whatever action they think is fit with regard to crowd safety. My hon. Friend the Minister should make that abundantly clear. If the position is not clear, it should be made clear in the Bill.
      Mr. Lloyd: I have made it abundantly clear that it is mandatory in the Bill that licences should cover those eventualities. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend in that I believe that there must be different arrangements according to different grounds and different circumstances. That would be reflected in the licence and that is why we will operate the detail through the licence, not on the face of the Bill.
      Mr. John Greenway: What about police powers?
      Mr. Lloyd: The police powers are such as to allow them to take the appropriate decisions, particularly in emergencies. If the computer at one entrance point breaks down, that is not an emergency in that sense. It is a difficulty which each club will have considered and will have means to overcome. The most obvious way to do that is to have a sight check of membership cards of people entering that gate. Of course the cards will not be machine-read in detail, but at least such a check would show the almost certain probability that the people

      41
      entering the ground were members in good standing. It would be perfectly proper for the club to do that and it would be something of which the police would approve—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Small Heath may chunter, but as he is a man of common sense, that is the kind of thing that he would do if he was in charge.
      Mr. Denis Howell: That is utter nonsense. A computer could break down and people might be entering a ground at a rate of more than 1,000 a minute through 100 turnstiles. Even if people hold their cards up, it will be impossible to inspect them. The Government should not try to rest on that ludicrous hypothetical situation.
      Mr. Lloyd: The card readers may be independent of each other. If one breaks down there is no likelihood that the others will break down as well. Although I was not present in Committee, I imagine that the right hon. Member for Small Heath and his colleagues claimed that reading cards would hold spectators up. The cards will not be machine-read but will merely be looked at in the same way as a ticket is looked at. All the Opposition's arguments suggest that this arrangement will work particularly well in the event of a breakdown.
      Mr. David Evans: I shall try to help my hon. Friend. At Luton Town football club, if the computerised system breaks down, we have a visual check, and it works very well. At Manchester United, half the ground is entered by people carrying membership cards. Its turnstiles have broken down, and once again a visual check has proved to be quite adequate and there have been no problems. Entry has not been delayed at all.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows what he is talking about. He confirms that there is no particular problem, although I understand concern being raised about this point.
      The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) was worried about some of the points that I have already covered. He was concerned about somebody being prosecuted for being unauthorised, possibly because he had not got a membership card—I suspect, not one who had been disqualified—and having to prove that there was an emergency. He would not need to prove that there was an emergency. It would be for the police or club authorities to say that there was an emergency. That would be a complete defence for that individual, even though it might be arguable whether the police or the club had correctly defined an emergency. Those about whom the hon. and learned Member was worried do not have a problem.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I was particularly concerned about the position of a responsible person under clause 9(2), which sets out two defences. The purpose of one amendment is to add an additional defence—the emergency defence. The onus of proof of that defence will rest on the person attempting to establish it, who will be the person who was accused of a contravention of this part of the Bill. On that basis, is he entitled to know in advance what criteria he can plead in support of that defence?
      Mr. Lloyd: He will see very much more clearly from the licence under which he operates. That worry is more theoretical than practical. Who is to produce the evidence to prosecute such a person? It will be either the police or a club official. As they will be most concerned and will
      42
      consult each other, I suspect that they will arrive at the conclusion that there is an emergency and that they should act. I understand also that the court would act on the basis of what it was reasonable for someone to assume. Because of all the problems that it creates, it is very unlikely that either the police or a club official will unreasonably declare an emergency. I see the hon. and learned Member's theoretical point, but I do not think that it is practical.
      I understand the special concern and interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I agree that clarity is necessary. I hope that clarity will exist in the licences, because there will need to be consultation with the police before licences are finally issued. The police input will be real and extensive before licences are in effect. The police will work under arrangements that they have helped to make.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made some sensible observations. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is often sensible, but usually not when he is commenting on things that I have said. I am particularly grateful to him. He is quite right that it would be a mistake to try to define "emergency" too closely. All sorts of unexpected situations can arise, and it would be a pity if they were excluded by the tightness of the language that we decide to adopt in the Bill for the sake of clarity.
      I can satisfy the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) that we should acknowledge the role that officials will play. We understand that they have performed and will continue to perform an onerous job under this legislation. I hope that, in some respects, their job will be easier because the licences will clarify their role and that of the police. Nevertheless, it is an onerous role and, in exercising it in good faith, they will run no risk of prosecution. If they do their job as well as they can and seek to take the decisions that seem to them to be right at the time, they will have nothing to fear.
      I am glad to have the conditional support of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I hope that, at the end of my remarks on this set of amendments, I will have his whole-hearted support. The police need to know what their powers are. Again, that is part of the purpose of the licence.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Lester) raised certain points. I am sorry about his wife not getting into the conference. I am sure that she had a valid ticket, that she did not riot outside or complain, and that the turnstiles were able to be sidestepped, as would happen in any well conducted football ground.
      I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). With that, I again commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Randall: I compliment the Minister on giving such full replies to many of the issues that have been raised today. However, his reasons for rejecting amendment No. 55 were quite inadequate and unconvincing. He said that it was the right decision because it would result in people not transgressing the law and so on. All hon. Members are concerned about the safety of people. That is the paramount argument in the debate. Amendment No. 55 states that we should suspend this complex system.
      We have a complex piece of legislation and complex licences which will all be different throughout the country because all football grounds are different. Because safety is paramount, we must make sure that the licences and the legislation in no way constrain the police to make the right

      43
      decision in the event of unforeseen emergencies. The Minister has said that he would prefer to keep the system in place and to have the decision-making process through this complex licence arrangement, whereas the Opposition and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) believe that, in terms of decision making and the safety of football fans, it would be better to suspend this complex system. The Minister has failed to convince the Opposition and other hon. Members.
      We are talking about emergencies. We do not know what they are, and it is impossible for us to define them. Because one cannot foresee all emergencies and what they entail, and if we put people's safety before everything else, it must make absolute sense to suspend the system. The amendment is convincing, and I am disappointed at the Minister's failure to make a good case for not accepting it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      THE FOOTBALL MEMBERSHIP AUTHORITY
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 5, at beginning insert—
      'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this is will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 11, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall not designate any body corporate as the Football Membership Authority unless he is satisfied that its articles of association make provision securing—

      (a) that its Board shall comprise a Chairman and six other members, of whom the Chairman and four of the other members are persons approved by the Secretary of State before their election as Chairman or as member, as the case may be, and the remaining two members are persons nominated by the Secretary of State, and

      (b) that the Chairman shall be a person who has no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as Chairman;

      and all the members of the Board shall hold office in accordance with the articles of association of the body corporate.
      (3B) The Secretary of State may withdraw the designation of a body corporate as the Football Membership Authority if he ceases to be satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (3A) above.
      Amendment (a) to the Government amendment, in paragraph (a), leave out 'six' and insert 'eight'.
      Amendment (b) to the Government amendment, in paragraph (a), after first "Secretary of State", insert
      'being members of the Football Association and the Football League.'.
      Amendment (c) to the Government amendment in paragraph (a), after second "Secretary of State", add
      'being one representative each of the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association or, if they have ceased to function, their equivalents.'.
      Government amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Moynihan: The Government amendments relate to the composition of the Football Membership Authority. They follow an undertaking which I gave in Commitee to consider an amendment to make provision on the face of the Bill concerning the chairmanship and membership of
      44
      the authority. I said also that I would consider an amendment to involve the supporters organisations in the running of the FMA. That is the subject of a later Government amendment, but I will refer briefly to it in my comments on these amendments.
      I promised to consider an amendment about the composition of the authority in response to Opposition amendments on the subject tabled in this House and in another place.
      The Bill, as introduced, said nothing on the subject, because the Football Membership Authority will be a private company, not a quango like the National Rivers Authority or the Football Licensing Authority. We should not, therefore, be in the business of spelling out detailed rules on how the FMA will operate, as we have to do for the Football Licensing Authority. I recognise, however, that there is a strong desire to see certain aspects of the chairmanship and membership spelt out in the Bill.
      5 pm
      The Government amendments require that the authority shall have a chairman who is independent of any financial interest or any other area of potential conflict with football and that it shall have six other members. Two of those six members will be nominated by the Secretary of State. The remaining four will be approved by him and will, we hope, be agreed with the football authorities if they take on the responsibility for the FMA. The Chairman will also be approved by the Secretary of State, in agreement, we expect, with the football authorities.
      The amendment does not refer to the football authorities by name because we must take account of the possibility—a very small one, I hope—that they may decide not to take on the FMA. I cannot, therefore, accept the Opposition amendment to that effect. At the same time, the working party set up by the Football Association and the Football League to prepare for the FMA has been hard at work since the Bill's Committee stage, and we envisage that together they will set up the company which the Secretary of State will designate as the FMA.
      The Government amendments do not refer specifically to members appointed to represent the interests of football supporters. I do not rule out that possibility, although the public comments of the chairman of the Football Supporters Association appear to suggest that his personal attitude to the FMA would be a negative one. It is hard to believe that he would want to be associated with the FMA.
      I have always accepted, however, that there is a case for football supporters to be mush more closely involved in running the game. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 8, which would require the FMA to give the representatives of football supporters an opportunity to make representations about the content of the football membership scheme. I understand that the football authorities' working party on the scheme has already held one meeting with both the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association.
      The Bill has already begun to have desirable effects. Our amendment will ensure that they keep the consultation process going. I commend the approach that the Government amendments take on the subject rather than that of the Opposition in enlarging the number of members and then seeking to spell out who should appoint the members of the authority. Of course football must be fully represented on the authority. It remains our hope and

      45
      expectation that the football authorities will form the company that will be designated as the FMA, but if they should decline the offer made to them for first refusal to establish the FMA, or fail to live up to the conditions indicated in that letter, or if something should go wrong with their appointment as the FMA, the legislation must allow for the possibility that someone else, or other nominees from football, will and can be appointed.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Have official moves been made inviting the Football Association and the Football League to be members of the FMA? If such an approach has already been made, what has been their response?
      Mr. Moynihan: I am not aware that any of the organisations representing football supporters have made formal representations to be appointed to the FMA. A number of people within the world of football—not least those identified by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in his amendment which was not accepted for debate—might like to be considered for representation. Some of them have said informally that they would like to be considered. Suffice it to say that we shall consider carefully the nominations. I hope that the football authorities will carefully consider the nominees who might be put to them as part of their team—be it from the supporters' organisations, or representatives of the Professional Footballers Association and other bodies.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister has referred throughout his speech to the "chairman" of the FMA, and that word appears in the amendment No. 3. Is that normal Government use of sexist language, or will the Minister contemplate the possibility of a woman being the chair of the FMA?
      Mr. Moynihan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is traditional language which has been employed by his party as well as ours in legislation of this kind. In no way does it rule out the possibility of a woman being appointed as chairman of the FMA.
      The third amendment is a drafting amendment. It relates to the possibility that a body established as the FMA might give up the job. In that event, the technically correct phrase is that its functions would be divested rather than withdrawn, as the Bill says at present. The amendment will put that drafting right.
      The effect of the Government amendments is to spell out that the chairman of the FMA, be it a man or a woman, must be independent and that there will be six other members—two of them appointed by the Secretary of State and the other four approved by him, or her. If all goes well, that will also be agreed with the football authorities. The amendments carry forward the undertaking that I gave the Committee, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Denis Howell: Although the Minister tabled the amendment, if falls far short of what we were led to believe the Government intended to do. The Minister has fallen into the trap of believing that football should be represented by the two governing bodies and by no one else. As we know from the petition that was recently presented to the House, over 500,000 people watch football on any Saturday afternoon, but the Minister is
      46
      telling us in these amendments that they have no right of membership of the Football Membership Authority. That is monstrous.
      The Minister says that a later amendment gives to the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs the right to make representations. How very kind of him. What a big deal that is.
      The Chester committee of inquiry into football reported 30 years ago and recommended that all those with an interest in football should have a place on the Football Association's governing body, and that that should include the Professional Footballers Association as well as the supporters. Thirty years later that recommendation has not been accepted. That does not give us confidence that the Football Association and the Football League will pay any attention to the inclusion of representatives of supporters and players. Parliament ought to insist that, as of right, they should be represented. When the social contract that is to be enshrined in European legislation is universally applied, the Professional Footballers Association will have the right of membership of the FMA. However, we hope to have that provision in place before then.
      We do not seek in our amendments to displace the chairman and the six other members. We wish to increase that number. I have to confess that we have made an error. Instead of increasing that number to eight, we ought to have increased it to nine. When the Bill reaches another place later in the week, I hope that our omission will be rectified. Apart from the Football Association and the Football League, three organisations are entitled to membership of what the Minister says will be a limited company. Therefore, the House ought to say exactly who should be represented on that limited company. The two football organisations that I have mentioned and the Professional Footballers Association ought to be represented, and that brings the number to nine. The Minister and the House of Lords will have the opportunity to consider that later.
      We have thought it right to include the Football Association and the Football League by name. The Minister just gave an extraordinary reason for not agreeing to that: he said that they might decide not to co-operate, so he might have to impose some scheme on them and appoint people to run it. Even if the league and the FA say that they will not co-operate, I cannot believe that it would not be possible to obtain the names of people from those organisations to meet the terms of our amendment. The only circumstances in which the FA or the league would not co-operate would be those in which a scheme was forced on them and football was not represented as the majority——
      Mr. John Carlisle: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the FA and the league express, as they have, their opposition to the scheme and the opinion that they will not join the FMA if invited to do so, his idea is that they should still be invited on to the committee? We all know of the right hon. Gentleman's close relationship with the Football League and the FA, so perhaps he can inform us of what would happen. Is he saying that those bodies will refuse to serve on the FMA because of their opposition?
      Mr. Howell: I am saying no such thing: that is what the Minister is saying. The Minister cannot accept our amendment, in which we name the Football Association and the Football League, on the ground that they might not agree to serve. I say that there are members of those organisations—one is sitting here now: the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—who could fall into the necessary category.
      Of course the FA and the league are opposed to the scheme, because they know that it will not work, that it will cause mayhem at the turnstiles and that it is an affront to civil liberties which will cause a considerable fall-off in gates among casual visitors, particularly at Christmas and during the holidays. That is why they and we oppose this ridiculous scheme. However, they are democrats and, I am sorry to say, most of them support the Government, although their support is dwindling. If the House puts the Bill on the statute book, members of these organisations will do their best, as law-abiding citizens, to make it work. I think that they would be better advised to have nothing to do with it, because it will not work, and we should not make the representatives of football accept a lawful responsibility, through a limited company, to operate a scheme which they know will not work—but that is their decision, and I understand that they want to participate in the scheme as best they can.
      The FA and the league's position is that, although the scheme is a bad job, it should at least be run by football people who understand the difficulties and who will do their best to make it work. I respect that argument, although I am somewhat sceptical about it.
      The Minister gave us a clear undertaking that the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs would be able to serve on the scheme, so why has he gone back on that? I do not know why we need an amendment to give the right to make submissions—that is meaningless flannel. Anyone can made representations, but these bodies should be participating——
      Mr. David Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that football club supporters' views are not co-ordinated and that the bodies that he is talking about have only a minuscule representation of football supporters? The vast majority of the 500,000 people that he is discussing are not represented by these two football bodies.
      Mr. Howell: That was an extraordinary intervention, given that on Friday I presented a petition signed by 500,000 people, every one of whose signatures was gathered by these two organisations. Before this debate started, the Professional Footballers Association presented me with a petition against the Bill which I will be sending to the Prime Minister and which every professional footballer in the country has signed. These people should have a place: every footballer to be found on the fields of England opposes the Bill, but they, too, are disregarded and are not even to have a place in the working of the the scheme——
      5.15 pm
      Miss Kate Hoey: Would my right hon. Friend wish to point out that not only are these bodies well organised but the Football Supporters Association is so
      48
      well thought of that Lord Justice Taylor insisted that it be given legal advice and be able to give evidence to his inquiry?
      Mr. Howell: I am grateful——
      Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. Howell: No, I shall deal with my hon. Friend's intervention. If I do not deal with it satisfactorily I shall give way with my customary courtesy—I seem to spend more time at Luton Town than at Villa Park these days, which is sad.
      My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Lord Justice Taylor said that the FSA should have the right of audience and of counsel paid for from central funds—expensively—and I understand that he continues to seek its advice on points that have arisen during his deliberations. Both these organisations, as anyone who has had anything to do with them will know, are most responsible. I declare an interest in that I am the patron of the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, which may well be even more responsible than I am, because it does not have to bother with political points.
      These organisations clearly have more information than the Minister has. I spent the weekend in the company of one of their officials who gave me a blow-by-blow account of what went on in Poland at the last international match—an area with which we shall deal in part II of the Bill. The Minister may think this amusing—perhaps he can tell us more later. Perhaps he can confirm that the National Front and other organisations behaved contemptibly during the England-Poland match—they went to Auschwitz and behaved in a way that no hon. Member would condone. We tried to raise this matter, but the Chair did not accept our amendment, so I can mention it only in passing.
      The information on which I based the amendment came from these organisations, which took careful note of what happened—as did the Mail on Sunday reporter who, much to his credit, wrote a vivid report. People of this sort who travel with football supporters can gather this kind of information and know what is actually happening. Most of the directors of the league and the FA, like many of us, have not stood on the terraces for a long time, much less travelled with the England football supporters to see the antics of these disruptive people. The case for having them represented is so that they can say in the councils of the Football Membership Authority, "That is what is happening, gentlemen, and we must direct our attention to it." Having an audience is no substitute for having a responsibility for the government of the scheme.
      Mr. John Carlisle: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the advice that he has supplied about the Football Supporters Association. Can he help us by giving some information about the representation and membership of that association? We are confused because the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have put down an amendment which talks about
      "the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association or, if they have ceased to function, their equivalents."
      The right hon. Gentleman has a deep knowledge of the workings of the Football Supporters Association. Can he tell us how many people it represents? There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman saying that he presented a

      49
      petition with 430,000 signatures gathered by the FSA. How many members does the FSA have, whom does it represent and what other organisations of equivalent status which are within what we might call the supporters league, could say to the right hon. Gentleman that it also wants to be represented on the FMA?
      Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman has not sought to amend my proposals and that suggests that he does not know of any other organisation. The Football Supporters Association is like many Conservative organisations: it does not have members, it has supporters.
      Mr. David Evans: How many?
      Mr. Howell: I do not know. Nobody knows. If there is no membership how the devil can one say what the membership is? It is sufficient for our purposes to know that it exists, speaks for at least 500,000 people and has therefore a legitimate voice. That voice should be heard and the FSA should be a member of the FMA. The National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs is easier to define because as far as I know most of the Football League supporters clubs are members of it. There may be one or two that are not.
      Mr. David Evans: Three months ago the total membership for both supporters associations was not more than 15,000 people. The right hon. Gentleman talks about 500,000.
      Mr. Howells: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that figure. All I can tell him is that every supporters club known to me is in membership of the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs.
      Even if Conservative Members are right and I am wrong about the definition of a body that represents supporters, it would be totally wrong to say that supporters should have no right of membership of the FMA. Equally, it is quite wrong to say that professional footballers, almost 100 per cent. of whom are members of the Professional Footballers Association and who signed a petition today, should not have the right to be on this body. Their livelihood is at stake and they should have a right of audience.
      Our amendments should be accepted by the Government. If they do not accept them it will be a serious affront to all the people who pay to keep professional football going and to all the people who play it.
      Mr. Lester: I shall be brief, because we had a long debate in Committee about the position of football supporters. Surely the debate is not a nice legal argument about membership and whom an organisation represents. The scheme is complicated and difficult enough and one cannot imagine it having any chance of operating unless it has the good will of the Football League, the Football Association and the football supporters' clubs, whether they are federated from individual clubs or members of the national scheme.
      The real point is that whoever is appointed as a result of the Government amendment will not have a cat in hell's chance of making the scheme work if they do not have an interest in working with the grain of football. That is the point that we seek to make. If the Government want to have any chance of even making the scheme tick over, never mind work in terms of excluding the 1,800 people
      50
      who are the subject of exclusion orders, they must have the good will of the Football Association, the Football League and the football supporters' clubs.
      There is no point in knocking or criticising those bodies, because they run the industry and have the greatest involvement in and knowledge of it. They are most anxious to get rid of the hooligans—a point which is constantly forgotten—because they would lose more from hooligans than anybody. The central point that the Minister must consider is how to keep moving along while retaining the good will of those involved in the industry. Without that good will, whom ever he appoints to the body will have no opportunity to make the scheme work.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I was astounded by the Minister's reason for ignoring the Football Supporters Association and the other body representing football supporters. The only reason he gave was that one representative of the Football Supporters Association had seemed to signify that he would not be interested in being a member of the Football Membership Authority. The Minister has admitted that he has never had discussions with the Football League or the Football Association about whether they would be willing to be members of the FMA.
      Mr. Moynihan: I am more than willing to assist the hon. Gentleman on that matter. He is wrong. The Football Association and the Football League have indicated their willingness to serve on the FMA. Indeed, they have gone further and have asked for first refusal at the time of the Secretary of State's appointments to the FMA. They have been co-operating for months on a working party to establish detailed proposals for a national membership scheme. From over 100 potential suppliers they have produced a short list of six and are working on the terms of reference to go out to tender. They have been keenly working on the details, but, of course, they have made their overall position clear about the national membership scheme. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was right to say that despite the opposition in principle, the Football Association and the Football League consist of honourable men who will work within the law to ensure that the scheme works effectively, as I am sure it will, as soon as possible.
      Mr. Wareing: The essential point is that, from the outset, the Football Association and the Football League, like the Football Supporters Association, have been completely opposed to the scheme. Only one club in the country is in accord with the Minister's desires and the Prime Minister's maniacal desires. That is Luton Town football club, whose attendances are falling and whose chairman was the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).
      There is something about what the Minister said in the debate that suggests some sort of attempt to cover up in future anything that happens in football by saying that the Football Membership Authority is a plc and is independent of the Government. At the same time, the Secretary of State will have the right to determine that, if the FMA does not live up to the desires of the Prime Minister, it can be disbanded and a new FMA set up. What plc in the country can be abolished by the Secretary of State and a new one brought into existence?
      The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisile) made all sorts of attacks on the Football Supporters

      51
      Association. He asked how many members it has and how many people it represents. The real reason for his questions is that he does not want any football supporters represented on the FMA. No Conservative Member would ask the same questions about any other quango—and, plc or not, the FMA will be a quango. No Conservative Member asked such questions about the membership of such organisations as the Port of London Authority or the Merseyside development corporation. They have only asked questions about something to which they are opposed in principle, but they are afraid to say that it is opposition in principle. The Government do not wish football supporters to be represented on the body, and that is the top and the bottom of it.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Alan Meale: I am pleased that Conservative Members have spoken about recognition and how many people are represented by these organisations. However, it is peculiar that they have raised it only now, bearing in mind their recognition of organisations that are thinly disguised as something else. For instance, they recognise the Federation of Professional Railway Servants and other organisations in industry and the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists, which represents little. The membership of the 92 league clubs is proportionately higher than Conservative party membership in the 650 constituencies. Where is the balance?
      Mr. Wareing: As my hon. Friend is pointing out, it is ludicrous for Conservative Members, as members of an organisation that lacks much of what is regarded as democratic, to attack football supporters associations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has made the essential point that the football supporters and their associations are the consumers of the football industry, and consumers need to be represented. Consumers in all industries should be consulted when their essential needs are the subject of discussion and debate.
      The FMA can be certain of carrying with it the weight of the opinion of football supporters only if they are represented on the authority itself. I would not say that all football directors—certainly not the ones that I have met in the House—are the most sensible of men. I remember some years ago the former professional player of Sunderland and Newcastle, Len Shackleton, writing a book, "The Clown Prince of Soccer", in which he had a blank page. At the bottom, he said, "This is the average football director's knowledge of the game." I would not go so far as to say that, except of Luton Town.
      Football directors, the Football Association and the Football League should be represented on the FMA, and we seek to enshrine that in statute with our amendment, but so should football supporters, because they are at the rough end not only of this measure but of hooliganism. They are the sufferers, and they are entitled not just to make representations to, but to be represented on, the FMA.
      Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend the Minister is right not to be too prescriptive in laying down who should be members of the new FMA. However, he has given scant
      52
      information about whether these people will be paid and if so, whether, like those who will become members of the Football Licensing Authority, they will be disqualified from becoming Members of the House of Commons. He has not said whether the chairman, in receiving remuneration, would enjoy the same sort of position as the chairmen of health authorities. He might have given more information about who will be members of the new body.
      However, I agree that to have been prescriptive in the way that the Opposition wish my hon. Friend to be prescriptive would be to limit severely his opportunity to appoint the most appropriate people to the new FMA. He owes a little explanation on whether this will be a remunerated position, and under what circumstances. However, he should resist the Opposition's desire to pack the new FMA with people who have a highly vested interest in football.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to pick up something that I raised with the Minister earlier about the language in the amendment and its reference to a "chairman". It was not just tokenism. I feel strongly that consideration should seriously be given to having women representatives on the FMA. Many of us feel that if the influence of women were stronger and more obvious within football, both in management and on the terraces, some of the macho male domination and violence associated with football would be assuaged. The Minister should consider that.
      Football has many women supporters, although not as many as there should be, because the violence deters them from going to matches. I would be interested to know how women have been arrested for violence either outside or inside the grounds. I suspect that, although one or two women have been arrested, that is all. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will bear this point in mind when he comes to study the nominations for the members of the FMA, and that he will make sure that women representatives are on it.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is right to say that it is preposterous that there will not be clearly designated places on the FMA for supporters, through whatever body speaks for them. I should like to see a body much larger than the one that exists now, but no one can deny that it speaks for supporters. The various discussions in which Mr. Rogan Taylor has been involved have not only elevated him to a justified position of national significance, but have shown that he speaks a lot of good sense. We need to encourage such people. Many football supporters have views similar to those expressed by Mr. Taylor, and that should be taken into account. We tend to see football supporters as a mindless bunch of lumpen proletarians, interested only in kicking the hell out of old ladies. That is not true. Those who know anything about football know that that is a gross caricature. However, unfortunately, that is the unjustified image of football.
      The Football Supporters Association had done a great job in raising the reputation of the great mass of football supporters. It is churlish of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) to sneer at the Football Supporters Association by querying how many members it has. The hon. Member Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) dismissed it because it has only 25,000 members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) said, in proportionate terms, that represents a large membership,

      53
      and it is growing apace, because football supporters clubs can also affiliate. Therefore, the FSA can justifiably speak for the great majority of football supporters.
      Mr. David Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore suggesting that Manchester United, which has 95,000 members, should also be a member of the FMA?
      Mr. Banks: If there was someone from Manchester United who was a genuine supporter and part of the supporters' club, that person would probably be a valued member of the authority. We are saying that there should be someone who clearly speaks for football supporters, and the only organisation that makes it clear that it speaks on behalf of supporters is the Football Supporters Association.
      Mr. John Carlisle: If I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, he said that the membership of the Football Supporters Association is growing apace. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that he did not know how many members there were, what is the basis for the hon. Gentleman's figures? How does the hon. Gentleman know how many members there are?
      Mr. Banks: I have been reading the back pages of sufficient newspapers, when I have not been reading and laughing at the articles on the front pages about the crisis that the Government have got themselves into over the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to know that the number of applications that are being sent to the FSA is increasing enormously. It is a growing body. The more that supporters realise that there is a body that is prepared to speak for them, the more likely they are to join it.
      We are faced with the prospect that football supporters will have as their mouthpiece a bunch of handpicked Tory stooges. No doubt the Thatcherite dictum will be applied: "Is he one of us?" That is something that we must resist.
      The question has already been asked, "Why don't we have someone from the Professional Footballers Association?" There can be no argument about how many people the PFA represents. It is obvious that it speaks for professional footballers. Why is it not represented on the Football Membership Authority? It has an authentic voice and a legitimate claim to be heard.
      It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "The Association can write to me." If there is to be something called a Football Membership Authority, we want to see supporters, however they are selected, and players, however they are selected, represented on it. We suspect, with some justification, that when the Minister decides who will become members of the FMA, the first and major qualification will be a Tory party membership card and not some knowledge of football. It is no good the Minister saying that he will be different and not follow the practice of the past, because we know how all quangos have been approached by the Government.
      Mr. Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1983 a survey was carried out of health authority membership? When previous Governments were in office, the balance between Conservative and Labour Members was about 60:40. Following the election of the Tory Government in 1979, it was found that by 1983 the membership was 9:1 in favour of the Government. That reinforces the fears that my hon. Friend is expressing.
      Mr. Banks: Indeed. The statistical as well as the anecdotal evidence shows that the present Minister for Sport, or any Minister who takes his place—no doubt two or three will do so before we have the Football Membership Authority up and running, if it ever is brought to that stage—will have as his primary consideration the affiliation and loyalty to the Conservative party of the individual that he is considering. That is not good enough, and that is why we have tabled amendments (a), (b) and (c).
      I much regret that I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. I have asked my colleagues who were members of it whether there was any mention in Committee of members of the Football Membership Authority receiving payments. Will the chair of the authority receive any form of payment? That is an important matter which we should know about, along with all the others that I have raised.
      I ask the Minister to outline his proposals and not merely to say, "Anyone can write to me. I wish it to be understood that my door is always open." We must ensure that there are authentic spokespersons to represent the supporters and the players.
      I have never heard the hon. Member for Luton, North question whom the National Viewers and Listeners Association, with Mary Whitehouse, represents. She and the association constitute one of the strongest supporters of the Conservative party. It is listened to more than any other organisation within the Conservative party when it comes to broadcasting standards. I doubt whether Mrs. Mary Whitehouse represents any more than a mere handful of loonies and nutters within the Tory party in the shire counties. It comes ill from the hon. Member for Luton, North to tell the Football Supporters Association that it does not speak on behalf of football supporters.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Burt: I differ from Opposition Members, because I do not believe that the door is being shut in the face of supporters or anyone else who wishes to become a member of the Football Membership Authority. The Bill makes it clear that there is no prescriptive right for anyone to be a member of it, but the door is open for anyone who is nominated and supported. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), in his confusion, talked about whether his party should have asked for eight or nine places. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) found himself in difficulties when he was led down the road of considering whether there should be a member of the Football Membership Authority who was a representative of large football supporters' clubs. There could be a huge FMA if the Bill were prescriptive. It is far better to leave open the question of membership, but I say that with some qualifications, which I shall outline.
      Some attention has been paid to the important role and development of football supporters' associations. There is no doubt that over the past few years these associations have come into their own. In a sense, the Bill gives them quite a boost. It will provide them with an opportunity to organise and to work. For some individuals—Rogan Taylor comes to mind—it has meant a profile, and I think that in the main he has responded very well to that. He has become an effective and coherent voice for the supporter.

      55
      He has done much to change some of the public attitudes that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was talking about.
      None of us believes that the football supporter is the sort of person that the hon. Gentleman described. The football hooligan fits that description, and he is the villain we should be aiming at. The supporter has many of the characteristics that are represented by Rogan Taylor and his colleagues.
      As the various groups evolve, we cannot have a clear idea of their structures. We cannot be clear about membership or anything else. I have no doubt, however, that in time the supporters will be properly organised. Probably the distinction will be lost between the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association. Until that happens, I think it best that the Bill remains open. I strongly counsel my hon. Friend the Minister—he knows that I feel deeply on this issue—that there should be space for a representative voice of the football supporter within the Football Membership Authority.
      It is open to question whether there should be representatives from the Professional Footballers Association. Many people believe that the Secretary of the PFA should be a commissioner for football as a whole. Some of us support the Bill because we see it as a turning point in the administration of football. We see the FMA as an embryonic body that can be used as a launching pad for a new approach to football. If the FMA is to have a membership that will take part in changing the face of football, ridding it of the old image which has lost it public support at the turnstiles, it is important that it is a tightly organised body that is determined to make certain changes with an eye to the future. That is a positive step that can be taken in the implementation of the scheme.
      The difference between the positive and negative attitudes to the scheme has been evident throughout our consideration of the Bill. Opposition Members retain their view that the Bill is a bad measure and that only negative responses will flow from it. My hon. Friends and I believe that positive opportunities will flow.
      I counsel my hon. Friend the Minister not only to consider the arguments of football supporters to be represented on the FMA but to ensure that its members have a clear understanding of the commercial opportunities presented by the membership scheme in changing the face of football. My belief is that only people one step removed from football administration can take a clear view of the future. We all agree that football administrators of the past made mistakes and that a new view should be taken by outsiders of changes that should be made.
      Only a few years ago, the two great sports of the United States—football and baseball—were in disarray. Attendances were falling and public interest was slight. Although neither sport suffered from the hooliganism that affects soccer in Britain, both national games were in trouble. Consequently, their structure was reorganised, and football and baseball appointed commissioners to examine the way in which public attitudes to those games could be altered.
      Today, as a result, American football and baseball are singularly successful. American football is now so
      56
      successful that we can even watch it on television in this country. We gave soccer to the world, but if one walks down a street in Bury, one can see plenty of youngsters wearing tee-shirts featuring American football teams. How many kids in Chicago walk around wearing Manchester United or Football League tee-shirts? There are many opportunities to be exploited for the future of British football to earn revenue that can be returned to the clubs and to their supporters—and they are the people who have been missed out in many of the revenue-gathering operations of the past.
      My hon. Friend the Minister should by all means keep the composition of the Football Membership Authority tight, but he ought to ensure that its members are forward-looking and make the most of the opportunities to change the way in which the man in the street views football—so that he, his wife and his children are wooed back to the game. If my hon. Friend the Minister also keeps his options open in respect of support from whichever may be the best suited football supporters' organisation, the Football Membership Authority will be ready for the future and able to exploit the changes that the Bill offers.
      Mr. Joe Aston: First, I declare an interest as vice-president of Sheffield Wednesday supporters' club, unanimously elected at its annual general meeting—yet I would not touch the Minister's proposals with a bargepole. The Bill will be the biggest disaster to beset football in a lifetime. It will be an immense, gigantic cock-up of the first order. Any football supporter who wants to be associated with the Football Membership Authority ought to have his head examined.
      It surprises me that the Minister for Sport is not sufficiently astute to offer at least four or five places on the FMA to football supporters, so that if the scheme goes wrong he can say, "They helped to start it up. It is all their fault." The Minister does not even have the political nous to look for scapegoats. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer was at least able to blame trade unions for contributing to inflation by making excessive wage demands, but now that the Government have destroyed the trade unions, they can no longer be targeted.
      I hope that the supporters' clubs have nothing to do with the FMA, which is 100 per cent. the brainchild of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Sport, and the two apartheid supporters from Luton—the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright)—who do not believe that anyone at the bottom of the social scale should have a voice. Blame for the scheme's shortcomings should be left fairly and squarely on their doorsteps, and they should sink with it.
      Mr. David Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) hit the nail on the head. The Football Association, which has governed the sport for as long as any of us can remember, has made a complete and utter mess of it. The game has lost half its supporters and half the number of people that it previously employed. It frightens me, to say the least, that consideration is being given to inviting the failed administrators responsible for that situation to sit on the FMA, which offers football another chance in its last breath. This is the last time that our great game of football has a chance of rescuing itself from the depths of depression, from hooliganism, and

      57
      from criminal activity. I am nervous that we are about to embark on a course that will involve the total idiots that have been running the game for so long.
      The association has had three presidents in only one year, and it has been trying to appoint a chief executive for 20 months. It has interviewed 68 candidates but has been unable to find one suitable person to run the Football League. Supporters should be represented on the FMA, but whom does one choose? There are 90,000 Manchester United supporters and even 20,000 paid-up Luton supporters—yet only 15,000 people belong to the Football Supporters Association, which is a ludicrous situation.
      For goodness' sake, the Minister must not involve too many failed people from the Football League and Football Association. There is criminal activity both inside and outside the game, and it has not gone away. One thinks of Blackpool and of Stockholm. Far from going away, the problem has grown worse. I recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister chooses carefully from the league and the association those who are to sit on the FMA.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: I want to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) but, unfortunately, he has left the Chamber. In arguing against football supporters being represented on the FMA at this stage, he stressed that the Bill offers tremendous commercial advantages. It is because such arguments are used by Conservative Members that football supporters should be involved. They bring an entirely different set of values to bear from the commercial interests that have often influenced Conservative Members.
      In Committee, a fracture was evident, in that some hon. Members saw the Bill as a way of containing hooliganism—which it is ill equipped to do—whereas others stressed its commercial potential. People are jumping on the back of a spurious attempt to minimise hooliganism in order to change the whole nature of the game and to bring about a situation of a kind that has been compared with American baseball. We may therefore expect to see the sale of popcorn at half-time and other forms of commercial activity, rather than a continuation of the sport's traditions, whereby supporters attend a match solely to watch their team play. It is the Rogan Taylors of this world who should be involved in the running of the scheme, to bring some semblance of sanity to the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Shersby: Much has been said about supporters' clubs being represented on the Football Membership Authority, but perhaps the Minister can say more about its chairman. If the authority has any chance of working well, it needs an outstanding chairman—an outstanding man or woman who is acceptable not only to the world of football but to the police, to this House, and to everyone else who takes an interest in crowd safety.
      Can my hon. Friend reveal the chairman's term of office, his job specification, and who will take responsibility for preparing that job specification—particularly bearing in mind that we have been told today that the FMA will be not a quango but a limited company? Can my hon. Friend say also who will be responsible for drawing up the FMA's articles of association? One presumes that that will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but that is not clear from the amendment.
      58
      Further, when is the commencement order likely to be laid? As I recall, we were clearly told on Second Reading that the House would have an opportunity to vote on the commencement order when it was laid. I assume, therefore, that the order will incorporate a list of authority members and another of the organisations that nominated them, and, above all, that it will deal with the important question of the chairmanship.
      6 pm
      Mr. John Fraser: I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that the chair of the football authority will need to be a genius to save, if not the game, at least some clubs from potential destruction. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) severe doubts about whether supporters ought to be involved: it seems almost like participating in one's own funeral as a pallbearer.
      In the past, I have spoken rather harshly about the Under-Secretary of State, but I do not propose to do so in the future, for good practical reasons. After all, I do not know whether tomorrow he will be Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary or Secretary of State for the Environment. If a former Lambeth borough councillor can become Chancellor, I do not know what will happen next. The actions of the chairman of selectors for the Government have been somewhat unpredictable recently, so I think that we had better be polite to the Under-Secretary.
      If people are to be involved in decision making—I am thinking particularly of exemptions from the scheme—those people should include football supporters. It is unthinkable that, when a statutory body such as this is set up—be it a quango or a limited company—primacy should not be given to those actually engaged in the game of football.
      We hear talk of the need for self-regulation in the City, and the need for it to be carried out by those most closely involved; similarly, it would have been inconceivable for the Manpower Services Commission not to be composed primarily of employers and trade unions. That is customary in the case of nearly every statutory body. The recently established Legal Aid Board, for example, although not composed exclusively of lawyers, contains a sensible number, who know what is going on. Although the Under-Secretary may not wish to write such a requirement into the statute, he should give a clear undertaking that those most closely involved in football will have a part to play and the ability to comment.
      In my experience of the terraces, supporters want to get on with watching the game without interruptions or hooliganism. I often hear more sensible suggestions about policing from supporters than from the governors or the police themselves. They complain that all the supporters of the home team must diagonally cross the path of all the away team supporters, and their suggestions about how entry and exit should be organised demonstrate that they have far more common sense than many others who are involved.
      The overwhelming majority of supporters want an end to the pitch invasions that hold up games. The Under-Secretary has often referred to the invasion of the Crystal Palace pitch by Birmingham fans, but the last thing that the Crystal Palace fans wanted was such an invasion: that is how any supporter would feel when his

      59
      team was ahead and had a chance of going into the first division or taking part in the play-offs. He does not want to see the match abandoned and the team having to start all over again, perhaps on a neutral ground, thus losing its advantage. There is much good sense among supporters, and much will to make the game work without hooliganism. It would be monstrous for the Government not at least to give an undertaking that supporters and others closely involved in the game will be members of the authority.
      Mr. John Carlisle: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), whose opinion most Conservative member respect, prefaced his remarks with a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Minister. That was quite unnecessary and, if I may say so, somewhat unneighbourly. One of the Bill's merits is that it is rather difficult for casual supporters such as the hon. Gentleman to drift into the Chamber and make such comments. His later comments, however, were more creditable, and, indeed, more in the spirit of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).
      I am also sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) are not in the Chamber. They were worried—as perhaps we all are—about the composition of the Football Membership Authority, fearing that it might be peopled by Tory stooges, as I believe they are described. The hon. Member for Newhan, North-West also accused my party of putting nominated members on to health authorities, and pointed out that there were more Conservative members of such authorities in 1983 than in previous years.
      Those hon. Members are like the pot calling the kettle black. When Labour has taken office in local authorities—which, thankfully, has occurred very little recently—it has unhesitatingly removed Conservative councillors from school governing bodies, for instance, and has appointed its own supporters to local authority posts with no compunction. Unlike the Conservative party, Labour has not left even a vestige of opposition to its views. If the Secretary of State decides—as I am sure that he will not—to place Conservative supporters on the authority, on the nomination of six members, that will be by no means unfortunate, as they may be the only people willing and sensible enough to see the scheme go through.
      The only sense spoken in this debate and in Committee has come from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Small Heath—much though we respect his views—let the cat out of the bag. His amendment requires members of the football supporters' associations to be members of the FMA, yet he admitted to the House that those associations had no members, which seemed to come as a complete surprise to Opposition Members. He could not tell the House exactly what their composition was. Obviously they have officers; perhaps we should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those officers are self-apppointed, or whether elections take place. Who are the members of the associations? But I must correct myself: according to the right hon. Gentleman, they have no members.
      How, in all logic, can the right hon. Gentleman put down an amendment requiring bodies with no members to be represented on the FMA? If the FMA were to say to the
      60
      supporters' associations, "Please nominate one of your members for representation," the associations would have to reply, "I am sorry, we cannot do so, because we have no members."
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) pointed out, in his utter confusion the right hon. Gentleman stated in amendment (a) that the authority should have eight members when he meant nine. There is, indeed, complete confusion on the Opposition Benches about who represents football supporters. Is it the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs, or is it the Football Supporters Association? Is it the members of Manchester United supporters association, the 20,000 members of Luton supporters association or, indeed, the many people throughout the country who are members of associations supporting their individual clubs, but not necessarily members of the FSA?
      The right hon. Gentleman will know that our experience in Committee with FSA members—particularly my experience—was less than fortunate. The only hooliganism that took place, albeit after the Committee had risen for lunch, was perpetrated against me, when a member of the FSA brandished papers and threatened to inflict physical violence on me because of what I had said. If that is the sort of person that the Opposition would like to be represented on the FMA, so be it, but they must decide for themselves exactly who should be nominated.
      It is perhaps a little unfortunate that we have not yet reached amendment No. 8, in which my hon. Friend the Minister speaks of giving
      "such persons as appear … to represent the interests of football supporters an opportunity to make representations."
      Perhaps that would be a better idea. There is no doubt whatsoever that the confusion spread by the right hon. Member for Small Heath and his hon. Friends makes it difficult for us to see who should be on the FMA. We are far better to take the wise words and counsel of my hon. Friend the Minister, as we have throughout the Committee, that the FMA and the Secretary of State will have the wisdom and foresight to include on that authority representatives of the supporters' groups.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) accused me of wanting to have no supporters on the FMA. That is a total misrepresentation, although that has not been unusual for the hon. Gentleman in our deliberations on the Bill. I agree with him that the supporters should have a voice. But regrettably, the Opposition in their ineptitude have not been able to suggest anyone who would be truly representative or able to nominate anyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who would the hon. Gentleman suggest?"] Opposition Members ask who I would suggest. As my hon. Friend the Minister has suggested in amendment No. 8, I would be happy for representatives of football supporters' associations to suggest particular names. When I refer to football supporters' associations, I refer to associations throughout the country, not to that mysterious, ghostlike organisation that exists with no members, when we do not know whether its representatives are elected or appointed, whom they represent and where that representation will go.
      My hon. Friend has the utmost support from Conservative Members, who throughout the passage of the Bill sought clarity of purpose, and wish to make sure that those involved in the running of the FMA know something about the game. He has our support because we are convinced that we have the right formula for correcting

      61
      the problems that have been listed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I fully support the amendment.
      Mr. Tom Pendry: I intend to detain the House just for a moment. I had no intention of speaking in this debate until I heard the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). It is as well to put the record straight. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House were present at that Committee meeting. It is true that when the Committee adjourned for lunch, one supporter, who rightly felt very angry at some of the nonsense from the hon. Member for Luton, North, voiced his opinions very strongly. But there was no physical contact and he only brandished a piece of paper. We witnessed that, and it was most unfair of the hon. Gentleman to raise that matter and slur the organisation concerned. I hope that is clearly on record, and I see that my hon. Friends agree that that is an accurate description of what took place.
      We should take some credit for the fact that until now the Minister has appeared to be converted to the idea that football supporters should be heard in the higher echelons of the game. Not only has he said that in the House, in committee and in other forums throughout the country, but he said it to a very wide audience on "Wogan". He said that supporters should be heard by football clubs at board level. If he feels that they should be on the boards of football clubs, it is a short step to allow them on the FMA.
      I hope that the Minister will say clearly that he is in favour of the Opposition amendment. It is clear that the people who represent football supporters are the true lovers of football. They are the people who stand on the terraces whatever the weather supporting that great game. They bring an element of sense into the whole debate. That has been recognised by most people involved in the game, including Lord Justice Taylor, who now turn to those bodies because they talk the level-headed sense that we expect from genuine football supporters. Therefore, we urge the Minister, who has turned a little in our favour, to come full circle, accept the force of our argument and ensure, on the face of the Bill, that those representatives are on the FMA.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I have listened to all the arguments throughout the debate and it seems to me that the crucial point has been missed. We are dealing with an enabling Bill.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and me that six members were not sufficient and that there ought to be eight. Tonight he suggested that the figure should be nine. One could go on and on, but the real issue is that in drafting the Bill and concluding our deliberations on it, we must be sure that it specifies the right number of representatives. That number has to be sufficient to ensure that there will be room for organisations with a valid claim to be represented on the FMA. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to state clearly that he recognises the overwhelming argument for representation not only from the FA and the Football League which have suggested that they are willing to serve but from the Football Supporters Association.
      As the House knows, I am not a proponent of the Bill. In general, I am against it, but if we are to have a Bill and
      62
      a scheme, it behoves all of us involved in football to try to ensure that the scheme works. If, as the proponents of the Bill suggest, its purpose is to police out the hooligans, we shall be left with the overwhelming majority of law-abiding supporters attending football matches. If we are to have membership schemes, we want meaningful schemes along the lines of those that Lord Justice Popplewell suggested in his report, so that fans and clubs feel a much closer sense of identity with one another.
      I have put my name to amendment (c) tabled by the right hon. Member for Small Heath. Although it may be inappropriate to add those words to the Bill, will my hon. Friend give a firm assurance tonight that there will be an opportunity for football supporter representations on the Football Membership Authority?
      Mr. Moynihan: I start on an exceptionally serious note by saying that of course I am totally at one with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the ugly and sickening behaviour of some fans who travelled to Poland. I had extensive reports from officials working at the match. Moreover, I received reports at first hand from travelling fans, not least through the usual obscene and sickening messages, written on the back of postcards displaying black and white pictures of Auschwitz and coffins. That was in addition to the excrement, the death threats and the used condoms which my secretary finds far too regularly in the morning post. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is utterly sickening. Individuals who bring the game into disrepute internationally should be brought to book in whatever way possible for that aspect of their behaviour. That is something on which the right hon. Gentleman and I are totally at one.
      I recognise his point about individuals who posture as National Front supporters, although I doubt whether they have the faintest clue what the National Front stands for. I believe that, subject to the will of Parliament any aspect of that behaviour should be covered by the conditions of membership irrespective of whether people are in favour of the scheme. The FMA, whoever is on it, should take the firmest action against behaviour that brings the game into disrepute, wherever it exists.
      The right hon. Member for Small Heath mentioned the membership of the FMA, which has been well debated. For different reasons, which I accept, hon. Members have spoken for and against football supporters' representatives being members of the FMA. I shall repeat the clear undertaking which I gave in Committee. I said that we are sympathetic to the involvement of football supporters' organisations in the running of the FMA. I continued:
      "It would not be helpful to refer to the existing organisations by name in the Bill because there would be difficulties if they were to go out of business, or if a new supporters' organisation appeared."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 July 1989; c. 336.]
      Two years ago, we would not have been debating the Football Supporters Association, and it is important to bear that in mind when placing the names of existing organisations on the face of legislation that will last a long time.
      I repeat that I am sympathetic to the notion of directly involving supporters in the running of the FMA. The amendment is drawn sufficiently widely to ensure that, from the four appointments and two nominations, the

      63
      Secretary of State will be able carefully to consider the nomination of football supporters' organisations when considering the establishment of the FMA.
      I hope that, by emphasing that point, I have satisfied not only my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) but my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and other hon. Members.
      We could have had an equally sensitive and detailed debate on the merits of a range of footballing bodies being represented on the FMA. We could have argued a strong case for the Professional Footballers Association, for the Referees Association and the Football League executive staffs association. A strong case can be made for the consideration of supporters and their organisations, and I hope that nominations for the consideration of the Secretary of State will come from as wide a representation of bodies involved in football as possible. I strongly repeat the undertaking I gave about the sympathy of the Secretary of State for the direct involvement of supporters in the running of the FMA.
      I had hoped that the debate would not be as lengthy as it has been, because we responed directly to amendment No. 54, which was moved in Committee by the right hon. Member for Small Heath, who kindly said that we had responded to a number of his suggestions. He moved an amendment to ensure the independence of the chairman of the FMA. He was keen to ensure that the chairman is not involved in the ownership or management of any premises at which designated football matches are played. He suggested that no fewer than six members of the authority should hold office under the terms and conditions laid down in the schedule. In practice, we have moved to seven members for the authority.
      I hope that I have responded fully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate the point that he made about eight members of the FMA. I hope that he recognises that it is important that his concerns about the independence of the chairman, which are shared by the football authorities and the Government, are met by amendment No. 2.
      Payment and the terms of appointment of members of the FMA will be delt with in the articles of association of the company. As hon. Members who served on the Committee know, it will be a private company and not a quango. We should therefore keep the role of legislation in it to a minimum.
      We have responded to the points that were pressed most strongly in Committee about the independence of the FMA, but it will be for the bodies that form the company to draw up its articles of association and deal with the term of the chairman's appointment, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). The Secretary of State will take an interest in such matters, because he will be considering the appointment of the FMA, but he will not write its articles of association.
      The FMA is very different from the Football Licensing Authority, which is a quango and is thus subject to all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham made about health authorities and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Those points will not apply to the FMA.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned terms of office, job specifications and
      64
      articles of association. All those issues will be worked out by the FMA and will be subject to the futher consideration of the Secretary of State when he approves the FMA, subject to the will of the House in the first of the two debates that are expected to take place following Lord Justice Taylor's final report.
      I recognise that that may not completely satisfy Opposition Members, but I hope that the firm commitment that I have given, in the light of the conflicting views that have been expressed, proves our keen and determined willingness to ensure the active involvement of football supporters not only in then FMA but, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, in their clubs and, through their clubs, in the running of the game. There are many international examples that British football can readily follow, not least Portugal. Although that argument is tangential to the Bill, it must nevertheless be considered carefully by football's authorities.
      Mr. Denis Howell: With the leave of the House, may I thank the Minister and acknowledge that he met us about the independence of the chairman of the FMA?
      Naturally, we are disappointed by what the Minister said. Normally, we would have sought to divide the House on the three amendments, but as we are already hours late, and as that would take 45 minutes, we shall not do so. I am advised by my right hon. and hon. Friends that we shall have one vote at nine o'clock, which will illustrate our various objections.
      I thank the Minister for moving half a step in our direction, which is all that we can expect at this hour of the night.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 11, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall not designate any body corporate as the Football Membership Authority unless he is satisfied that its articles of association make provision securing—

      (a) that its Board shall comprise a Chairman and six other members, of whom the Chairman and four of the other members are persons approved by the Secretary of State before their election as Chairman or as member, as the case may be, and the remaining two members are persons nominated by the Secretary of State, and

      (b) that the Chairman shall be a person who has no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as Chairman;

      and all the members of the Board shall hold office in accordance with the articles of association of the body corporate.
      (3B) The Secretary of State may withdraw the designation of a body corporate as the Football Membership Authority if he ceases to be satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (3A) above.
      No. 4, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'withdrawn' and insert 'divested'.[Mr. Moynihan.]
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 34, at end insert—
      '( ) Where the Secretary of State withdraws the designation of a body as the Football Membership Authority, he shall, as soon as it appears to him to be appropriate to do so, lay before each House of Parliament a report stating his reasons for the withdrawal.'.
      In Committee, I explained that it was the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament on any decision to withdraw his designation of

      65
      a body as the FMA. I promised to consider whether it was necessary to provide for this on the face of the Bill, and, if so, to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report. That issue was again raised tonight by Opposition Members.
      Amendment No. 5 follows from that undertaking. It requires the Secretary of State to explain in a report to each House the reasons for the withdrawal of his designation, and for the report to be laid as soon as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so.
      The reference to timing is important. If the Bill were to require the Secretary of State to make his report within a specified period, as was suggested at an earlier stage, the circumstances of a particular case could make it very difficult, or perhaps impossible, for him to comply. If, for example, there were allegations that those running the FMA had committed criminal offences, it would clearly be impossible for the Secretary of State to make his report in advance of the resolution of the associated legal proceedings. The amendment will ensure that Parliament is fully informed as soon as possible of any decision that the Secretary of State takes to withdraw his designation.

    Clause 4

      NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP SCHEME: MAKING,APPROVAL,MODIFICATION ETC.
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 47, after 'section', insert '(a)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
      Mr. Moynihan: The amendments require the Footbal Membership Authority to consult interested parties in drawing up or modifying the national membership scheme.
      Amendment No. 6 requires the FMA to consult the Football Association of Wales and fulfils an undertaking I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is, with the assistance of a working party of interested parties set up for the purpose, looking at the matches in Wales to which the scheme should apply. It is important that the Football Association of Wales should have the opportunity of making an input as the scheme is drawn up or in the event of its being modified. I am happy, by way of this amendment, to ensure that the association is given this opportunity.
      The third amendment concerns the important matter of safeguarding the interests of football supporters. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) moved an amendment in Committee to add the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs to the bodies that the FMA must consult under clause 4(2). I explained in Committee that the Government are sympathetic to the notion of involving the football supporters' organisations and I said that I would consider how best to achieve it.
      As I have explained fully to the House, it remains my view that it would not be helpful to refer to the existing supporters' organisations by name in the Bill, not least because there could be difficulties if they should cease to exist, or if a new organisation should be formed. The
      66
      amendment therefore provides for the FMA to consult supporters' organisations. Those organisations would then have the opportunity of making representations on the detailed scheme as it is drawn up or on any changes made to it. I commend this approach to the House.
      The Football Membership Authority's working party on the scheme is already consulting the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association. However, I regret that the chairman of the FSA may not take the positive approach to the scheme that I had hoped for. Nevertheless, it is important that the FMA should consult supporters. The Government are fully committed to involving football supporters in drawing up the scheme. They must be involved and given the chance to have their say. The amendment will bring that about.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: I thank the Minister for responding to our call in Committee to ensure that the Football Association for Wales will be properly and statutorily recognised in the consultation process. As the Minister will acknowledge, we made strenuous efforts to exclude Wales from the Bill but, having failed to do so, it is right and proper that the Football Association of Wales should have a proper statutory role in the consultation process. I hope that the Football Association of Wales will seek to strengthen and develop its links with football and football supporters in Wales.
      The association had the image of an aged establishment that was not capable of responding and relating to the widespread and growing support for football—both league and non-league—in Wales. Having been given that function and role, I hope that, in future, the Football Association of Wales will start to reflect the energy, excitement, support and commitment of a large number of people. Although rugby is our national sport, football has great support in the Principality. I welcome the opportunity that the Minister has provided for the Football Association of Wales to take part in the vital consultation process.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister kept saying that the Government were determined that supporters should be consulted. However, what matters is not what the Minister says at the Dispatch Box but what is written in the Bill. If the Bill is amended as the Minister expects it to be, it will provide for consultation with the Football Association and the Football League, but football supporters will have only an "opportunity to make representations." Anyone has the opportunity to make representations to the FMA. The Minister should find some other way of ensuring that football supporters have a statutory right to be consulted, rather than the wishy-washy permissive approach that he is enshrining within the Bill.
      Mr. Moynihan: Under the Bill, the FMA, in preparing a draft scheme that fulfils the requirements of clause 5, will have to
      "give such persons as appear to it to represent the interests of football supporters an opportunity to make representations."
      That is a strong commitment. I have no doubt that, if lively and active football supporters' associations were not given the opportunity to represent the interests of the bodies that they form, they would act swiftly to seek judicial review.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 47, after 'Association', insert
      ',the Football Association of Wales'
      No. 8, in page 3, line 48, at end insert
      '; and

      (b) give such persons as appear to it to represent the interests of football supporters an opportunity to make representations.'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

      Mr. Jim Lester: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 4, line 10, at end insert
      'Provided that the Secretary of State and the Football Membership Authority are satisfied that any equipment to be used for the operation of the scheme has been thoroughly tested for a sufficient period of time as to allow such testing to take place during the winter months.'
      The amendment is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It spells out clearly the test of the Government's good faith. All along we have given credibility to the Government's promise that they would not implement any scheme unless they were satisfied that it was technically sound.
      We need to insert the amendment because we all recognise that the technology needs to be tested in a full profile of the football season. It will not be enough for it to be tested for a brief period during a certain time of the year, because in football things happen at odd times. For example, cup matches are played late in the season and a first division club could play a "giant-killing" non-league club. Nobody can predict when such matches will occur. We need to cover occasions such as Boxing day. Many people go home to spend Christmas with their families and it is popular to go to a football match. Throughout the country such matches attract many casual supporters and the system needs to be tested to ensure that it causes no problems.
      Those of us who are familiar with technical equipment know that the equipment will be used only at weekends and not necessarily every weekend. We need to be sure that it does not respond to adverse temperatures and condensation. I am sure that if he were here my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) would agree that the Luton scheme, with which the House has been bored on more than one occasion, has sometims failed because of condensation. We need to ensure that the technical equipment functions in all weather conditions.
      Perhaps the most important point to put to the Minister is that we must test the criteria by which the machinery operates. After Hillsborough, is the criterion to ensure that the maximum number of people gain entry into the ground with the least possible trouble?
      That is the crowd safety argument mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale in a previous debate. Are we testing the ability to exclude people? One of my principal criticisms is that we may be putting up to half a million people through machinery every weekend in an attempt to try to exclude any one of the 1,839 who have been excluded from matches since 1987.
      The police are concerned to know what rights they have to arrest anybody who has gone through the equipment and whether the flashing red light is sufficient evidence to arrest or keep people outside the ground. That is an argument that we have had many times. It is not a popular argument, because keeping people outside creates tremendous pressure outside the grounds. Is it the intention that people should be let in and subsequently be
      68
      taken away quietly to some other place within the club precincts to be questioned to find out whether the machine has made an error?
      Some hon. Members have referred to the errors made by computer-type machinery. When I was at a football match this weekend I looked to see whether the flashing light referred to the right person. When a light flashes at a turnstile there are many people around, and we have to ensure that the card applies to the right person.
      Mr. Pike: Is it not possible that all the turnstiles in that row—they are always in blocks—will flash red at the same time? Is that not one of the difficulties that will be shown up if the Bill is forced through Parliament and a reason why it is important that the equipment should be tested in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Lestor: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. Most members of the Committee who oppose the Bill, on grounds both of practicality and of principle, feel that great store must be placed on the Minister's pledge not to implement the scheme unless he is totally satisfied that it is the correct one. There must be exhaustive testing.
      Mr. Roland Boyes: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am vice-chairman of Hartlepool United football club. The other day, I had the pleasure of welcoming the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to the club——
      Mr. Ashton: Who won?
      Mr. Boyes: York City won.
      This is a good amendment. If the equipment kept breaking down in winter, it would cost money to repair it. We have just spent nine hours at Hartlepool discussing our financial problems—that is on the record in the newspapers. The Minister says that we shall have to contribute towards the cost of installing the equipment. During the winter months, the equipment may continually break down and we may have to fetch in electronic engineers and computer experts, at great expense. I am sure that I speak on behalf of dozens of football clubs when I say that the cost of repairing the equipment will be a great drain on our resources.
      Mr. Lester: That is a point of finance, but the point that the hon. Gentleman makes from his detailed knowledge of the game is valid. From 5 May, in the run-up to the World cup, there will not be many opportunities to test these machines. My hon. Friend the Minister should tell us how he thinks testing can take place and, on the point made by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), how it can be financed and who will finance it.
      I am sure that there will be no great rush of volunteers among the clubs to be the test men.
      Mr. Randall: I have a reservation about this. Rather than my making a long speech about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can comment on it. The amendment places great emphasis on equipment. If we are to test the scheme, should we not test the whole system, not just the hardware and the software? After all, pages 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill are about the licence. Should not the amendment, therefore, be just a little wider?
      Mr. Lester: I suspect that licensing would go on regardless of the equipment and the testing of the scheme. The criteria hinge on the type of system and equipment,

      69
      which must be tested exhaustively before the authorities can even proceed to issue licences. I cannot imagine any clubs rushing to volunteer to be test men and putting their supporters through the business of taking out cards, or using whatever system is recommended, to find out whether the system works. I have heard that it will cost £2·5 million to carry out testing, before we get anywhere near the major scheme. It will be interesting to know who is supposed to provide the £2·5 million to the volunteer clubs—which I suspect will be unwilling to take part—to see whether the equipment works. These questions and the amendment deserve careful consideration.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what definite information he has on the cost, if indeed there will be a cost? Might not the scheme be implemented by some companies at no cost to the clubs due to the commercial opportunities which might spin off from it, and would my hon. Friend welcome that?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Lester: I would welcome anything which imposed no financial cost on clubs, many of which are already struggling to make ends meet, but I suspect that my hon. Friend would be as amazed as I if any fairy godmothers were found waiting in the wings to come forward with free schemes. Whatever the criteria to be included in the Bill, we must be sure that the equipment and the scheme are workable.
      The onus must be on the Government, who are proposing this legislation, to ensure that it will work. I cannot see how all the testing can be done before the 1991 season, as the Arthur Young report stated. The onus on the Government is heavy because they proposed the legislation against the better judgment of 91 of the 92 clubs, the 430,000 regular football supporters and the totality of football players, as we have heard today. The Government must be sure that they are right and that their scheme will work, against the overwhelming evidence of all those who are closely involved in the game and who would be the first to rush to the Government if they were as afraid of the problems of hooliganism as some Conservative Members have suggested they are.
      I am happy that this is the fourth year in which attendances at football matches have increased. At the weekend, I had a good look around to see how many ladies and children were in the audience at the match between Nottingham Forest and Queen's Park Rangers. I am happy to say that a high proportion of women and children were present on that happy and enjoyable family occasion. They came to a good match and enjoyed the whole game.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Including those on the terraces?
      Mr. Lester: Yes, those on the terraces as well.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I support the amendment. Many of us who are most strongly opposed to the Bill oppose it as a matter of principle. Throughout its passage, there have undoubtedly been a considerable number of occasions when the practicalities of the measure have seemed as important to those of us who oppose it as a matter of principle as the principle itself. If the scheme is to be approved, it must work in all circumstances and have the capacity to deal with the improbables and, indeed, the
      70
      very emergency which we discussed earlier. For that reason, I believe that the amendment is clothed in common sense. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
      Implicit in the amendment is the suggestion that one is necessarily dealing with electronic equipment. I know that at least one of the six proposals that are still before the Minister for consideration does not necessarily involve electronic equipment. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to offer any announcement this evening, but the House wants to be assured that the most careful consideration will be given to all the options so that the option that is finally chosen is regarded as the best possible means by which the scheme should be operated and is subjected to the most rigorous testing. In a sense, if the means by which the scheme is to be made to work at football grounds on Saturday afternoons are wrongly chosen or in any way defective, the apprehensions of many of us—that the difficulties outside football grounds may be compounded rather than alleviated—may turn out to be well founded.
      The Government have chosen to embark upon this scheme. It is incumbent on them to satisfy themselves by the most rigorous and compelling evidence that it will stand up to all the strains and stresses to which it will necessarily be subjected.
      Mr. John Greenway: I want to deal only with matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) did not mention. Even though some of us oppose the Bill, as I mentioned earlier, it is vital that if we are to have a scheme, it should be seen to work. The confidence of the supporters that the scheme will work is crucial. At some stage, we shall have to stop talking down the Bill and ensure that fans are not put off coming to football matches because of their concern that dreadful events may happen at games.
      The equipment that may be used in introducing the scheme lies at the heart of that concern, not only because the fans are worried about safety, but because they are worried about whether they will be admitted to matches to which they are entitled to be admitted and whether there may be some malfunction of the equipment, which may misread their cards.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is right to include the words "winter months" in the amendment. About three seasons ago, York City football club played Arsenal and Liverpool in FA cup matches, one in the fourth round and the other in the fifth. Both matches were played on Saturdays in February and the fans had to clear about a foot of snow off the pitch and terraces so that the game could go ahead. The television cameramen were also keen to help us to ensure that the games went ahead, and both matches were played in sub-zero temperatures. It is important that the electronic equipment used is shown to be capable of working in such conditions.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, FA cup games throw up unusual fixtures and they are usually played in the winter months. It is important that the equipment is seen to work and to be capable of dealing not only with winter fixtures, but with large crowds at some of the smaller grounds, which are used to seeing only 3,000 or 4,000 spectators on Saturdays—and sometimes, sadly, even fewer—and which suddenly have to deal with 15,000 or 20,000 spectators, if they are some of the bigger stadiums in the third and fourth divisions.
      The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) made a point about the cost of repairs. He tried to

      71
      suggest that if the test is carried out for too long, we could be throwing a considerable amount of money at testing and dealing with breakdowns. The finances of most third and fourth division clubs will not allow for a massive influx of money to make the equipment repairs to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      Mr. David Evans: At Luton, we introduced a computerised system and the cost of testing was zero. It took no time to test. It was tested completely within one day and, over the past three and a half years, the antiquated system has not failed us. I suggest that, with the modern equipment available, the point about the time for testing is just a red herring from the Opposition.
      Mr. Greenway: One of the difficulties of having a test carried out at only a few clubs—several hon. Members have referred to the Government's intentions on this—is that we shall be dealing only with small numbers. When the scheme is in force in all 92 clubs, 450,000 to 500,000 people could be going through the turnstiles on the same day and they will all be using the same national membership scheme database.
      Mr. Lester: If I remember correctly from our discussion in Committee, it will be a Europewide scheme, not a scheme only for the United Kingdom. That is a rather different matter from 8,000 regular attenders at Luton.
      Mr. Greenway: We seem to be digressing from the point raised by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington. He said that it was surely right that the equipment should be seen to work before all 92 clubs had to put their hands in—for many of them—fairly empty pockets to pay for the equipment in the first place.
      There is an argument about whether it will cost small clubs any money to institute the scheme. I remain to be convinced, as do the chairmen of the majority of Football League clubs, that the scheme could be introduced at no cost to them. I assume that there will be a cost and we require a proper period of testing to ensure that there is no waste of money. If we do not have a proper testing period and then find that the scheme does not work, much of the money will be wasted, and in many of our league grounds, that money could more reasonably be spent on new seating and facilities for supporters. If the scheme fails because it has not been tested adequately, there will be not only the serious cost to the football clubs that have paid money for the equipment to be installed: the political cost to the Government of failure will be extremely serious. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on that.
      The amendment is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) suggested, born out of an attempt to filibuster the introduction of the scheme. It is not a wrecking amendment, but is born out of the desire of those of us who oppose the Bill, but who none the less see the political reality that there will be a scheme, to make the scheme work. Unless the fans have full confidence that the scheme will work, there could be serious political consequences.
      Mr. Boyes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's last point. Will he accept that we on the Hartlepool board want to stay within the law? We may not like it, but we would accept the Bill when it became law. However, to say that we accept the law does not mean that we can implement it;
      72
      we do not have the cash to do so. The Minister has said that there will be zero cost, but during the passage of the Bill, I have not heard the Minister say definitely that Hartlepool United, York City or any other club will be given money for the equipment, the repairs and the buildings necessary for the equipment. The Government have never told the House that there will be a grant or any other help towards that.
      Mr. Greenway: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he has made a valid point, which requires no further comment from me.
      The political cost of the failure of the scheme would be damaging for the Government, and I say that in sincerity and good faith. In Committee—I am sorry that I was unable to serve on that Committee—the Government gave undertakings that the scheme would be introduced on a national scale only when it could be shown to work and the technology was available. The amendment is the litmus test of that commitment.
      Mr. Norris: Although the amendment may be technically unnecessary, it raises an important issue of practicability. However, we shall vote against it if necessary, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) will not press the amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), speaking for the SLD—I do not want to get the name wrong—made an important distinction. He said that the Bill raises two issues, one of principle and the other of practicability and he is right to draw that distinction. I am concerned about the principle, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) emphasised that in this forum we should be debating the principle.
      I make that point because I believe that the practicability can be taken for granted. I do not want to be trite and wax on, although that would be breaking the habit of a lifetime, and talk about the impact of new technology. However, in an age such as this, it is surely not beyond the wit of man to devise a perfectly straightforward system to admit people to a ground, and to do so throughout normal temperature conditions and in all the normal circumstances at football grounds. Those of us who have been the most vigorous supporters of the Government's proposals, and who remain so convinced, take it for granted that the scheme that is introduced will be sensible and will have undergone all the normal, rigorous tests that should be applied to such a scheme. It must be a matter of common accord that, when the scheme is introduced, the last thing we want is for it to break down and to cause more problems than it is designed to prevent.
      It is an extraordinary proposition that we should allow our attempt to control the problems of violence in football —which is the whole aim of the Bill, as I keep saying—to be frustrated because of our inability to produce cards that swipe properly in sub-zero temperatures. I have much more faith in our abilities, and the considerable number of companies that have shown an interest in providing the technology leads me to believe that we can find a solution and a technology that work.
      7 pm
      Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister told us in Committee that the cards would operate nationally. That means that someone can go in the morning to a post office or to the

      73
      shed at Halifax to get himself a card. He then has access to any league match in the country. He can nip down and watch a game at Arsenal. The technology must be such that, with about 300,000 people coming in in the last 15 minutes before the game, telephone connections with a national computer can be used to check the membership cards. If such technology existed, the scheme might work, but I do not think that even the Minister believes that it exists.
      On Friday when we discussed the ways and means resolution, the Minister said what he will presumably say in his answer to this debate:
      "if the Government went ahead with a national membership scheme, we should need to be satisfied that the technology was up and working and correct so that the scheme could be implemented effectively from day 1."—[Official Report, 27 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 1267.]
      It seems to me that we shall not get a practicable scheme. The principle will be established and then the Government will back off from their commitments regarding the practicalities.
      Mr. Lester rose——
      Mr. Norris: Technically, I should at least get back to my feet before giving way to my hon. Friend who so earnestly wishes to intervene.
      Let me respond to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has wrongly described the technical qualifications of the scheme. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister confirming what the essential elements will be. It is a sine qua non of the scheme that the card should be transferable from ground to ground and that it should be acceptable at all the league grounds to which the scheme applies. I see nothing particularly technically difficult about that. I understand that a large number of companies have tendered for the contract to provide the technical equipment, and I look forward to the successful tenderers producing a perfectly serviceable product.
      It is important to make two points about cost. There are two elements: one is the capital cost of installing the equipment and the second is the day-to-day cost of producing the cards. I understand that the half-dozen or so serious contenders for the contract—I am not sure of the exact number—have said that the facility, or the capital works, will be provided at no cost to the club. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale ( Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who represent the heartfelt interests of smaller and less wealthy clubs, may have missed this point when reading the reports of our proceedings in Committee. My hon. Friends and I well understand that the last thing that a club whose finances are in a parlous condition wants is a large capital imposition resulting from this scheme. But I understand that that will simply not be the case and that all the tenderers will deliver on the basis that there is no capital cost to the clubs involved.
      That is not, however, the whole story. The second element of cost is what one might call the revenue cost —the cost of providing cards to individual spectators. Apparently, the maximum cost of producing the cards will be about £9·90 for three seasons—a gross cost of £3·30 per season. It is important to stress that that is the gross cost. Suppose that there are 20 home matches per season; £3·30 divided by 20 is hardly a great impost on spectators.
      74
      Moreover, many companies have recognised the advantages of using the card as a means of marketing their products and services in co-operation with football clubs, and no doubt the clubs represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington would be just as interested in sponsorship opportunities as some of their larger brethren. Such sponsorships can reduce the cost to below the £3·30 per season figure, and it is to be hoped that in many cases the cost will be virtually nil.
      Those who say that the scheme will be impracticable —as if it were impossible to devise a card to be swiped through a perfectly straightforward piece of equipment such as is to be found on every third door in our high streets—are unnecessarily pessimistic.
      The capital costs will simply not have to be borne by the clubs, and the revenue cost—a maximum of £3·30 per season for all the club's games and for games at any other ground—could be reduced to virtually nil. We have nothing to fear from the technology. I emphasise what. I said at the beginning. Those of us who have most loyally supported my hon. Friend the Minister throughout the proceedings on the Bill take it for granted that the technology will be thoroughly tested in the circumstances that have been described, somewhat poetically, by my hon. Friends, before the scheme is implemented.
      Mr. Lester: Surely the desire to test the technology has arisen because of what happened at Hillsborough. We are waiting for Lord Justice Taylor's report because we want to be satisfied—in spite of my hon. Friend's faith in our developing a technology which has never been developed before—that the technology will not give rise to further disasters. I do not share my hon. Friend's complacency and I remain convinced that we need to test the equipment, for all the reasons that we have advanced.
      Mr. Norris: I merely register the fact that I do not share my hon. Friend's view. I see no reason why the technology should not help us considerably in our attempts to prevent the kind of scenes that we saw at Hillsborough recurring. It is the object of every one of us who supports the scheme to provide not only the equipment but the legislative framework to avoid incidents such as that at Hillsborough.
      Mr. Moynihan: The Government have always accepted that the technology to be used in the national membership scheme should be properly tested before the scheme can begin. When we discussed the subject in Committee, I said:
      "testing the technology for the scheme would be part of the preparations for implementation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 July 1989, c. 503.]
      I also repeated, as I have done many times, that we shall not go ahead with implementation until we are satisfied that the technology is workable, efficient and safe. It is no more in the interests of the Government than in the interests of anyone else for to scheme to be set up before those conditions are satisfied.
      I listened with interest to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We are talking about technologies that have not yet been chosen and which are very different from each other. If the membership authority chooses a technology that does not require large capital investment in machinery, the testing period will be very different from that for an alternative technology that the authority may

      75
      recommend. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest spoke of a different technology. His point does not reflect the need to go down the line to check whether each card carried by 600,000 members is valid. On the contrary —some hon. Members have seen technologies allowing the club access, on the day before or the morning of the match, to a referral file of invalid cards.
      As soon as that file arrives at the club, the readers, which are regularly updated with the referral files, are taken to the turnstiles and can be placed on them. As a scheme member enters, the reader shows whether his card is valid or invalid. That is not dissimilar from the operation at Luton Town or at Derby County. Those clubs have few difficulties with invalid or faulty cards. Oxford United and Reading have similar systems. If a member's card causes a red light to go on at the turnstiles at Reading because he is on the referral file, he is not allowed in. That fan must go to the club office, where an inquiry is made. The FMA believes that it is better to allow people in to avoid turning someone round in a turnstile. If people are allowed in, it is better for stewards to handle them inside grounds. That is what happens at Oxford United.
      At Tottenham Hotspur similar technology with a referral file permits a supervisor in addition to the gate man to respond to a red light. If the red light comes on, a code number is indicated to the supervisor, thus giving him the reason for the red light. The way in which clubs deal with such situations depends on what is happening outside the turnstile.
      The appropriate technology requires appropriate testing. As Luton Town and other clubs have found, that testing can be carried out on one or two Saturdays. The scheme is not relevant to this debate. We are considering the technology that must be tested. That testing may take place on two consecutive Saturdays next year, after the FMA has considered whether it wants two or three systems to be tested. The FMA might hypothetically decide on a short list of three and then to go to Luton Town. It may remove the equipment from three turnstiles to test the technology alongside the present system in Luton. Luton Town may assist that, and that may require testing lasting one week, two weeks or three months. When we consider the six short-listed systems, I believe the testing can be carried out efficiently and speedily. We will not be satisfied with the relevant technology until that testing has been carried out. The Government will not approve the system until we are satisfied that the technology is workable, efficient and safe.
      It is utter nonsense for the Evening Standard to suggest today that
      "Mr. Moynihan was instead telling the Commons this afternoon that there will now be a trial scheme"
      involving one club from each of the four divisions. On occasions, we have problems in the House with hon. Members unwittingly misleading the House. To mislead the public so clearly is completely wrong. It is not right that there must be a delay in the implementation of the scheme from the early months of next season for adequate testing of the technology to take place. It is clear that more than 90 clubs around the country have membership schemes at the moment which they have implemented with
      76
      adequate testing without the need to wait for three seasons of testing, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and his colleagues would like.
      Mr. Pendry: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has said that the Football League and the Football Association are considering the tenders from the computer firms and have a short list of six. If at the end of the day they find that not one of the six is adequate, what will the Minister do?
      Mr. Moynihan: The whole purpose of an invitation to tender is to allow the companies which are aware of the tender documentation and of the nature of the scheme to bid against one another. No doubt they will want to learn the areas in which the working group is dissatisfied with the particular schemes that have been proposed and no doubt the companies will place a cost on remedying that. The FMA will have to bear that cost.
      It is clear that six companies have been shortlisted from more than 100. The experts in the FA and the Football League are considering in detail the implementation of a comprehensive national scheme at no cost to the clubs. It is clear that there will be no cost and perhaps even income generation to the clubs through the charge on their members or through commercial opportunities with local companies.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said, the maximum cost last summer with the highest level of technology then available was £3·30 per annum per member, with no cost to the club. The cost does not take into account the development of any commercial opportunities.
      7.15 pm
      There are 90 membership schemes in the Football League at the moment. All those clubs have considered commercial opportunities, and some have been highly successful. If the clubs have, as we anticipate, the right to develop commercial relations with the companies that already sponsor their membership schemes, even if they do nothing, the maximum cost estimated last season was £3·30 a head. However, if they maximise the range of commercial opportunities, as clubs up and down the country have done already with their partial membership schemes, there would not be a cost, and those clubs may have an income generator. If the right hon. Member for Small Heath believes that those clubs should not take those opportunities, he is denying them the right to earn money to invest in facilities, get better players, create closer relations with their members and break once and for all the link between football hooligans and true football supporters.
      Mr. Boyes: I had thought that the Minister would have learned from his experiences in Hartlepool. I invited him there and he will remember that the buildings at the club are wooden structures. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has referred to security. I do not believe that we will get everything for free. However, where will the money come from to make the buildings secure? The Minister is living in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that builders in Hartlepool will do all that work for nothing.
      Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman has made two very important points. I hoped that I had answered to the satisfaction of the House his point on the cost and

      77
      potential income generation of the national membership scheme. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised another very important point—the financing of improvements to grounds which may arise as a result of the Football Licensing Authority's interest in updating facilities to ensure that they are safe.
      Like all other forms of entertainment in this country, whether at a cinema, the Albert hall or any sporting ground, football clubs as private sector businesses must find the costs to ensure that their facilities are safe. There is no difference between a licence condition imposed on a cinema and that imposed on a football club. That must be right. If a football club, cinema or any other place of entertainment or business involved in the leisure industry cannot afford to make its premises safe, it should not be open to the public for any purpose. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) may boo and hiss from a sedentary position. However, it is common ground, at least among Conservative Members, that safety must come first. If premises are unsafe, I hope that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw would agree that they should not be open to the paying public.
      Mr. John Carlisle rose——
      Mr. Meale: Surely the Minister is misguided in trying to pursue this line of argument about safety. The membership card will not ensure safety. If £50,000 or £100,000 is required to house the machinery to operate the system, that will affect the number of players and coaches for clubs like Mansfield in my constituency. Such a sum might buy twice as many players and coaches for Hartlepool in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Wahington (Mr. Boyes). Hartlepool is currently 92nd in the league and it may go out of the Football League at the end of the season. How will the Minister encourage Hartlepool to invest the level of expenditure required to house the machines to operate the system? The membership cards have nothing to do with safety.
      Mr. Moynihan: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question and then I will happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).
      Mr. Ashton: Do not give way.
      Mr. Moynihan: I have almost exclusively given way to the Opposition. Some of my hon. Friends would like to intervene in the debate.
      Safety is at the heart of the Bill and the Football Licensing Authority's work. I would happily give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Bill to show how vital it is. All hon. Members recognise the need for the Football Licensing Authority, in the light of the appalling footballing disasters that have taken place in recent years, and the necessity to make sure that we have safe facilities. That will be a primary function of the Football Licensing Authority, which is absolutely central to the legislation.
      The hon. Gentleman may try not to compare coaches, players and the costs of football with the cost of safety, but he cannot avoid the fact that a company, management structure, or football club should regard all those factors as important aspects of their expenditure and put safety at the very top. A club would let down the interests of fee-paying spectators if it failed to put safety anywhere bar at the top and to pay for required improvements, just as a cinema must pay for improvements to meet fire and safety regulations.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in Committee, it was said several times that facilities could be given in the form of financial help from the Football Trust, which already gives millions of pounds for football ground improvement and safety each year? Does my hon. Friend agree that a case for a grant could easily be made by a club such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes)? In such circumstances, if a club improved its ground—obviously, it would—its application might be looked upon favourably.
      Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend's point is well made, and I am sure that it will be considered by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) As I have said several times, the Football Trust has done outstandingly good work in assisting with clubs' significant costs in safety improvements. The rest of the costs must be met from football.
      Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that Luton Town football club's revenue has doubled in the past year because of the 32 companies that sponsor its membership card? Is he aware also that, only last week, the Luton bus corporation allowed anyone with a Luton Town member's card to travel at half price on any Saturday during the year?
      Mr. Moynihan: Luton Town is exemplary in seeking out and developing the commercial opportunities that can be associated with its membership scheme, which is important but not exclusive to Luton town. Many clubs have followed that example. Luton Town is unique in that, having a 100 per cent. home-only scheme, it has managed to increase support from local people well beyond what it was before, to 20,000 members, and to close its books to further membership at present. It has increased income from commercial sponsors and substantially reduced the incidence of hooliganism. As the Bedfordshire police have made clear, hooliganism has not been displaced downtown. That has led to the community being a far safer place than it was three years ago.
      Mr. Lester: I listened to the argument about choosing a scheme, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I want an assurance that, if a club chooses a scheme which involves some equipment, that equipment will be thoroughly tested in the winter. I do not know how one could simulate winter conditions in summer or spring. I experienced technological failure when equipment at Heathrow failed in deep frost and none of us could get off an aeroplane—they had to bring ladders to us. I do not share the confidence of some of my hon. Friends that this equipment will work perfectly in the depths of winter because it worked perfectly well in the spring. If a club chooses equipment which would react to weather conditions, will my hon. Friend assure the House that it will not be put into play until it has been tested in those conditions?
      Mr. Moynihan: Of course I agree with the proposition that the technology will need to be tested on dark and wet evenings as well as sunny Saturday afternoons. I do not believe that that necessarily requires the testing to continue throughout what may be described as the winter, still less that it needs to be tested throughout a whole season. If the purpose is to make sure that it is tested in cold and wet conditions, I do not think that my hon. Friend needs to

      79
      wait a winter for that—many an autumn and spring fall neatly into that category. I give the undertaking that I have given on many occasions to my hon. Friend and other colleagues that testing will need to take place in different conditions and different locations.
      However, once the FMA is satisfied that the appropriate technology is up and running, there is no doubt that having chosen it, all 92 clubs will have the opportunity to put it in place, and test it as they wish in the run-up before it goes live with the force of law. That is an important point to bear in mind. It will also reflect any change in turnstile arrangements that must be made in the off-season next summer, or any other recommendations on ground design made by the FMA or Lord Justice Taylor in his report—subject to the agreement of Parliament—prior to the beginning of next season, or possibly even sooner.
      Testing the technology is not the same thing as phasing the implementation of the scheme. The Government and the FMA will have regard to the desirability of
      "a phased application of the scheme"
      as we are required to do by clause 6. However, we very much hope that phasing will not be necessary because of the serious risk that hooligans banned from clubs inside the scheme would simply transfer their attention to clubs outside. A hooligan convicted of an offence at one Football League club would be free to attend matches at another. That could have particularly serious implications if clubs outside the scheme could not be brought in for a period such as three years.
      It will be for the Football Membership Authority to come up with a realistic programme for testing the technology for its scheme. I do not think that it is helpful now to try to reach definitive conclusions about what that timetable should be. Hon. Members have spoken about the variety of technology. The House will accept that it is wrong to be too definite about an actual testing programme and that it would not fulfil the objective that an appropriate test would need to be made. That might be a short testing period, and it might require a longer testing period. It is for the Football Membership Authority to come forward with a realistic programme in the light of the appropiate technologies it wishes to have tested.
      It would not be helpful to accept the amendment about specific requirements for thorough testing for certain periods. Such a provision would also create a minefield of legal dispute. Would "thorough" mean testing at every club and in all possible weather conditions, or something less? There is a danger that an amendment of this kind could give rise to endless unhelpful and expensive disputes involving the FMA, the Secretary of State and individual clubs. That would be in no one's interests.
      I recognise that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members wish to be certain that the technology will be tested properly, but I hope that they will accept that the FMA has the greatest possible incentive to ensure that the technology will work properly before the scheme begins. After all, it will have responsibility for its operation. The Government want the scheme to be tested before it is introduced. The FMA will want it to be tested. It is in both our interests that it should be tested. We do not need to amend the Bill in a way that could give rise to any number of arguments about interpretation, to ensure that the
      80
      adequate testing that my hon. Friends wish to achieve will be carried out. Therefore, I invite my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister's speech was one of the most spurious that I have heard on the Bill. When we started on this Bill, which is running into more and more trouble, the Minister said that the scheme would be in operation this season, and probably last season. We do not have it this year and we will not have it next year—at any rate, not at the start of next season—and I honestly do not think that we will have it until 1991. The Minister tried to destroy a sensible amendment. He spoke as though the process would be held up by 92 clubs, whereas the amendment could not have been more reasonably drafted even by myself. It says that the Secretary of State and the Football Membership Authority—nobody else—have to be satisfied about the technology. The Minister is now turning down that sensible proposition.
      What does the Minister base his argument on? We heard a lot of nonsense about how important it is that football clubs should accept the need for safety. What on earth does he think that the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 is all about? The Minister tried to make a party point at the expense of the Opposition. He knows that I was the Minister in the Labour Government who placed the Safety of Sports Grounds Act on the statute book. Lord Justice Taylor is considering whether the implementation of that Act at Hillsborough and Sheffield council's supervision of that ground were adequate. We wait to hear what Lord Justice Taylor has to say about that. There is a legal obligation on all football clubs to put safety first, and local authorities are obliged to seek to ensure that they do.
      7.30 pm
      The Government are not providing a penny for this scheme, but the Labour Government who placed the Safety of Sports Grounds Act on the statute book arranged that the pools promoters, "Spot the Ball" and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would provide money to finance the scheme. It has been a godsend to football.
      The Minister referred to marketing opportunities. What he is saying is that football supporters should agree to having masses of junk mail pushed through their letter boxes every day of the year. He knows perfectly well that the Data Protection Act 1988 provides that on each application form there is to be a square where each member can put a cross, which will mean that he does not want his name and address to be spelt out. Those of us who were members of the Committee that considered the Data Protection Bill were anxious to protect people's privacy.
      The National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs has a membership of 100,000. The Football Supporters Association has 10,000 paid-up members who can vote and 20,000 associates who do not have a vote. We were not talking earlier about trivial numbers. The Football Supporters Association, the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, all sensible people who are interested in football, most of the members of the press who are interested in civil liberties and certainly the Opposition will advise every member who applies to join to put an "x" in that square so that they are not flooded with calls from secondhand car salesmen, double glazing window merchants and all the other messengers of doom and gloom who call at our houses if our names and addresses are sold to raise money.

      81
      If football supporters exercise their civil rights by saying, "I do not want this junk mail pushed through my letter box and people calling at my home to sell me bogus insurance and other things, so I do not wish my name to be disclosed"—and if they have any sense they will do that —there is no way in which the scheme can be introduced at a cost of £10 for three years.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howell: No, I do not intend to give way. We have had enough talk of Luton Town today. The hon. Gentleman will have to be quiet. Luton Town, I am sorry to say, is relegated to the second division for the purposes of this debate.
      For old-age pensioners, £10 is a lot of money. An old-age pensioner may only go to a football match at Christmas. Pensioners can least afford £10, even though it is for three years. [Interruption.] I know how much a week that is, but the £10 is not paid weekly. It is paid in one go, and that is on top of the entrance fee. For an old-age pensioner who goes to a football match only at Christmas, it will not be £10; it will be £15, which is quite a lot of money.
      I never thought that I would hear the Minister say that there should be a supervisor at each turnstile. He commended Tottenham. Most football clubs cannot afford to have supervisors at turnstiles.
      Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. I gave a range of examples of how different clubs handle their partial membership schemes. They vary considerably. I never said that all were the kind of schemes that we wanted—or even that any one of them was. None of them is, because we are going for a national, not a partial, membership scheme.
      Mr. Howell: I am glad that the Minister said that; he has clarified the fact that this is a Government scheme. It is the Government, not the Football Membership Authority, who will decide.
      Mr. Moynihan: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The Bill provides the framework for a national membership scheme, which the Government wish to see. The precise details of the scheme will be brought before the House by the Secretary of State after it has been finalised by the Football Membership Authority.
      Mr. Howell: I hear what the Minister says, but I do not have time to go into all the points.
      One of the impracticalities of the scheme is that anyone who has registered can attend any ground in the country. Therefore, supporters of 91 clubs could turn up at Hartlepool United or, more likely, at Tottenham or Arsenal. How on earth will that club know where to put the supporters of those 91 clubs when it is playing, for instance, Manchester United? The "smart card" that the Minister spoke about earlier without naming it will say which part of the ground the supporters are to go to. That membership card, which will admit the football supporter into any of 92 clubs, will create horrendous difficulties for all the clubs concerned.
      The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has made out an overwhelming case for trying out the scheme for
      82
      half a season, or for a full season in any weather. I am sorry that the Minister has been unable to respond to his very reasonable case, which we support.
      Mr. Lester: I am in a great dilemma, knowing that we want to get in some important debates before 9 pm and that a Division would take up time. I agree that, until we know what scheme the FMA comes forward with, we cannot recommend a test, but I leave my hon. Friend the Minister with a firm warning from those of us who watch these matters with great care that we shall need to be satisfied that any future scheme is thoroughly tested and safe.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5

      NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP SCHEME: CONTENTS AND PENALTIES
      Miss Hoey: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—
      '(iii) women.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it wll be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, in page 4, line 44 at end insert—
      '(iii) any persons in receipt of the National Insurance old age pension or disability allowance.'.
      Miss Hoey: I am disappointed that the first piece of legislation on whose Committee I served since being elected is so punitive and that it is a posturing measure designed purely to satisfy the Prime Minister's wish to be seen to be doing something about the problem of football hooliganism. I am disappointed also that the Minister, who sat through hours of Committee debate, has chosen to listen to so little that was said by hon. Members on both sides.
      These amendments highlight the real difference between the Opposition and the Government over how to solve the problem of the thugs and hooligans who associate themselves with football. The crux is that Opposition Members start from the premise that we believe that 99·7 per cent. of people who watch are decent supporters whom we want to encourage. Conservative Members seem to believe that anyone who wants to go along and watch a match is a potential thug. Unfortunately, that has led the Minister and the Government to try to penalise all foot ball supporters instead of to target the minority of whom we would all wish to rid football here and abroad.
      We believe that there is room for exemptions in the Bill. We oppose the whole part of part I, but unless Conservative Members take note of the views of those who have sent in petitions and of the people in the football world, they will go along meekly and vote with the Government tonight.
      We recognise that the Bill is likely to become law, but we want exemptions in it, the most obvious of which seem to be women. I failed to get answers to some obvious questions in Committee. For instance, why does the Minister link women with football hooliganism. What statistics can he show to prove how many women have been arrested at or outside football matches, or charged or found guilty? We know from the debate in House of Lords

      83
      that there are no statistics to prove that any significant number of women have been involved in any sort of hooliganism——
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Denis Howell: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend to make her valid point. We have done quite a lot of research in my office and found that, in the past two years, two women have offended. One of them was telling a club official in rather strong unwomanly language what she thought of him; the other was having a row outside the ground with her husband and was arrested as a result. Neither comes into the category of hooliganism.
      Miss Hoey: My right hon. Friend has demonstrated my point.
      Women attend football matches. There is no doubt that football is very much a male domain, but the women who attend go not only with the husbands or boy friends but because they enjoy football and want to support their local clubs and soak up the atmosphere.
      We all know that not enough women attend football matches. The idea that women used to attend and must be attracted back to football, having been driven away by hooliganism, is untrue—women have never attended in great numbers. So we are trying to encourage more women to come to watch football. They do not stay away, as the Minister thinks, because of violence or hooliganism. They stay away much more because facilities for women at the clubs are not up to standard. Women's toilets on the terraces are usually taken over by men. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not mind my pointing out that at Chelsea, the club that he supports, the toilet facilities for women are pretty appalling and are usually taken over by men.
      The only thing that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said with which I agree is that the Football League and the Football Association have not yet moved into the 1990s. I and many of my hon. Friends share his criticisms.
      It is disgraceful to link women with hooliganisam. I am especially worried that the casual supporter will be discouraged from attending football. Many men do not want to go, but their children do on the odd Saturday. If women were exempted, on a Saturday morning, say, when a son or daughter aged under 10 wanted to go to a match that afternoon—the Minister does not agree with his working party that accompanied children up to the age of 13 would be exempt—their father might be working or might not have an identity card, so it would be much more sensible if women were exempted and mothers could take their children to football matches. The Government are quite wrong about this.
      I find it difficult to take seriously the idea—it was mentioned in Committee—that if women were exempt, men would dress up as women——
      Mr. John Carlisle rose——
      Miss Hoey: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman on this point. As I said in Committee, some Conservative Members seem obsessed with men dressing up as women, but it is not a serious argument against exempting women.
      I am sure that the Minister will argue for universality and say that the scheme must apply to everyone, so as to break
      84
      the link between the genuine supporter and the hooligan. But we believe that the genuine thug should be targeted. The Minister has already exempted some people from identity cards—those with disabilities; girls under the age of 10—and there is no logical reason why women should all be labelled potential thugs who need an identity card.
      During the past year and a half, the Minister has spent a great deal of time on this Bill, pushed, as we know, by the Prime Minister. I still hope that at some stage he will accept what we have been saying throughout—that we think that he genuinely does not believe that the scheme will work. He, as Minister for Sport, cannot really want to implement this measure but he has to because he has to obey another women who heads the Government.
      If the Minister cared about football, about improving our national game, then instead of spending all this time trying to get legislation through which everyone, except some Conservative Members, says will not work, he could have been laying down guidelines to clubs about facilities. Those could have included guidance on what clubs must do to come up to standard. He should have insisted on clubs getting rid of some of the ridiculous men-only board rooms that exist in some clubs. He should have been looking at the money that the Government take from football, and finding out whether it might be possible for some of it to be put back into the game.
      The Minister should have been making sure that magistrates were told that the fines and sentences they are handing out to the thugs are ludicrous and pathetic. He should have been making sure that magistrates impose sentences that will deter and not just allow the thugs to get off lightly. He should have instructed the FA to reopen its English supporters travel club, instead of sitting back and saying that he does not want supporters to go abroad and that he wants England to cancel its matches. How dare the Minister say that? It is playing into the hands of the thugs to ask England not to play its matches and even to suggest that, if England qualifies for the World Cup, it should not go.
      The Minister should have insisted that the FA takes account of its supporters, involves them when they are travelling abroad and takes responsibility for them, thus isolating the small number of thugs who travel abroad. The Minister should have talked to supporters' clubs and listened to what they were saying. As hon. Members have said, it is the supporter who goes week in and week out, cold nights and all, who knows what is going at the club and how to isolate the thugs. Such supporters need help to do that, and the Minister should have listened to the 500,000 supporters who signed the petition.
      Some Conservative Members—although not the Minister—have implied that these signatures collected at football grounds were glibly given by people who did not know what they were signing. How dare Conservative Members suggest that young people who play football or elderly people who have taken the trouble to stop and read the petition and sign it do not know what they are signing and do not know what the Government are doing?
      The Minister and the Government will receive a big shock over this issue. They will railroad the Bill through, but in many marginal Tory seats, football supporters, in addition to all the other things, will make a difference at the next general election. Football supporters will not forget what the Government have done to them and to their game.

      85
      A Government led by a woman say that women cause problems at football matches and are potential thugs. My hon. Friends will be speaking about the amendment in terms of pensioners. I urge every Conservative Member to search his conscience. If they cannot vote for the amendment, I ask them at least to abstain. I have outlined the things that the Minister should have been doing in th last two years. They are the things that Labour will do when we are in office.
      Mr. John Carlisle: As the Member described by the Sunday Mirror the other day as one of the most chauvinist Members on the Conservative side because of my description of women as all natural bitches, I say immediately and unreservedly to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) that I would not make that criticism of her. She has once again entertained the House with a charming speech, just as she did in Committee. The plea that she puts forward is similar in content and argument to the one that she advanced in Committee. Regrettably, her arguments are spurious and tend to reduce this important Bill to the level of ribaldry and dissent among the hon. Lady's own sex.
      I do not think that the hon. Lady speaks for as many women as she claims to. She and her right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell) seek to deny women the benefits of the membership scheme which will be available to them if they choose to join. Of course the Bill does not seek to force anybody to the join the scheme. If the amendment were accepted, women would not be able to enjoy the many benefits of the scheme which will be available to others. Many women who support the Opposition may ask Opposition Members how they can justify denying the scheme's many benefits to women.
      The right hon. Member for Small Heath said that he would advise the Football League, the Football Association and the Football Supporters Association not to take any of the commercial benefits that the scheme offers, and that would deny those benefits to women. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the information that the membership of the Football Supporters Association has risen from nil to 15,000 in about an hour.
      It would be appalling if the commercial opportunities which will undoubtedly be available to clubs are denied them because of the pig-headedness and stupidity of the right hon. Member for Small Heath, who says that, because he does not like the scheme, no one should join it and enjoy its commercial benefits. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a law-abiding citizen. He has been in opposition long enough in this Parliament and in others to know that, when legislation is in place, best use should be made of it. The right hon. Gentleman should not advise people to try to ignore the scheme.
      Those of us who served on the Committee have heard before the arguments of the hon. Member for Vauxhall. She must understand that membership of the scheme will bring not only commercial benefit. The greatest benefit of all is that at last football will be a clean and safe game to go to. That in itself will benefit women perhaps more than any other section of society, apart from young children. Many clubs operating the membership scheme will be able to offer their members not only commercial advantage, but advantages such as priority in application for tickets for important matches.
      86
      I have no doubt that the club supported by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will be fighting for honours towards the end of the season and may reach the Football Association cup final. In that case, if the membership scheme were in operation, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would certainly appreciate it because some people who were members could be shown by the computer to have been to, let us say, 20 games, and that would enable them to have priority in getting cup final tickets. Under this amendment, women would not be able to benefit in that way. They would not be able to make any sort of application and would not qualify for the benefits of priority for tickets.
      Mr. Randall: How will making it compulsory for women to become members of the scheme make the game safer?
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member was a notable member of the Committee.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Middle stump.
      8 pm
      Mr. Carlisle: Not middle stump, I say to my athletic opponent. The more people who are in the scheme and enjoy it, the better it will be for everybody. The more people who join a scheme or a club, the greater the benefit to the club in terms, for example, of commercial advantage. However, if the members of a large section of the population are denied the opportunity to become members of the club, which would be the result of the amendment, the scheme would not work as well as it would if they were members.
      I have not been privileged to hear many of the speeches made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, except in Committee, but no doubt she is a great champion of equal rights for women, and would make speeches in favour of equal taxation, equal opportunities of employment and equal opportunities to become Members of Parliament.
      Mr. Tony Banks: We all support equal opportunities.
      Mr. Carlisle: I have no doubt that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), would all speak in favour of equality for women. However, the hon. Lady wants women to be treated specially in this system. She does not want women to be as the others, because they are women and should be treated differently. Conservative Members find that difficult to understand.
      The hon. Lady dismissed, rather unfairly, the distinct possibility that men would dress up as women to go into games. She is not in the real world. We are not talking about transvestite bars in Berlin or certain television programmes. We are talking about a genuine scheme which has been proposed by the Government, and which many hundreds, if not thousands, of people will find different ways to get round. In Committee, the Opposition made this point time and again. It is not without some fear and trepidation that I believe that, should the amendment be accepted, the spirit engendered that night in Newport, when 150 supporters went to the local Oxfam shop to buy women's clothes to get into the game, would be seen again.
      Labour Members know full well that abuse takes place in all walks of life. They have seen people limping into places of entertainment in front of a crowd on the basis that there is something wrong with them. They have seen

      87
      people abusing the orange card scheme for the disabled. If too many exemptions are allowed, we shall probably find thousands upon thousands of limping men dressed in women's clothes going into football matches. That could be a serious problem, and the House should face it. It has already happened; if it had not, the thought would not have entered my head or that of any hon. Member.
      If the hon. Member for Vauxhall wants to be taken seriously and to have her argument considered seriously both by those supporting and by those opposing the Bill, she should not put on a pedestal a certain sector of the community. Once the scheme is up and running, I believe that women will be as anxious as men to join it. If the amendment were passed, the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends would be denying women the benefits of membership, and for that she would not be thanked.
      Mr. Pendry: It is a pity that the speech so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) should have been followed by such a speech from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). This is a serious debate about a serious matter. I agree with my hon. Friend. If women have no history of hooliganism in football grounds, the same can be said of old-age pensioners. It is a disappointment to them, as it is to Labour Members, that, despite our efforts in Committee to persuade the Minister to move along this line and adopt a common-sense approach, he has not seen fit to exempt women or old-age pensioners.
      I know that I risk being struck off the Christmas card list of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) when I say that I actually agree with something said by the hon. Member for Luton, North in Committee. He said:
      "Pensioners are among the most active and loyal of supporters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 13 July 1989, c. 384.]
      The hon. Gentleman spoke with forked tongue tonight, although I agreed with what he said then. This legislation will alienate those very people. Therefore, I was surprised by what he said tonight because I thought that, having said that in Committee, he would support these amendments.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) made a telling comment. He put my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) right when my right hon. Friend said that there was no evidence of hooliganism among old-age pensioners. He said that, during the whole of last year, there had been three incidents involving people over 65 years of age. The first was in Norwich, when a man was prosecuted for illegally selling hot dogs; the second was near the Chelsea football ground, where a pensioner attempted to steal a car; the third, when no charges were brought, occurred at Southampton, where the police arrested a person who was pretending to be Father Christmas.
      Mr. Meale: In the searches done about this season, the only case of a pensioner being in trouble with the police at football grounds is that concerning the ex-chairman of Southend United, who has been charged with the misuse of lottery funds.
      Mr. Pendry: My hon. Friend is saying what he said in Standing Committee, which is that the scale of the
      88
      problem is negligible. It is wrong for the Government not to recognise that women and old-age pensioners have nothing to do with the hooligan problem, which we all deplore. The hooligans who attach themselves to our national game do not include women and old-age pensioners. The Government should have been big enough to show that they recognise the force of our arguments.
      The millions of pensioners who regularly attend football matches find it difficult enough to go through the existing turnstiles without having to negotiate computerised equipment. The continuing debate and indecision about the nature of the equipment to be installed will hardly reassure them. The honest belief of many involved in the debate is that, due to the inevitable rejection of cards or computer breakdowns, congestion, impatience and rushing will be the outcome of the scheme, which will prove a further discouragement to pensioners. It is a pity that the Government did not wait for the final Taylor report before the scheme was thrust on women and old-age pensioners—vulnerable sections of our society who are far more sinned against than sinning.
      Many of the long-standing and loyal spectators for whom standing on the terraces of their local club has been a way of life are saying that they do not wish to take up the ID. I will give one or two examples. Jacky Watts, who may be known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, is a long-time supporter of Aston Villa and remembers the days of Pongo Waring, Frank Broome and others. Jimmy Wallis is a 71-year-old lifelong fan of Blackburn Rovers, who remembers my uncle Aussie Campbell, and Bobbie Pryde and Ronnie Clayton. Old age pensioners at Derby such as Cyril Flinders and Mildred Price, who saw the great Raich Carter and Daily Duncans and Leon Luety, are considering not taking out ID cards. That is a sad indictment of the Government.
      The Minister for Sport is unfortunately not here, but in Committee he said that too many exemptions would interrupt the essential smooth flow of spectators through the turnstiles and that alternative arrangements would present practical problems and loopholes for the hooligans to exploit. That is complete and utter nonsense.
      I hope that the Minister here today will respond in a fresh and positive manner. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was in his place for about five minutes, could not stay longer. Many of us had great hopes that he would reverse many of the nonsensical policies of his predecessor. If he had listened to the debate, the outcome might have been different from the one that I expect.
      The scheme will mean that spectators will be interrupted as they pass through the turnstiles and there is no reason for old age pensioners and women to be part of it. I endorse the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall that women almost never incite or become involved in violence or obscene or threatening behaviour at football matches. The same is true of old-age pensioners. I endorse my hon. Friend's comment that it is not just a matter of bringing back families to support the game—we, the Government and the football world must unite in creating a climate which will encourage families to come to the sport for the first time. There must be an atmosphere that women find acceptable. They should not be penalised by the Bill. I hope that the Government will recognise, even at this late hour, that the thrust and force of our arguments is compelling and that they will accept the amendments.
      Mr. David Evans: I wish to bring the debate back to the heart of the Bill, which is the separation of football fans from football hooligans. Football has lost half its supporters in the past 25 years, and the number of professionals playing the game is half what it was those years ago. Some of the lost supporters are women and old-age pensioners, and it is those very people whom the Bill seeks to protect.
      We have had hooliganism, violence and criminal activity within the game for far too long. In effect, the Bill is saying to women and old-age pensioners who supported or still support the game, "We need you to continue to come to matches and support the game." Unfortunately, with more police, more dogs, more horses and more closed-circuit television, the very people who are the subject of the debate have been made aware of the problems facing the game and have stopped attending matches. That is a fact. Supporters have left the game in droves and it is not a matter of luring them back. Hundreds of thousands have left the game, yet the Football Association and the Football League have persistently, together with Opposition Members unfortunately, failed to recognise that the game is in deep decline.
      Mr. Ashton: Attendances at cinemas and cricket matches have also declined enormously. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that hooliganism at the cinema has kept people away? Television has had its effect, along with unemployment, do-it-yourself, the ownership of cars and other interests. All or most attendances at leisure activities have declined over the past 20 or 30 years.
      Mr. Evans: That is not true. Attendances at motor racing meetings have increased by 300 or 400 per cent. Attendances at rugby matches have similarly increased. The same can be said of attendances at rugby league matches and horse racing. It is at football matches—the national game—that attendances have declined dramatically. Opposition Members might tell me that over the past two or three years attendances at football matches have increased, but a graph that covers the past 25 years shows that over that period attendances have just about halved. It is that problem that the Bill addresses.
      We are about to see a revolution in football. Everybody will, in effect, belong to the same club, and the benefits accruing from the card will be enormous. For example, the Luton bus company has offered half-price fares on any Saturday to members of Luton football club. It is not inconceivable that in future every football fan will be able to travel to his match at half price. That is already part of the Luton scheme.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend inform the House of the many commercial benefits that are being offered in the form of discounts at local shops because of the Luton scheme? Will he refute the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who suggested that the only commercial "advantage" would be junk mail? Other benefits exist and the scheme is working extremely well at Luton.
      Mr. Evans: Indeed it is. My hon. Friend is right. The House should know that 32 companies have lent themselves to the Luton scheme. They have supported the club and offered discounts on a large range of products. Of
      90
      the 20,000 who have signed up at Luton, those who have stated that they do not want to receive a 7 per cent. discount on a motor car have not enjoyed the advantage of that offer. However, from next Saturday, every Luton member will be able to travel to his match at half price. That is a fact.
      It is ludicrous to say that women should not be allowed to take advantage of such an offer. Are Opposition Members telling me that old-age pensioners should have to pay the full fare when men who are of working age are charged half fare? What a ludicrous and ridiculous proposition.
      Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in most Labour-controlled authorities old-age pensioners enjoy free travel?
      Mr. Evans: That may be so, but they do not enjoy free travel on British Rail. They will enjoy that advantage under the scheme. In my opinion, anyone who is a member of the Football Membership Authority will be able to go on holiday at half price. There will be no end to the advantages that will come from this wonderful scheme. I do not wish to see old-age pensioners being excluded from half-price tickets on British Airways. That would not be right. I advise Opposition Members to withdraw their ridiculous amendment before they make themselves look ridiculous.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: At the outset of his remarks, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said that he would endeavour to get to the heart of the Bill. I suppose that he made a valiant effort, but I regret that he was not very successful. The heart of the Bill is a compulsory membership scheme, and it is on that issue that the Minister and the rest of the Government have thus far been unable to advance compelling and convincing arguments. Why should there be universality for a football membership scheme when for some extraordinary reason, they eschew that approach on family income supplement, for example?
      In a substantial sense, this is a matter of civil liberty. It has always been lawful for any person to go to a football match, but after the scheme is instituted it will be necessary to be a member—in effect, to have a licence—before taking part in an activity which hitherto has been entirely lawful without any licence or membership. The Government justify their proposals by saying that there are people who frequent football matches who behave in a fashion that is unacceptable to all of us in this place and to 99·7 per cent. of those who attend football matches.
      The justification for removing a freedom is the benefit that it is said will accrue on the basis, so it is hoped and argued, that hooliganism will be reduced or even eliminated. If the purpose of the scheme is as the Government say, and if it is accepted that its essence is to take away a measure of freedom, it can be justified only in relation to the group of people among whom the hooligans can be found. Those groups certainly do not appear to include old-age pensioners—unless masquerading as Santa Claus is somehow of such deep significance that it may imperil the Government's proposals. The statistics show that women and old-age pensioners do not account for a large number of football hooligans.
      The question is whether an activity that is currently lawful and in which one can freely participate should be the subject of regulation. Before the Government are

      91
      entitled to extend regulation in a universal way, they should satisfy the House that such a restriction is justified in respect of each of the categories concerned. Thus far, the Minister has been unable to give such proof. I suspect that he will be unable to do so even when these proceedings are completed. For that reason, I support the Opposition amendments.
      Mr. Orme: I refer first to the benefits that the identity scheme will allegedly bring to football supporters. I am much in favour voluntary membership schemes. About 50 per cent. of Manchester United's attendance of 46,000 people are club members who enjoy certain benefits that could be developed. It does not require compulsory ID cards to enjoy those benefits. We want to see not a narrowing of the supporters' base, as will happen if the Government insist on women and pensioners registering as members, but a broadening of it. We know the source of the hooligan element—we see them on our television screens and when arrests are made. We want to see more women and pensioners at football matches, together with the development of family enclosures.
      The attendance by women at football matches is a new phenomenon. Years ago, women did not attend matches, but after watching it on television, many of them have developed an interest in the game. Many also want to take their children, using the family enclosures. I should have thought that the Minister would want to exclude family enclosures, which are supervised, from the provisions of the Bill.
      I accept many of the criticisms made of football grounds, some of which are a disgrace. Several of the best grounds in the country still do not provide adequate catering or toilet facilities. We should be aiming at improving the facilities at many of our stadiums. Many of them are also to be found in inner cities, where parking facilities are inadequate and where crowd control is difficult. Hillsborough is a classic example of a ground that is surrounded by residential housing and small roads.
      We want to see the development of new stadiums and of better facilities. Perhaps the pattern set by American football could be followed, whereby entertainment is provided over a period of several hours and not for just 90 minutes. Many supporters agree that it is often a case of entering the ground just a few minutes before the game begins and leaving it as soon as the match finishes. That happens because the spectator is offered nothing more. In some cases, those attending are not even provided with cover from the rain.
      We should be addressing ourselves to solving such problems, not to a compulsory identity card scheme that will cause a reduction in attendances by the very kind of people whom we want to see at matches. Amendment No. 51, covering women, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), and amendment No. 52, concerning pensioners, point the way forward. If the Minister really wants to see the game developing along the right lines, he should accept those amendments, which would encourage higher attendances among the right people.
      We must also link genuine supporters in the fight against hooliganism. Supporters' clubs are for the first time receiving proper recognition, though they still have no power in the boardroom or influence over the provision
      92
      of club facilities. A large proportion of football hooliganism will be defeated not by the police alone but by ordinary supporters saying, "We have had enough of this. We will no longer tolerate hooliganism." Such people need encouragement. I say again to the Minister that the Government's scheme will drive away many of the people —yes, including younger people—of the kind that we want to be associated with the fight against hooliganism.
      Everyone knows that the Bill will not work. The clubs will be forced by law to implement its provisions, but they will do so in a half-hearted manner. That is not the way to defeat hooliganism, and that is what our argument is about.
      Mr. Pike: The Opposition's amendments are eminently sensible and, if the Bill is to be forced through, they commend themselves to the House. They are so logical and positive that the Government should have been prepared to respond positively to them. The reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) for not supporting the amendments were so outrageous that, had I not been present in the Chamber to hear them, I would not have believed it possible that someone could make such comments. If I had picked up a newspaper tomorrow and read of them, I would have thought that the reporter had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's comments.
      The statistics and the facts prove that, if the Government persist with their Bill, women and old-age pensioners should be exempted, because clearly they are not responsible for the problems that exist. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) referred to falling attendances at football matches. It is utter nonsense to suggest that hooliganism is the biggest contributory factor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) gave several valid seasons for that trend.
      In arguing his case, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield cited the one ground where a closed membership scheme covering 20,000 supporters is in operation. He should consider the attendance at his local football club by comparison with 20 years ago. If that membership scheme is so successful, why is it that that club experiences attendances which are among the lowest in the first division? Over the past couple of years, Luton has enjoyed reasonable success, despite struggling against relegation. The year before last, it reached three cup finals, and it reached the Littlewoods cup final this year.
      Mr. David Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman; I did not realise that he wanted to intervene on my speech.
      May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that Luton Town's attendance figures last year rose by 21 per cent.—the fourth highest increase in the first division?
      Mr. Pike: Last year's may have been the fourth highest percentage increase, but it certainly was not the fourth highest attendance figure. Attendances at matches in which my own team played—a fourth-division team—were, at one stage, only 1,000 or 2,000 lower than the Luton average.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Does my hon. Friend realise that Luton wishes to exclude away fans, even under the scheme? Clause 1(10) will allow that to happen. Why is that provision included in legislation for what is supposed to be a national scheme?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Pike: I shall come to that in a moment.
      I do not believe for a moment that the Bill will solve the problem of attendances. It deals with the wrong problem, in the wrong way, and will be very damaging to football.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) asked about away supporters. I find it surprising that clubs that want to ban those spectators from their grounds are so anxious to allow their own supporters to attend their away matches. As a supporter of many years' standing, I believe that we must allow supporters from both sides to watch matches.
      As I said earlier, the statistics and the facts show that exclusions can and should be made, even if the Government are stupid enough to persist with this nonsensical legislation.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) correctly identified the single aim which unites Members on both sides of the House. We are all trying to eliminate hooligans from football, and to separate them from the true supporters. The only argument is about how to do that.
      If that is the hon. Gentleman's objective, however, he must surely recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has pointed out, that statistics clearly show that the hooligans are not women or pensioners. The principle of exempting certain categories of supporter is already enshrined in the Bill. Those categories include disabled people and children. If exceptions can be made and the Government have conceded that principle, I do not see why they should resist statistical evidence that two further groups do not pose any danger of hooliganism.
      Trying to justify his rather peculiar stance, the hon. Gentleman went on to say that women and pensioners would, if excluded, merely be deprived of the multifarious benefits which would somehow flow from the scheme. That does not necessarily follow. Apart from anything else, there is nothing to stop women and pensioners from joining a scheme voluntarily, if minded to do so. Most supporters' clubs will operate the kind of scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, providing travel and purchasing advantages, for instance. The hon. Gentleman was really scraping the barrel in his attempt to justify his opposition to an amendment for which, in their quieter and more rational moments, hon. Members on both sides of the House would clearly concede that there is a strong case.
      It is a fairly open secret that I am a Chelsea supporter. I have been one for many years, man and boy—but, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will know, not yet woman. Chelsea football club used to be nicknamed "the Pensioners". Although some people claimed that the nickname referred to the way in which the team played, it had nothing to do with that; it derived from the club's close associations with the Royal Chelsea hospital. Anyone who attends a Chelsea match nowadays will still see the Chelsea pensioners sitting there.
      It strikes me as ludicrous that, to gain access to the club, Chelsea pensioners will now have to join the scheme. Can the hon. Member for Luton, North imagine—even in his wildest moments—that members of the Inter-City Firm or the Head Hunters would dress themselves up in red greatcoats and peak caps and cover themselves in whiskers
      94
      and medals in an attempt to sneak into Chelsea football club? It is not as though Chelsea pensioners try to sneak in without being noticed.
      Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has certainly put a new idea into the minds of the Inter-City football fans, which they may well follow up. He has, however, missed the point that the scheme will bring women and pensioners—particularly the Chelsea pensioners whom he has mentioned—the peace and quiet that we now enjoy at Luton. Stamford Bridge could also enjoy that peace and quiet, although it did not do so earlier this season. Supporters would be able to attend matches time and again in the certain knowledge that, because everyone present must be a member of the scheme, the game will be played in peace and they will not be beaten about the head on the way. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—who, to some extent, represents Chelsea football club in the House, and who knows the history of appalling violence in and around Stamford Bridge—not to support a scheme that will get rid of that violence once and for all.
      Mr. Banks: Two points emerge from what the hon. Gentleman has just said. First, it should be pointed out that the club with which I could be said to have the closest political affiliation is West Ham, which is in my borough. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, while it is possible to change many things in this life—one's political party, one's religion and one's partner, for instance—a true football supporter will never change his allegiance to a football club. As one whose constituents include a vast number of West Ham supporters, I am prepared to stand up and say that I am still a Chelsea supporter, and will remain one.
      Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's logic is faulty. The membership scheme will go ahead and pensioners and women can therefore continue to attend matches in complete confidence, because it was not they who created the problems in the past and they will certainly not be creating problems in the future. If the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the scheme will work to exclude hooligans, those categories can still attend in the full knowledge that the hooligans have been excluded, arid without themselves having to go through the inconvenience of participating in the scheme. They are not responsible for the trouble, and they should therefore be excluded. Conservative Members are reaching into the very depths of the barrel in their attempts to justify their opposition to these measured amendments.
      After all the years in which Chelsea pensioners have been going to matches, dressed in such a fashion that there can be no misunderstanding about their identity and where they come from, it seems most unfair that at their advanced age—having served the country and fought in the first world war, with only a few twilight years left to enjoy the delights of Stamford Bridge and see Chelsea win the first division championship—they should now have to experience the inconvenience and humiliation of signing up for the membership scheme on the ground, I suppose, that they may be potential hooligans. What a way to treat such people. It is absurd, and I am surprised that even the hon. Member for Luton, North, who seems to spend so much time licking his lips at the thought of all those men dressed up as women in fishnet stockings and trying to sneak into the ground—no doubt he is now imagining

      95
      them wearing greatcoats over the fishnets—should make such comments. All I can say is that it says something about the way in which the Tory party thinks these days —it is all very odd, very kinky and entirely unreasonable.
      Mr. Moynihan: Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 seek to make it compulsory for women, old-age pensioners and those in receipt of a disability allowance to be exempt from the scheme.
      As my hon. Friends know, the matter of exemptions has been debated at great length in both Houses. Opposition Members pressed amendments seeking exemption for women and pensioners to a vote in Committee, after an extensive debate in which all today's arguments were rehearsed.
      Let me once again make the Government's position on exemptions perfectly clear, as my hon. Friends have already done. We want to encourage membership, not seek exemptions to the scheme. It is not a case of identifying groups who will not cause trouble at matches and then exempting them from the requirement to join the scheme. Taken to its logical conclusion, if we began to remove groups who caused no problems, perhaps we would identify that all men with beards were not involved in hooliganism—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will allow me to develop my argument, I shall come to the practical reasons why disabled people are rightly exempted from the scheme.
      If one exempted certain groups, we would begin to segregate great sections, who would still have to be identified as they entered the ground, and exempt them from membership. Ultimately, the only people who would not be exempted would be the hooligans. If we did that, we would retain precisely the situation that exists at the moment, in which club after club individually excludes known troublemakers. Clubs have no mechanism for excluding such people from another club up the road or any of the other 91 clubs. They are excluded only from their own club.
      We will retain the situation in which 22 per cent. of people who go to football still say that they have been caught up in violence inside the ground. We would still have pitch invasions at the Crystal Palace-Birmingham City match and disorder inside the ground at the Manchester United-Manchester City game. We would still require 5,000 police to be on duty every Saturday afternoon to contain the problem and not to cure it. That would be the first natural result of applying that argument.
      Secondly, there would be an important practical problem. Under a national membership scheme, all the groups that Opposition Members propose for exemption would need to prove that they fell into one or more of those categories. They would need to satisfy the turnstile operator, verbally or with a piece of paper, and would require testing at the turnstile.
      Mr. Ashton: What about separate turnstiles?
      Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman suggests separate turnstiles. Does he propose to double up on all the turnstiles? If he is suggesting that, he has answered the point for me. It would be utterly impractical to attempt to do that at football grounds. Not only would it be impractical, but I would argue that a national membership
      96
      scheme that required such checking would not satisfy the criteria that we require for speed of entry. That is an essential point on safety grounds—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) would do well to stop smiling and to listen. When he does, he will know that one system being considered is a technology which will require a card simply to be touched on the outside of the turnstile to allow entry, without taking up any additional time.
      The moment people have to stop, hand over their card and talk to the turnstile operators, there will be a backlog of people causing the very problems that Opposition Members are determined will not occur in the technology that the FMA chooses. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) for saying that that is right, and I give way to him.
      Mr. Ashton: I am sure that the Minister is not deliberately trying to mislead the House, but he forgets that people have to pay as well as put down their cards. They have to stop to pay and take their change. Many grounds already have separate turnstiles for old-age pensioners. Why can there not be a separate turnstile for pensioners and women where they do not have to put their cards down?
      Mr. Moynihan: I have made it so crystal clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am amazed that he does not hear. On the practical side, I want to make sure that every member of the national membership scheme can gain entry to all 92 clubs as quickly and effectively as possible without any discussion with the turnstile operator. That would be a requirement of ensuring that no additional time is taken.
      The effect of the membership scheme is the benefit to the member. The membership scheme effectively would segregate the true football supporter, who would benefit by going to football without being encumbered by the hooligan element which has done so much to disrupt the game, bring it into disrepute, add to the falling gates in the sport and cause English clubs to be banned from playing in European competition for so long. Only when, together with the football authorities, we can prove to the European authorities and to ourselves that we can put our own house in order—and a 100 per cent. membership scheme is vital in that context—and separate the true football supporter from the hooligan, will we be able to hold our heads high, as we should both nationally and internationally in our national game.
      8.45 pm
      Of course it is important to make sure that there is easy access to football grounds for disabled people. At present, it would be totally impractical for disabled people in wheelchairs to go through a turnstile-operated entry. There need to be separate entrances. We need to make sure that those people can enter safely without the practical difficulties that are envisaged if they have to place a card in a turnstile. For that reason, on balance, it was the view of the committee set up last year that disabled people should be exempt from the membership scheme.
      It was also the view of that committee that we should encourage youngsters under 10 accompanied by members of the scheme to go to family enclosures and to encourage families to bring young children to specific areas of the ground, accompanied by members of the scheme. I understand that that view was shared by both sides of the House. I expect that many youngsters will want to join,

      97
      just as many youngsters now take up membership through the Young Lions, the Reds scheme at Charlton and dozens of other schemes to encourage youngsters to have a card. I hope that the clubs will realise the benefits of encouraging youngsters to join.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Can I get something quite clear, so that I can speak to the Chelsea pensioners next time I visit Stamford Bridge? Is the Minister saying that the Chelsea pensioners, in their red frock coats, their medals, their whiskers, and their peaked caps, will have to be members of the scheme?
      Mr. Moynihan: It may come as a staggering revelation to the hon. Gentleman, although the Bill has been published for well nigh 10 months now, that the answer is yes, just as hon. Members have a membership card to enter the House.
      When the hon. Gentleman speaks to the Chelsea pensioners, he will be able to tell them about the benefits of membership that they will enjoy. He will be able to tell them of the benefits that they will have of going to Chelsea without the hooligan element disrupting the matches, causing so much trouble and bringing the game into disrepute. He will be able to tell them about the benefits that, one hopes, his club will reap with imagination from discount schemes and the many schemes that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has told us apply at Luton. In five years' time, they will be able to tell him that the appalling problem of hooliganism which racked football for the past three decades has gone. I am sure that he will enjoy that conversation, and I am certain that they will.
      Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend point out to the House that Chelsea pensioners, being ex-service men, are used to having identity cards? They had to have them throughout their service careers, so they will feel quite at home when they go to the football terraces.
      Mr. Moynihan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will raise that point in his discussions with the Chelsea pensioners.
      I should prefer to concentrate on the benefits of membership that I have outlined in detail to the House tonight. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members would prefer me not to shout, but if Opposition Members were a little more sotto voce in their sedentary remarks, I would happily speak more quietly.
      Women and retired people can benefit from the scheme in the ways that I have outlined, and the scheme can gain much from their membership. As the issue has been discussed at length on many occasions in Committee and in the other place, I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment.
      Mr. Vaz: I did not intend to speak until I saw the Minister's hysterical performance——
      Mr. Moynihan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Vaz: No, sit down. The Minister is behaving like a deranged rabbit; he should behave himself.
      Mr. Moynihan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Vaz: No, I will not give way.
      In the two and a half years that I have been an hon. Member, I have never seen a performance by a Minister
      98
      such as the one that we have just seen. The reason why he is hysterical is that the case against the Bill, but for the amendments, has been made. The Government have provided no evidence to show that women and pensioners have contributed to football hooliganism.
      The amendments go to the heart of the Bill. They attempt to save the sport, which will be destroyed if the Bill is passed unamended. They aim to ensure that women and children, who have a history of good behaviour and who have contributed to the game as a family sport, are able to attend matches and participate fully as spectators. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) clearly stated that there is no evidence that women and pensioners have contributed to a decline in the game, so why on earth should we exclude them?
      The Minister's hysterical response is that if every group that has not contributed to hooliganism is exempted, only the hooligans will be left. That should be the purpose of the Bill. Is not "targeting" a great catchword of the Government? Do they not say, "We are targeting pensioners who are supposed to be receiving benefits"? Why do not the Government target those who are responsible for creating hooliganism? Women and pensioners certainly are not responsible for that.
      My mother, who incontrovertibly is a women and who is 60 years old, having just become a pensioner, told me recently when she was listening to my speeches in Committee that she used to enjoy being a spectator at football matches. She saw Leicester City play at Filbert street, before they started their decline to the bottom of the second division, from which they will soon emerge. She will not go to football matches if the Bill becomes law unamended.
      Mr. Burt: Why not?
      Mr. Vaz: The hon. Member wants to know why not. The reason why she will not go is that she will be confused by the new offences that the Bill creates and by the controls being placed on the game.
      I received a number of representations on the Bill, as have other hon. Members. Over one third of them were from women. They say that they will not go to football matches because they believe that the Government are trying to criminalise them and pensioners and to criminalise the elements that contribute to making the game a family sport.
      Mr. Denis Howell: As we draw to the end of the Report stage, it is interesting and appropriate that we are dealing with women and pensioners. They have no record of causing difficulty at football matches, yet their rights are being restricted by the Government.
      Is it not ludicrous that the two memories that we shall have of the Bill's proceedings are Lord Hesketh, who is the Under-Secretary of State in the other place, saying that hooligans will buy women's clothing from Oxfam shops to gain admission to football grounds in drag, and the Minister's even more ludicrous statement in reply to my hon. Friend the Minister for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that Chelsea pensioners must register for the scheme because of the benefits that they will receive from it? The benefit that they will receive is that they will be inundated with offers of membership of sex clubs in the west end of London. That is a fine benefit for Chelsea

      99
      pensioners. The Minister said that we should encourage all those activities and fringe benefits, which no doubt will be free for Chelsea pensioners.
      We strongly object to the fact that there is no Government strategy to encourage the people who should be attending football matches to do so. Conservative Members said that everyone who registers for the scheme will receive its benefits, so why have the Government granted an exemption for disabled people? Why do not the Government want disabled people to have those great benefits? That, of course, was the give away. If it is right to exempt disabled people from the impositions of the Bill, by the same logic it must be right to exclude women and pensioners.
      We know from the statement made by the former Home Secretary that the Government wish to move to all-seater stadiums. We know that soon that may become a condition of clubs' licences. Although we support all-seater stadiums in principle, I shall not go into all the difficulties that they will cause. However, one of the problems that has not been answered is whether the Government intend to make it a criminal offence for people to stand at a football match. People stand at football matches, even when they are allocated seats. I saw several thousand Leeds United supporters refuse to sit in the seats that they were allocated at Maine road. What do the Government intend to do about that? As we look at the details of the Bill, we increasingly see the impracticability of the way that the Government are moving.
      We strongly believe that family enclosures should be encouraged. Time and again we said in Committee, and throughout the passage of the Bill, that it would make sense to have family enclosures, where a man and his wife can take their children and where they can be exempted from the restrictions and impositions that are made on them. For some reason, of which we are unaware, the Government continually turn that suggestion down. Yet that is the sort of development towards which we must if we have all-seater stadiums. Family enclosures certainly have our support.
      The Minister is obviously obsessed by the "smart card" as he has talked about it three times now. The Minister told us that he wanted a system where a person simply "touches" the card on the turnstile and is allowed into the ground. The Minister must know that we have strong objections to that system because the card is the evidence of wrongdoing. The football authorities object to the "smart card" as they believe that a wrongdoer will simply pick up the card when the red light comes on and go off with it.
      The scheme will not work unless the card has to be handed to the turnstile operator, who can retain it if a bogus entrant is trying to obtain admission to the ground. There is an overwhelming case for saying that women and pensioners are the people least likely to cause offence and break the law. Their attendance at football matches ought to be encouraged in every way. They ought not to be subject to the restrictions that the Minister and his colleagues are imposing upon them in the Bill.
      It being Nine o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [17 July], and the Resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided:—
      Ayes 202, Noes 278.

      Division No. 361]

      [9pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      George, Bruce

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Allen, Graham

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ashton, Joe

      Gould, Bryan

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Barron, Kevin

      Hardy, Peter

      Battle, John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Beith, A. J.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bell, Stuart

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hood, Jimmy

      Blair, Tony

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Boyes, Roland

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Bradley, Keith

      Howells, Geraint

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Buchan, Norman

      Illsley, Eric

      Buckley, George J.

      Ingram, Adam

      Caborn, Richard

      Janner, Greville

      Callaghan, Jim

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Canavan, Dennis

      Kennedy, Charles

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cartwright, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Knox, David

      Clay, Bob

      Lambie, David

      Clelland, David

      Lamond, James

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cohen, Harry

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Coleman, Donald

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lewis, Terry

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Litherland, Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cousins, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cox, Tom

      Loyden, Eddie

      Crowther, Stan

      McAllion, John

      Cryer, Bob

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cummings, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McLeish, Henry

      Dalyell, Tam

      McNamara, Kevin

      Darling, Alistair

      McWilliam, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Madden, Max

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dixon, Don

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dobson, Frank

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Martlew, Eric

      Eadie, Alexander

      Maxton, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Meacher, Michael

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Meale, Alan

      Fatchett, Derek

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Flannery, Martin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Flynn, Paul

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Derek

      Morley, Elliot

      Foulkes, George

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fraser, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      O'Brien, William

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      O'Neill, Martin

      101

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Spearing, Nigel

      Parry, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Patchett, Terry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pendry, Tom

      Strang, Gavin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Straw, Jack

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dennis

      Randall, Stuart

      Vaz, Keith

      Redmond, Martin

      Wall, Pat

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wallace, James

      Reid, Dr John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Richardson, Jo

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Robertson, George

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Rogers, Allan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Whitney, Ray

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winnick, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Short, Clare

      Worthington, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wray, Jimmy

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

      Snape, Peter

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Chope, Christopher

      Alexander, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Allason, Rupert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Amess, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Amos, Alan

      Conway, Derek

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Ashby, David

      Couchman, James

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cran, James

      Atkins, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baldry, Tony

      Day, Stephen

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Devlin, Tim

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dover, Den

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fallon, Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Favell, Tony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bowis, John

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Forman, Nigel

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brazier, Julian

      Forth, Eric

      Bright, Graham

      Fox, Sir Marcus

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

      Franks, Cecil

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Freeman, Roger

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      French, Douglas

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gale, Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Burns, Simon

      Gill, Christopher

      Burt, Alistair

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Butcher, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butler, Chris

      Gorst, John

      Butterfill, John

      Gow, Ian

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gregory, Conal

      Cash, William

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ground, Patrick

      102

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Hague, William

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Needham, Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Norris, Steve

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hayward, Robert

      Patnick, Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Heddle, John

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Portillo, Michael

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howard, Michael

      Price, Sir David

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Redwood, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Irving, Charles

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jack, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jackson, Robert

      Rost, Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ryder, Richard

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Key, Robert

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)

      Knox, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lightbown, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speed, Keith

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maclean, David

      Squire, Robin

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Stern, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Maples, John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Marland, Paul

      Stokes, Sir John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sumberg, David

      Mates, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mellor, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thorne, Neil

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trippier, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Trotter, Neville

      103

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wheeler, John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Viggers, Peter

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walden, George

      Wood, Timothy

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Yeo, Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Ward, John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mr. Alistair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

      Wells, Bowen

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Nine o'clock.
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 5, line 12, at end insert
      'and requiring that in Wales any application form for membership of the scheme shall also be available in Welsh'.
      No. 32, in page 5, line 15, after 'that', insert ', except in an emergency,'.
      No. 10, in page 5, line 35, leave out 'imposing charges specified in' and insert
      'for the imposition of charges under'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 7

      DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP OF SCHEME
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 6, line 44, leave out from 'with' to end of line and insert
      'the date of the conviction.'.
      No. 12, in page 6, line 47, leave out 'be withdrawn' and insert
      'cease on the date of the conviction'.
      No. 13, in page 7, line 9, after 'court', insert—'(i)'.
      No. 14, in page 7, line 10 at end insert—
      '(ii) shall explain to him in ordinary language the effect of the conviction on his membership of the national football membership scheme; and'.
      No. 15, in page 7, line 13, leave out 'give' and insert 'send'.
      No. 16, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'send' and insert 'give'.
      No. 17, in page 7, line 19 at end insert—
      '( ) Where, on an appeal against a person's conviction of the relevant offence or against a sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in dealing with him for the offence, his conviction is quashed or the sentence is reduced to one which is not a sentence of imprisonment taking immediate effect, the court which determines the appeal or, as the case may be, the court to which the case is remitted, shall cause notice of the quashing of the conviction or of the sentence imposed to be sent to the persons specified in subsection (7)(b)(i) and (ii) above and, where his conviction is quashed, the Authority shall re-admit him to membership of the scheme, but without prejudice to any proceedings under the scheme to exclude him from membership'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Schedule 1

      RELEVANT OFFENCES
      No. 42, in page 21, line 23 at end insert—
      '( ) any offence under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (persons found drunk in public places, etc.) of being found drunk in a highway or other public place committed while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance;
      ( ) any offence under section 91(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place) committed in a
      104
      highway or other public place while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance;'.
      No. 43, in page 21, line 33 at end insert—
      '( ) any offence under section 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving etc. when under the influence of drink or drugs or with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit) committed while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance,'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 8

      THE FOOTBALL LICENSING AUTHORITY
      No. 37, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
      '(5) The expenses of the licensing authority shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Schedule 2

      THE FOOTBALL LICENSING AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 44, in page 23, line 34, at end insert—
      '19A. The terms and conditions of appointments under paragraphs 18 and 19 above shall require the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury.
      19B. The licensing authority shall, as regards such of its inspectors, officers and employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.
      19C. If an inspector, officer or employee of the licensing authority—

      (a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and

      (b) becomes a member of the licensing authority,

      he may, if the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if his service as a member of the licensing authority were service as an employee of the licensing authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 10 or 11 above.'.
      No. 45, in page 23, line 34, at end insert—
      'Accounts and audit
      19D. The licensing authority shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts, and shall prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct.
      19E. The accounts of the licensing authority shall be audited by auditors appointed for each accounting year by the Secretary of State.
      19F. A person shall not be qualified for appointment for the purposes of paragraph 19E above unless he is—

      (a) a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985; or

      (b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;

      but a firm may be appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.
      19G. A copy of any accounts of the licensing authority which are audited under paragraph 19E above and of the report made on those accounts by the auditors shall be sent by the licensing authority to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after it receives them; and the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any accounts or report received by him under this paragraph.
      19H. The Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.

      105
      19I. In paragraphs 19D and 19E above, "accounting year" means the period beginning with the day when the licensing authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.'—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 9

      OFFENCE OF ADMITTING SPECTATORS TO UNLICENSED PREMISES
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 8, line 7, after 'prove', insert
      'either that the spectators were admitted in an emergency or'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 10

      LICENCES TO ADMIT SPECTATORS:GENERAL
      Amendments made: No. 18, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—
      '(2A) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant a licence without—

      (a) notifying the applicant in writing of the proposed refusal and of the grounds for it;

      (b) giving him an opportunity to make representations about them within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the service of the notice; and

      (c) taking any representations so made into account in making its decision.'.

      No. 19, in page 8, line 31, at end insert
      '(4A) A licence to admit spectators may also include conditions requiring specified descriptions of spectators to be refused admittance to the premises to watch designated football matches or specified descriptions of designated football matches or a particular such match.'.
      No. 29, in page 8, line 31, at end insert—
      '(4B) Where a designation order includes the provision authorised by section 1(3)(b) above as respects the admission of spectators to any ground as authorised spectators, the licensing authority may, by notice in writing to the licence holder, direct that, for the purposes of any match or description of match specified in the direction, the licence shall be treated as including such specified terms and conditions as respects the admission of spectators as authorised spectators as the licensing authority considers appropriate; and the licence shall have effect, for that purpose, subject to those terms and conditions.'.
      No. 20, in page 8, line 46, after 'notice', insert 'in writing'.
      No. 21, in page 9, line 3, after 'holder', insert 'in writing'.
      No. 22, in page 9, line 8, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.
      No. 34, in page 9, line 15, after 'that', insert—
      'except (in the case of the procedures) in an emergency,'.
      No. 38, in page 9, line 36, at end insert—
      '( ) The fees charged on the issue of licences—

      (a) may be fixed so as to reimburse the licensing authority their expenses under this Part of this Act; and

      (b) shall be paid by the licensing authority to the Secretary of State.'.

      No. 30, in page 9, line 41, after 'licence' insert
      'or in the case of subsection (4B) in the direction'.
      No. 39, in page 9, leave out lines 44 to 46.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 13

      LICENSING AUTHORITY'S POWERS IN RELATION TO SAFETY AT FOOTBALL GROUNDS
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 11, line 23, at end insert—
      106
      '( ) Before exercising its power under subsection (2) above to require the inclusion of specified terms and conditions in any safety certificate, the licensing authority shall consult the local authority, the chief officer of police and either the fire authority (where the local authority is in Greater London or a metropolitan county) or the building authority (in any other case).
      ( ) As respects those terms and conditions, the local authority need not consult the chief officer of police, the fire authority or the building authority under section 3(3) or 4(8) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 before issuing a safety certificate or about any proposal to amend or replace one.'
      No. 41, in page 11, line 43, at end insert—
      '( ) Section 5(3) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 (appeals against terms and conditions of safety certificates) shall have effect with the insertion, after paragraph (ii), of the words "but not against the inclusion in a safety certificate of anything required to be included in it by the Football Licensing Authority under section 13(2) of the Football Spectators Act 1989".'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 15
      RESTRICTION ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 13, line 19, at end insert 'in ordinary language'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]
    Clause 21
      FUNCTIONS OF ENFORCING AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 40, in page 17, line 40, leave out ', out of money provided by Parliament,'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]
    New Clause 1

      FINANCIAL PROVISION
      '.—(1) Any expenses of the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
      (2) Any fees received by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Title
    Amendments made: No. 24, in line 3, after 'spectators;', insert
    'to provide for the safety of spectators at such matches by means of such licences and the conferment of functions on the licensing authority in relation to safety certificates for grounds at which such matches are played;'.
    No. 36, in line 4, leave out 'by designated agencies'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.18 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    As many hon. Members will know better than I, this Bill has been debated at length in their Lordships' House and in this House, totalling 100 hours for a Bill of fewer than 30 clauses and it must still return to their Lordships, for them to consider amendments made in this place. The Bill has received a thorough examination in both Houses. I have not been involved with it until now—I have come on to the pitch rather late in the game. I have a strong sense of personal deprivation at not having been involved in the

    107
    Bill's proceedings until now. I am told that I missed a particularly entertaining Committee stage, full of whippets and nostalgia. Although the debates have shown evidence of the strong feelings that the subject arouses, they have been conducted in a courteous and often good-humoured way, and I wish to thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for that. As the House will recognise, debates with them are often vigorous but seldom, if ever, bitter.
    It is a sad fact that hooliganism has been an ugly scar on the face of football for several years. The measures taken by the Government, the police and the football authorities have reduced the number of very serious incidents over the past year or two, but the effect has been to contain the problem rather than to eradicate it. The price of containment has been the rigid segregation of supporters of rival teams and a massive police presence at and around football grounds every weekend of the season.
    In the face of the continuing problem of football hooliganism in this country and when the England team travels abroad, the Government decided to introduce this Bill, and I regret that there have been repeated reminders of the continuing menace of violence at football matches during its passage. The Hillsborough disaster, of course, was not attributable to hooliganism, and we paused in proceedings on the Bill for a two-month interval following that tragedy. Unfortunately, however, the hooligans were unable to pause even for two months before resuming their activities. Less than a month after Hillsborough, on the last full Saturday league programme of the season—13 May—a series of violent incidents occurred inside football grounds and among travelling supporters throughout the country, and 300 people were arrested that weekend.
    The opening months of this season have seen yet more incidents in, among other places, Stockholm on 6 September, in Manchester and other cities on 23 September, and in Blackpool on 30 September. I attended a game at Tottenham on that date.
    The trouble at the Sweden v. England game in Stockholm, despite the efforts of the Football Association to deter the so-called England supporters from travelling, demonstrated the importance of part II of the Bill. The Manchester City v. Manchester United game showed how close violence can be to the surface of matches in this country if the strict segregation of rival spectators slips. The problems will be solved only if there is a fundamental change in the atmosphere among football crowds. We believe that the national membership scheme can bring about that change.
    Mr. Orme: With regard to the England v. Sweden game, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem will not be resolved unless the hooligans are charged in the country where they have committed the offence? The Bill will not affect them if they are simply put on a train and sent home. What does the Secretary of State think about that?
    Mr. Patten: I very much sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's point. We made that clear at the time to the Swedish authorities and we must work through the Council of Europe and in other ways to ensure that if hooligans are responsible for violence they are taken to
    108
    court and dealt with appropriately. It is extremely important that all countries where football is played and which love football should take tough action against hooligans wherever they come from. With regard to the particular events in Stockholm, hon. Members on both sides of the House were very much in agreement about ways in which we could deal with the people who bring not only the game of football in this country but England itself into such bad repute around Europe and beyond.
    Mr. John Greenway: There is common agreement on both sides of the argument about this Bill that we must tackle the problem of football hooliganism abroad. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to discuss with other member states, whose international football clubs could be taking part in the World Cup in Italy next year, to ensure that any fans who besmirch the name of this country by behaving violently abroad will be prosecuted in Italy and not let free as happened in Stockholm? That is no help in the fight to defeat football hooliganism.
    Mr. Patten: I know how much my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) knows about the issue and how concerned he is that we should find appropriate answers and solutions. I assure him that we are already discussing with the Italian authorities how best to cope with any hooliganism which might occur during the World Cup. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that those discussions should be carried forward as soon and as vigorously as possible. As I said earlier, we must discuss these issues not only with the Italian authorities, with next year's World Cup in mind, but more broadly with the Council of Europe as well as through Interior Ministers of the European Community.
    I shall deal with one recent statement before moving on to the precise terms of the Bill. I totally repudiate the allegation 10 days ago by the chairman of Crystal Palace football club that the Government need more hooligan problems in the next few weeks to help the Bill through Parliament. He also made the extraordinary request to supporters of his club to be on their best behaviour for the next few weeks so as to impede the passage of the Bill. The implication seems to be that once those few weeks are up the fighting can start. My information is that Crystal Palace supporters do not have a bad reputation, in which case they deserve considerably better of their chairman.
    I have referred to the pause in proceedings on the Bill as a result of the Hillsborough disaster, but the continuing violence has demonstrated a continuing need for its provisions. The Bill has, however, been amended in a number of important ways following the Hillsborough disaster and will, I hope, become law very shortly—before we have seen the final report of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the needs of crowd control and safety at sports events. Parliament will, however, have two opportunities to debate the scheme following receipt of the final report —first, before the Football Membership Authority is appointed and, secondly, when the scheme has been submitted and approved by me. We have provided also for the Football Licensing Authority to have powers in respect of safety at football grounds if Parliament should so decide in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's final report.
    This is a relatively short Bill, but it contains a number of major elements. First, there is the national membership scheme, to which almost all those attending designated matches in future will have to belong. Secondly, there is

    109
    power for the Secretary of State to require an increase in the proportion of seating as against standing accommodation at specified grounds. As the House knows, exercise of that power will be subject to detailed parliamentary approval. It is also a subject on which we look forward to Lord Justice Taylor's comments. Thirdly, there is power for the Football Licensing Authority to review local authorities' performance in relation to football grounds under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. Finally, there is power for the courts to impose restriction orders on convicted hooligans to prevent them from travelling to designated matches abroad. I repeat that I take on board the point made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme).
    These measures can have a major impact for good on the future of football in this country. I recognise that the membership scheme has aroused a great deal of controversy in football and elsewhere. It is, of course, the right of those who oppose the scheme to advance their arguments, although I deplore some of the disinformation that has been promoted. Nevertheless, the Bill will shortly be law and it is time for football to start to adopt a positive approach to the scheme.
    I commend the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has taken the Bill through the House. I commend also the helpful support of my hon. Friend the new Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has repeatedly stressed the positive benefits that the scheme can bring to clubs and to their supporters if they approach it in a positive light. Not only does it offer the prospect of an end to the ever-present threat of hooliganism but, as those clubs which have recently begun to develop their own membership schemes have seen, it can bring a club and its supporters very much closer together.
    It is, above all, in the interests of football that those concerned should begin to take a positive rather than a negative approach to the scheme. That is the message that I shall give to the president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association when I see them shortly, and it is the message that I give to the House now. I am pleased to be able to commend the Bill to the House.
    9.29 pm
    Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome the Secretary of State to the deliberations on the Bill. He has been brought off the substitutes' bench to strengthen the team. In football, they would refer to a fresh pair of legs, but what the legislation really needs is a fresh brain. My impression was that his obligatory speech on Third Reading was part of the price that he paid for getting the job in the first place. He would have been better advised to give this one a miss. I do not know whether he can confirm the story in the Lobby that there have been so many recent Cabinet changes that Cabinet Ministers, too, will be required to carry identity cards so that the security men in Whitehall can recognise them when they go to No. 10.
    For all the Secretary of State's presentational skills, which he has again deployed at the Dispatch Box this evening, he is not going to convince the overwhelming majority of people that the legislation is right or likely to be effective. We said at the outset that this was the wrong
    110
    Bill at the wrong time and that it was also the wrong Bill at any time. That remains our view. It remains the view of people involved in our national game—spectators and players alike, management, administrators, some important sections of the police and certainly the overwhelming majority of the British public, who remain unconvinced of the merits of compulsory identity cards for football spectators.
    Petitions including the signatures of 2,000 professional footballers and over 430,000 football supporters have urged the Government to think again. We share those views. The long weeks of debate and discussion of the proposals in Committee have increased opposition, not just on this side of the House but in the country at large. We have opposed the proposals for compulsory identity cards for football spectators in part I of the Bill because they are irrelevant and will have serious implications in some circumstances for crowd safety.
    The Under-Secretary of State has said several times that there may be a test of the technology involved in setting up the system. We would welcome such an experiment, provided that it was a proper test that was undertaken, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has said, over a sufficient length of time—a season—and provided also that it covered all the various circumstances that arise throughout a season's fixtures. That would be a realistic and a reasonable test, but we remain deeply sceptical about the technical capability and efficiency of the proposed system.
    With the growing number of Cabinet reshuffles, perhaps the best experiment for these ideas would be to test the technology at Cabinet meetings, to see how long it takes the ever-changing round of Ministers to get in arid out of No. 10 Downing street. We read that the Prime Minister is erecting palace gates at the end of Downing street. Perhaps she should include a turnstile in them while she is at it and let Ministers experience what they are going to impose on thousands of law-abiding citizens every weekend as they go about their business of enjoying, or trying to enjoy, a lawful sport.
    We know, however, that an experimental period would not be acceptable to the Prime Minister, who is the real force behind the legislation.
    When I listened to the Under-Secretary of State talking about pensioners and violence, I came to the conclusion that he had probably been the victim of too many handbaggings by a woman pensioner with whom he spends a bit of time. Certainly there is no other evidence to support the Government's contention that women arid pensioners should be subject to the provisions of the Bill. It beggars belief to hear the Minister for Sport say that Chelsea Pensioners decked out in brightest scarlet arid visible like beacons for miles around could somehow commit some misdemeanour at a football match and slink away quietly into the crowd without being recognised—it does not bear examination.
    It is not only nonsense to include women, pensioners and unaccompanied children over the age of 10: it is insulting to them. It is grotesquely insulting to say that somehow these people represent a threat to public order and good behaviour. The Secretary of State and Conservative Members are apparently cowed by the manic obsession of the Prime Minister, but whatever else the legislation will achieve it will not increase the gate for the Conservative party at the next general election: quite the contrary.

    111
    Football identity cards appear to be one of the Prime Minister's pet projects; that is why the idea is being forced through the House and why all the evidence, all rational argument and sensible debate—I accept, like the Secretary of State, that it has been passionate at times, but always good-humoured and courteous—have been largely ignored by the Minister. He has not been allowed the latitude to accept even one reasonable amendment since the legislation first came before the House.
    The signs are that, this season, league attendances are up by about 11 per cent. on the same period last year. If that continues, they could return to about 20 million for the first time since the early years of this decade—all without the imposition of the compulsory identity card scheme and the extra financial burdens that it will entail, particularly for small clubs, which are often hopelessly unable to bear such extra burdens.
    A card scheme would work the other way, pushing attendances down by deterring many decent cut casual football supporters who attend several matches a season and who are estimated to account for about 20 per cent. of total attendances. We all know from personal experience that that is particularly so at bank holidays, Christmas and local derby games. I shall be at St. James's Park at Newcastle on Saturday when there is a derby game against Middlesbrough. There will be an extra large attendance——
    Mr. George Foulkes: In the shape of my hon. Friend?
    Dr. Cunningham: I shall indeed form part of the extra numbers. One of the regrettable aspects of being in Parliament is that I attend fewer football games than I would like to. Attendance will be swollen at that game because it is a popular local derby, and many thousands of casual supporters will come who were not there last Saturday and will not be at the subsequent home game.
    I noticed that the Minister and supporters of the legislation shy away from the fact that the problem—and there is one—is no longer inside the grounds. Having an identity card will not stop people causing trouble in town and city centres and on trains and boats. The Secretary of State is aiming at the wrong target; so much has been apparent from the outset, but we have been unable to get Conservative Members to face up to the facts.
    It is also worth reiterating that the 6,147 arrests related to football matches during the 1987–88 season represent a tiny proportion—0·03 per cent.—of the 18 million attendances at games in that season. Many of those offences also occurred away from grounds and were not related to violence or serious disorder. In that sense, too, the problem which has attached itself to football and which has been stuck to football by the Government's attitude has been exaggerated.
    There is simply no guarantee that an ID card scheme will reduce the numbers of police required inside and around football grounds. In order to prevent potentially dangerous problems of fans arriving at computerised turnstiles just before kick-off, it is quite conceivable that in some cases we shall have to maintain, if not increase, existing levels of police at important games. We reject the underlying reason for these measures.
    Mr. Burt: In relation to evidence about decreasing police charges, the hon. Gentleman could look at Luton Town and the way that it has managed. In the year prior to its scheme being introduced, there was a charge of £66,200 for the police. After three years of the scheme, the charge for the police had come down to £25,000. Does that not show the savings that can be made through the scheme?
    Dr. Cunningham: Thanks to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), I have looked at Luton Town a great deal. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a scheme which does not allow, at least in theory, away supporters. Are we suggesting that the future of the game will depend on a legal ban on away supporters and people travelling to the games? Are we to say that, on Saturday, people will not be allowed to travel from Tyneside to Teesside to watch a football match at St. James's park? That is the sort of scheme that operates at Luton Town.
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman did not let me finish.
    Dr. Cunningham: I did let the hon. Gentleman finish, but he is not letting me finish. It is like asking me to answer a question when I am already trying to do so. The hon. Gentleman should contain himself.
    I do not think that outside Luton there is a scintilla of support in football for the kind of scheme that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is proposing. If he can mention any other club that is proposing to emulate that scheme, I should like to know about it.
    Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman said that in theory Luton Town bans away supporters, and he gave en example of supporters from Tyneside and Teeside. He will understand that, if Sunderland operated that scheme, there would be nothing to stop others joining it. The hon. Gentleman also said that he did not think that any other club supported the Luton Town scheme. If he looks at the records he will see that the Police Federation favours a no-away-supporters scheme such as that put forward by Luton Town.
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, but the Police Federation is not a football club. It may have a team, but the federation is not a club. I live between Tyneside and Wearside, where it is impossible to tell who are the home supporters and who are the away supporters. One week they go to Sunderland and the next week they go to St. James's park in Newcastle. We cannot look to the future of football on the basis of home supporters only. That is preposterous.
    We reject the Government's arguments for these measures and their use. They are a smokescreen for the Government's failure properly to address the growing level of violence in all aspects of life in Britain. That is regrettable but true. The overwhelming majority of football fans in England and Wales, decent law-abiding citizens, are having their civil liberties infringed in an attempt to divert the public's attention from the growing levels of disorder under the Government.
    We are extremely doubtful whether the last-minute substitution of the new Secretary of State for the Cabinet's own-goal specialist can prevent the Bill from turning into yet another Government own goal. As I have said, I hope that no Conservative Member who votes for this measure

    113
    will think that that will resolve the problem or will increase support for them or their Government when the inevitable test of public opinion comes.
    Since we support the principles of part II, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) have said, I say, more in regret than sorrow, that it will not work. Let us take the case of the match in Sweden, to which the Secretary of State referred. Six people were charged with offences on a cross-Channel ferry. No one was charged with any offence in or at the ground. What is the outcome of that to be? The people who were there—we may agree that they should not have been there—were not charged with an offence and subsequently could not have any action taken against them under this proposal.
    In the recent game in Poland, no charges were levelled against British fans, because they did nothing wrong. Unless people can be charged with something in this country, part II simply will not work. I would like to see it work, because I agree with the Secretary of State that we simply cannot tolerate our name and reputation being damaged. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—I have to get his constituency right in view of the shadow Cabinet elections this week—pointed out that the Bill does not apply to Scottish fans, and quite rightly. We cannot tolerate people from England and Wales besmirching the reputation and name of our country. We want action taken. However, I say with no pleasure that part II will not work, because it does not contain the right provisions.
    The Under-Secretary said that safety is at the heart of the Bill. I do not know how he can say that, when the Government have insisted on proceeding with this legislation in advance of the conclusions of the Taylor report. I sincerely hope and believe that the Taylor report will be a watershed in these matters, and it will be disappointing if it is not. To legislate in advance of the report is extraordinary, to say the least. As I understand it, Taylor is due to report towards the end of the year, perhaps in December. We may have the chance to debate the report and its conclusions in the early part of next year, but on that time scale, we shall not be able to do anything about this legislation until the autumn of 1990 at the earliest, and that is ridiculous. It is rather like the Secretary of State responding to our request to produce a White Paper on environmental policies but introducing a Bill first. "Let's have the legislation before we see the evidence" seems to be the name of the game in the Department of the Environment. I thought that we were getting away from that with the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman, but apparently we are not.
    In view of all the evidence, of all the public opposition, of the gaping holes in the legislation, and of the imminence of the Taylor report, one would have thought that some of these arguments would have got through to Ministers. Not a bit of it. They are driving ahead with manic obsession behind them. The momentum is not theirs but that of the Prime Minister. That is why we have this Bill. That is why the Secretary of State is making a speech in support of legislation that I believe, in his heart of hearts, he would prefer not to touch with a bargepole. We shall implacably oppose this legislation in the Lobby, because it merits our total opposition.
    9.49 pm
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I spoke against the Bill on Second Reading and I remain unconvinced that I was wrong to do so. I shall speak briefly tonight to support the arguments that I adduced at that stage.
    I oppose the Bill as a soccer supporter and as a believer in law and order. We are faced with a national law-and-order issue which is not party political in its nature. There has been a breakdown of law and order among adolescents in our society, and if we keep them out of football grounds they will go somewhere else. They will not go home and read Aristotle, Socrates, Marx or Burke. Nor will they join the Workers Educational Association. They are likely to go steaming on trains, to use a modern term, to engage in muggings or to take part in robbery and the rest. Unless we tackle the problem of adolescents in revolt who are uncontrollable, our society is threatened by breakdown.
    In a speech at a Conservative gathering on Saturday, I referred to three comprehensive schools in a reasonably well-run London borough. When attendances at those schools were checked over the spring term in 1987—the check covered 15 and 16-year-old boys—it was found that they were 47 per cent., 48 per cent. and 52 per cent. Half of the boys were not attending throughout the year, or they ran a rota system that determined the days when they did attend. If boys in that age group are not attending schools but are running loose for the last two years of their schooling, they will be uncontrollable for the rest of their lives. At some stage discipline has to be inflicted—I mean inflicted, if necessary—on all people.
    In London, in 1977, a check was made when it was not known that there would be a test or examination in every school. The check was made in secondary schools in London and it was found that 28 per cent. of the pupils were missing. The check revealed that some 40 per cent. of 15 and 16-year-olds in London were not in attendance.
    I do not think that many hon. Members are aware that there is a decline in competitive sport in our schools where there is proper refereeing and generally proper control. Rugby and soccer are collapsing. There are schools in our main cities where those sports are not played. The fighting in our playground spreads to fighting on the terraces and everywhere else. Responsibility lies with the Department of Education and Science. Unless soccer and rugby are played in our schools, with proper referees and the knowledge that the referee's whistle is final, we face a further breakdown in our society. If that takes place, football will become a riotous act, and the future will be even worse.
    There will be difficulties for the police in patrolling outside football grounds. Unless there is a massive police presence, cards will be stolen. Photographs of all spectators will have to be checked, and that will lead to more fighting outside the ground. The idea that these people will behave properly to get into the ground is not realistic. They will find a way to get in. Many of them will have spent two years escaping from their schools, so they will seek to escape the law once they leave school. They will have been bred for that for some time.
    When there is rioting outside a ground, the gate will be opened and the rioters will gain entry. The Bill will do nothing to improve behaviour outside football grounds.
    Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend understand and accept that the police, in trying to implement the scheme if it comes about as a result of the Bill, will have to exercise the most ruthless scrutiny of supporters? They will have to ensure that if they are carrying membership cards the cards match the identity of the carriers. The police recognise that that will be a difficult task. Does my hon. Friend accept that that could have some benefit in controlling the difficult problems that occur outside grounds?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: My deduction is entirely different from that of my hon. Friend. If everyone is to be checked to that extent, we had better start getting the crowds outside the grounds on Friday night. If not, there will not be a kick-off at 3 pm. If the police have to check everyone before he or she enters the ground, there will be only four matches on a Saturday afternoon. There will not be enough constables to go round. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) intended to present me with the greatest argument against the Bill that I have ever heard. I am grateful to him for advancing it for me on my behalf. He adopted a clever and subtle approach.
    I still do not understand why everyone should not have an identity card. One public house near where I live will not admit anyone unless they have a card issued by the licensed victuallers showing that they are over 18 years of age. We all need to carry cards for one purpose or another. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who is a notable football supporter, shows me his own identity card.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposal is for a card that proves the identity of the holder, whereas the scheme provides that a piece of plastic will become an electronic key allowing the holder to gain admission to a football ground? I suggest that we are not talking about identity cards or meaningful membership in the terms of Lord Justice Popplewell's report.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend. He reminds me that those of us who travel on the Underground will also be interested to see how long it is before the turnstile machinery breaks down. The automatic ticket barriers on the Underground serve to prepare ordinary people for all-in wrestling, or soldiers for assault courses.
    It will then take one constable or two constables per man to ensure that everyone behaves, which will make the situation even more like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan than I previously imagined. However, I must not make too many rash statements—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I claim your protection, Mr. Speaker, from the pressure being put on me to attack the Bill even more. I want to be as impartial as I can.
    What is needed in our society is compulsory school attendance between the ages of 15 and 16 and courses in secondary schools that are meaningful for those who attend them and which offer a job at the end. Young people will then know that it is worth attending school because there will be a job at the end of it. We must also pull together the extended family, which is breaking up in our society, and rebuild local loyalties. Today, loyalties are being built up against us. The little platoons of Edmund Burke are being broken up and in their place are being formed little warrior platoons against society.
    116
    Unless all those things are achieved, there will need to be Bill after Bill in an attempt to control our young people, which should be both unnecessary and unsatisfactory. I shall vote against the Bill, not because I do not want law and order—I do—or soccer to be run properly—I do—but because it deals with symptoms and not causes.
    9.57 pm
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: There has never been any dispute about the desirability of eliminating football hooliganism in England and Wales. Nor has there been any dispute, since the Bill began its progress in this House, about part II. However, there has been a substantial dispute about the principle which lies behind part I, and in Committee and on Report there was substantial dispute about the practicality of the proposals enshrined in the Bill.
    One issue that has to a large extend been brushed aside is civil liberty. The Bill requires that an activity which until now has been entirely lawful will be unlawful unless a person wishing to indulge in it takes the step and overcomes the obstacle of obtaining an identity card. It is that, among many features of the Bill, which makes it so unacceptable to many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    The principle of universality is more offensive than almost anything else that the Bill requires. The absurdity of including pensioners in the football supporters scheme has already been eloquently demonstrated. Earlier this evening, we witnessed the absurdity of hon. Members arguing that women should be included in the scheme lest supporters anxious to evade their responsibilities visit charity shops and clothe themselves in dresses before returning to present themselves at the turnstiles. When such an example has to be prayed in aid, the absurdity of the principle that the Government are seeking to apply is surely proved beyond question.
    For me, and I suspect that I am not alone, this evening marks a sad and sorry end to the progress of an unhappy and ill-conceived piece of legislation. The Bill could have been a memorial to those who died at Hillsborough rather than a monument to Government intransigence and insensitivity.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Brunei (Appeals) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

    Football Spectators Bill [Lords]
    Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Mr. Campbell: I well remember the atmosphere in the House the Monday after Hillsborough, and the disbelief felt by many of us when the then Home Secretary came to the Dispatch Box and told us that, after a period of reconsideration, the Bill was to continue its progress through Parliament.
    This should not be a partisan measure. The elimination of hooliganism should be a matter of agreement throughout the House. I suspect that few Bills could be shown, on critical examination, to be as devoid of merit as this Bill has been, perhaps by the unforeseen but

    117
    illuminating events that have taken place outside. Hillsborough should have provided an opportunity, but instead it has been used to demonstrate the Government's determination to ignore the obvious. The Government would have commanded great support and respect if they had come to the House after Hillsborough and said that they would wait for Lord Justice Taylor's final report. I suspect—recent events may confirm my judgment—that the doctrine of infallibility pervades all the attitudes of the present Government. No argument in principle, and few arguments in detail, have deflected them from their predetermined course, as was demonstrated by the publication of the Bill in its original form.
    Football is the poorer for this measure but, unhappily, football will have to live with it. The Football League and the Football Association will have to make the measure work, but responsibility for it will rest with those who have promoted it so enthusiastically, and I believe that they will come to regret that enthusiasm.
    10.2 pm
    Mr. Lester: I shall speak only briefly, as I have had a big say on Second Reading and in Committee.
    I agree with everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). It was not so much the technical objections to the Bill that we paraded in Committee; our opposition comes down to a matter of principle. I believe that it is a gross infringement of personal liberty to impose the Bill on so many law-abiding citizens. It challenges the lawless to try to defeat it, and we shall certainly see such action.
    I can tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Bill is causing great distress to those who have supported their teams for many years. Season-ticket holders who are committed to their teams will be required to join the scheme, as will those who are already members of their club schemes, young reds or blues—depending on their team colours—and under-10s accompanied by adults. I cannot imagine even East Germany trying to impose a scheme with such draconian requirements on so many in order to isolate so few.
    We have debated the anomalies and the omissions. We have discussed the fact that Scotland, which has a greater record of arrests than many clubs in England, is to be excluded, and that we are including all the member states of the European Community which may wish to cross the Channel to watch a football game. We are not even satisfied with that: the legislation will also apply to American tourists. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) mentioned football in America. I assure him that if he goes around the stores in the United States he will find many tee-shirts inscribed with the names of such famous teams as Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal.
    It is so unreasonable that someone who comes to Britain for a fortnight as a tourist cannot watch a football match unless he joins the scheme. One hopes that there is still time for reason to prevail, and that when the FMA looks at the scheme it will build on everything good that has happened in football in recent years, such as the way Millwall has turned around from a club which was condemned to one which, through universal membership, has dealt with the problems of away supporters by putting
    118
    big screens at the Den so that people who cannot go to away matches can watch the match from their own ground.
    The final principle I wish to mention, and the reason why I shall continue to oppose the Bill, is that one cannot impose a law without the consent of the majority of people who will be affected by it. The majority of people who provide the sport—the players—are against it; as are 91 of the 92 chairmen who run the clubs. About 500,000 regular football supporters have signed a petition which has been presented to the House individually by club and by the total membership of the Football Supporters Association. One cannot impose a law on an industry to that extent and hope to succeed. For those reasons I shall oppose the Third Reading.
    10.5 pm
    Mr. Rowlands: I have agreed with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on many issues. I wholeheartedly agree with his denunciation of the Bill.
    As a Welshman approaching soccer, one has to be modest, to say the least. There are now only three Welsh league teams in the third and fourth divisions. Rugby is our national sport, so I approach the Bill from a rather different angle. My worry and concern is that the Bill will not stop where it is planned to stop—within league football.
    The hon. Member for Broxtowe and others have demonstrated the absurdity of including women and old-age pensioners in the scheme. Another absurdity is the way in which the scheme would treat the Liverpool v. Spurs match that we saw yesterday on television in the same way as the Rochdale v. Scarborough match attended by 1,400 people last Saturday. Rochdale and Scarborough will have to have the same membership scheme with its plastic cards for a match watched by perhaps 1,500 to 2,500 people.
    The argument why that is necessary, repeatedly produced by the Minister, is that, if we do not have a comprehensive scheme that includes teams such as Rochdale and Scarborough as well as Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur, the thugs will go up the road to clubs not covered by the scheme.
    In south Wales the growing non-league sides have got into the Vauxhall League, and, by a marvellous rapid promotion through three leagues Merthyr has even played a European Cup tie, beating a first division Italian side. There was an amazing, wonderful sense of community spirit. My worry and concern is that the next league in which the scheme will intrude will be the Vauxhall league. Already many clubs such as Merthyr are drawing crowds bigger than those at third and fourth division matches. The Government plan to draw the line at the fourth division. But the Bill does not draw the line.
    Another body that has emerged from our discussions is a huge new quango called the Football Licensing Authority. Ministers, the Football Licensing Authority and the Football Membership Authority will not only become involved in league football, but will have to decide when to designate matches involving non-league clubs versus league clubs. I suggest that when the Secretary of State leaves the Chamber he watches the first round draw of the FA Cup today. Twenty of the matches are between non-league and league sides. We discussed that issue

    119
    throughout our discussions in Committee. One of my functions was to identify the interface between non-league and league football.
    If the Bill were enacted, it would have to be decided which of those 20 matches would be designated matches. What consequences would flow from their becoming designated matches? I think that the Secretary of State may have made a factual error when he said that every designated match will be covered by the comprehensive membership scheme. I hope that that is not true, because I believe that many matches will be designated but will not be subject to the membership scheme. If they are subject to it, half the clubs competing in the first round of the cup will be dragged into the scheme, making it difficult, if not impossible, for many fans of non-league clubs to support their team.
    Anyone who has followed the debates on the Bill will be aware of, first, its gross absurdity and, secondly, its creeping bureaucracy. The new and elaborate Football Licensing Authority and the Football Membership Authority—two new quangos—have been established to handle the problem of hooliganism.
    Yesterday, we watched magnificent football being played at the Liverpool-Spurs match. People who were unable to attend that match saw it on television yesterday afternoon. As a casual football spectator, one is shaken by the fact that teams such as Liverpool and Spurs cannot play in Europe, and by the fact that Ministers are ensuring that they cannot do so, which is disgraceful. The actions of a mindless group of hooligans mean that great clubs such as Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur cannot play in Europe. The day that this awful Bill becomes an Act, I trust that Ministers will say to the European football authorities, "This is our solution. We support the inclusion of our great clubs in European football." Whether it be Merthyr Tydfil playing Atalanta or Liverpool playing Real Madrid, there is no excuse for the way that Ministers have behaved to football fans over the past 12 months, as represented and signified by the Bill
    10.12 pm
    Mr. Burt: Listening to the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Third Reading has been an enormously enjoyable experience. For many hon. Members, it has been one of those rare occasion when something that has been a hobby for many years has been discussed on the Floor of the Chamber. Most hon. Members were football supporters long before we knew anything about politics. An attachment to and love of a football club is deeper than an attachment to or love of a political party or Government.
    Mr. Matthew Carrington: Shame
    Mr. Burt: It is no shame at all. It is a subject which goes very deep. That is why the emotions aroused inside and outside the House have been so great. The argument is all about romance and the differing views of the game, both past and future.
    Conservative Members and the Bill, but not Labour Members, have seriously addressed the state of football today. We have asked whether it is good enough, and if there are problems what to do about them. Currently, the game is not in a good state, and has suffered decline for
    120
    many years for various reasons. Most football clubs are in debt not because of a football membership scheme or the Prime Minister but because insufficient people watch the game.
    A public perception of violence has surrounded the game for the past 20 years, some of that has been based on truth, but much has also been based on media myth. The media have blown up incidents and suggested that they happen all the time. Most hon. Members who attend football regularly know that violence does not occur everywhere. However, if one asks the mums and dads who used to take their children whether they think that it happens, or ask a mother whether she is prepared to let her children go to a game alone, or whether those who grew up standing on the terraces with their dads would let their children go, they say "No, we dare not take the risk." That perception of the game, which has helped its decline, has been tackled by the Bill. It is important to change people's attitudes. The Bill, with other measures, will do that.
    The romance that I mentioned is a romantic attachment to the belief that the way in which people carried on in the past should continue, without any need of legislative change. I do not believe that that can happen.
    Mr. Lester: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Saturday last at the Nottingham Forest match a great part of the ground was full of children under 10 on their own, called Young Reds? They thoroughly enjoyed the game, to which they had gone because they had been encouraged to join that scheme. Does my hon. Friend realise that his efforts to encourage the attendance of young people who do not go to football matches by imposing this new scheme will mean that the people who already go to football matches will not go? They do not want to be members of this scheme in addition to being Young Reds. My hon. Friend is pitching for people who may or may not understand what is happening in football at the expense of those who do.
    Mr. Burt: I understand what my hon. Friend says. It has been a feature of his contributions, like those of many Opposition Members. I do not believe that that is true. The attachment that those young people already show to football and their desire to watch the game will not be affected by their becoming members of another scheme. The fact that they are already loyal to a club and want to take part in its activities suggests that they will happily take part in this scheme, especially if there are associated benefits—for example, if it is fitted into the activities of their junior members' clubs. It will not act as an extra barrier.
    A number of hon. Members have mentioned the tragic events at Hillsborough. Hon. Members should be reminded that, on page 55, Lord Justice Taylor's report states:
    "Regrettably, only a month after Hillsborough, there were incidents that showed that violence and hooliganism are still liable to erupt at football grounds."
    Lord Justice Taylor went on to detail the events on 13 May at Selhurst Park and on 20 May at the Cup final. He said that such incidents were still happening.
    Hillsborough was not caused by hooliganism. Alas, we cannot say that it was a watershed for football hooliganism. I hope that it was a watershed for public safety, but hooligans are still causing trouble. Although we acknowledge that Hillsborough was not the fault of hooligans, I stress that it is the hooligan shadow of the

    121
    1960s that caused those deaths, in three ways. First, the police fear of fans moving across Sheffield led them to decide to place the fans at the wrong ends of the ground in terms of space. Secondly, the existence of perimeter fencing was a legacy of the fear of pitch invasion, and it contributed to deaths. The third spillover from the past was the police perception at the time the problems arose. They feared an invasion of the pitch more than any great disaster not caused by hooliganism. That is why the shadow of hooliganism of the 1960s caused the deaths at Hillsborough and why we cannot exclude those factors from our thinking.
    Mr. Wareing: The hon. Gentleman referred to the FA cup final on 20 May. All the evidence from that cup final shows that the crowd was able to see the match unsegregated—there was no evidence of widespread hooliganism—and that is always a feature of derby matches, wherever they are played, between the Everton and Liverpool clubs. In the season before last, there were only 24 arrests at matches associated with Everton and 33 at Liverpool, but 452 at Glasgow Rangers.
    Mr. Burt: I make no comment about supporters of Everton and Liverpool. The hon. Gentleman knows more about that than I do, but he also knows, because he was at the cup final, about the pitch invasions and other incidents that took place. They were not major, but they happened. I am afraid that the atmosphere which may exist between Liverpool and Everton did not exist recently when Manchester City met Manchester United, when there was a problem because opposing supporters were mixed in together.
    Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this year's FA cup final, for the first time in the history of the competition, the cup could not be taken round the ground and paraded to the fans simply because the players were nervous of what might happen to them?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes his own point. The point that I seek to make is that all is not well with the state of our game. The Bill has been an attempt to try to do something about that.
    What have we heard from the Opposition about what they or others would do? I am pleased to answer now the point raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He knows enough about my attitude to the game and the Bill to know that I do not support the Luton scheme strictly. Earlier in the debate, I raised a point about the decrease in policing costs to show that the changing nature of the crowd and the atmosphere at Luton had led to a reduction in policing costs. I genuinely believe that, although away supporters must continue to be part of the football scene, a change in atmosphere produced by the membership scheme can achieve that and can assist in lowering costs.
    I hope that the segregated grounds, the closed circuit televisions and the police escorts to and from the station, which are a common feature of first division matches today, will not remain a feature of the game when people realise that they cannot go on like that. We talk about civil liberties here. We should consider the civil liberties of supporters kept penned in after the game against their will to allow the rest of the crowd to disappear, thus enabling them to return to the station safely. That is the status quo in some grounds today. We do not want that to be part of
    122
    football and we must do something else. I do not support the Luton scheme or the Police Federation's view that the only future for football is to abandon away supporters. The Bill is football's last opportunity to ensure that that does not come to pass.
    The Opposition have presented a negative approach to the scheme. I understand the reasons for that and why keen football supporters and the Professional Footballers Association have adopted the same approach. However, now comes the point of change. Once the Bill becomes an Act, we shall all have a vested interest in ensuring that as many people as possible join the national membership scheme. If we do not do that, it will not be my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Government who suffer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes it will."] No, it will not. The first to suffer will be the clubs which we want to protect and support by going to matches.
    It will be necessary for people to work and to promote schemes in their areas. I bet that most hon. Members will be among the first queuing at their clubs at the start of the appropriate season to pick up their membership tickets because they want to be associated with their clubs and their local areas, and they want to do something to help. The scheme offers the opportunity to raise money for football and to put it back into the stadium and the fans, as we have been asking all along. This is a positive opportunity for football, which football can grasp.
    We can be positive about the Bill. If we speak privately to supporters or to executives of the PFA, we realise that they know that football's future, when the Bill is enacted, will be dependent on the membership scheme becoming a success. I want to quote from an important article by David Miller, the sports writer for The Times, which he wrote in January this year. I quote this article in response to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who raised the question of civil liberties. He should take note of David Miller's words:
    "speaking as one who has watched nearly 4,000 matches, I am convinced that a marginal loss in liberty for the general spectator is worth the saving of a beautiful game for future generations and worth the restoration of a decent society. The framework is capable of bringing back to a fine sport some of the dignity and sportsmanship among spectators which has been foully corrupted and of preventing known criminals from attending overseas matches."
    If membership is made attractive and the Football Membership Authority has the opportunity, the game will be able to rid itself of its present image and will have a great future. Football should not see itself as being picked upon. Football will be seen as the game that began the great community fight-back against hooliganism and violence in which the football supporter finally shed the unfair image which the violent offender had cast round him. At last our great national game will recover its self-respect.
    10.23 pm
    Mr. Joseph Ashton: I do not know whether it was the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) who had a public meeting in his constituency—perhaps he will confirm that—where all the football supporters turned up and took a vote and the hon. Member lost by 300 votes to 10.
    Mr. Burt: It was 256 votes to three.
    Mr. Ashton: That is a little less than the majority that the hon. Gentleman won, and I can safely say that there will be a Labour gain in Bury next time.
    The Bill has nothing to do with football. It has to do with politics, law and order and votes. After the 1983 and 1987 victories, the Prime Minister decided that there were many working-class votes to be gained by emphasising law and order. She may have had a point in the case of some of the inner cities where crime and unemployment were growing and where people living in tower blocks were scared of being mugged or burgled. The Prime Minister associated football with the crime problem. She looked at the figures and found that 450,000 people went to a football match one week and perhaps a different 450,000 people the next week—given that clubs only play at home in alternate weeks. She realised that there were 900,000 regular spectators, and the opinion polls showed that about 70 per cent. were in favour of something being done —or something being seen to be done.
    I suspect that the Prime Minister sat there one night with Denis over a glass of whisky and asked, "What can we do?" and Denis said, "Why don't you do what our golf club does? Everyone has to be a member and that is how we keep the riff-raff out. That is the only way to run it."
    We have seen the Prime Minister's attitude to the Chancellor and to Ministers of Sport, the previous two of whom she sacked, probably because they had the integrity and honesty to tell her that the scheme will not work and is impracticable. It may be a wonderful theory, just as prohibition, prices and incomes policies and other policies over which Governments have made mistakes may be wonderful theories.
    The Government think that the scheme can be imposed on a section of the community, but people have to volunteer to accept the law. People may say, "Okay: we don't agree with the breathalyser"—or the highway code or code of conduct—"but we shall go along with it." In this case, however, 98 per cent. of those connected with football—Conservative directors, the fans who stand behind the goal, the players and even the police—say that the scheme will not work. They know that the scheme is impracticable and will cause more trouble than it is worth.
    The Prime Minister is a very determined woman and she refuses to accept that fact, just as she refuses to accept arguments at a higher level—about the economy, perhaps —or to take the advice of the Chancellor. When she has rows with the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, exactly the same thing applies. In this case she has plucked an idea out of the sky and seeks to impose it on almost a million people, saying, "This is the way that it will be done."
    The Prime Minister has not realised that in every society there needs to be some outlet for violence. I did two years of national service. When we had national service, there was a natural outlet for young people's aggression. Wars, too, have provided an outlet—although not, perhaps, a satisfactory one. There has to be some release of high spirits and tension. We need something to get rid of the natural macho over-enthusiasm of young people, and if football did not exist, something would have to be invented to take its place. If young people can go to football matches and indulge in a spot of harmless tribalism and shout their heads off or wave rattles as they used to in the old days, or chant or sing songs, that prevents crime.
    124
    The reason for the terrible crime problem in America is that there is no collective sports outlet. I was recently in Washington with other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and we saw the effect of crack on black teenagers, who have no such outlet. They cannot go along and support a football team, because a ticket for a football match in America costs $40. Baseball is much cheaper, but in America football is a middle-class sport.
    Mr. John Butcher: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that football should be a cathartic experience for hooligans and that either working-class kids should be allowed to vent their spleen —if they are in the small category who are yobs—through the sport or we must invent another outlet for their problems?
    Mr. Ashton: There must be an opium for the people. In Spain, Italy, Holland or South America or in the inner cities in England, in Liverpool or at Arsenal, there are huge masses of young people who do not have much hope or expectation. They may have miserable jobs and have to stand by conveyor belts all day. They may even be unemployed. They need something to believe in and it is better that they believe in their football team than in the IRA, or in peddling drugs, muggings, stick-ups or heists and everything else that they have in America. I am not defending the hooligans, but there would be much more hooliganism if football did not exist.
    There are problems on new year's eve and at the Notting Hill carnival. There are problems in towns like Aylesbury and Stroud which do not have football teams. Those are lager lout areas where there is no football team to provide a safety valve.
    Mr. Carrington: I think that I must be misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be implying that not only should violence at football matches be tolerated for the greater good of society, but it should be encouraged for the greater good of society. I hope that I am wrong, because if that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, that is the greatest justification for the Bill that I have heard.
    Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately distorting what I have said. There used to be national service for young people aged 18, 19 or 20. I did national service and it tamed us. However, it does not exist any more. There used to be wars, but they do not exist any more either. The public schools produced the Hooray Henrys, for want of a better word. There will always be a surplus of energy among 18, 19 and 20-year-old males. That will always exist. If there is a natural safety valve for that whether it be playing football or standing on the Spion Kop linking arms and singing songs to get rid of that tribalism, that is a very good and necessary safety valve.
    Mr. Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ashton: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will just distort what I have said. he has not been listening carefully. [Interruption.] It is no good the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), interjecting from a sedentary position; he is far too fat to have played any sport in his life.
    Bombs were set off at football matches in Holland. The Dutch introduced a membership card scheme, but only for the five worst clubs. However, they have had to drop that

    125
    scheme because it does not work. The hooligans laughed at it, the police said that they could not impose it and the Dutch Government had to drop it. The Dutch Government are a laughing stock.
    Never let it be said—but it has been said—that the Opposition support the hooligans. We do not, because we go to the matches. There is no way that I can support the hooligans when I have been involved—innocently—in punch-ups in the past. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they have never been on the Spion Kop. I doubt whether any Conservative Member has paid to go and stand up at a football match on the Spion Kop over the past five or 10 years.
    Mr. David Lightbown: Which Spion Kop?
    Mr. Ashton: The Government Whip, the fat guy at the front there, has never paid to stand on the Spion Kop. If he had, he would understand the problems with hooliganism. Anybody who has paid to go and stand on the Spion Kop knows that the hooligans must be eradicated. Several things are being done to eradicate the hooligans.
    The Football Trust, which the Opposition have supported, is putting £9 million into football every year. For example, I refer to video cameras. It has been proved possible to arrest a hooligan within 30 seconds. If Conservative Members went to football matches they would see video cameras around the grounds. Hon. Members have seen the video cameras in the Chamber —[Interruption.] Conservative Members have all had a drink. I am quite prepared to let them have a laugh. It is half-past 10. They have been in the bar, studying the affairs of the world. As in the Chamber, video cameras at football grounds can zoom in and pin-point a hooligan inside 30 seconds. The man in the control box simply phones down to the policeman who is nearest to section C1, C2, AB or AB2 and so on, and the hooligan is immediately arrested. That is done time and again. That proves that policing works to a great extent inside football grounds.
    As the Minister said, the system has fallen down at Crystal Palace—not at Blackpool, because the trouble was
    126
    outside the ground. There has been one instance inside a ground, and that was at the Birmingham City v. Crystal Palace match at the end of last season. Information was passed on to the police that the average Birmingham away crowd of 3,000 or 4,000 would be doubled or tripled. Thousands of people travelled to Crystal Palace. They went to the wrong ground—the running track—but the police directed them to the right ground. The police took no notice of the advance information that the fans were travelling overnight, and they were caught unawares. That is why, if the supporters were allowed to sit on the Football Membership Authority and add their intelligence to the authority, such instances could be prevented in future.
    The obvious, chronic lack of understanding means that we will get no further. The Conservative scoffers never pay to go to a match, never stand in a queue in the rain, and never see the way in which crowds are ripped off. They never get off a tube at Wembley to be forced into a tunnel in exactly the same way as happened at Hillsborough—the tunnels are still there. The authorities know that the tunnel is a death trap. The authorities at Wembley have said that they will put up £1 million so that fans can go straight to the entrance to Wembley. Brent council and London Transport have offered to put up £1 million each, but the Government will not put up their quota. No doubt, when there is a disaster at Wembley and people are killed, it will be the fault of the fans.
    Time after time, when people such as myself who stand behind the goal tell the authorities what is wrong, we are jeered at, laughed at and scoffed at until another 95 people are killed. Suddenly, when another 95 people are killed, the scoffers are all experts. This House has 300 or 400 experts who know exactly what is wrong, but none of them was at the match. None of them will pay for a ticket or travel to support a club. None of them has stood in the rain. None of them has been like the kids who go on the Kop and pay two days' pay to stand and watch their favourite team. We have to listen to the scoffs, the jeers and the experts until the next disaster or punch-up happens. Once again, it will be the fault of the people behind the goal and not the fault of the authorities.
    10.38 pm
    Mr. John Carlisle: The speech by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will have been enjoyed by members of the Committee and others in the final say of this great game that we have been playing over the past few months. The hon. Gentleman made some remarkable statements. The romantic side of the story which he normally portrays to the House was overwhelmed by some of his strange theories. None the less, he is not the only one who pays to go to a football match. He is not the only one who stands behind the goal. He is not the greatest living expert on football. Many Conservative Members share his sentiments and experiences as youngsters or even as adults. I remember that, as a small boy, I went to Kenilworth road at a time when small boys could go and watch the great games at Luton.
    Many of us understand the problems that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has put before the House. He is right to say that there are several experts—[Interruption.] There are several who are sitting behind him now who have made a late appearance, perhaps because they have nowhere else to go at this time of night; they are probably now experts on something that we have been considering in detail over the last few months. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt): it was an extremely good Committee. We discussed the many real problems. Regrettably, as I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw knows, we shall have to discuss them again, because this scheme is not the ultimate answer.
    I do not believe that we shall see the end of football hooliganism as a result of the legislation that we are about to pass. However, we have gone a long way down the road towards arresting a problem that has been the scourge of the game for so long. What amazes Conservative Members, and also many people outside football, is that, when the Government make an attempt—in the opinion of Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends, a somewhat lame and misguided attempt—to try to remove from football the very problem from which football has suffered, which has had a devastating effect on the game in terms of its public support, by cleaning up the game and pushing hooliganism elsewhere—many of us accept that it will go elsewhere—they are derided and told that they are misguided and that basically all is well. If all were well with football, there would have been no need for the legislation that has taken up a lot of the time of the House.
    I regret the need for the Bill. I said that many years ago, and I think that many of my hon. Friends agreed with me. However, something had to be done to save the game as well as to save those who are, regrettably, afflicted by football hooliganism. That is why I was proud to be a member of the Committee. I was also very proud that my right hon. and hon. Friends have brought the legislation before the House, framed, as it has been, by the experience of my own club at Luton.
    There was no doubt in the minds of those of my constituents and myself who were at Kenilworth road on that very dark night in March 1985 and who saw the type of havoc that was wrought—some hon. Members on both sides of the House saw it for themselves, either first hand or on television—that something had to be done.
    128
    Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) was chairman of the club. He and his fellow directors decided that something had to be done.
    We could not sit by and watch our town be desecrated by hooligans. We could not sit by and see the support for our club suffer because of a few mindless yobs who decided that night to break up the turnstiles, the pitch, the seating and the benches and to damage my constituents' homes, their garden walls and their cars. Everyone knows the picture that football hooligans paint as they whip through a town and the damage that they inflict upon its residents. That is why the scheme was introduced in the town. It has brought with it a variety of benefits, which I shall outline to the House.
    The scheme has brought peace to the town, something that not many towns and cities can claim on Saturday afternoons. It has also brought peace for the residents who live around the ground, for the members who live in and outside the town and for those who come into the town to shop or to visit relatives. As my hon. Friend for Bury, North rightly pointed out to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), it has meant the deployment of police away from the ground to other areas of the town and county. We in Luton regrettably suffer from a high crime rate, but it has been arrested. At least we can now direct the police to areas where they are needed, instead of having to herd fans to and from the ground.
    The scheme has also brought my town a sense of safety. People can travel on public transport—trains, buses and taxis—or in their own cars in and around the town in the sure knowledge that they will reach their journey's end unscathed. That cannot be boasted by many of our towns and cities.
    The scheme has brought peace to those who want to shop in and around the ground, where the shops now stay open right up to kick-off time—and are open when the fans come out. It has brought peace to the pubs, which now stay open and whose takings have risen. We do not have to shut our pubs in Luton just because there is a match on a Saturday.
    The scheme has brought commercial advantages to the town centre, where people have returned to shop. Shopkeepers in and around the centre of the town will testify that, since the scheme came into force, people have flocked to shop in Luton, because they know that they will not be interrupted in their shopping by gangs of marauding fans getting off trains and buses on the way to the ground.
    The scheme has attracted business men to the town, in the sure knowledge that they can set up their businesses without the thought that every other Saturday they will have to shut them when the fans come through. More than anything, it has brought a pride to our town that we did not possess before. We have become an example to the nation—our arrests are the fewest in the league. That is remarkable for a first division club. Granted its gate is moderate, but it is considerably more than that of many other clubs in the country.
    Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the seven arrests at Luton Town football club last year were of people deliberately trying to break the system?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful, will know that in the two previous years there was only one

    129
    arrest, and that, even with the seven, we have fewer arrests than any other club in the League—including the third and fourth division clubs.
    Luton supporters have not complained about many of the things that Opposition Members think they should. They have had to go and buy a membership card, at a pound a year, and about 20,000 of them have done so. No one has complained to me, or to my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) or for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) that his civil liberties have been eroded by this. It is nonsense to say that people will not buy tickets. If they are keen football supporters, it is a small sacrifice to make for the benefits that have been well paraded this evening and in Committee.
    People have not complained, either, about the fact that they can now watch football in peace. They can go to a game with their children, or their children can go on their own. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) that people will not allow their children to go to matches at many clubs because of the history of hooliganism—or worse, the fear of it. At Luton, they do not complain about that, because they know that they can watch the game in comfort and peace.
    People do not complain about the commercial advantage that the scheme has brought their club. The books are now balanced and we are attracting more sponsors than ever before. Luton fans do not complain about that, although the Opposition think they should.
    Luton people also do not complain about being shouted at and abused by a load of youths, or about hearing racial chants and obscenities. The Opposition say that that will not be eradicated by the scheme. They do not complain about being able to walk to the ground without having been herded in by police horses or dogs. Residents do complain of having to he escorted to their homes by the police at night, as they are at Highbury on big match days. That does not happen at Luton. Fans can go to the ground in peace and comfort in the full knowledge that they will not be attacked as they approach. No longer do they complain when they return to their cars that they have been scratched and damaged, because they are intact now. When they get home their garden walls are still standing——.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Carlisle: No.
    They do not complain that some yob has pushed down their walls or jumped into their garden.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a latecomer to these proceedings. Many hon. Members in the Chamber and in Committee have thought long and hard about this subject and have discussed it at great length and with great seriousness. The levity that he tries to bring to the debate is to be regretted. I shall not give way to him because he is a late comer and knows little about our proceedings. Perhaps he had better make a contribution somewhere else.
    Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Member, who did not give way to me, was clearly referring to an incident that occurred in my constituency last week. Common courtesy suggests that he should give way to me to allow me to explain.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Chair has many responsibilities, but they do not extend to incidents in constituencies.
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not even know the constituency that the hon. Member represents, nor do many of my hon. Friends. Probably his own constituents do not know about him.
    The Bill and the scheme will mean that everybody will be able to enjoy what we enjoy in Luton. As the Minister has said many times, people travelling abroad will be able to do so with a degree of safety and, hopefully, in the knowledge that when they go to a match abroad they will not find the games interrupted by fans who go to wreck matches and not to watch them.
    Mr. Pendry: We have heard a great deal about the virtues of the Luton scheme. The hon. Gentleman says that there have been very few arrests at Luton during the last two seasons. We know that, when the scheme was introduced, the former secretary of Luton Town said that it was to save visiting supporters from the Luton hooligans. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of a reply that I received from a Home Office Minister last year? He said that 52 Luton Town supporters were arrested following a match with Ipswich Town the season before last. The hon. Gentleman should correct the record.
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member knows that I always try to be helpful to him, because I know that he has ambitions. With departures impending on the Opposition Front Bench, he will need my help and the help of some of his hon. Friends to put forward his point of view. He should have listened to the extensive replies in Committee which showed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield will confirm, that those 52 so-called Luton supporters merely came from the Luton area and were not travelling on a coach approved by Luton Town football club. That shows the strength of the Luton scheme. We know and can approve certain carriers for our fans and we know that the fans will behave.
    Mr. David Evans: Not one of the 52 people arrested was a member of the Luton Town scheme.
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield and I have paraded the Luton scheme and will continue to do so, because it forms the basis of this excellent Bill. We look forward to hon. Members enjoying the advantages of the membership scheme, as we have done over the last three years. In more ways than one, this is a momentous night for football. At the end of the day, when crowds begin to flock back to our national game, a great deal of gratitude will be extended not only to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has led us splendidly over the last few months, but to the Government, who have had the courage to tackle a problem that was ignored by the Opposition.
    10.53 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Luton Town is a shattering irrelevancy. It is the reason behind the Bill that the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) have been forcefully pushing from behind the scenes. However, the provisions of the Bill will not apply to Luton Town, because clause 1(10) allows the exclusion of people from grounds even if they have national identity cards. That will

    131
    apply at Luton, because the police in Luton are asking for that. The scheme at Luton will continue, and it will not be the scheme that will be applied elsewhere. All the detail, discussions, statistics and information about the changed nature of life in Luton will be irrelevant to the rest of the universe.
    The Bill is inside out, the wrong way round. It is a procedural mess. It went first to the other place, rather than coming here. Any measure of such great significance to the interests of our constituents should come to this House before going to the other place, which can examine, revise and make suggestions for change; rather than the other place setting the scene before the Bill is brought to us. Then, in Committee, we tried to open up the discussion and have a logical debate on the Bill. We wanted to look first at part II, which deals with exclusion orders, making people attend police stations or perhaps do community service during match times. That is a way to tackle the problem of hooliganism in that they are targeted, and then action is taken against them. However, we were not allowed the privilege of a sensible debate on that before going on to debate identity cards. That provision was steamrollered through.
    All the Committee's debate took place before Taylor's interim report. It was available when we discussed the ways and means resolution, and for Report and Third Reading, but it has not been debated, except when the Opposition have initiated a debate, and there has been no response to the problems with which it deals. It is a disgrace that passage of the Bill was not delayed until Taylor had reported fully. In his interim report, Taylor says that he will not discuss ID cards because he wants to deal with them in the full report.
    On Friday, we discussed the ways and means motion and the money resolution before we discussed the Bill itself. The Government's timetable was in a mess, and they had to deal with the Companies Bill and the Children Bill. Therefore, they decided to squash the remaining stages of this Bill by dealing with the Children Bill once they had the timetable motion for this Bill. They forced the closure of the debate, thus preventing Labour Members from participating in the debate.
    The guillotines that have fallen on our debates have made a nonsense of them. We dealt first with six groups of Government amendments, and they had only two non-Government groups of amendments, one from the Opposition and one from rebel Tories. That left 12 groups, including those dealing with some important measures—for example, the exclusion of third and fourth division clubs from the scheme—which, were never discussed.
    Furthermore, we are involved in a great act of hypocrisy in that we are establishing a system of ID cards that will be collected and paid for by about 1 million people, and will be responsible for 400,000 people attending matches each week. This will be done by a Division being called in which 500 of us will go through one or the other Lobby, and in 15 minutes we shall decide how many Members are here. If there is any need for "smart cards" it might be in this place, because the match played out here has involved no more than one tenth of the hon. Members who will vote.
    We witnessed a timetabling disgrace in Committee, which meant that we had only 16 sittings. The timetable
    132
    motion was introduced before we reached some of the more important items in the Bill. There has not been full and proper discussion of part II and the developments that could flow from it.
    The Government have used the most dubious statistics in trying to establish their position. They have been selective and have used specific examples—serious ones, to which we should respond—for universal application. The result is that their conclusions are irrelevant.
    We need to know what is happening at the grounds in terms of violence and arrests. We must know also where the arrests take place and of the arrests and charges that ensue. That information has not been made available to us. A written question of mine was answered on 19 December, which was reproduced in many newspapers and described as a league of shame. The figures showed that there were certain areas where problems needed to be targeted, but the average number of arrests—not convictions—was five per match. At the average club, there were three arrests per 10,000 spectators, and there were 22 clubs between Manchester and Colchester where there was one arrest per 10,000 or less. At Colchester, there were in fact no arrests at all. That is better than the much-vaunted Luton record.
    The details supplied by the Arsenal football club include nine cases of theft, eight of ticket touting and 12 drug cases. What are the offences that lead to arrests throughout the country? Let us have that information, so that we can respond with the appropriate targeting.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that last week, in advance of the scheme being introduced, there was a capacity crowd at the Arsenal ground? The police decided to throw a quarter-mile cordon around the ground. No one could break the cordon unless he had a ticket for the match or could prove that he lived within the area enclosed by the cordon. In effect, there was an identity scheme for the match and for the residents in the area. There have been no problems at Arsenal during the past year.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will return to the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. Barnes: The Arsenal problem will develop and expand with the introduction of the identification scheme. The police will seek to stop people as they approach the ground to ascertain whether they are entitled to be in the vicinity, and that will lead to potential danger.
    The ID scheme will lead to considerable dangers, including a breakdown of order, confusion and financial loss. The card system will prove difficult to implement. The Minister has told us that at each ground the names—and numbers, presumably—of those who have been excluded will be supplied by means of a telephone computer, for example, so that those responsible will know exactly who has been excluded. We have been told, however, that it will be possible to purchase new cards on the day at post offices and grounds, and that at the Halifax and Hartlepool sheds, for example, it will be possible to obtain information to enable people to get new cards. It will be possible for hooligans who are the subject of an exclusion order to obtain extra cards so that they can enter the ground. The system will not prevent that.
    There will be crushes at the grounds. The crush that developed at Hillsborough will be seen at other grounds, and to an even greater degree. It is likely that the scheme

    133
    will not reflect the halcyon dream of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). Instead, there will be greater problems and greater trouble. Hooligans will be encouraged to beat the system by snatching cards, in the way that they snatch tickets now from people as they arrive at matches. They will even engage in games, challenging people to present their cards. Supporters will find themselves in trouble if their identity cards reveals that they do not belong to the "right" club. The House should instead be developing the provisions in part II and amend the Bill accordingly.
    The scheme will interfere with freedom of access to grounds. The Government are introducing internal passport systems for football matches at about the same time that barriers between European countries are being removed to allow the individual more freedom of movement. The Government will criminalise fans while still being unable to contain hooliganism.
    I shall be among those who will not seek to obtain an identity card. Two weeks ago, I attended a match at Upton park, to watch West Ham play Sunderland, which I support. I decided to dash out to Upton park only about an hour before the game, which I watched from the terraces behind West Ham's goal. Under the scheme, I would not have been able to do that—which might have been just as well, given that my team was beaten 5:0, which did not make it a particularly enjoyable occasion. However, on other occasions I might want very much to gain admission to a match at the last moment.
    Identity cards have massive civil liberty implications. Plastic cards are not only used by burglars and others but can be stolen by hooligans, and even used as weapons—especially if they are cut up. In certain circumstances, even being in possession of a plastic card could be said by the police to be possessing an offensive weapon.
    Not only can identity cards set off security systems such as those found in the House of Commons: they may also be imprinted with confidential information about their holders. That aspect has not been hemmed in by the Bill. Cards can hold information that is irrelevant to the claimed purposes of the Bill, which has been given as the need to curb hooliganism—but another reason for the legislation is commercial.
    Conservative Members have stressed different aspects of the Bill, with some being much keener on its commercial potential than on its value in containing hooliganism. The scheme will allow information to be collected about the matches one attends, the turnstiles one enters, one's creditworthiness, and information provided by other organisations. The cards could even hold information about the holder's non-payment of the poll tax and any problems he might have in that connection.
    In Committee, stress was placed only on the scheme's commercial value and not on improving the situation on terraces in the future. The hon. Member for Bury, North suggested that the identity card scheme will change the face of football. In fact, it will restrict attendances, push up prices and sanitise soccer to make it fit for the credit card-carrying classes. The Bill will provide a vehicle for all kinds of advertising material and junk mail. The consequence will be, as at Luton, that people will carry a plastic card enabling them to watch plastic football played on a plastic pitch.
    11.8 pm
    Mr. Carrington: We have heard a great deal about the problems that face football, and there can be no doubt that what we have heard exemplifies the violence from which it has suffered over the past few years. We have heard much about violence inside the ground, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has described the difficulties that Luton used to experience from violence outside the ground.
    We have heard, too, about the problems inherent in estimating the size of the violence problem from the number of arrests made at matches. I suggest that the number of arrests is no gauge of the degree of violence. The problem is not the spectators who are arrested, but inherent hooliganism which is not bad enough for the police to take direct action—or, indeed, which happens away from the police presence.
    One of the great benefits that the Bill will bring is an overall reduction in the level of violence. Violence outside the ground is the most pernicious. That is the violence that has earned football the worst name that it has had for perhaps 50 years. It is often claimed that the Bill would not address such violence, but I suggest that once a full membership scheme is brought in and people intending to go to a match who behave in an anti-social manner find that if they are identified—not just by the police, but by the club—they will be prevented from going to future matches, they will no longer visit that club or congregate outside because there will be no purpose in doing so if they know that they will not be allowed in. Away supporters will not catch the train from their home town to see the match and local supporters will stay at home, and perhaps watch "Match of the Day" on television—they will not stand in the street outside the ground creating mayhem.
    The Bill constitutes a major benefit for those living near football grounds. It will remove from them the Saturday afternoon threat, not of being beaten up or otherwise assaulted, but of racial abuse, sexual harassment, urination in their front gardens and vandalism of their motor cars, the threat of not being able to go out and do the shopping, and lead a normal, active life on a Saturday afternoon.
    That, I feel, is the negative side of the Bill. The positive side is much more exciting for the clubs themselves. As one whose constituency contains two league clubs, I can see the advantages that the Bill will bring to both of them. For the first time they will know who their supporters are, and will be able to identify not only paid-up members and those who have bought season tickets, but everyone who claims to have allegiance to them.
    I understand that Luton regularly has gates of some 10,000 for a home match. Its present membership scheme comprises 20,000, and is closed. The membership scheme could well increase that number. If we assume a doubling of the average gate as the number who will identify themselves as supporters—the small clubs will, of course, benefit particularly—we can take that to be the number who, having been identified by name and address, will be available to those clubs, which will be able to solicit financial support from them. More important, the clubs will be able to find out why those people do not attend on a regular basis to watch their teams play.
    That will help clubs such as Fulham which, regrettably, has fallen on rather hard times, with the average gate below 4,000 for a home match. It will enable the club to

    135
    find out why it is attracting such a small number, and to find ways of increasing support, to become financially viable and to bring about a resurgence in football's popularity.
    The ability of the Secretary of State to license grounds will do much to see that managements, at League and club level, live up to their responsibilities. Throughout these debates we have heard how it has not been possible to ensure that managements run their clubs in a safe and proper manner. If, once the Bill becomes law, a management runs a club in a way which seems to encourage violence or with a lack of safe procedures, the Secretary of State will have power to threaten and, in extreme cases, to withdraw the club's licence. That will oblige managements to come more into the 20th century and be fit to run clubs in the 21st century.
    The problem that hon. Members have highlighted with part II is that it excludes from attending overseas matches only those who have been identified as having committed an offence here or abroad. The success of that provision will depend on our convincing Governments abroad to prosecute British fans who misbehave at matches overseas, and I feel sure that we shall do that.
    In general, the Bill is greatly to be welcomed and its passage will help to make football the popular family sport that it once was.
    11.16 pm
    Mr. Pike: It is a pity that after the many hours that hon. Members have debated the Bill—I regret that I was not a member of the Standing Committee, much though I should like to have been—the Government remain determined to press ahead with it. The Bill should have been given a red card long ago and consigned to the rubbish bin, and I hope that even at this late stage, the vote soon will result in it having that fate.
    The Government made the basic mistake at the start of identifying hooliganism as a football problem, when it is clearly a general problem of society. Hooliganism is occurring throughout Britain, not only in cities and towns but in villages, on Fridays and Saturdays, and often it has nothing to do with football. The present trend to hooliganism must be examined in a different way. It will not be tackled by this measure.
    The Government were also wrong to call hooliganism an English football problem. One need only examine the problems that are associated with the game in other countries. In any event, the Government have a responsibility to prove that their legislation will deal with the problem that they claim exists. Or has the Prime Minister alone decreed that it exists? They have failed to show that it will tackle the problem effectively. Having studied what was said on Second Reading and in Committee, nowhere can I find proof that, had the Bill been law, the problems that the Government have identified would have been avoided. Our fear is that the measure will create more problems than we already have.
    Nobody connected with football wants hooliganism to continue. The trouble is that the hooligans, who are certainly not football fans, will find a way through the system and into the grounds. The Bill will create more problems at gates and outside grounds and will not help to reduce the numbers required to police matches.
    136
    Burnley football club invited local Members of Parliament to visit its ground, meet its directors and watch a match. Its policy is that anyone who is convicted of a football-related offence is barred from Turf Moor for life. Only the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) accepted the invitation. The right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) and the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) chose not to attend, but they will support the Bill tonight. The hon. Member for Pendle has not been convinced that the Bill will deal with the problems that the Government have identified and has chosen to abstain. The hon. Member for Hyndburn will be voting against his party and the Bill. Other hon. Members should recognise that the Bill will not tackle the problem of football hooliganism.
    If the Bill is forced through, it will lead to the destruction of many football clubs. The financial implications of installing and running the system, and the Bill's effects on attendances, will cause drastic problems for clubs that are currently experiencing financial difficulties. That will be regretted by many people such as myself who have been football supporters for many years.
    As Labour Members have said, football depends not only on regular supporters but on casual supporters, such as those who are visiting relatives at Christmas and want to see a match. Often, when a team starts a successful run, casual supporters follow that team at further matches, but the membership scheme will deter that. The Bill is bad for football, and it will be a bad Act, if it receives Royal Assent, because it will not deal with football's problems but will cause more difficulties.
    Unfortunately, after the Hillsborough tragedy the Government continued to press forward with the Bill. Local government, the police, football management and football supporters should have awaited the final report of Lord Justice Taylor in order to achieve a solution that is better than the Bill for football.
    The Government must recognise that the Bill has not commended itself to anyone who supports football. It is opposed by all but one of the football clubs, by the Football League and by the Football Association. Everyone who has the interests of football at heart recognises that if the Government persist with the Bill they are once again being foolish. I hope that the Minister will recognise that and, even at this late stage, be prepared to withdraw this nonsensical Bill.
    11.23 pm
    Mr. Shersby: When the Bill was first published, the Police Federation had reservations about it, which I expressed on Second Reading. To a large extent, those reservations were concerned with the ability of legislation such as this to deal with the problems that occur outside grounds in addition to those that occur inside them.
    The federation takes the view that something must be done to deal with the serious problems that face Britain. We must face the fact that many hundreds of people have been killed or injured attending football matches over the past couple of years. That must be addressed by the House, by the police and by the country.
    Since the Second Reading, I have spent a day with officers of the South Yorkshire police, who were intimately involved with the policing of the Hillsborough stadium disaster. I have seen and studied with the greatest possible

    137
    care the police films of that match and of the identical match that took place between the same teams 12 months earlier. I hope shortly to have an opportunity of showing those films to colleagues in the House. I was struck by the fact that at the match 12 months earlier there were very few problems outside the perimeter fence a short time before the kick off. However, at the match at which the disaster occurred 3,500 individuals were determined to get into the ground at short notice. Unfortunately, some of them had been drinking too much and 1,111 police officers had to deal with that robust crowd. We shall be dealing with that matter when the Taylor report is debated in the House.
    Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Shersby: I do not have much time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I know that the Front-Bench spokesmen want time to reply. We will have an opportunity to deal with that when the Taylor report is published.
    The police take the view that although the legislation may not be perfect, it should he given a chance to work. The identity cards which have been the subject of our debate today will carry a photograph of the individual who belongs to the membership scheme. That will be a considerable advance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) pointed out in his excellent speech, that will deter individuals who go to matches simply to disrupt them. There will be no point in their attending because they will not be able to gain admission.
    The acid test will come when the football membership scheme is published and the House has an opportunity to decide whether to support the action of my right hon. Friend if he approves the scheme. The scheme will result from the Bill, which is merely a framework to make possible a membership scheme that has the force of law. The police will judge the scheme when it is devised, published and submitted and if it is approved by my right hon. Friend. The scheme will be subject to the most careful scrutiny, and a decision on its viability will be taken by the House in a few months.
    When the scheme is published, the police will want to consider the precise way in which it is proposed that it should operate. They will want to be sure that the FMA is well constituted and capable of supervising the scheme properly. They will want to be certain that the chairman of the FMA, whether a man or a woman, is an individual who commands the respect of the House, all those who enjoy football, the police and all those who have to ensure that supporters can go to football matches and return home safely. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister, in considering that appointment, will realise the importance of appointing an individual of great stature.
    Until the scheme is published and until we know who is to be the chairman and who are to be members of the Football Membership Authority, the Police Federation will suspend judgment. In the meantime it is right to proceed with the Bill. Also, I will reserve judgment, on behalf of my constituents who are football supporters and enjoy attending matches in London and elsewhere in the country. A final judgment will be made by the House when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brings the scheme before us to consider.
    138
    The debates on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading have dealt with the framework and generalities of the scheme. We need to see the detail of the scheme and to be convinced beyond doubt that it can and will work. When that day comes, every hon. Member will have a much better opportunity to make an informed decision than he or she can in supporting the Third Reading.
    11.29 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: Although the Bill deals specifically with England and Wales, there is legitimate Scottish interest and concern in what is going on. We are only too aware that, with a stroke of a zealot's pen, the same sort of provisions could be introduced in Scotland. We are citizens of a part of the United Kingdom with a great interest in football. I object on my constituents' behalf because, when they are travelling through the rest of Britain, they will be deprived of the ability to attend football matches as and when they wish.
    I speak from a United Kingdom basis. Since its start, this misbegotten exercise has been based on a misunderstanding of the problem. The assumption, which is wrong and which has been the foundation of the Prime Minister's whim, is that the problem of so-called football hooliganism depends on attaching itself to football. That is not the case. All that the legislation will do, if it achieves anything, is move the problem from football grounds into town centres and on to transport. The people who are responsible for the core of the trouble at football grounds in England and abroad have nothing meaningful to do with football. They can attach themselves at any time, in any way, to another branch of society. The weakness of the legislation lies in the idea that legislating specifically for football will reduce the problems which have wrongly been identified as football hooliganism.
    That the Government should produce this legislation is an admission of defeat. In 1979, after their electoral humiliation, the ultra-Right in Britain made it known through its publications that it was going to attach its efforts to football, with the specific aim of causing trouble and exactly the kinds of problems abroad which have now become so commonplace. Instead of weeding out that social and political problem, the Government have branded 1 million football supporters—a generic category of society—in this unique way. That is entirely wrong.
    If the Government wished to approach this problem seriously, they would weed out the few hundred people at its core. Their conspicuous failure to do so has led them into this crazy situation tonight. To brand football supporters in this way and to set them apart as a category of society that uniquely needs to carry identity cards and to be subject to these controls is an affront to 1 million people.
    I do not expect Conservative Members to appreciate that point, because they are not in the same category as those people. The 500,000 people who signed the petition and those who realise that they have been singled out in this way because football is the object of their enthusiasms, know where the legislation comes from and why football supporters have been picked out. For the sake of nailing a tiny proportion of their number, 1 million people are to be subjected to this indignity.
    The bottom line of the legislation lies in this question, which has never been satisfactorily answered in my

    139
    hearing: what happens on a wet Wednesday night in November when, 10 minutes before kick-off, the system goes down and 40,000 people are pressing forward to get into a ground? If Ministers cannot answer that question, their responsibility for introducing this legislation is even heavier than it might otherwise be. If the Minister for Sport cannot give a guarantee—I believe that he cannot —that the problems created will not be infinitely worse than they are at present, he should withdraw the legislation, or there will be a heavy weight on his conscience if things go wrong.
    Memorably, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that the poll tax would become known as the Tory tax. I forecast that the football ID cards will, and should, become known as "Tory cards", and may they be another nail in their coffin.
    11.34 pm
    Mr. Denis Howell: After a long and sometimes tortuous examination of these measures, many Labour Members, myself included, continue to believe that the Bill amounts to a massive irrelevancy in dealing with the problems of football and the social problems that give rise to them.
    The Government have panicked, for many reasons. It was no accident that when they came into office, Ministers immediately disbanded the working party that had been operating successfully for a number of years, which included not only those connected with football, but representatives of the police, the traffic and coastal authorities, British Rail and others. The working party had got on top of the problem to the extent that in 1979 we were able to lift the restrictions that we had had to impose on Leeds and Chelsea. Thereafter, the problem ceased to be under constant review. Because we are dealing with the ills of society, we need to be permanently vigilant; we should target matches and target groups of people who one knows will cause disturbances. But none of that has been happening.
    Having come to office on a promise of eliminating violence in society and having faced an increase in that violence throughout her 10 years in office the Prime Minister decided that the one area of activity where she might be able to isolate the problem and take some action was football. She was wrong about it, but that was her logic.
    As I said, we are discussing the nature of society, and we must not forget that a football team is a focus for the public pride of the community of which it is part. That is why millions of people who have left these shores have continued to wonder how their teams are doing.
    I was very taken with what the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said earlier—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member?"] Yes, and so he should be. We need to consider the problems of our society and what we are doing about them, and I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in that regard. He said that there was a crisis of adolescence in our society, and whether that description is accurate or not, there is not the slightest doubt that the demise of school sport and the playing of games at school—a demise which is being actively encouraged by the Government—is having an extremely detrimental effect on young people. I say this constructively to the new Secretary of State—the Minister
    140
    knows it, too—that we have fewer and fewer teachers of physical education. When PE teachers come out of our colleges, incidentally, most of them believe that there is something wrong with team sports. They believe that we should encourage people in recreation at the expense of teams sports, when in fact we should be encouraging both. The new changes in the curriculum, brought about by the former Secretary of State for Education and Science—the downgrading of physical education and team games—are also having a catastrophic effect.
    Under Rab Butler's Education Act, the two compulsory subjects in the schools curriculum were PE and religious instruction, both of which have now been downgraded. I passionately believe that one cannot make such changes without reaping a damaged harvest. To add to all that, at a time when we should be encouraging youngsters to play games, we are also telling local authorities to sell school playing fields and to privatise sports centres where possible, thus prising out of those sports facilities the very youngsters whom we should be encouraging to play if we wish to prevent problems from arising.
    We have a new Secretary of State for the Environment and we hope that he will look at these matters with a fresh mind. We hope that he will not be hidebound by too much tradition—as he should not be—and by the policies that he has inherited. We hope that he and his colleages will relate what they are trying to achieve in environment and sport to what is happening in education.
    The Opposition oppose the Bill on the grounds of practicality. The major source of the problems with football occur outside football grounds. They lie with hooliganism at motorway service stations and the problems in our town centres and shopping centres. We know from what has happened abroad this summer that the people we are trying to catch will not register under the scheme. They will not say, "I'm a good boy so I'll register under the Government's scheme." The people who try to force the doors open at football grounds and who go to Sweden without tickets when they know that the match is all-ticket, are there simply to defy authority. Unless the Government start to tackle that problem, they will find no solutions.
    John Williams from Leicester university wrote about these problems in his excellent book "Hooligans Abroad" in 1982. Seven years ago Leicester university—the only university researching the problem at the time, I believe —drew our attention to the matter, but the Government have largely ignored what was said. Quite properly, the Secretary of State asked us to consider what has happened this summer. This summer we have seen the growth of this challenge to society which, I have to say, comes from very Right-wing organisations.
    I was grateful to the Minister for Sport condemning in forthright terms in an earlier debate the evil of the National Front and other Right-wing organisations—and, worse, the British National party. An excellent article with photographs appeared in The Mail on Sunday recently and I have had reports to confirm what it said. Apparently those people who should not even have been in Poland went to that country for the England match and also visited Auschwitz to have their pictures taken outside the gas chambers while they gave the National Front salute. That is the vile level to which some of those people have sunk.

    141
    Those people constantly desecrate our national flag. No other country in the world would stand for its national flag being continually contaminated in the way those people contaminate ours. They give the Fascist salute while they sing the national anthem. We must deal with those problems. They also disseminate Fascist propaganda.
    It is no wonder why other European countries ask us why they should have our problems thrust onto them. They say that it is our task to stop those people going abroad. We support part II of the Bill in the hope that it will do that. However, we do not have a lot of confidence that it will.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the net result of this summer's troubles —if the six people who have been charged are convicted —is that six names will be removed from the list of agreeable supporters. That is ludicrous. After the hundreds who misbehaved in Sweden, Iceland, Poland and on the ferries, only six people are to be charged. That suggests a tremendous breakdown in our relations in the Council of Europe on these matters. We must have a little sympathy with European Governments who say, "All we want to do is to collect the hooligans and get them out of our country as fast as we can. We must have a strategy for doing with that."
    The Opposition have been accused of not producing any firm proposals, but time and again we have said that the only thing that will work is to target the matches where trouble will take place and target the groups that will cause that trouble or social evil.
    I now refer to the lunatic decision not to wait for Lord Jusice Taylor's report before we put the Bill on the statute book. All hon. Members wish Lord Justice Taylor well. He must report not only on the horrific deaths of more than 90 people but on the competence of the Sheffield inspectors, the city council and the competence of and possible mismanagement by the Sheffield police. We cannot amend the Bill when we hear his findings. We must accept the Bill or turn it down. It is not good enough for the Government to continue to say that the Football Membership Authority will produce a scheme which will take account of that—it may do so; we hope that it will. However, we cannot duck responsibility. The buck stops here. The responsibility for getting this legislation right rests with Parliament. It does not rest with the Football Membership Authority that we are establishing. That is the Opposition's serious objection to the scheme.
    Hon. Members know perfectly well that within a quarter of an hour of an important kick-off in the middle of winter, when people must examine photographs on cards and put them through some system, they will be totally overwhelmed if the computer breaks down. When about 15,000 people are trying to get into the ground, what on earth will anybody do? There will be total chaos and people will try to solve their own problems because the police will be unable to do so.
    Police costs will be high. The only people who can arrest offenders will be the police. As the Minister said in Committee, that means that there will be at least one policeman on every turnstile. That will not reduce police costs. Of course there must be a policeman on every turnstile because nobody else can do the arresting.
    The principle of civil liberties was put extremely well by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). He is the most distinguished athlete present in the House. [Interruption.] I am reminded of my hon.
    142
    Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). I n a moment of generosity, I include the Minister for Sport. As the House well knows, his sporting proficiency consists of sitting in the back of a boat and being pulled over the finishing line by eight other people. No doubt he steered the boat very well, as occasion demanded. He steered the boat much better than he has steered the Bill through Parliament.
    Grave civil liberty issues are involved in this matter. I sum them up in one sentence. It is absolutely monstrous that the Government have targeted this Bill against all decent football supporters. Impositions are being made on them. The reason for that is that the Government have abdicated their responsibility to deal with the evildoers in society whom they pledged to deal with when they came to office. For all those reasons, and because we know that the Bill will not work and that it will be an expensive imposition on football and our communities, we shall vote against Third Reading.
    11.50 pm
    Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Everyone is delighted that he has been restored to good health. He handled admirably his leadership of the Opposition in Committee and of this evening's proceedings. I thank him and his Committee colleagues across the parties for their forthright but constructive and helpful contributions. The measure has been debated at great length. I am indebted to them for the tone and content of the proceedings both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I am also deeply indebted to my hon. Friends for their diligent and invaluable support.
    The number of amendments that were tabled for consideration demonstrate the constructive nature of the debate. As the right hon. Member for Small Heath knows, we have accepted many of the Opposition amendments. He rightly concentrated, as did many other speakers in the debate, on part II and the international dimension. To suggest that the Government regard football hooliganism purely as an English problem is to be blind to reality. Hooliganism is a major international problem. During the last year, the Dutch Government have had to face it in far greater and increasing terms than we have. In many respects, we have begun to contain the problem, but we have not cured it. Hooliganism is increasing fast in many European countries, not least in Italy. It is a cause of major concern in the lead-up to the World Cup in June and July of next year.
    It is important to work through the Council of Ministers and to have international co-operation, but it does not help to solve the problem if hooligans know that they can travel to a match in another country and be let in without tickets if they cause sufficient trouble outside the ground, that they can fight down town after the game and be arrested and locked up in gaol and then kicked out of that country the following morning without being charged. One understands the instinctive reaction of any country to wish to be rid of hooligans from another country, but unless hooligans know that tough action will be taken against them in those countries, the problem will not be solved internationally. That is why it is so important to work through the Council of Ministers, not

    143
    just with regard to the international dimension but with regard to bringing the hooligans to book so that we can implement part II.
    Government are already trying to identify with the Italian authorities what the relevant offences are. People brought before the Italian courts and convicted will be subject to a five-year mandatory ban from travelling abroad to matches that are likely to be a focus for violence. That is a very important part of part II. It is another reason why it is so important to work together internationally.
    There are examples of improved co-operation. I cite the recent Polish match where there were no incidents. There were problems away from the ground that resulted in sickening and appalling scenes, but the behaviour at the match was without incident, despite great provocation by the Polish fans.
    I welcome the fact that the Polish Government took the decision to use the Football Association's list of known trouble makers as the basis for accepting or rejecting visas. International co-operation of that sort is to be welcomed. We need to ensure that, wherever possible, international co-operation and the implementation of part II is put in place.
    Many hon. Members on both sides initially hoped that the Government would take action on passport control. It is impractical. Under current arrangements, anyone can go to a Post Office, and then to another on the same morning, on to another, to get British visitors' documentation to travel anywhere in Europe. All hon. Members know that cross-boundary movements in mainland Europe often involve no more than holding up a passport to a car window, let alone having it checked. So the Government needed in part II to find an alternative way of stopping known hooligans travelling to matches and the best and most effective way was to allow courts the opportunity as part of a sentence to determine that a convicted hooligan had to report to a police station on the day of a match which was likely to be the case of trouble abroad. That has exactly the same effect as withdrawing a passport, but it is foolproof.
    Civil liberties will be safeguarded; the scheme will not interfere with them. Not everyone has the right to enter a football ground now: clubs refuse entry to thousands of unwanted spectators. Hooliganism infringes the civil liberties of others—shopkeepers, shoppers, the general public and property owners in town centres and near grounds—and, not least, the genuine football supporter.
    We have taken careful note of the vital importance, when developing the commercial potential of the scheme, of the FMA and the clubs having to act in line with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1984. Members would have the right to see and challenge the accuracy of any computerised information held about them, and appropriate security precautions would be taken to safeguard that information. No details of convictions will be held on the cards.
    The right hon. Member for Small Heath said some words about the working party to which he referred, with which I believe all hon. Members would agree:
    "I know that most of its supporters will understand how important it is in the long-term interest of their own club and
    144
    for its supporters personally, that we eliminate these disorders and make the support of our national sport the pleasure that it ought to be.
    Football clubs might also suffer some financial disadvantage, but again my working party believes that this is a price that must be paid in order to overcome the problem."—[Official Report, 6 April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 1324–25.]
    The Government wholly endorse that. Our only regret is that the problem is not only outside the grounds. In the past 12 months, there has been a pitch invasion at Southend, there have been 54 arrests at Portsmouth, 23 police were injured after stone-throwing inside the ground at Stockport, 34 people were ejected from inside the ground at Millwall last November, and there were 16 arrests inside the ground at Aldershot. Week in, week out, to my regret, incidents continue to occur inside as well as outside grounds.
    The point about the discretionary powers of the FMA is that the authority will be able to ban for two years renewable anyone who brings the game into disrepute, inside or away from the grounds, in the vicinity of a match or at a service station on a motorway. That will create a real deterrent. Louts who think that they can indulge in one-off thuggish behaviour will suddenly remember that they can be reported to the FMA or come to its notice by any other means, without being brought before the courts, and they can face the possibility of a discretionary ban, in addition to the mandatory ban that the courts can impose.
    This discretionary ban is vital. At present, anyone can be banned for life from any ground on the whim of the club, but we believe that civil liberties need protection, so there will be a right of appeal against these discretionary bans—a right that does not exist now. Such a ban would allow anyone to be banned from any ground at any time and for any length of time.
    It is clearly important for us to have a framework within which we can respond to the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor. It must also allow us to respond swiftly to safety issues and to recommendations about ground configuration and the membership scheme. It is equally important that the Football Licensing Authority should put safety first and make sure that the safety of individuals is at the top of the list. Those are all part and parcel of an effective and comprehensive package of measures to keep hooligans away from football matches. I strongly commend it to the House.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 204

    Division No. 362]

    [12 midnight

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Alexander, Richard

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Allason, Rupert

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Amos, Alan

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Bowis, John

    Ashby, David

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Atkins, Robert

    Brazier, Julian

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bright, Graham

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

    Baldry, Tony

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Bruce, (Dorset South)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Bellingham, Henry

    Burns, Simon

    Bendall, Vivian

    Burt, Alistair

    145

    Butcher, John

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Butler, Chris

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Butterfill, John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Irving, Charles

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Jack, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Jackson, Robert

    Cash, William

    Jessel, Toby

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Chope, Christopher

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Churchill, Mr

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Key, Robert

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Colvin, Michael

    Knapman, Roger

    Conway, Derek

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Coombs. Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Knowles, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Cran, James

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

    Lightbown, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Lilley, Peter

    Day, Stephen

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Devlin, Tim

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lord, Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Dover, Den

    Maclean, David

    Emery, Sir Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Evennett, David

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fallon, Michael

    Madel, David

    Favell, Tony

    Malins, Humfrey

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Mans, Keith

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Maples, John

    Finsberg, Sir Geotfrey

    Marland, Paul

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Forman, Nigel

    Mates, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stlrling)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Forth, Eric

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Franks, Cecil

    Mellor, David

    Freeman, Roger

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    French, Douglas

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Gale, Roger

    Mills, Iain

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Gill, Christopher

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, John

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Gow, Ian

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gregory, Conal

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mudd, David

    Grist, Ian

    Neale, Gerrard

    Ground, Patrick

    Needham, Richard

    Grylls, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hague, William

    Neubert, Michael

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hannam, John

    Norris, Steve

    Harris, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hayes, Jerry

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hayward, Robert

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Heddle, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hill, James

    Portillo, Michael

    Hind, Kenneth

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Price, Sir David

    Howard, Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

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

    Redwood, John

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Renton, Tim

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Riddick, Graham

    146

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rost, Peter

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ryder, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Tracey, Richard

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Tredinnick, David

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Trippier, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Trotter, Neville

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shelton, Sir William

    Viggers, Peter

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Walden, George

    Shersby, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Sims, Roger

    Waller, Gary

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Ward, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Warren, Kenneth

    Speed, Keith

    Wells, Bowen

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Wheeler, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Squire, Robin

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wood, Timothy

    Steen, Anthony

    Yeo, Tim

    Stern, Michael

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stokes, Sir John

    Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

    Sumberg, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cohen, Harry

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Coleman, Donald

    Allen, Graham

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Corbett, Robin

    Ashton, Joe

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cousins, Jim

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cox, Tom

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Crowther, Stan

    Barron, Kevin

    Cryer, Bob

    Battle, John

    Cummings, John

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Beith, A. J.

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Bell, Stuart

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Darling, Alistair

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

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Blair, Tony

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

    Boateng, Paul

    Dewar, Donald

    Boyes, Roland

    Dicks, Terry

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Dixon, Don

    Bradley, Keith

    Dobson, Frank

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Buchan, Norman

    Fatchett, Derek

    Buckley, George J.

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

    Caborn, Richard

    Fisher, Mark

    Callaghan, Jim

    Flannery, Martin

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Foster, Derek

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Foulkes, George

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fraser, John

    Cartwright, John

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Clay, Bob

    George, Bruce

    Clelland, David

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    147

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Morley, Elliot

    Gordon, Mildred

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Gould, Bryan

    Murphy, Paul

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Grocott, Bruce

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hardy, Peter

    Parry, Robert

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Patchett, Terry

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Pendry, Tom

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Pike, Peter L.

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hood, Jimmy

    Radice, Giles

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Randali, Stuart

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Redmond, Martin

    Howells, Geraint

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Reid, Dr John

    Hoyle, Doug

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Richardson, Jo

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Robertson, George

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Rogers, Allan

    Illsley, Eric

    Rooker, Jeff

    Ingram, Adam

    Rowlands, Ted

    Irvine, Michael

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Janner, Greville

    Sheerman, Barry

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Short, Clare

    Kennedy, Charles

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Knox, David

    Smith, C. (Isfton & Fbury)

    Lambie, David

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

    Lamond, James

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Snape, Peter

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Lewis, Terry

    Strang, Gavin

    Litherland, Robert

    Straw, Jack

    Livingstone, Ken

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McAllion, John

    Thornton, Malcolm

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Turner, Dennis

    McCartney, Ian

    Vaz, Keith

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Wall, Pat

    McFall, John

    Wallace, James

    McLeish, Henry

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Wareing, Robert N.

    McWilliam, John

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Madden, Max

    Watts, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Marek, Dr John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Wilson, Brian

    Martlew, Eric

    Winnick, David

    Maxton, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Meacher, Michael

    Worthington, Tony

    Meale, Alan

    Wray, Jimmy

    Michael, Alun

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

    Morgan, Rhodri

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

    Brunei (Appeals) Bill [Lords]
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
    12.13 am
    Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition concur with the Bill.
    12.14 am
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As I understand it, Brunei is now an independent sovereign state. It was formerly a British protectorate. It is appropriate that appeals from the courts of Brunei should be heard ultimately by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a sort of ad hoc measure. As Brunei is an independent sovereign state, what provision is there for the enforcement of the judgments that may be announced by the Judicial Committee in a case which comes to it on appeal from Brunei? There cannot be any legal authority in the Bill for the enforcement of any such judgment. Have arrangements been entered into with the Sultan of Brunei to ensure that such judgments will be enforced? If not, the role of the Judicial Committee is without any substance. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that matter when he responds to the debate.
    12.15 am
    Mr. Michael Morris: Our country has enjoyed friendly relations with Brunei for more than 150 years, and last year I had the privilege of attending His Majesty's birthday celebrations. To those of us who know Brunei, it seems particularly appropriate that in future, the Judicial Committee's advice should go to the Sultan rather than to the Queen. It seems appropriate also that the minimum value of any civil dispute should be raised to 200,000 Brunei dollars.
    However, it is not entirely clear to me who is to define what is or is not a constitutional matter, or what will or will not be referred to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee. Nevertheless, the Bill appears to be an extremely flexible document and, given the developing and changing nature of that part of that ASEAN region, with which I have close associations, it can only help Brunei to develop its judicial processes.
    12.16 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am glad to receive support for the Bill from both sides of the House. I hesitate to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on a technical and legal point, but my understanding is that the Sultan is bound to take the advice of the Judicial Committee.
    I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). His question concerning the nature of matters that will be referred to the Judicial Committee is answered by the papers that have been placed in the Library, but if he remains in any doubt, I shall be pleased to write to him.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendments.

    Orpington Hospital
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
    12.16 am
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I have been privileged to represent the electors of Orpington in this House for almost 20 years. During the whole of that time I have had to fight for the retention of Orpington hospital's status as a general hospital. I have seen administrators come and go, each in his time having wanted to downgrade or close the hospital with preference for the building of an enlarged hospital with centralised services six miles away in Bromley.
    Hitherto, all such challenges to the agreed status of Orpington as a second district general hospital serving the faster-growing southern half of the London borough of Bromley have been defeated. Local public opinion has been aroused, the obvious advantages of Orpington as the site of a district general hospital have been demonstrated and my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers concerned have always rejected such proposals on their merits.
    I hope that tonight my hon. Friend the Minister will once again come to the aid of Orpington because the latest attack on the agreed existing plans for the hospital is more menacing.
    Orpington hospital was built by the Canadian army for its own use during the first world war. Since then, as a result of serving a big and growing population, the original buildings have been gradually replaced and the services multiplied. It is to the credit of the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974 and the then Minister of Health, Sir Keith Joseph, that a plan was devised, and funds allocated, for Orpington's development to the status of a medium-sized modern general hospital.
    Stage one, involving new buildings and staff accommodation, was completed in the 1970s. Stage two, which included a large new modern block known as the Canada wing, and costing £9 million, was completed more recently. The original plan was to complete the whole rebuilding programme by 1992. Funds were available and the site, covering nearly 40 acres—much of it green fields —was ideal. It is on the fringe of urban London, close to the M25 and to the notorious southern sector, scene of so many accidents since the M25 was completed. It is plain stupid to put a big new hospital complex on a congested site in the middle of an urban area where the traffic is densest. Yet that is what the regional and the district health authorities are proposing to do in Bromley.
    The excuse for this gigantic planning and medical folly is, as one might expect, money. The health authorities reckon that, by concentrating all acute services at one huge new hospital at Bromley, they can do better for the district than by spreading the resources between the two existing general hospitals at Bromley and Orpington. Moreover, they think that they can raise extra money for the project from the private sector, by formal sharing and co-operation services. For the same purpose—the unkindest cut of all—they propose to sell off the surplus land at Orpington hospital, thus preventing it for ever from becoming a fully fledged district general hospital providing acute services and a round-the-clock accident. and emergency service, which is the ultimate object of the present and adopted plan.
    150
    The fact that the new plan has already got so far is no surprise to me. The protagonists of a bigger and better hospital in Bromley, lay and professional, have continually tried to grab the major share of resources available for the district, despite the small size of their existing site, and of the proposed site, in congested Bromley. Dominating the district authority, they have succeeded in closing the accident and emergency services at Orpington hospital—using the expedient of "temporary" closure, which does not need ministerial authority, but which drives down morale locally and professionally—so that the Royal College of Surgeons, noticing the fall-off in professional resources at Orpington, has already withdrawn its recognition of Orpington hospital for training purposes. Indeed, the hospital is no longer regarded as a major casualty centre for the purposes of major emergencies such as might occur on the M25, just a little way down the road.
    It is significant that the prime mover in the latest scheme—the general manager of Bromley district health authority—has recently been promoted to the regional managership, so there is little chance of help for Orpington from the bureaucrats. The community health council for the district, dominated as it is by representatives from the other parts of Bromley borough, and even some of the professional staff at Orpington are impressed by the idea of a super-hospital at Bromley with the resources to provide high standards of professional expertise—which, no doubt, will be of great assistance in professional terms to the people concerned—on one site for acute services, using Orpington and other buildings for ancillary purposes.
    I stand for the rights of my constituents, whom the plan will rob of their own local general hospital and for whom the level of services available at Bromley will never match the acute and casualty services that were on their doorstep. That is primarily why I am against the plan, and it explains why my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt)—all of whose constituencies are within the London borough and medical district of Bromley—are not supporting me on this occasion.
    I am also concerned, however, about the possibility that the Minister will make a terrible mistake if he agrees to locate a new super-hospital to provide all the district's acute services on one site in Bromley town, rather than continuing the present duopoly. If there has to be one site, let it be Orpington—which is much larger and has better road and air communications, is nearer the M25 and has no traffic congestion—rather than the comparatively small site at Elmfield which is on only 21 acres and well into urban Bromley, where traffic conditions are notoriously bad. Imagine the difficulties involved in ambulances reaching the proposed new hospital at Elmfield during the day when the traffic is extremely heavy around Bromley town.
    If it makes sense to keep acute services at Orpington, let it develop in accordance with the existing plan, even if, for financial reasons, they have to be spread over a longer period. Let us have our full-time accident and emergency services back, along with the professional staff needed to restore standards to the required level. Let us give Orpington self-governing status, as in the Secretary of State's proposals for the reorganisation of the health services, to show what Orpington can do with its great reserves of professional talent, land and good will among

    151
    the local community. We are fortunate in that the notable philanthropist, Sir Philip Harris, has donated vast sums for the benefit of Orpington hospital and the services that it provides. The hospital is well served and is held in high regard by the local community.
    A super-hospital in Bromley may be only pie in the sky in view of the current economic downturn and the difficulties involved in financing and finding the necessary space for such a giant plan. Let us not destroy our existing plans and resources or sell off the land at Orpington until the planners and bureaucrats have at least proved that their hospital, when built and operating, is even better for the residents of Orpington than the one on their own doorstep.
    12.26 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): Although the hour is late, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has demonstrated yet again his commitment to Orpington hospital and to the health care of his constituents. His interest in both goes back over 20 years, and I know that he has raised the question of the future of Orpington hospital several times on occasions such as this.
    To put the debate in context, I will explain the responsibilities of district health authorities. The local district health authority has responsibility for developing plans and consulting on the future arrangement of services within its district. That is not something that central Government can or should do. District health authorities have the necessary local knowledge of the health needs of their residents. Bromley health authority's plans have not yet been formally submitted to Ministers. We shall have to consider in due course any proposals for a new district general hospital, as Ministers must consider and approve any new major capital project.
    The district's planning responsibility must be borne in mind when considering comments made to my hon. Friend in the previous Adjournment debate in 1986 and in subsequent correspondence. My hon. Friend reminded me that there were Adjournment debates on the subject even before that date. I am well aware of the assurances given by at least two of my predecessors that acute services would remain at Orpington hospital and that it would be developed as a district general hospital for the south of the district, while Bromley hospital would be developed as the district general for the north. As my hon. Friend will know, the best laid plans can be affected by factors outside one's control.
    In August 1987, the local planning authority raised objections about development on the Bromley site—the northern site—and the following month the London borough of Bromley offered to sell the health authority a 21-acre green field site, known as Elmfield, at the centre of the district. In those circumstances, it was essential that the health authority review its plans, which it did by appraising a number of different options, including the new Elmfield site. It concluded that its preferred option was to build a new, single district general hospital of about 800 beds on the Elmfield site. This hospital would include most of the acute in-patient care for the district, with a number of acute rehabilitation beds at Orpington. There would remain a very important role for Orpington hospital
    152
    in providing in-patient and day care for elderly and mentally ill people, as well as a wide range of out-patient clinics.
    I emphasise that point because, quite properly, my hon. Friend will wish to draw to my attention commitments given by my predecessors in past Adjournment debates. I have read the record carefully, and their comments were made in the context of a two-site district general hospital —one in the north of Bromley, and the other in the south at Orpington. Enhancements of facilities in Bromley have been prevented by local planning decisions. To that extent alone, I invite my hon. Friend to consider that there has been a change in circumstances since those commitments were given.
    I know that Bromley health authority consulted widely on its new plans at the end of 1988. As well as inviting comments from a number of organisations, it issued a leaflet to every household in the borough, and two public meetings were held. I am advised that the majority of those who responded, including the community health council, local medical and nursing committees, the London borough of Bromley and others supported the proposal.
    Under these plans, Orpington hospital would not remain a district general hospital, as the description is commonly understood, so I fully understand why my hon. Friend is opposed to the new plan. He has lobbied strongly for the development of acute services at Orpington hospital, and he has made his views known very strongly tonight.
    The building of the new district general hospital will be subject to not only planning approval—my hon. Friend is aware of the complications of securing planning approval for such a major proposal—but to the approval of the Department for this £100 million project. As my hon. Friend will know, the financing elements of that proposal involve what we call unconventional finance—the facility whereby the developers constructing the new hospital will in part, or ideally in whole, be financed from the capital value of sites released from the other hospitals.
    In any unconventional finance project, the Department of Health must ensure, as the Treasury would wish, that it represents the best value for money—that is to say, that it is a better deal for the taxpayer than if the health authority had spent taxpayers' money initially on constructing the hospital and subsequently receiving receipts from the vacated sites. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is some way to go before the proposal is completed.
    Although services at Bromley hospital might change, the health authority still sees it as having a very positive role, because 164 in-patient beds would be provided for the younger chronic sick—a service which the district does not currently have—and for elderly and mentally ill patients, including terminal and respite care. The range of out-patient clinics for all the main acute specialties would be increased and improved and would include for the first time an antenatal clinic.
    Many new developments in the National Health Service are in community care. Orpington hospital already has a day hospital for the elderly, a day centre for people with Alzheimer's disease and a voluntarily managed hospice. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State hopes shortly to visit the hospice project. The plans for Orpington hospital would build on these community developments by providing day hospitals for the mentally ill and the elderly mentally infirm. The prefabricated wards

    153
    on the site would be demolished and there would be extensive new developments to supplement services from the modern Canada wing. The health authority feels that these developments would provide the local community with a range of services, particularly out-patient services, within easy access and in modern buildings. As my hon. Friend will know, about 85 per cent. of hospital visits are paid for out-patient services.
    My hon. Friend refers to Orpington hospital seeking NHS trust status. He will know that Bromley's managers have expressed interest in forming an acute services trust which would encompass the whole of the district acute services and associated community services. That would eventually comprise the proposed Elmfield site, together with the Orpington and Beckenham sites. This reflects the district's plans, which we have already discussed. I understand that the sponsors of the proposed Bromley trust are now preparing an application to form an NHS trust. They will decide in due course whether formally to apply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
    I fully understand the reasons why my hon. Friend may wish to seek NHS trust status for Orpington hospital in its own right. It is open to any unit to apply for trust status. If a bid is to be successful, it must meet a number of criteria. It must first show how the proposed trust will benefit patients and the local community of the particular unit. If the sponsors decide formally to apply to set up a trust for Orpington hospital, they should demonstrate that the quality of services to the people of Orpington would be enhanced.
    An application must also demonstrate that it has suitable leadership and management arrangements and the commitment of key staff. Equally importantly, it must
    154
    demonstrate that it has the capacity to win and deliver contracts with purchasers of health care; in other words, it must be able to offer quality health care and remain financially viable.
    Clearly, it is Bromley's view that the proposed Bromley acute services trust—that is, a trust including the Elmfield site and Orpington hospital—can best achieve those goals and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has agreed that it should prepare an application. However, it would be possible for Orpington hospital to seek trust status separately if there were sufficient support within the unit and the local population, and if it could meet the criteria I have described. My right hon. and learned Friend would then have to decide between the two proposals on their merits as he saw them.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his views and the views of those whom he represents so clearly to the attention of the House and the Department of Health. I will give him an assurance that if —I stress the word "if" —and when a submission is made to Ministers for the proposed new district general hospital, I or a Minister from the Department of Health will visit Orpington hospital and Bromley health authority specifically on this issue before a final ministerial decision is made.
    I am sure that, in the meantime, my hon. Friend will wish to continue his discussions about these matters with the health authority. I hope that he receives an excellent turnout at the public meeting that he has arranged for 10 November to discuss the future of the hospital, and that this debate will help to inform those discussions.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Businesses
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses are being created every week; and what was the position in the same period 10 years ago.

  Mr. Tim Eggar
  In 1988, the latest year for which figures have been published, the net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses was 64,000, an average of just over 1,200 per week. In 1980, the net increase was 16,000, an average of 300 per week.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for Great Britain and each standard Training Agency region, how many individual child care allowances are being received by lone parent employment training participants; and how many were granted or refused for each of the latest available three months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimated proportions of trainees receiving child care allowances at the end of June, the latest date for which information is available, are given in the table. The latest in training figures, at 13 October 1989, has been provided for each region. Information is not available on the number of child care allowances granted or refused for each of the latest available three months.

  Employment Training Trainees in receipt of Child Care Allowances

  Region

  Per cent.1

  Number2

  South East

  3

  14,900

  London

  4

  20,500

  South West

  3

  12,100

  West Midlands

  2

  23,500

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2

  16,900

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  25,200

  North West

  2

  28,800

  Northern

  1

  24,300

  Wales

  1

  16,600

  Scotland

  2

  25,300

  Great Britain

  2

  209,000

  1 Proportion receiving child care allowances 30 June 1989.

  2 Numbers in training 13 October 1989.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for Great Britain and each standard Training Agency region, what are the monthly statistics for each month since January showing the results of new client adviser interviews with people who want to register as unemployed showing(a) the number of claims not pursued at the reception stage, (b) the number of clients who do not attend for interviews, (c) the number of claims not pursued at the interview broken down into the following categories: (i) those entering employment, (ii) those not available for work and not intending to claim an
  2
  alternative benefit, (iii) those appropriate to alternative benefits and (iv) other, and (d) the number of submissions to vacancies, (e) the number of referrals to employment training, (f) the number of availability referrals, (g) the number of referrals to specialists, namely DRO, CA, (h) the number of referrals to job clubs and (i) the number of referrals to EAS.

  Mr. Eggar
  As the information requested is contained in a large number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Special Employment Measures (Swindon)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of people benefiting from special employment measures at the latest available date in the Swindon constituency; and what is the average cost per person supported under each measure.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following programmes help to increase the opportunities available to unemployed people either to take up work or to start their own business. The figures indicate the number of people supported in the Gloucester and Wiltshire area, which includes Swindon, during August/September:

  Number

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  1,242

  Job start

  34

  Job release scheme

  80

  The average cost per person on job start is £382. Average costs per person are not available for either the enterprise allowance scheme or the job release scheme. Job release pays people either £79·25 or £65·25 a week, depending on their circumstances, up to age 65. The net cost to the Exchequer of the enterprise allowance scheme is £1,846 per person taken off the unemployment count.

  There are a number of other programmes available in Swindon which help unemployed people. These include the job club programme which provides training and support to help long-term unemployed with their job search activity. In September, 294 people were in a job club in the Gloucester and Wiltshire area.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how long a claimant must be out of work before being eligible to join a job club.

  Mr. Eggar
  Claimants should normally be out of work for six months before being eligible to join a job club. There are relaxations to the six month rule for people with disabilities, ex-offenders and people leaving YTS or employment training without a job to go to.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what facilities are available at his Department's job clubs to assist unemployed people trying to secure work.

  Mr. Eggar
  Every job club has telephones, paper, pens, typewriter or word processors, envelopes, stamps, photocopiers, newspapers and directories which members can use free of charge. A trained job club leader helps members draw up a curriculum vitae and shows them the
  3
  best way to look for jobs, make job applications and prepare for interviews. Fares to attend the job club are reimbursed.

  Job clubs continue to be very successful and provide valuable help to all those who join. Over 54,000 members have found work so far in 1989. Many others have gone on to training, self-employment or education. Overall, 69 per cent. of all job club members leave with a positive outcome.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider making job club facilities immediately available to unemployed people as soon as they become unemployed.

  Mr. Eggar
  Job club membership is generally available only to people who have been unemployed six months or longer. This is because long-term unemployed people are generally less well motivated and have greater difficulties in applying for and securing jobs than those recently unemployed.

  However, there are some important exceptions to the six-month eligibility rule which are designed to help groups who do need extra help, including those with

  Employment Training agreed action plans at training agents

  May to September 1989

  Area office

  May 1989

  June 1989

  July 1989

  August 1989

  September 1989

  South East Region1

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  270

  307

  340

  283

  339

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  412

  472

  509

  487

  538

  Essex

  538

  589

  761

  460

  734

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  583

  573

  705

  463

  602

  Kent

  561

  550

  470

  480

  574

  Surrey

  154

  247

  186

  197

  248

  Sussex

  548

  461

  546

  549

  542

  London Region

  Inner London North

  1,595

  1,632

  1,477

  1,545

  1,510

  Inner London South

  420

  684

  648

  618

  748

  London East

  743

  721

  695

  820

  787

  London North

  726

  749

  584

  700

  962

  London South

  406

  479

  426

  346

  561

  London West

  365

  428

  388

  417

  431

  South West Region

  Avon

  432

  440

  342

  378

  764

  Devon and Cornwall

  861

  1,003

  918

  877

  1,238

  Dorset and Somerset

  307

  344

  231

  226

  296

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  442

  402

  285

  333

  468

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,177

  1,506

  1,424

  1,363

  1,988

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  524

  559

  598

  418

  701

  Dudley and Sandwell

  631

  684

  688

  619

  755

  Staffordshire

  594

  628

  541

  494

  603

  The Marches, Hereford/Worcester

  577

  555

  550

  580

  716

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  463

  587

  715

  466

  532

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  317

  289

  260

  249

  396

  Derbyshire

  531

  571

  444

  430

  512

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  598

  714

  571

  733

  960

  4
  disabilities, ex-offenders and those leaving YTS or ET without a job. I have no plans to change the eligibility rules at present.

  Job Interviews (Travel Costs)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of travel warrants for unemployed people attending job interviews in 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost of travel warrants is not separately available. The cost to public funds of unemployed people attending job interviews under the travel-to-interview scheme in 1988 was £980,000.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many agreed action plans have been drawn up at employment training agents on a monthly basis(a) nationally and (b) by training agency area since May.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: The figures are provided in the table.
  5

  Area office

  May 1989

  June 1989

  July 1989

  August 1989

  September 1989

  Lincolnshire

  240

  282

  271

  334

  196

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  530

  466

  526

  393

  540

  Nottinghamshire

  786

  1,122

  1,062

  929

  964

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  914

  981

  930

  905

  1,002

  Humberside

  727

  884

  737

  802

  1,088

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  1,245

  993

  1,012

  1,052

  1,137

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  994

  959

  888

  802

  1,308

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  1,144

  1,019

  1,083

  1,019

  1,741

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  574

  854

  679

  519

  689

  Cumbria

  182

  181

  287

  190

  259

  Lancashire

  899

  937

  907

  936>

  1,130

  Central Manchester

  639

  791

  768

  655

  785

  Greater Manchester North

  685

  856

  839

  849

  700

  Greater Manchester East

  644

  675

  652

  688

  774

  Merseyside

  1,671

  2,067

  1,837

  1,767

  2,213

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  1,222

  1,352

  893

  1,170

  1,356

  County Durham

  917

  944

  959

  877

  1,139

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  1,006

  1,195

  1,011

  987

  1,307

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  1,182

  1,318

  959

  846

  1,270

  Wales

  Dyfed and West

  Glamorgan

  855

  912

  774

  556

  889

  Gwent

  516

  409

  479

  443

  640

  Gwynned, Clwyd and Powys

  486

  397

  329

  332

  685

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  893

  1,001

  755

  883

  1,027

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  675

  889

  627

  801

  1,122

  Central and Fife

  567

  693

  388

  644

  887

  Glasgow City

  1,186

  1,601

  1,159

  1,492

  1,697

  Grampian and Tayside

  748

  1,055

  685

  799

  1,091

  Highlands and Islands

  190

  238

  240

  230

  262

  Lanarkshire

  567

  840

  727

  821

  781

  Lothian and Borders

  645

  804

  574

  589

  792

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  714

  987

  779

  1,066

  997

  Great Britain Total

  39,018

  43,876

  39,117

  38,907

  48,973

  1 South East figures have been revised since this same information was given in a previous answer.

  Accidents (Radiation)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what comprehensive plans have been made, and what programmes for implementation of procedures, for the fire service to deal with accidents on railway or road involving external emissions of gamma radiation, and for police officers and other workers immediately affected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply, and will write to the hon. Member.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  "Today" Newspaper Story
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, of 3 July,Official Report, column 14, what action he has now taken with regard to the Today newspaper for its front page story on 11 May headed, "Maggie IRA Bomb Squad Seized", concerning the arrest of three Irishmen who were later released without charge.
  7
  The Attorney-General
  I have considered the matter, but have concluded that there is no realistic prospect that any prosecution would result in a conviction. Accordingly, I do not propose to take any further action.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr Shersby
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he proposes any changes to the serious fraud offices cash and running cost limits for 1989–90.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on class XI, vote 12 will be increased by £250,000 from £5,514,000 to £5,764,000. Within this total the running costs limit will remain at £5,372,000. This change is to enable the serious fraud office to meet the costs of capital works relating to its new accommodation at Elm house, some of which although initially provided for in 1988–89 have, due to unexpected delays in completion of the work, now slipped into 1989–90. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Environmental Protection
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will set out the details of the policy options for global co-operation on environmental protection and environmental improvement she presented to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting on 6 September in London.

  The Prime Minister
  My speech to the Inter-Parliamentary Union last month set out the principles which I believe should govern our efforts to improve the environment. There are four: first, that proper protection for the environment is not possible without adequate growth; secondly, that we need a sound scientific base to enable us to adopt policies and remedies which will be effective; thirdly, that the demand for a better environment means accepting the costs involved and that action must work with the grain of the market and of human nature; and fourthly, that many of the key environmental problems cannot be addressed by one nation alone—they need international co-operation. The Government have followed these principles in the detailed actions it has taken to improve the environment domestically and to take the lead in international co-operation, notably in the London ozone layer conference earlier this year and in the proposal we have made in the United Nations for an international framework convention on global climate change.

  Poverty
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will now consider convening an inter-departmental ministerial committee to consider the problem of poverty in Great Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. The Government will continue to take account in all their policies of those with particular needs. The recent statement on benefits by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has directed further 8
  substantial help to the less well-off pensioners, the lower income families with children and the long-term sick and disabled.

  Sir Alan Walters
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether Sir Alan Walters has signed the Official Secrets Act;

  (2) whether Sir Alan Walters is subject to the same conditions of service as other special advisers; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) whether Sir Alan Walters is subject to the same conditions of service as civil servants at a comparable grade; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) whether Sir Alan Walters is subject to the same rules of conduct as civil servants at a comparable grade; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Alan Walters was employed as a fee-paid consultant. His conditions of service were based on those of a special adviser which differ slightly from those of permanent civil servants. He is subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes have been made in the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the consultative assembly of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) as a substitute member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), and I have appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) as a substitute member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in 1989–90 cash limits for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on the overseas aid vote (class II vote 5) will be increased by £74,613,000 to £1,365,579,000. The increase reflects adjustments to the aid programme during the year, including significant new commitments for Nigeria of £49,600,000—Official Report 6 December 1988 column 90 —and for the Commonwealth Development Corporation of £20,000,000—Official Report, 21 May 1989, column 38. The increase also includes £2,500,000 for the estimated costs in 1989–90 of training and advice under the know-how fund for Poland—Official Report 18 October 1989, column 149—originally to be incurred on class II vote 2, "Other External Relations". Pending approval of the supplementary estimate, urgent expenditure of £1,500,000 for this new service will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund. The running costs cash limit for the ODA has also been increased by £300,000, from £43,831,000 to £44,131,000. The net effect of these changes has been charged to the reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of letters from hon. Members to his Department received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. The Department received 11,157 letters for ministerial reply between January and September this year; 4,798 were replied to within four weeks. Approximately two thirds of this correspondence was from hon. Members.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide figures to support the statement made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) on 15 September, that teachers' pay has increased over the past three years by 40 per cent.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Teachers have received the following pay increases since March 1986:

  Date of settlement

  Increase Per cent.

  31 March 1986

  1·6

  1 April 1986

  5·7

  1 January 1987 and 1 October 1987

  116·4

  1 April 1988

  4·75

  1 April 1989

  6·3

  1 Paid in two instalments of 8·2 per cent.

  The cumulative effect has been a rise in teachers' pay of some 40 per cent.

  Mr. Raison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the figures for average teachers' earnings for each year from 1981 to the latest year for which figures are available at 1985 prices.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is as follows:

  Average teachers1 salaries 1981–89

  Year (April)

  Average salaries (Cash) £

  Average salaries real terms2 (1985 prices) £

  1981

  8,031

  10,275

  1982

  8,618

  10,087

  1983

  9,119

  10,255

  1984

  9,652

  10,327

  1985

  10,391

  10,391

  1986

  11,216

  10,883

  1987

  13,100

  12,200

  1988

  13,670

  12,249

  1989

  14,762

  12,244

  1 Teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Wales.

  2 Using the Retail Prices Index.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the referral of the interim pay award for teachers to the teachers' interim advisory committee; and if he will make a statement.
  10
  Mrs Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a substantial number of letters commenting on the remit given last month to the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions.

  GCSE
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide details of what examination fees can be recovered by schools and colleges from pupils who fail to complete the course work requirements of the GCSE examination.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  If a pupil fails without good reason to complete the requirements, including coursework, for any public examination for which the LEA or school has paid an entry fee, it is open to the LEA under section 108 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to recover the fee from the parent or guardian.

  Crack
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has distributed fact sheets on crack to teachers in Warrington.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Bulk copies of a fact sheet on crack were issued by the Department on 29 August to all drugs education co-ordinators in England. It is for each co-ordinator to decide how the fact sheet should be distributed locally.

  National Curriculum (Special Needs)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has made any estimate of the extra resources needed to enable children with special needs to participate fully in the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cost of implementing the national curriculum will be met from the redirection of existing resources. However, the Government are making specific grants available to local education authorities to support the introduction of the national curriculum. In this financial year, there will be support for over £100 million expenditure. It is for authorities to decide how much to spend within this total in order to enable children with special educational needs to participate fully in the national curriculum, where appropriate.

  Local Authorities' Cash Plans
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes),Official Report, 24 April, column 421, why information on local education authorities' cash plans is not available for the years 1981 to 1984; and what relevant information is held by his Department.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Cash plans were not requested in the period 1981–84 and information comparable with that provided for later years could not be made available without disproportionate expense. For the period in question the Department sought estimates from local education authorities of the cost of certain elements of their capital programme, but not in respect of new places to meet basic need for areas of population growth. Where numbers were expected to increase pupil projections were converted to allocations by means of standard cost multipliers per pupil place.

  Infertility Research
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give current Government funding into infertility research.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1989]: The Medical Research Council is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. The council spent £2·3 million on research specifically into infertility in the financial year 1988–89 and also supports a range of basic research which may be of relevance to infertility.

  Additionally, research on infertility may be pursued by university departments and medical schools with support from UFC block grants, and by health authorities; information on this is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list establishments where research into infertility is currently being carried out.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1989]: The Medical Research Council funds research into infertility at the following establishments:

  I. MRC Establishments

  1. Clinical Research Centre, Clinical Sciences Division, Harrow

  Project Title

  (i) Ultrasound and hormonal analysis of ovarian follicular growth in infertile women.

  (ii) A population survey of ovarian morphology.

  (iii) Urine Steroid profiling in patients with ovulatory dysfunction.

  2. Clinical Research Centre, Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Harrow

  Project Title

  Study of efficacy of antimicrobial therapy in male infertility.

  3. MRC Human Genetics Unit, Edinburgh

  Project Title

  Cytogenetic and physiological aspects of meiosis in man and other mammals: male infertility; Spontaneous and mutagen—induced aneuploidy.

  4. MRC Experimental Embryology and Teratology Unit, London

  Project Title

  Factors affecting in-vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer in laboratory animals and man.

  5. MRC Mammalian Development Unit, London

  Project Title

  Genetic, molecular and hormonal factors affecting gonadal differentiation in the mouse.

  6. MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, Edinburgh

  Project Title

  (i) Role of neuropeptides, inhibin and gonadal steroids in the differential secretion of pituitary gonadogtrophins.

  (ii) Lactational amenorrhoea in women. Implications for contraception and family planning.

  (iii) Neural mechanisms governing the secretion of LHRH and functionally-related peptides.

  (iv) Application of neuropeptide analogues and steroid antagonists in the regulation of the pituitary gland.

  (v) Molecular analysis of sperm function in normal and infertile men. Effect of oral contraceptives and putative therapeutic agents.

  (vi) Identification and characterisation of gamete specific antigens. Immunological infertility and contraceptive vaccines.

  (vii) Endocrine, paracrine and autocrine regulation of the ovary, with reference to physiology of the follicle and corpus luteum.

  (viii) Prostaglandins in human semen. Role in sperm physiology and immunosuppression.

  (ix) Endrocrine, paracrine and autocrine regulation of the testis. Application of chemotoxins in the study of hormone kinetics and gametogenesis.

  12

  (x) Neuroendocrine regulation of development, puberty and sexual behaviour.

  (xi) Studies of physiological mechanisms controlling erection in primates.

  (xii) Sexuality and well being of women. Relationship of the menstrual cycle, lactation, contraception and disorders thereof.

  (xiii) Prostaglandin biosynthesis in the female reproductive tract. Interactions with steroid hormones and their antagonists.

  7. MRC Biostatistics Unit—Cambridge

  Project Title

  Predictive indices of fertilization capacity.

  II. Grant-holders in University Departments, etc.

  (a) Dr. C. W. Coen, Department of Anatomy and Human Biology, King's College. London.

  Biogenetic amines and the control of luteinizing hormone secretion.

  (b) Professor A. P. M. Flint, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London.

  Development and reproductive physiology of mammals.

  (c) Dr. H. D. M. Moore, MRC/AFRC Comparative Physiology Group, Zoological Society of London, London.

  Effects of chemicals on reproduction: sperm function in the rat and rabbit following testicular insult.

  (d) Dr. Dorothy C. Wathes, Department of Anatomy, Bristol University.

  Control of peptide secretions by the ovary.

  (e) Dr. M. J. Hunter, Department of Physiology, University of Edinburgh.

  Development of activation of ionic permeability channels in mammalian oocytes.

  (f) Professor D. T. Baird, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh.

  A study of the selection and maturation of the pre-ovulatory graafian follicle and oocyte.

  (g) Professor B. T. Pickering, Department of Anatomy, University of Bristol.

  (i) Testicular oxytocin: Investigations of its functions and possible role in fertility.

  (ii) The control of testicular oxytocin and its influence on fertility.

  (h) Dr. W. C. L. Ford, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Bristol.

  The regulation of energy metabolism in human spermatozoa.

  (i) Dr. N. L. Poyser, Department of Pharmacology, University of Edinburgh.

  Investigations into the intracellular control of Prostaglandin synthesis in the endomentrium.

  (j) Dr. Lynn R. Fraser, Department of Anatomy and Human Biology, King's College, London.

  Adenosine and cyclic AMP regulation of mamalian sperm fertilising ability.

  (k) Dr. L. Hall, Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol.

  An evaluation of hormonally-regulated, epididymal sequences as potential markers of infertility in human males.

  (l) Dr. T. Poulton, Department of Pathology, University of Dundee.

  Characterisation of spermatozoa autoantigens in male autoimmune infertility.

  (m) Dr. S. R. Milligan, Department of Physiology, King's College, London.

  The endocrine conditions limiting the establishment of pregnancy.

  (n) Dr. A. E. Bolton, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Sheffield Polytechnic.

  Characterisation and biological activities of immune cells in semen and cervical mucus in normal and infertile couples.

  (o) Dr. R. J. Post, Department of Medical Entomology, School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool.

  13

  Investigation of the effects of repeated doses of ivermectin on onchocera volvulus fertility in Sierra Leone.

  Information is not gathered centrally about research into infertility supported by block grants from the Universities Funding Council, by health authorities, or by the private sector.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advice Centres
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government have any plans to establish a national network of advice centres.

  Mr. Forth
  No. However my Department funds by means of grant-aid the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and Citizens Advice Scotland which provide administrative, training and other services to the national network of over 1,000 citizens advice bureaux. This funding amounts to nearly £10 million per annum for England and Wales, and some £1 million for Scotland.

  My Department has a network of 37 regional offices and sub-offices in England which give advice on its activities, and a number of other Government Departments also have regional networks.

  British Overseas Trade Board
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Trade last met the chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board on 24 October. They discussed a range of issues relating to the work of the board.

  Labelling
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for the labelling of consumer goods.

  Mr. Forth
  Additional labelling requirements will come into force over the next year for toys and all-terrain vehicles. The Government have made clear their support for the early introduction of a Community-wide voluntary eco-labelling scheme. In addition my Department is supporting work designed to establish a certification trademark which could be awarded to goods that consistently meet high specifications, although launch of such a scheme would depend on adequate support from industry.

  Import Penetration Statistics
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the delay in publishing his Department's figures for import penetration.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1988 a new commodity coding system was introduced by Customs and Excise resulting in a complete revision and renumbering of the existing Customs tariff codes.

  Each of these new codes had to be allocated, whole or in part, to industries of the standard industrial
  14
  classification before import penetration figures could be derived. The size and complexity of this task has resulted in an interruption to the normal publication timetable.

  Pembridge Investments
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications for policy on takeovers of the financing arrangements of Pembridge Investments through short-term, high-interest borrowing, for the sale by auction of DRG businesses to market competitors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The proposed acquisition of DRG by Pembridge Investments is currently being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take his decision on the question of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the light of the director general's advice and of his own consideration of all the relevant issues.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to announce his decision on whether or not to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the Pembridge Investments bid for DRG plc before the next closing date of the offer on Friday 3 November.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision as soon as possible after he has considered the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, as is usual.

  Recycling
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives from the British Plastics Federation and when he next plans to meet the British Plastics Federation to discuss the implementation of recyclable plastic bottles and containers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  I met representatives of the British Plastics Federation at the "Plastics Recycling—Future Challenges" conference dinner in September. However, the question of how to achieve optimum recycling levels of plastic bottles and containers is not a matter solely for the British Plastics Federation. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 17 October at column 12 which lists a number of inititatives that are relevant to increasing the proportion of these products which is recycled. The British Plastics Federation is a member of the advisory group referred to in the reply.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has made any recent study on the benefits to United Kingdom industry of raw materials recycling from commercial, domestic and industrial wastes; and if he will make a statement on the current status of the United Kingdom national recycling programme.

  Mr. Forth
  There has been no recent study, but it is estimated that last year our reclamation industries recovered about 27 million tonnes of recyclable materials worth about £2 billion. United Kingdom industry traditionally recycles about 95 per cent. of its process
  15
  scrap, and we also recover more than 80 per cent. of the ferrous metal, 75 per cent. of the copper, 65 per cent. of the lead, and 60 per cent. of the aluminium from our scrap and waste resources. The Department has recently formed an advisory group of individuals with special expertise on, or responsibilities for, recycling, to assist in developing a national recycling strategy.

  Marine Licensing
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the latest procedures for the enforcement of VHF marine licences.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department's radio investigation service (RIS) responds to complaints of interference to marine radio channels. The RIS also randomly inspects marine licences and installations to ensure that licence conditions are met and that only approved equipment is used.

  Coastal Waters (Digital Selective Calling)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the timetable for the introduction of digital selective calling for all United Kingdom coastal waters.

  Mr. Forth
  The Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for maritime distress and safety matters, has established an MF distress and safety digital selective calling (DSC) service at five stations in the United Kingdom. This service, operated by Her Majesty's Coastguard, provides coverage for most of the coastal waters around the United Kingdom. When two further stations are established in the Republic of Ireland in 1992, all United Kingdom coastal waters will be adequately covered by DSC for distress and safety purposes.

  A DSC service for commercial purposes would be provided by British Telecom, but it has no plans at present to install either MF or VHF DSC equipment at its coast stations. However, it is evaluating automated MF and VHF radiotelephone systems which have various DSC-based facilities.

  Marine Distress Service
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure British manufacturers are ready to take advantage of the global marine distress service.

  Mr. Forth
  British manufacturers are aware of the requirements of the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) and the opportunities that it offers through their representation on a number of national and international committees.

  Much of the radio equipment which will be needed to operate the GMDSS is already required to be fitted to merchant shipping under an international agreement known as the safety of life at sea convention (SOLAS). Already British industry plays an important role in supplying this equipment to the international shipping community.

  For certain types of equipment there are still some technical and operational details to be finalised and international discussions are continuing on these outstanding topics. British manufacturers are fully
  16
  involved in decision-making, through the appropriate committees such as the maritime radio technical committee.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional measures are being taken to reduce the burden of licensing requirements under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department laid on 10 October 1989 a set of regulations under section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 which will further reduce licensing requirements in line with intentions expressed in the White Paper "Releasing Enterprise" (Cm. 512), published in November 1988.

  The regulations will exempt the testing or development of radio devices on certain frequency bands under suppressed radiation conditions. This mainly affects those businesses which carry out the development of new radio devices and those that are involved with the servicing and repair of radio devices.

  A requirement of the exemption is that no interference is caused to other authorised wireless telegraphy services by the exempted apparatus.

  The regulations will affect over 400 current licensees. They are due to come into force on 1 November 1989.

  Fan Clubs
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations exist to cover the operation of fan clubs, and what action can be taken against the organisers of such bodies when they are found to be bogus.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no specific regulations that control the operation of fan clubs. The action that can be taken against the organisers of such bodies when they are found to be bogus would depend on the circumstances of each case.

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what will be the future status of the laboratory of the Government chemist.

  Mr. Ridley
  Today the laboratory of the Government chemist is being established as an executie agency of DTI. The freedom and flexibility that the laboratory is to gain will further improve its efficiency and help it to provide a better service to its customers. The LGC is the fourth agency to be created in the DTI under the next steps initiative.

  The relationship between the LGC and the DTI will be governed by principles laid down in its policy and resources framework. Management of the agency will be the responsibility of the chief executive, Mr. Alex Williams, the Government chemist. The agency will operate within policies determined by DTI Ministers. It will recover its full economic cost from services rendered through arm's-length customer-contractor relationships with all its customers. From April 1990, the LGC will be exempted from gross cost control. These arrangements will ensure that there will be open competition for analytical services, that the size and shape of the laboratory will depend on the orders it can win from customers and that customers will achieve better value for money.
  17
  In my foreword to the agency framework document, a copy of which has been placed in the library of the House, I undertake as part of the corporate planning process, to set targets that will require the laboratory to achieve demanding incremental improvements in overall efficiency and quality of service.

  The main link between the LGC and the DTI will be a steering board chaired by Dr. R. Coleman, the chief engineer and scientist of the DTI. In addition to Mr. Williams, the chief executive, the board will include the following members drawn from the private sector:

  Company

  Mr. H. B. Berridge

  Berridge Environmental Laboratories Ltd.

  Dr. L. B. Davies

  Lyndon Davies Associates

  Dr. D. R. Williams

  BOCM Silcock

  New EC Regulations
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many European Community Commission 83/189 cases have been notified since 30 December 1988.

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 257 notifications have been received between 1 January and 26 October 1989.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how long it takes Her Majesty's Government to respond to European Community Commission 83/189 cases on average; and what has been:(a) the shortest and (b) the longest time;

  (2) how many European Community Commission 83/189 notification cases have been received in English; and how long it takes Her Majesty's Government to have those that were not, translated;

  (3) how many times Her Majesty's Government have objected to European Community Commission 83/189 cases; from which countries, on which subjects and on which grounds;

  (4) how many times Her Majesty's Government have used the Committee procedure provided for in the regulation to raise objections to European Community Commission 83/189 cases; and what was the reason.

  Mr. Redwood
  Notifications are received in the language of the notifying member state. The European Commission provides the translation. The other information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the mechanism for inter-departmental co-ordination in relation to European Community Commission 83/189 cases involving more than one Government Department.

  Standard Industrial Classification

  Activity Heading

  Product included in activity heading

  Year to

  1978

  19882

  1989Q12

  3166 Metal furniture and safes

  Furniture

  15

  27

  27

  3254 Construction and earth moving equipment

  Excavators

  63

  66

  65

  3286 Other industrial and Commercial machinery

  Sewing machines

  41

  64

  63

  Lawn mowers

  Vending machines

  3301 Office machinery

  Calculators

  1120

  1124

  1122

  18
  Mr. Redwood
  The Department with the primary interest in any particular notification is responsible for any necessary consultation and co-ordination with other Departments, using the usual formal and informal mechanisms.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is responsible for receiving, processing and formally replying to notification by the Commission of 83/189 cases.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedure there is, in relation to European Community Commission 83/189 cases, for notifying and consulting the industries affected by these notifications; how it works; and how long it is reported to take a Department to notify the affected industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department, as well as making summaries of notifications available through the Spearhead database, consults the interests falling within its sphere of responsibility that seem likely to be affected and circulates details to other Departments to enable them to do likewise. Information is not held centrally on the time taken to dissemminate that information, and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  The Association of British Chambers of Commerce now prints summaries of notifications in its weekly publication "Business Briefing", as does the European Commission in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing(a) the current degree of import penetration and (b) that in December 1978 for (i) radios, (ii) black and white televisions, (iii) video recorders, (iv) colour televisions, (v) telephone receivers, (vi) refrigerators, (vii) passenger motor vehicles, (viii) microwave ovens, (ix) calculators, (x) desk top computers, (xi) computer printers, (xii) word processors, (xiii) microchips, (xiv) irons, (xv) commercial vehicles, (xvi) x-ray machines, (xvii) dental instruments and appliances, (xviii) shoes, (xix) sewing machines, (xx) excavators, (xxi) lawn mowers, (xxii) public transport type motor vehicles, (xxiii) burglar alarms, (xxiv) built-in-ovens, (xxv) hovercraft, (xxvi) lasers, (xxvii) vending machines, (xxviii) dishwashers, (xxix) medical instruments and appliances, (xxx) paper, (xxxi) wallpaper, (xxxii) printed matter and (xxxiii) furniture.

  Mr. Redwood
  The import penetration ratios given in the table refer to the activity heading to which the individual products are classified. Ratios for the individual products are either not available or not readily available.
  19

  Activity Heading

  Product included in activity heading

  Year to

  1978

  19882

  1989Q12

  3302 Electronic data processing equipment

  Word processors

  88

  90

  93

  Computer printers

  Dest top computers

  3433 Alarms and signalling equipment

  Burglar alarms

  12

  31

  31

  3441 Telegraph and telephone apparatus and equipment

  Telephone receivers

  10

  28

  28

  3443 Radio and electronic capital goods

  X-Ray apparatus

  28

  40

  40

  3453 Active components and electronic sub-assemblies

  Microchips

  76

  118

  119

  3454 Electronic consumer goods and other electronic equipment

  Video recorders Radios

  46

  72

  74

  Black and white television

  Colour television

  3460 Domestic-type electric appliances

  Irons

  30

  42

  43

  Microwave ovens

  Dishwashers

  Built-in ovens

  Refrigerators

  3510 Motor vehicles and their parts

  Public service Passenger cars Commercial vehicles

  41

  51

  51

  3540 Aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing

  Hovercraft

  35

  63

  N/A

  3720 Medical and surgical equipment and orthopaedic appliances

  Dental instruments and appliances

  59

  83

  82

  Medical instruments and appliances

  3732 Optical precision instruments

  Lasers

  53

  70

  N/A

  4510 Footwear

  Shoes

  30

  48

  49

  4671 Wooden and upholstered furniture

  Furniture

  9

  18

  18

  4710 Pulp, paper and board

  Paper

  53

  63

  64

  4721 Wall coverings

  Wallpaper

  6

  9

  8

  4750 Printing and Publishing

  Printed matter

  6

  7

  7

  Source: Business Monitor MQ12

  1Entrepot trade causes ratio to exceed 100.

  2Provisional.

  Monthly Digest of Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why the figures in table 15–10 of the monthly digest of statistics have not been updated with the 1988 figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: The delay has been caused by the introduction in January 1988 of the new harmonised system for overseas transactions, entailing a thorough revision and renumbering of the Customs tariff headings.

  All tariff codes had to be reassessed and reallocated, in whole or in part, to the industries of the standard industrial classification before the import penetration and export sales ratios presented in table 15.10 of the monthly digest of statistics could be derived.

  This classification has proved to be more complex and to have taken longer than expected. The ratios for 1988 will be published in the next edition of the monthly digest of statistics.

ENERGY

  Offshore Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to ensure that the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 will be applied to offshore installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Requirements for the control of hazardous substances on offshore installations have been
  20
  in force since 1976 under the Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976. These requirements are to be supported by guidance notes which will be produced in 1990.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies have been made to test the effectiveness of comprehensive plans to ensure that experts with special knowledge of nuclear energy would be on the scene of an accident in adequate time to take preventive measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The operators of nuclear installations have on site at all times staff who are fully trained to take preventive action in the event of a nuclear emergency. The operators also have additional specialist staff who are always available on standby and would immediately go to the site. A deputy chief inspector of nuclear installations would also be appointed by the Government as a Government technical adviser to preside over the off-site centre. He would become the authoritative source of advice to the police, local authorities and central Government on the course of the accident and the need for countermeasures to protect the public. He would be assisted by experts with special knowledge including representatives from the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the National Radiological Protection Board and the operator. These arrangements are approved by the Health and
  21
  Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate and are regularly tested in exercises in order to ensure their effectiveness.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps the Government are taking to protect the indigenous coal mining industry; and if he will make a statement on the special report from the committee on the Associated British Ports No. 2 Bill, HC 258.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is not this Government's policy to restrict imports of coal. Restricting competition will not bring long-term security to the British coal industry. The best protection is to produce reliable supplies which are competitive on the world market.

  It is not for Government to make a formal response to the special report but for the House to take it into account on Third Reading.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library a copy of the recent report of the Severn barrage study group.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Copies of the report summarising the work of the Severn Tidal Power Group, published by HMSO in the Department of Energy paper series, were placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament on 23 October.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the privatisation of the electricity industry; and if he will indicate when the flotation of the two Central Electricity Generating Board successor companies is to proceed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Both generating companies will be brought to the market in the first half of 1991. The precise timings are still to be decided.

  Electricity Boards (Appointments)
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many individuals have been appointed to electricity boards over the last two years; and from what industries they came.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Since 1 October 1987, a total of 57 individuals have been appointed to electricity boards in England and Wales. They have a wide range of backgrounds.

  Electricity Industry (Capacity Deficiency Scheme)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the terms of the new capacity deficiency scheme proposed for the electricity industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The rules on which the new electricity market will operate will be published in good time before vesting of the restructured industry.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans exist for fitting special filtered containment venting systems into the designs for the four 22
  pressurised-water reactors to be built by the Central Electricity Generating Board in England and Wales for the prevention of over-pressurising station containment buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Consent has been granted for only one new nuclear power station: Sizewell B. The design and construction of this station is a matter for the CEGB. I have therefore asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will constitute a planning inquiry commission, as specified in sections 47–49 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to consider the possible construction of a nuclear power station at Wylfa.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As the Gwynedd county council and the Anglesey borough council have objected to the CEGB's applications for my right hon. Friend's consent to construct a PWR nuclear power station to be known as Wylfa B and to modify the transmission lines in the vicinity of the existing power station at Wylfa, he must now arrange for public inquiries to be held into the applications pursuant to section 34(1) of the Electricity Act 1957. My right hon. Friend will announce the arrangements for these inquiries in due course.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates his Department has of the likely costs of decommissioning(a) AGR and (b) PWR nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will indicate the present estimated cost of decommissioning each advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactor, indicating what cost is to be borne by National Power and what by the taxpayer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Decommissioning costs for AGRs and PWRs are matters for the CEGB or SSEB. The accounts of these bodies will include appropriate provisions for AGR decommissioning costs as presently estimated. The Government have taken powers, under schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989, to contribute towards decommissioning costs, and the way in which these powers will be used is under consideration.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost per kwh, or on another basis of appropriate calculations, to be charged by National Power for electricity generated by the Sizewell B power station under the contracts negotiated with the distributors.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The contract for electricity from Sizewell B is currently under negotiation.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest calculation of his Department of the cost of electricity generated by Sizewell B.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I shall ask the chairman of the CEGB to write to the hon. Member.

Health

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given by his Department to health authorities about the development of strategies for the prevention of coronary heart disease.

  Mr. Freeman
  Planning circulars from the Department of Health to the NHS have repeatedly emphasised the importance the Government attach to the prevention of disease and the promotion of health. Authorities have been asked to identify needs and develop programmes to meet them and to focus on specific programmes on diet, smoking and exercise. Such work is central to coronary heart disease prevention. Furthermore, the joint Department of Health and Health Education Authority "Look After Your Heart" campaign is intended to provide links between national and local initiatives for health authorities to build on and the regional review and operational planning processes have emphasised that authorities should be developing programmes for prevention in line with the national campaign. This year's planning guidelines refer to the intention to issue general guidance on health promotion and disease prevention during the planning year. This will include specific references to coronary heart disease prevention. I hope that my hon. Friend will also not forget the important role played by the voluntary sector in this area.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give for each district health authority, regional health authority and special health authority the number of acute hospital beds and the total number of beds in each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will give for each district health authority, the percentage decrease or increase in acute hospital beds between 1982 and the latest available date; and if he will rank the district health authorities according to the percentage change;

  (3) if he will give for each district health authority, the percentage decrease or increase in the total number of hospital beds between 1982 and the latest available date; and if he will rank the district health authorities according to the percentage change;

  (4) if he will give for each district health authority, the percentage increase or decrease in the number of deaths and discharges per annum between 1982 and the latest available year; and if he will rank the district health authorities according to the percentage change;

  (5) if he will give for each district health authority, the total number of deaths and discharges in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested has been placed in the Library and I have written to the hon. Member with a copy of such information.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) National Health Service family planning clinics and (b) general practitioner health centres are designated as training centres for family planning in the United Kingdom for 1987 and 1988.
  24
  Mr. Freeman
  The following information is recorded by the joint committee on contraception which is concerned with family planning training for doctors and on which the Department of Health is one of several bodies represented. The figures refer to the number of approved premises for family planning training.

  United Kingdom Totals at 30 September

  1987

  1988

  Community and hospital clinics

  1,065

  1,092

  General Practitioners' premises

  32

  32

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of the numbers of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment by contraceptive method(a) through National Health Service family planning clinics in England for the year 1987 and 1988 and (b) from general practitioners in England for the years 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is contained in the tables. Community and hospital clinic figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. A detailed analysis of contraceptive services provided by general medical practitioners is not held centrally.

  Health authority family planning services—community and hospital clinics in England

  Number of patients by primary birth control method chosen or in use at first visit in the year: 1987–88

  Method

  Numbers (Thousands)

  Total

  1,339·1

  Oral contraceptives

  677·1

  IUD

  168·9

  Cap/Diaphragm

  114·1

  Sheath

  208·7

  Chemicals

  9·6

  Rhythm

  0·3

  Female sterilisation

  2·1

  Vasectomy

  12·3

  Other

  21·0

  None

  125·0

  End of year figures for contraceptive services provided by general medical practitioners in England

  1987

  1988

  Total number of patients

  2,554,900

  2,634,600

  Fitting IUD

  101,700

  91,200

  Other than IUD

  2,453,200

  2,543,400

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of family planning clinics and family planning clinic sessions in each regional health authority in England for 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available centrally in precisely the form requested. The number of premises in regular use for family planning sessions and the number of sessions, by regional health authority, are shown in the table. Figures for 1988–89 are not yet available.

  Family Planning Clinic Services

  Number of premises in regular use for family planning sessions

  Total premises 1987–88

  Number of sessions held 1987–88

  England

  1,754

  190,935

  Northern

  132

  10,667

  Yorkshire

  149

  11,952

  25

  Total premises 1987–88

  Number of sessions held 1987–88

  Trent

  129

  14,019

  East Anglia

  51

  5,428

  North West Thames

  145

  17,704

  North East Thames

  197

  21,962

  South East Thames

  129

  17,994

  South West Thames

  118

  15,154

  Wessex

  87

  10,511

  Oxford

  59

  8,357

  South Western

  113

  10,036

  West Midlands

  172

  21,135

  Mersey

  103

  9,857

  North Western

  170

  16,159

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for the latest year for which records exist and for each of the preceding three years, what was the number of infant deaths in the United Kingdom as a whole and the rate per 10,000.

  Mr. Freeman
  Infant mortality (deaths under one year), numbers and rates per 10,000 live births, in the United Kingdom, 1985–88, were

  Year

  Number of Deaths

  Rate1

  1985

  7,030

  93·6

  1986

  7,180

  95·1

  1987

  7,077

  91·2

  21988

  7,061

  89·7

  1 Per 10,000 live births.

  2 Provisional.

  Abortion
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review compliance with section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Chief Medical Officer wrote on 11 October to remind health authorities in England about the national guidance issued in 1975 and 1979 about the appointment of hospital doctors to posts which involve termination of pregnancy or advice on termination. The Department will respond to any report of the Social Services Select Committee which is currently investigating this subject.

  Medical Damage (Compensation)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list representations which he has received concerning the introduction of mechanisms for the payment of no-fault compensation to victims of medical damage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number of representations have been received. There are no plans to introduce any kind of no-fault compensation scheme. We consider that the basis for seeking compensation for injuries alleged to have been suffered as a result of medical negligence should continue to be through the courts, as recommended by the Pearson commission in 1978.

  Irradiated Casualties
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals where training has been introduced for medical or nursing personnel in dealing with irradiated or contaminated casualties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following is a list of hospitals which have been designated by the relevant regional health authority as being prepared to accept contaminated casualties and to advise on and assist with decontamination of personnel. The list is provisional and represents a preliminary compilation of responses to a health circular issued earlier this year giving guidance to the NHS on accidents involving radioactivity. I shall let the hon. Member have the definitive version as soon as possible.

  Hospitals prepared to accept contaminated casualties and to advise on and assist with decontamination of personnel

  Regional Health Authority and Hospital

  East Anglia

  Addenbrooke's Hospital

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital

  The Ipswich Hospital

  Mersey

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  North East Thames

  The Middlesex Hospital

  North Middlesex Hospital

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital

  University College Hospital

  Oldchurch Hospital

  Essex County Hospital

  Southend General Hospital

  Royal Free Hospital

  Colchester General Hospital

  Northern

  Royal Victoria Infirmary

  Cumberland Infirmary

  West Cumberland Hospital

  Newcastle General Hospital

  Freeman Hospital Unit

  South Cleveland Hospital

  North Tees District General Hospital

  Sunderland District General Hospital

  Dryburn Hospital

  Darlington Memorial Hospital

  North Western

  Manchester Royal Infirmary

  Christie Hospital

  Hope Hospital

  Royal Lancaster Infirmary

  North West Thames

  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington

  Mount Vernon Hospital

  Westminster Hospital

  Charing Cross Hospital

  Hammersmith Hospital

  Oxford

  John Radcliffe Hospital

  Northampton General Hospital

  Royal Berkshire Hospital

  South East Thames

  Guy's Hospital

  Kent and Canterbury Hospital

  Royal Sussex County Hospital

  South Western

  Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital

  27

  Bristol Radiotherapy Centre

  Gloucester Royal Hospital

  Derriford District General Hospital

  Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton

  Plymouth General Hospital

  Cheltenham General Hospital

  City Hospital, Truro

  South West Thames

  Royal Surrey County Hospital

  St. George's Hospital, London

  Royal Marsden Hospital, London

  Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton

  Trent

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital

  Derbyshire Royal Infirmary

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  County Hospital, Lincoln

  University Hospital, Nottingham

  Wessex

  Southampton General Hospital

  Queen Alexandra Hospital,

  General Hospital, Poole

  West Midlands

  The Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton

  North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary

  Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham

  Yorkshire

  The General Infirmary, Leeds

  The Princess Royal Hospital, Hull

  Bradford Royal Infirmary

  Substance Misuse Services
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the financial resources allocated for substance misuse services; if he will list priority issues in this field; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1984 the Department has committed nearly £65 million of new money to preventing drug misuse and providing services. This includes £17·5 million on pump priming, 188 local drug projects, over £35 million to HAs to develop and expand services, over £8 million on campaigns of information and education and £3 million on funding the headquarters costs of major voluntary organisations.

  The Government's objectives have been to prevent, as far as possible, people from using drugs in the first place; to reduce the physical harm of those who do use drugs, and to provide users with advice and treatment services to help them live without drugs.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount of moneys paid out of the trust fund set up to assist those haemophiliacs infected with the HIV virus who are in the greatest need; how many such applications have been made to the fund and granted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that in the period to 31 August 1989 the trust made 1,600 single payments totalling around £0·9 million and 578 regular payments totalling around £1 million. The Macfarlane Trust is an independent charitable trust and it is a matter for the trustees to allocate funds in the way which they consider best meets the needs of those eligible for assistance within the provision of the trust deed.
  28
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities have so far been issued with writs by haemophiliacs infected with the HIV virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As health authorities are separately represented, the Department does not routinely receive this information. However, I understand that most regional and district health authorities and some special health authorities have been issued with writs.

  Nuclear Flask Accidents
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans have been made by health authorities to deal with nuclear flask accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Arrangements for dealing with the response to an accident involving the transportation of irradiated fuel are set out in consignors' contingency plans and the irradiated fuel transport flask emergency plan, a copy of which is in the Library. Radiation protection advice would be provided by health physicists specified in the emergency plan, not by the NHS.

  However, in the unlikely event of this advice not being available at the time, the police could invoke the national arrangements for incidents involving radioactivity (NAIR) scheme. This scheme is intended to ensure that, for accidents involving the transportation of radioactive materials, appropriate resources are available to the police for providing protection to the general public. The NAIR scheme is co-ordinated by the National Radiological Protection Board and its participants include appropriately staffed and equipped National Health Service hospitals that are designated for NAIR purposes.

  In addition, Regional Health Authorities are required to designate hospitals within their regions which are equipped and staffed to provide treatment and decontamination facilities in the unlikely event of an incident leading to the release of radioactivity.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals there may be to monitor counselling given by pharmacists to patients on long-term and medium-term prescriptions for benzodiazepine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no such proposals. This is a matter for the pharmaceutical profession.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is conducted into the effects on patients receiving medium or long-term prescriptions for benezodiazepine when sudden reduction or stoppage is made by general practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are not aware of any such current research. It is now generally accepted that a sudden reduction or stoppage in taking benzodiazepines can have an undesirable effect on patients. The British National Formulary, which is supplied free of charge by the Department to all prescribing doctors, carries advice on benzodiazepine withdrawal.

  National Tranquilliser Advice Centre
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure the future of the national tranquilliser advice centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) on 25 October.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the London ambulance service on what has been the average response time for a 999 call in its area by(a) London ambulance service vehicles, (b) police vehicles used as ambulances and (c) other voluntary ambulances per week since 1 September.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the period 1 September to 22 October the London ambulance service's average response time for 999 calls was 11·9 minutes from the receipt of the call by central ambulance control. The average time taken from the crew receiving the call to their arrival on the scene was nine minutes.

  Similar information is not available in respect of Metropolitan police and British Red Cross vehicles deployed on 23 and 24 October. St. John ambulance service vehicles were also deployed on those dates and their average response time was 8·8 minutes from receipt of a call from control.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the London ambulance service on the number of ambulances that have been taken off the road by the London ambulance service management whilst crews were available to staff them during the current dispute.

  Mr. Freeman
  The details for the two days of the action are as follows:

  Early

  Middle

  Night

  Monday 23 October 1989

  Manned2

  127

  110

  67

  Not used3

  52

  86

  34

  Early

  Middle1

  Tuesday 24 October 1989

  Manned2

  122

  113

  —

  Not used3

  83

  73

  —

  1Up to 1700 hours when an agreement was reached and front line vehicles went back "on the run".

  2Manned = the number of fully staffed ambulances available.

  3Not used = those ambulances not used due to the industrial action, as crews would not work to London ambulance service management requirements.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to include a code of conduct for the care of the elderly for residential care in private homes as part of the White Paper on care in the community.

  Mr. Freeman
  General guidance on the running of these homes is contained in "Home Life" a code of practice for 30
  residential care, endorsed by the Secretaries of State for Social Services and for Wales. This guidance remains valid.

  Additionally, we have recently put in hand a three-year programme of development projects aimed at demonstrating how the quality of life for people in residential care can be improved.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present ratio of kidney dialysis machines to renal patients; and what is the ratio of renal units to patients.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the number of dialysis machines is not collected centrally.

  According to data for 1988 reported to the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, the ratio of patients to renal units in the United Kingdom is 224 to one if those with a functioning transplant are included. The ratio is 108 to one if patients are defined to include only those receiving dialysis for example, either from dialysis machines or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.

WALES

  EC Aid
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what agreement has been reached with the four county councils of south Wales for financial compensation to authorities who have lost eligibility for European regional development fund grant for major infrastructure projects due to delayed submission of integrated development operations to the European Commission.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There was no such delay. The integrated development operations programme for industrial south Wales was submitted in advance of the date specified by the European Commission.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he held with the four county councils of industrial south Wales and the European Commission on the proposal for an integrated development operation.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My officials held discussions during the summer of 1987 with the relevant local and public authorities following the European Commission's identification of industrial south Wales as a potential candidate for an integrated approach. The four county councils, along with the local authorities and interested bodies have been fully involved in the subsequent formulation of an integrated development operation programme which was submitted to the European Commission in May 1988. Against the background of the reform of the European structural funds the programme has since been the subject of discussions with the Commission which have involved representatives of the county councils.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he held with the four county councils of south Wales and the European Commission on the timing of submission of proposed integrated development operations to the European Commission.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  All the bodies involved in the formulation of the integrated development operations
  31
  programme for industrial south Wales, including the four county councils, were fully aware that the European Commission required submission of the document by May 1988 and worked energetically to meet that requirement.

  Roads
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, following the consultation undertaken by his Department on the impact of the A55 trunk road improvements programme on Gwynedd, whether any new policy initiatives are being taken by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The continued fall in unemployment, spreading industrial investment and new job creation in north Wales all underline the effectiveness of the Government's policies in regenerating the area's local economy.

  Following my statement to the Welsh Grand Committee in December 1988, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has sought views on how the opportunities afforded by the massive investment in the A55 improvements can best be used to the advantage of north Wales. I expect to make an announcement before the end of the year.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the original cost estimate of dualing the A55 trunk road between Conwy and Bangor, together with the original target completion date for this work; what is the latest cost estimate and latest estimated completion date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In "Roads in Wales 1980" the estimated cost was £166 million, including the cost of the Conwy crossing and the Bangor bypass. Estimated completion was towards the end of the decade. The cost estimated in "Roads in Wales" 1989 is £322 million. Completion is now expected in the early 1990s.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations have been received by the Welsh Office during the past six months calling for new legislation relating to the Welsh language.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Around 25 from individuals and organisations.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of letters from hon. Members to his Department received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is shown in the following table:

  1987 per cent.

  1988 per cent.

  11989 per cent.

  Under 4 weeks

  89

  91

  92

  Within 4 to 6 weeks

  9

  7

  6

  Within 6 to 8 weeks

  1

  1

  1

  Over 8 weeks

  1

  1

  1

  1 To 27 October 1989.

  Vicarages and Manses
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions will apply from April 1990 in respect of grants for home improvements for vicarages and manses in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the provisions of part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Bill will apply in respect of vicarages and manses in Wales.

  Contraception
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown of the number of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment by contraceptive method(a) through National Health Service family planning clinics in Wales for the years 1987 and 1988 and (b) from general practitioners in Wales for the years 1987 and 1988.

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

  Family planning clinic services

  Method1

  Number of patients

  1987

  1988

  Oral contraceptives

  36,324

  34,545

  IUD

  9,138

  7,936

  Cap/Diaphragm

  4,459

  3,835

  Sheath

  14,075

  12,589

  Chemicals

  589

  645

  Rhythm

  9

  38

  Female sterilisation

  76

  47

  Vasectomy

  86

  64

  Other

  2,910

  2,794

  None

  4,753

  5,019

  Total

  72,419

  67,512

  1 If the patient was already using a birth control method the method in use at the time of the first visit during the year was recorded unless another method was chosen at the visit in which case the new method was recorded.

  General medical practitioners contraceptive service

  1Number of patients

  1987

  1988

  Intra-Uterine Devices

  4,651

  3,934

  Other than Intra-Uterine Devices

  120,887

  131,015

  Total

  125,538

  134,949

  1 Number of patients at 1 October for whom payment was due at the end of the quarter.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total cost for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 in Wales for(a) general practitioner provision for family planning servies and (b) district health authority family planning clinic services.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information, shown in the following table, relates to(a) the contraceptive fees paid to general practitioners plus the estimated net ingredient cost of contraceptive drugs and appliances precribed by general practitioners and dispensed by retail pharmacists and appliance contractors, and (b) expenditure, including overheads, on family planning services provided through health authority community health services.
  33

  £ thousands

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (a) Family Practitioner Services

  2,175

  2,443

  2,575

  3,429

  (b) DHA Community Health Services 1 2

  1,308

  1,434

  390

  432

  1The figures for 1985–86 and 1986–87 exclude Gwynedd Health Authority whose Community Health Services expenditure in those years is only available in total for all services.

  2 Due to restructuring of Health Authority accounts the figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 include support service costs for clinics but exclude costs of drugs and medical supplies issued by nursing and medical staff.

  Sources: Health Authority Annual Accounts; Family Practitioner Committee Annual Accounts; Prescription Pricing Division, Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give(a) the number of applications for regional selective assistance received between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A total of 417 applications for regional selective assistance grants were received by my Department between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989. In the same period, 310 offers of grant1 were made to the value of £127 million.

  Total expenditure2 in 1988–89 was £42·5 million (£44·8 million at 1989–90 prices). I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 20 March 1989 for details of the vote provision for 1989–90 and planned provision for 1990–91 to 1991–92.

  1 RSA project and training grants.

  2 Gross expenditure comprises project and training grants, exchange risk losses on European loans and payments under the Business Improvements Service scheme.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give(a) the total number of applications for regional development grants outstanding at 31 March 1988, (b) the total number of applications processed by 30 September 1989, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure planned for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A total of 1,911 of the 1,935 applications for regional development grants outstanding at 31 March 1988 had been processed by 30 September 1989, involving offers of grant to the value of £98·3 million. Total expenditure in 1988–89 was £58·6 million1 (£61·8 million at 1989–90 prices). I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 20 March 1989 for details of the vote provision for 1989–90 and planned provision for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  1 Gross expenditure on original (RDG I) and revised (RDG II) schemes.

  Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give(a) the total number of applications for investment grants and innovation grants from 1 April 1988 to 30 September 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved
  34
  and (d) the total estimated expenditure planned for 1988–89 and 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A total of 655 applications for regional enterprise (investment and innovation) grants were received by my Department between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989. Of these, 337 applications had been approved by 30 September involving grant offers of over £2·8 million.

  Total expenditure in 1988–89 was £0·218 million (£0·230 million at 1989–90 prices). I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave him on 20 March 1989 for details of the vote provision for 1989–90 and planned provision for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on the proposed Cardiff bay barrage of the Severn estuary barrage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Cardiff bay barrage will be designed to withstand the present full tidal range. A barrage across the Severn estuary would serve to reduce the tidal range and therefore result in a lower loading on the Cardiff bay barrage.

  NHS Treatment Centres
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many patients he expects to use each National Health Service treatment centre for each of the first three years; what proportion of the total in-patient waiting list for each specialty this represents; and by what date he expects the current in-patient waiting lists to be cleared;

  (2) what financial resources are to be allocated for treatment centres; and what proportion of that figure will be used for (a) administration, (b) wages and salaries and (c) clinical use.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh Office staff are currently finalising the details of operation of treatment centres in discussion with managers and clinicians in the NHS. When these discussions are complete I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional staffing requirements he anticipates due to the implementation of the proposals contained within the National Health Service White Paper.

  Mr. Grist
  A considerable amount of work is currently being undertaken within the NHS in Wales in the field of manpower planning and management. District health authorities have recently completed the second round of a continuing manpower resource planning exercise introduced last year to identify future manpower requirements in terms of numbers and skills. The manpower implications of a number of initiatives, including the proposals contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients", are being addressed as part of that ongoing process.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest available figures for each year and by Welsh health authority for the number of hospital admissions due to post-operative infections, for(a) general surgery, (b) orthopaedics, (c) ophthalmology and (d) all specialties.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  NHS Property (Maintenance)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of backlog maintenance for National Health Service properties in Wales, and by health authority, for the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally. However, district health authorities in Wales are required to review the condition of their stock annually and for 1988–89, it was estimated that it would cost about 132·7 million to bring the whole of the NHS Estate in Wales to a standard where it was exhibiting only minor deterioration. This sum may be broken down by district health authority as follows:

  DHA

  £ million

  Clwyd

  19·2

  East Dyfed

  4·5

  Gwent

  14·6

  Gwynedd

  10·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  26·4

  Pembrokeshire

  0·7

  Powys

  1·2

  South Glamorgan

  45·0

  West Glamorgan

  11·1

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many perpetrators of racial or anti-semitic harassment have been charged by the police under(a) section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and (b) section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 21 July 1989 at column 401.

  Malicious Communications
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place under the Malicious Communications Act; and how many of those relate to racist and anti-semitic material.

  Mr. John Patten
  Data is not yet available on the number of offences committed under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which did not come into force until September 1988. Information as to whether prosecutions specifically relate to racist and anti-semitic material is not being collected centrally.

  Local Government Grants
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to implement the report entitled "A Scrutiny of Grants Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966" published on 3 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The report entitled "A Scrutiny of Grants Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966" has been welcomed by the Government for its thorough analysis of the problems surrounding section 11 grant. Ministers are presently considering the changes needed in order to improve the effectiveness of assistance provided for ethnic minorities by section 11 grant.

  The Government hope that it will not be too long before an announcement can be made.

  Mr. Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been held on remand in Her Majesty's prisons for a period exceeding three and a half years; if he will list all such prisoners; what steps he proposes to take to bring to an end such extended remands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 31 August 1989 one unconvicted prisoner had been held in Pentonville prison for more than three and a half years. Mr. Lorrain Osman was committed to custody pending completion of extradition proceedings and remains in cutsody awaiting the final outcome of the succession of appeals that he has lodged. He may not be surrendered for extradition while appeal proceedings are pending. A judicial review and further habeas corpus proceedings began on 4 October. Extradition proceedings are not subject to the custody time limits contained in the regulations made under section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available in the Library those communications he has had from the Governor of Hong Kong since May 1989 in relation to the case of Mr. Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has received none.

  Fugitives
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last five years he has used his discretion under the Fugitive Offenders Act(a) to order or (b) to refuse the return of a fugitive in extradition cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Secretary of State signed 28 surrender warrants in extradition cases under section 9(1) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, during the period from 1 January 1984 until 26 September 1989, when the Act was replaced by the Extradition Act 1989. In the same period no requests were refused.

  Arrest Warrants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether deputy clerks in the magistrates courts have authority to issue arrest warrants; and if he will make a statement.
  37
  Mr. John Patten
  In magistrates courts warrants of arrest may be issued only by magistrates.

  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure in each of the last three years under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, as outlined in his Department circular 72/1986, relating to expenditure for Commonwealth immigrants by local authorities; and of those sums how much was spent on education.

  Mr. John Patten
  The amount of grant paid out under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for the most recent three year period for which actual figures are available is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  104

  1987–88

  93

  1988–89

  89

  The figures represent 75 per cent. of total section 11 expenditure. The remaining 25 per cent. is a matter of local authority contribution.

  In each of the three years education provision has accounted for approximately 80 per cent. of total grant.

  Wiltshire constabulary

  Authorised establishment

  Strength

  31 December

  Number

  As proportion of population of England and Wales (per cent.)

  Number

  As proportion of population of England and Wales (per cent.)

  England and Wales population figures1 (thousands)

  1979

  1,032

  0·002

  1,007

  0·002

  48,870

  1980

  1,033

  0·002

  1,032

  0·002

  49,162

  1981

  1,035

  0·002

  1,042

  0·002

  49,222

  1982

  1,042

  0·002

  1,031

  0·002

  49,573

  1983

  1,042

  0·002

  1,030

  0·002

  49,608

  1984

  1,042

  0·002

  1,029

  0·002

  49,657

  1985

  1,045

  0·002

  1,028

  0·002

  49,767

  1986

  1,049

  0·002

  1,037

  0·002

  49,923

  1987

  1,074

  0·002

  1,096

  0·002

  50,079

  1988

  1,074

  0·002

  1,093

  0·002

  50,244

  1 The population figures are mid-year figures and relate to the previous year in each instance.

  Details of the police/population ratio for Wiltshire and for the other police force areas in England and Wales for the last 10 years can be found in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary (appendix 7) copies of which are lodged in the House of Commons Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of letters from hon. Members to his Department received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  Conservative Party Conference 1989
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Lancashire on the policing implications for the rest of Lancashire of police deployment during the Conservative party 1989 conference.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. This is a operational matter and, as such, the responsibility of the chief constable.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of civil defence in Swindon.

  Mr. John Patten
  Responsibility for civil defence planning rests with county councils who are assisted by district councils. We are satisfied that Wiltshire county council, and the district councils within the county, are making good progress towards meeting their statutory obligations.

  Wiltshire Constabulary
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures for the authorised establishment of the Wiltshire constabulary for the last 10 years for which figures are available; what was the actual strength of the force in post in each year; and if he will express both as a proportion of the population of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Waddington
  The available figures relate to ministerial correspondence, the great majority of which represented correspondence with hon. Members, and are as follows:

  Turn-round time in calendar days

  up to 30 days per cent.

  31–60 days per cent.

  more than 60 days per cent.

  1986

  14·5

  46

  39·5

  1987

  33

  41

  26

  1988

  35

  47·5

  17·5

  Wymott Prison (Suicides)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides there have been at Wymott prison since 1 January 1986.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1 January 1986 one verdict of suicide has been returned on an inmate who died at Wymott prison.

  Fire and Police Services
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest year for which records exist and for the preceding three years, what was the average length of involuntarily separated or unaccompanied tours of duty for personnel in(a) the fire service and (b) the police service.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not held centrally.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration on television broadcasting in the gaelic language.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on 26 October.

  Deaths (Metropolitan Police)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the names, dates and circumstances of all deaths of persons in the custody of the Metropolitan police since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the deaths of persons in custody of the Metropolitan police, including the date, place and cause of death, and the circumstances surrounding the death, has been published, since 1980, in the annual report of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Information prior to 1980 is not available. To provide the names of the persons concerned could cause distress to their families.

  Public House Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Surrey listing the Surrey police officers who visited Birmingham during the pub bombings investigation;

  (2) what liaison took place between officers of the Surrey and West Midlands police forces during the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A full list of all Surrey police officers who visited Birmingham in the period referred to cannot be provided. Criminal and other records not part of a major inquiry are destroyed by the Surrey police after at most five years, and by the West Midlands police after seven years. Details of precise liaison between the two forces at that date are similarly unavailable, although there is no reason to think that normal liaison arrangements were not in force.

  However, I understand that a team of nine Surrey officers was working in the west midlands area at the time
  40
  of the Birmingham pub bombings investigation. As the hon. Member knows, the actions of the Surrey officers who investigated the Guildford bombings are the subject of inquiries by the Avon and Somerset police. It would be inappropriate for me to identify the individual officers.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from(a) the chief constable of Surrey and (b) the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether Surrey police officers visited Queen's Road police station in Birmingham between 22 to 25 November 1974.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that according to the records of the investigation conducted on behalf of the West Midlands police by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, no Surrey police officers visited Queen's Road police station on the dates in question.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to establish the whereabouts of the non-material evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. I understand that the Devon and Cornwall police attempted to find these documents at the time of their investigation in 1987 and were unable to do so. As far as they could establish, the documents had been destroyed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he has taken to provide compensation to Carol Richardson, Gerard Conlon, Patrick Armstrong and Paul Hill for their wrongful imprisonment; and if he will make an interim payment.

  Mr. John Patten
  The solicitors representing the four persons have been informed that interim payments will be made. The amount has been assessed by the independent assessor appointed under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. We have also invited them to supply any information they would wish the assessor to take into account in assessing the total amount of compensation that should be paid.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had the views of Lord Denning on the convictions of those found guilty of the Birmingham pub bombings brought to his attention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  We have considered a number of views, from Lord Denning and others, on the convictions of those found guilty of the Birmingham pub bombings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) referred this case to the Court of Appeal on 20 January 1987 and after a thorough investigation by the Devon and Cornwall police the court heard the case in November and December 1987. In its judgment, announced in January 1988, the Court concluded that it had no doubt that the convictions were safe and satisfactory.

  I am always ready to consider new evidence or other information which has not been before the courts and which appears to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.

  Computer Hacking
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking to make hacking, including the laying of viruses, a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have received a report from the Law Commission (Law Commission 186, Cm 819) recommending new criminal offences of unauthorised access to a computer and unauthorised modification of computer material. The Law Commission, the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry have all received various representations urging legislation on these lines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has indicated that he is inclined to accept the Law Commission's recommendations, subject to comments from interested parties upon them.

  Jamie Lloyd Stewart
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report on the death in custody of Jamie Lloyd Stewart who died at Holloway police station on 4 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The circumstances of Mr. Stewart's death are being investigated by the Metropolitan police under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. An inquest has been opened and adjourned until January 1990. The case is therefore sub judice.

  Shooting Clubs
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations prohibiting the use in shooting clubs of targets depicting human beings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave him on 26 October at column 1031. I recognise that some targets used in non-international disciplines may be regarded as being in poor taste, but I am not aware of any risk to public safety arising from their use. We have no plans, therefore, to prohibit their use.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations to provide for vetting by the police of persons seeking temporary membership of shooting clubs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no statutory power under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1988 to introduce regulations for this purpose. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State informed my hon. Friend on 26 October at column 1031 we are looking most closely at the issue of temporary membership of gun clubs to see whether further controls are necessary.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police vehicles were used during the current ambulance dispute in place of London ambulance service vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that, between 7 am on Monday 23 October and 9 pm on Tuesday 24 October, 104 Metropolitan police vehicles were used to provide emergency ambulance cover.

  Serious Crime Squad (West Midlands)
  Mr. Chris Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the west midlands as to how many officers were serving with the serious crime squad at the time it was disbanded.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 October 1989, c. 125]: I greatly regret that the figure of 29 quoted therein is incorrect. The correct figure is 25.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any changes to announce to the cash and gross running costs limits for the Privy Council Office for 1989–90.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XX vote 10 will be increased by £290,000 from £1,242,000 to £1,532,000. The Privy Council Office running cost limit will be increased by £290,000 from £1,262,000 to £1,552,000. This increase reflects additional expenditure being incurred by the Privy Council Office in respect of recommended security improvements and the acquisition of additional staff following changes in ministerial responsibilities. This increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Television
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what arrangements are being made for Members to have access to the signal from the television cameras in the Chamber before the end of Session.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Select Committee on televising have agreed that the "clean feed" from the Chamber, as it will be provided to the broadcasters after the State Opening, will be shown on two television sets in the Voting Lobbies between 2.30 and 10 pm on Mondays to Thursdays with effect from 1 November. Arrangements are also being made through the usual channels for access to taped material covering proceedings between 2.30 and 5.30 pm.

DEFENCE

  Tours of Duty
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for the latest year for which records exist and for the preceding three years, what was the average length of
  43
  involuntarily separated or unaccompanied tours of duty for service personnel in (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force, (c) the Royal Navy, (d) the Royal Marines and (e) the women's services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Statistics on the average lengths of involuntarily unaccompanied tours of duty are not maintained. The practice in the Army and the Royal Air Force is that postings where personnel are required to serve unaccompanied should not normally exceed six months. For the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, unaccompanied tours arise mainly when personnel are at sea. The average length of sea postings is about two years, although not all that time will be spent away from home.

  Medical Services
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) consultant radiologists and (b) consultant paediatricians there are in each of the armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of service and civilian consultant radiologists and paediatricians in each of the three services, as at 30 September 1989, are as follows:

  Consultant radiologists

  Consultant paediatricians

  Royal Navy

  3

  1

  Army

  5

  5

  Royal Air Force

  13

  1

  TOTALS

  111

  7

  1Plus 1 part time.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average number of patients per military doctor(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in the British Army of the Rhine and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Cambodian Guerrillas
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of British armed forces are engaged in training Cambodian guerrillas; where they are based; what is their rank; when the programme commenced; and what has been the cost to public funds.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to provide information of this nature.

  EC Components Tariff
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards a European Community tariff on defence parts and components; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The European Commission last year published a proposal concerning the suspension of import duties on certain weapons and military equipment (European Community Document No. 8461/88, COM(88) 502). We are currently discussing this proposal with the Commission and with NATO Allies. An explanatory memorandum was submitted to the House on 2 December 1988.

  Anti-submarine Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the development of a low-cost submarine weapon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since existing anti-submarine weapons have an effective life extending into the next century, and since we have yet to be convinced that an effective low-cost anti-submarine weapon could be produced, we currently have no plans to develop such a weapon. We are, of course, keeping developments in this area under review.

  Air-to-air Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the development of the advanced short-range air-to-air missile in the light of the decision of West Germany on 13 July to withdraw from the programme to develop it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The RAF has a requirement for an advanced short range air-to-air missile, and the United Kingdom remains committed to the four power family of weapons arrangements for the next generation of air-to-air missiles. Following the German withdrawal, we are considering with Norway and Canada revised proposals from the prime contractor, British Aerospace, for the next stage of the advanced short range air-to-air missile programme.

  Anti-tank Ammunition
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the development of the Merlin anti-tank ammunition by British Aerospace; and what financial support has been given by his Department in every year since the project commenced.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The MOD has, at present, no formal requirement for the Merlin anti-tank ammunition. It remains our policy to encourage United Kingdom companies to undertake private venture developments which may have relevance to our future requirements, and we are continuing to take a close interest in the completion of the development of Merlin. The MOD contributed £3·4 million in 1983–84 and £2·2 million in 1984–85 by way of financial support towards the feasibility and systems definition phases of the British Aerospace work.

  NATO Air Base, Italy
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the funding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation air base at Crotore, Italy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO agreed last year to fund the construction of a new air base at Crotone, Italy, from the Alliance infrastructure budget. The United Kingdom fully supports this decision.

  Modular Stand-off Weapon Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the considerations which led to the withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the modular stand-off weapon programme.
  45
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United States and the United Kingdom jointly withdrew from this programme because the differing national requirements were considered to be too difficult to reconcile even within a modular programme. The United States wanted a short-range lightweight weapon for use primarily on F16 aircraft; we wanted a heavier longer-range weapon for use on Tornado.

  Type 2057 Sonar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the results of the project definition studies for the type 2057 passive towed array sonar.

  Mr. Neubert
  Contracts for the competitive Sonar 2057 project definition phase have been let and results are expected by the end of 1990.

  Cavalry Officers
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the importance of equestrian skills for cavalry officers in units which do not have a mounted ceremonial role; and if he will list those units which have such a role.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Cavalry officers in regiments which do not have a ceremonial role are not required to ride, although they are encouraged to do so. The Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment and The King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery have mounted ceremonial roles.

  Sea Rescue Services
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to have overnight at RAF Chivenor a helicopter such as the Sea King with night radar capacity; and if he will list the number of incidents resulting in death by drowning off the north Devon coast during the current year to date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have no plans to alter the present arrangements for the provision of search and rescue cover at RAF Chivenor. I understand that three people have died through drowning off the north Devon coast this year.

  Arms Treaties
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, during his discussions with United States Defence Secretary Cheney on 25 October in London, he raised the issues of(a) the implications for United Kingdom and United States commitments to article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of new nuclear weapons systems deployments and (b) the status of the Fylingdales facility in Yorkshire in regard to the provisions of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend discussed a range of matters of mutual interest when he met the United States Defence Secretary on 25 October, but it is not our practice to reveal the details of confidential bilateral discussions of this kind.

  Procurement
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on procurement from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) United States-owned defence industries.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on procurement from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) United States-owned defence industries.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on procurement from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) United States-owned defence industries.

  Mr. Neubert
  [pursuant to the reply, 7 February 1989, col. 666]: The following should have appeared in the Official Report

  Whilst we have regard for other factors including the location of the manufacturer and the ownership of suppliers, our prime consideration is to obtain the best value for money.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  European Agriculture Council
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Agriculture Council meeting of Ministers on 23–24 October in Luxembourg.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 25 October 1989.

  Organic Farming
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to evaluate the applicability to the United Kingdom of organic farming methods recommended in the report on alternative agriculture, released by the United States National Research Council in September.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18 October 1989 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) at column 132 which outlined ways in which the Government are encouraging British farmers to respond to demand for organic produce. My Department will also consider the recent American report.

  Less Favoured Areas
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the United Kingdom Government's response to the European Commission's proposal to limit the amount of total compensatory payment to individual farm holdings in lesss favoured areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government remain strongly opposed to the principle of limits based on farm size. Such limits are particularly difficult to justify in less favoured areas, since there is no correlation between the size of a farm and the
  47
  degree of severity of the permanent natural handicap. I have left the Agriculture Council in no doubt as to the strength of my views on the Commission's current proposals for hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Grant Claims
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requirements are stipulated by his Department in respect of the submission of receipts and invoices accompanying claims for payment under agricultural grant schemes operated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The principal farm capital grant schemes currently operated by my Department are the farm and conservation grant scheme and the farm diversification grant scheme. For both, claims for grant must be supported by appropriate documentation which normally consists of a properly receipted invoice. We reserve the right, however, to seek additional information where this is thought necessary to ensure that public money is being properly disbursed.

  Tonnes (except where shown)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  Coffee

  117,239

  110,998

  108,475

  120,203

  121,303

  Sugar

  1,410,291

  1,330,614

  1,309,997

  1,254,863

  1,290,446

  Bananas

  309,445

  323,728

  343,107

  359,569

  388,154

  Orange juice concentrate2

  102,510

  102,342

  125,095

  139,487

  137,007

  African palm oil

  162,608

  217,823

  276,730

  288,935

  286,443

  Details from Overseas Trade Statistics.

  1 Provisional.

  2 '000 litres.

  Details of the countries from which the United Kingdom imports these commodities are in a table which I will be depositing in the Library of the House as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any meat for human consumption is currently being imported from the United States of America.

  Mr. Curry
  Imports of beef for human consumption from the United States of America since January 1989 have been as follows:

  Tonnes

  January

  147

  February

  46

  March

  59

  April

  0

  May

  12

  June

  6

  July

  6

  August

  13

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the report on the work in 1988 of his advisory committee on pesticides.

  Food Safety Directorate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many staff will be employed in his food safety directorate; how many of these will be food inspectors; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the remit of his food safety directorate;

  (3) whether he intends to consult outside organisations on the establishment of a food safety directorate; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether he will create any new posts in setting up his food safety directorate; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) whom he will appoint as the director of his food safety directorate.

  Mr. Gummer
  I shall make a further announcement shortly.

  Food Imports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries from which the United Kingdom imports(a) coffee, (b) sugar, (c) bananas, (d) orange juice concentrate, and (e) African palm oil; and if he will give the amounts of each product imported in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The quantities of each product imported are given in the following table:

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1988 report of the advisory committee on pesticides is expected to be published in the first quarter of 1990.

  Potato Planting
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards there are to ensure that targeted potato acreage is actually planted.

  Mr. Curry
  The Potato Marketing Board is required, under the terms of its financial agreement with Government, to ensure that plantings by registered producers are as close as possible to the target area. It set quota area as a percentage of producers' basic area accordingly, and producers who underplant are penalised in subsequent years because their basic area is reduced.

  Levy Schemes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of all the levy schemes which he operates and for each one the industry it is imposed upon, and the use to which the money levied is put and the amount collected for which most recent figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 October 1989]: The list includes levy schemes for which I have statutory

  49
  authority excluding marketing board levies. The organisation originating or operating these schemes is included in the list as I do not have responsibility for operating every scheme.

  Organisation

  Levy

  Industry

  Purpose

  Amount collected

  Period

  European Community

  Milk Co-responsibility Levy (EC)

  Milk Producers

  80 per cent. likely to go to market support measures, rest on promotion of dairy products and improvement of milk hygiene

  £52·8 million

  1988–89

  European Community

  Milk Supplementary Levy (EC)

  Milk Producers

  Levied on over-quota milk production proceeds used to finance disposal of EC dairy surplus

  £15·6 million

  1988–89

  European Community

  Cereals Co-responsibility Levy

  Cereals Industry

  Contributes to the costs involved in disposing of surplus production

  £50·8 million

  1988

  European Community

  Sugar Production Levies

  Sugar Processors who pass back 60 per cent. to beet growers

  Used to offset cost of export refunds on quota sugar

  £31·65 million

  1988–89

  European Community

  Storage Levy

  First marketing of sugar by producers and merchants

  Used to offset costs of storage refund scheme

  £26·37 million

  1988–89

  MAFF

  Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Fund

  Growers and Processors of Home Grown Sugar Beet

  Research and Education in matters affecting the growing of home grown sugar beet

  £1·7 million

  1987–88

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Meat and Livestock Commission Levy General levy 3 species promotion levies on beef, sheep and pork

  Slaughters and exporters of live animals. Slaughters recover ½ general levy and all promotion levy from seller

  General activities on livestock, meat and meat production

  £17·7 million

  1987–88

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Pig Industry Levy Scheme1

  Pig Industry

  Eradication of Aujeszky's disease

  £4·3 million

  1988–89

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Home Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme 1987

  Cereals Industry

  Market information service, R&D contribution to Food From Britain and promotion of British cereal exports

  £3·58 million

  1988–89

  Horticultural Development Council

  Horticultural R&D Levy

  Horticulture Industry

  To finance R&D levy is at the rate of ¾ per cent. on sales

  £1 million

  Apple and Pear Development Council

  This body is being wound up; a successor body which will operate under new rules is planned

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy) Regulation 1988 Confirmatory Order 1989

  Sea Fish Industry

  Promotion of the efficiency of sea fish industry

  £3·4 million

  1988–89

  MAFF Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Annual Fees for product licences for Animal Medicines

  Animal Health Industry

  Contributes to the cost of the licensing system for animal medicines

  £442,000

  1988–89

  MAFF

  Pesticides Levy Scheme

  Pesticides Industry

  Monitoring use and residues in foodstuffs, human tissues and the environment

  £2·45 million

  Beginning of 1989

  International Cocoa Agreement

  $30 per tonne

  Cocoa importers

  Finance price stabilising measures

  $1·8 million

  1 October 1988 to 30 September 1989

  1 Levy suspended on 2 October 1989.

  Salmon
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the member states of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation which
  50
  still allow monofilament drift net fishing in their waters, and those which do not, indicating in each of the latter cases, the date on which such nets were banned and the reasons given for the ban.
  51
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: We understand that of the nine contracting parties to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, drift netting for salmon takes place in the USSR, Finland, the European Community and Greenland (which is represented in the organisation by Denmark as a separate contracting party for this purpose). The remaining contracting parties (Canada, USA, Iceland, Sweden and Norway) have either not used drift nets or have ceased to do so. Drift nets can be made of monofilament, multi-monofilament, or multi-filament material; we do not have definite information as to which of these types of net are used in each of the contracting parties specified although I understand that monofilament netting is in use in Greenland as well as in parts of the European Community. NASCO has made no recommendations on drift netting for salmon. We have no comprehensive records of the dates when action was taken by some contracting parties or of the reasons advanced at the time. Both are clearly matters for the contracting parties themselves.

  Food Irradiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 27 June,Official Report, column 443, how he intends to consult the public on his proposals to lift the ban on food irradiation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I intend that there will be ample opportunity for all those matters affected by proposed regulations on food. Under the proposals shoppers would of course be able to make up their minds on irradiation as it is intended that food which has been irradiated will be clearly labelled.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Personal Pensions
  Mrs Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have taken out personal pension schemes; what is the estimated cost to the national insurance fund for 1989–90 and 1990–91; and how much of this cost is accounted for by the 2 per cent. inducement under section 1 of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mrs Gillian Shephard
  A total of 3·5 million people have so far applied for an appropriate personal pension. The most recent estimate of the revenue forgone by the national insurance fund in respect of minimum contribution to personal pension schemes is £2,580 million in 1989–90 and £2,020 million in 1990–91. Of these amounts £720 million and £520 million respectively relate to the cost of the incentive.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Industrial Injury and Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publicise fully in the media and by leaflets section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989 to avoid unnecessary hardship to claimants awaiting compensation for industrial injury or disease.

  Mr. Scott
  A fully comprehensive guide to recovery from compensation awards of amounts equivalent to 52
  benefit will be available early next year. It is intended for both those paying compensation and solicitors and others advising victims. Officials are in close touch with the insurance industry, The Law Society, The Law Society of Scotland and the TUC amongst others on both the content and distribution of the guide to ensure maximum coverage. A separate leaflet will be available in local offices to explain the scheme to claimants.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information his Department has with regard to problems arising on benefit claims due to failure to pay or late payment of national insurance contributions by employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No records are kept of the number of persons whose employers have either failed to pay contributions or have paid them late. However, we have an established procedure which is used where benefit is claimed and the non-payment or late payment of contributions is caused through no fault of an employee. In such cases the employee's correct contribution position is urgently established and his record is credited with the relevant contributions, which in turn allows benefit to be paid. These contributions are treated as paid on time, and this ensures that individual benefit rights are not affected.

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of crisis loans are estimated to be paid out by his Department's officials to bridge the periods when claimants are left without money after transferring from sickness benefit to unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement about the effect of benefits paid in arrears on crisis funds.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that information relating to the situation described is not available. However £5 million, representing 3·5 per cent. of the loans budget was paid in 1988–89 in circumstances where payment of benefit in arrears was a factor.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review the arrangements which leave claimants transferring from unemployment benefit to sickness benefit without any money for two weeks.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Unemployment benefit is paid fortnightly in arrears, and sickness benefit is paid weekly in arrears. There should therefore be no gap in payment when transferring from unemployment to sickness benefit.

  Travel Warrants
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review the regulations preventing his Department's officials from meeting the cost of travel warrants of claimants travelling for job interviews outside the area where they reside.

  Mr. Scott
  No. Where employers do not provide for such costs, the travel-to-interview scheme administered by the employment service is available. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  War Widows
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the years 1973, 1976, 1979, 1982, 1985 and 1988 the number of women designated as war widows.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The numbers are as follows:

  Number

  1973

  96,181

  1976

  86,854

  1979

  78,621

  1982

  71,592

  1985

  64,859

  1988

  57,751

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the numbers by the last serving rank, for Army equivalent, of men who died or left the services before 31 March 1973 and whose widows are at present in receipt of the state war widow's pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. There are, however, 56,176 widows currently receiving war widow's pension (at quarter ending 30 September 1989) of whom it is estimated about 1,200 are the widows of men who served in the Armed Forces on or after 31 March 1973.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there have been any changes to the cash limits or running costs limits of his Department for 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class XV vote 6 (housing benefit administration) will be increased by £3,000,000 from £128,904,000 to £131,904,000. The revision provides for payments to local authorities towards the costs incurred in preparing to implement changes to the housing benefit scheme and the community charge rebate scheme which provides for new premiums for poorer pensioners, more generous rules for certain 16 and 17-year-old claimants and the inclusion of hostel dwellers in the housing benefit scheme.

  The cash limit for class XV vote 7 (administration and miscellaneous services) will be increased by £13,770,000 from £1,581,348,000 to £1,595,118,000. The revision takes account of the abolition of the earnings rule and national insurance contribution changes announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement, namely £16,787,000, the ministerial decision to provide extra help to poorer pensioners, £7,800,000, an increase in the grant to the independent living fund who make payments to very severely disabled persons, £6,000,000, and a reassessment of requirements resulting from the division of the Departments of Social Security and of Health, £59,000. These additional requirements are partially offset by an increase in receipts of £16,876,000 to the vote. The balance of the increase apart from the £59,000 transferred from class XIV vote 3, will be charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure. As a result the running cost limit of the Department of Social Security is increased by £24,646,000 from £1,711,885,000 to £1,736,531,000.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the number of eligible claimants for child benefit in Wales and (b) the total child benefit paid in Wales for each of the last five years in (i) cash prices and (ii) constant prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figure is for December 1988, when about 348,000 claimants in Wales were receiving child benefit in respect of some 623,000 children. The estimated proportion of child benefit expenditure for Wales in each year from 1984–85 was:

  £ million

  Cash prices

  1988–89 prices

  1984–85

  220·5

  271·1

  1985–86

  230·6

  268·8

  1986–87

  234·3

  264·6

  1987–88

  238·3

  255·7

  1988–89

  234·0

  234·0

  Computer Programme (Norcoss)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security from how many companies his Department intends inviting bids for the running of its ACC programme at Norcoss, Blackpool.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The arrangements for the running of the Department's area computer centre at Norcross will be announced in due course.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Stillborn Children
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for the regulations existing in England regarding the registration of stillborn children to be applied to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Since May last, the same arrangements as those existing in England in relation to still-birth registration have applied in Northern Ireland.

  Hospital Cleaning
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the chairman of each area health and social services board as to(a) the number of staff in each board area who will be redundant after competitive tendering for hospital cleaning services has been completed, (b) the estimated number of man hours required in each area board to ensure high standards of cleaning following competitive tendering contracts for hospital cleaning, and (c) the estimated percentage of hospital cleaning which will be carried out by the private sector following acceptance of current tenders by each board stating the figures for each board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  No. The health and social services board will not be in a position to provide information on the implications for staff or the mix of public and private sector contracts for hospital cleaning services until after the competitive tendering exercise has been completed. No prior estimate is made of man hours required.

  National Health Service (Competitive Tendering)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the progress of his plans to encourage competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Northern Ireland stating for each health and social services board in Northern Ireland the services which have been contracted out, together with the amounts of the tenders submitted and the savings to be achieved in each case; and if he will list the services which were tendered for by in-house teams and the outcome of such bids, together with reasons given by boards for accepting or rejecting such bids.

  Mr. Needham
  To date 12 per cent., by value, of domestic, catering and laundry services have been market tested and 10 contracts have been awarded (three contracted out and seven retained in-house). A further 22 per cent., by value, of these services are out to tender.

  The services contracted out are as follows:

  Board and service contracted out

  Amount of tender £

  Net estimated savings £

  Eastern Board

  Domestic services—Lisburn unit of management

  Lagan Valley hospital

  343,000

  140,000

  Community facilities

  41,000

  Western Board

  Catering services—Londonderry, Limavady and Strabane unit of management

  1,881,000

  1,160,000

  In-house teams have tendered for 11 contracts and have been successful in seven as follows:

  Catering

  Omagh and Fermanagh units of management

  Domestic services

  Antrim hospitals

  Antrim—other facilities

  Ballymena hospitals

  Ballymena—other facilities

  Magherafelt and Cookstown hospitals

  Magherafelt and Cookstown—other facilities

  The identity of tenderers for particular elements of their services is essentially a matter for the boards themselves. The reasons given by boards for accepting or rejecting such bids reflect the criteria set out by the Department, which emphasised the importance of maintaining a high-quality service.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has about penalty point systems for private contractors undertaking work in the National Health Service; and if he will call for a report from the area boards as to their policies in this respect.

  Mr. Needham
  No penalty point systems are in operation in any of the contracts awarded by the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland. However, contracts do contain default clauses that enable boards to take preventive measures if the contractor fails to meet the contracted standard. Boards will be establishing formal systems to monitor contract compliance and ensure a high-quality service is provided.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will call for a report from the 56
  chairman of the Eastern health and social services board as to his board's policies for consultation with the work force about competitive tendering issues.

  Mr. Needham
  No. We are confident that the board has consulted with representatives of the work force, in keeping with normal practice.

  Contraception
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the breakdown of the number of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment(a) by contraceptive method and (b) through health and social services boards or general practitioners in Northern Ireland in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: The information cannot be provided in precisely the form requested. The figures available are given in the table:

  1987

  1988

  Health and social services boards1

  73,378

  74,093

  General practitioners2

  Oral contraceptives

  47,820

  51,673

  Intrauterine devices

  1,919

  1,928

  Total

  49,739

  53,601

  TOTAL

  123,117

  127,694

  1 Numbers of individuals attending for advice and treatment.

  2 Numbers of individuals for whom contraceptives prescribed.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total cost of(a) general practitioner provision for family planning services and (b) family planning clinic services through health and social service boards in Northern Ireland for (i) 1985, (ii) 1986, (iii) 1987 and (iv) 1988, respectively.

  Mr. Needham
  (holding reply 23 October 1989): The information requested is: a. The total cost of general practitioner provision for family planning services is as follows:

  Year ended

  £

  31 March 1985

  398,190

  31 March 1986

  454,674

  31 March 1987

  511,238

  31 March 1988

  587,189

  31 March 1989

  680,216

  b. The total cost of family planning services through health and social services boards in Northern Ireland is as follows:

  Year ended

  £

  31 March 1985

  480,720

  31 March 1986

  566,102

  31 March 1987

  603,078

  31 March 1988

  721,664

  31 March 1989

  770,843

  Secular Education
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made since July on the development of secular education in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  None. The law requires that religious instruction is given in all grant-aided schools other than nursery schools.

  Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current pupil to teacher ratio in Northern Ireland; what it was five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The 1988 pupil-teacher ratio is 18·4:1 which is the lowest on record. The comparable figures for five, 10 and 15 years ago are 18·7, 19·5 and 22·4 respectively.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of letters from hon. Members to his Department received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is not held in this form and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, every effort is made to reply to letters from hon. Members as soon as possible.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he has received any representations from the Government of Malaysia since May concerning the case of Mr. Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what communications he has had with bodies and individuals in Hong Kong in relation to the case of Lorrain Osman, in the past 12 months; what was the substance of those communications; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what communications he has received from the Governor of Hong Kong in relation to representations on behalf of the Malaysian Government concerning the case of Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what communications his Department has had with the Government of Malaysia concerning Mr. Lorrain Osman, a remand prisoner in Pentonville prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Since this matter is currently sub judice, it would not be appropriate for us to comment.

  Death Sentence (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that prisoners in Hong Kong gaols in 1997 will not be made subject to the death sentence for offences committed before the transfer; and if he will make a statement.
  58
  Mr. Maude
  Persons imprisoned in Hong Kong will, in accordance with the provisions of the joint declaration relating to the continuity of laws, remain subject to Hong Kong law. The joint declaration also provides that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force after 1997. In this connection it is noteworthy that article 15 of the covenant prohibits the imposition of a heavier penalty than that applicable when the offence was committed.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he now proposes to enter into with the People's Republic of China in relation to his legal and treaty obligations to prisoners extradited to Hong Kong and in prison there in June 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The joint declaration makes provision for us and the Government of the People's Republic of China to ensure the continued application of international rights and obligations affecting Hong Kong. The Chinese authorities have agreed that before 1997 we should authorise Hong Kong to conclude its own extradition agreements, designed to continue in force after 30 June 1997. These agreements will contain traditional safeguards for fugitive criminals. In addition, Hong Kong's domestic law will continue to provide traditional safeguards for fugitive criminals.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific arrangements and safeguards have been agreed with the Peole's Republic of China in relation to prisoners in Hong Kong gaols at the time of the transfer of sovereignty in 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Persons in prisons will be the responsibility of the Hong Kong authorities then as they are now. The prisoners will continue to be treated in accordance with Hong Kong's own criminal laws and legal system. No specific arrangements have been agreed.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of the provision in the law of the People's Republic of China that allows any person to call for the retrial of convicted persons, he has taken or proposes to take steps to protect prisoners in Hong Kong in 1997 from the use of this law against them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Under the provisions of the joint declaration and the draft Basic Law, Hong Kong will retain its own separate criminal laws and legal system after 1997. Annex III of the Basic Law specifies six Chinese national laws which will be extended to Hong Kong after 1997. The law mentioned in the question is not one of them.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that prisoners extradited from the United Kingdom to Hong Kong and in gaol at the time of the transfer to sovereignty, will be able to leave the colony at the end of their sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The freedom of all persons to leave the future special administrative region, if they have valid
  59
  travel documents, is established by the joint declaration. The draft basic law reflects the joint declaration in this respect.

  Hong Kong (Juries)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has taken any steps to examine the possible dangers of prejudice by juries in Hong Kong against non-local nationals facing trial in the Crown colony; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We are not aware of any complaints of this nature. In practice a considerable number of jurors are themselves non-local nationals.

  Punjab
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protests his Department has made about the renewal by the Indian Government of martial law in the Punjab.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. Martial law is not in force in the Punjab.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a copy of the report by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research on the prevention of geographical proliferation of nuclear weapons; nuclear-weapon-free zones and zones of peace in the southern hemisphere.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  "Science and Global Security"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that his departmental library subscribes to the journal "Science and Global Security".

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We understand that the journal "Science and Global Energy" will not be available for another four weeks. Issues of new journals are considered only after publication.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, of 17 October,Official Report, column 78, he will set out the names of all United Kingdom-based non-governmental organisations which have written to his Department on the non-proliferation treaty indicating those which have expressed concern over the United Kingdom's policy for the 1990 non-proliferation treaty fourth review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During the last six months, the only such organisation to have written in the terms described by the hon. Member is the European proliferation information centre.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what opportunity he took 60
  at the Commonwealth summit meeting in Kuala Lumpur to raise with the representatives of Guyana the matter of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the NPT fourth review conference, to be held next August, and the possibility of Guyana joining the NPT;

  (2) what opportunity he took at the Commonwealth summit meeting in Kuala Lumpur to raise with the representatives of Tanzania the matter of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the NPT fourth review conference, to be held next August, and the possibility of Tanzania joining the NPT;

  (3) what opportunity he took at the Commonwealth summit meeting in Kuala Lumpur to raise with the representatives of Zambia the matter of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the NPT fourth review conference, to be held next August, and the possibility of Zambia joining the NPT;

  (4) what opportunity he took at the Commonwealth summit meeting in Kuala Lumpur to raise with the representatives of Vanuatu the matter of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the NPT fourth review conference, to be held next August, and the possibility of Vanuatu joining the NPT.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This subject was not discussed.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether during his recent visit to Washington DC, he raised with his American counterpart joint strategies to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and increase membership.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. But such matters are regularly discussed bilaterally in appropriate fora, most recently in the margins of the second preparatory committee, which took place on 11–15 September.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he raised at the Commonwealth summit meeting in Kuala Lumpur the matter of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the possibility of(a) Pakistan, (b) India and (c) Zimbabwe signing the treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Science and Peace
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government's policy is towards the Costa Rican resolution and proposal at the United Nations for a Government-sponsored and supported international week of science and peace each November.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no wish to obstruct the measures envisaged in the resolution concerned, but doubt their value. We do not intend to allocate to them resources better employed elsewhere.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to encourage universities and other institutions of advanced studies, scientific academies and institutes, professional associations and individuals in the scientific community to hold during the week 11 to 17 November lectures, seminars, special debates and other activities conducive to the study and dissemination of information on the links between science and technology and the maintenance of peace and security, as agreed upon in United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/43/61.
  61
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Initiatives of this sort at the United Nations are no substitute for the serious endeavours in which Britain plays a leading part. We therefore see no advantage in taking specific steps to encourage institutions to participate in these initiatives.

  Derek Smith
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he possesses concerning the arrest in Athens on 11 October of Derek Smith, a United Kingdom citizen, on charges of trying to sell uranium to a Greek nuclear research centre.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Mr. Smith was arrested in Athens on 10 October 1989. He was subsequently charged with possession of radioactive material and smuggling and is remanded in custody. The case is under investigation by the Greek authorities. Mr. Smith is legally represented. Consular access has been granted.

  General Affairs Council
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed at the Meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers on 14 and 15 October; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting.

  Mr. Maude
  There were informal discussions on a range of Community and European political co-operation issues, including eastern Europe.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he took to ensure the factual accuracy of information released by the United Kingdom embassy in Oslo in regard to the proposals to examine the off-shore sub-seabed disposal of radioactive wastes off Sellafield and Dounreay.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Her Majesty's embassy in Oslo was fully briefed on this matter by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment.

  Global Resource Information Database
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the United Kingdom has given or offered towards the establishment by the United Nations of a global resource information database.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The global resource information database is a powerful computer-based system designed to present a variety of natural resources information in a way that planners can easily use. It is based in Switzerland and funded by the United Nations environmental programme (UNEP). Britain has not only supported UNEP from its inception under the usual UN budgetary formula, but this year made a substantial voluntary donation which more than doubled our contribution to £3 million.

  Hong Kong Register of Shipping
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the transitional arrangements for shipping on the Hong Kong register.
  62
  Mr. Maude
  Section VIII of annex I to the Sino-British joint declaration provides for the HKSAR to maintain Hong Kong's previous systems of shipping management and regulation and to continue to maintain a shipping register. Work is well advanced on the introduction of the new Hong Kong register which will remain in place after 1997. On its introduction, as a transitional arrangement, vessels then registered in Hong Kong will have the right to transfer to the new register.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the sale of Government houses in the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Executive Council decided on 15 August 1989 to sell a number of its 164 houses and flats because it wanted to encourage owner occupation, and because shortage of manpower made maintenance of Government houses difficult. The proceeds of the sales would be used to help finance new projects designed to reduce Stanley's housing shortage.

  Offers to purchase these houses were made to 59 sitting tenants on 15 September.

  A general election was held in the Falklands on 11 October and the newly-elected councillors are currently reviewing FIG's housing policy including the disposal programme.

  Cambodia
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the proposal for an international mission to visit Cambodia to verify the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our objective remains a comprehensive political settlement in Cambodia. An effective international control mechanism to verify Vietnamese troop withdrawal would be an important element of such a settlement.

  Leonid Stonov
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Leonid Stonov of Moscow.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Leonid Stonov is among those cases on which we press the Soviet authorities. Most recently my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this case among others with Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 29 September. We will not let up until Leonid Stonov is given permission to leave the USSR.

  Kelman Family
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Boris and Alla Kelman and their sons Efim and Maxim of Leningrad.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have raised this case frequently with the Soviet authorities, most recently when my right
  63
  hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 29 September. We understand that Boris Kelman's secrecy restrictions have now been removed and the family should be free to emigrate. We will maintain our pressure until they actually leave the USSR.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the management of hazardous, toxic and industrial wastes in Gibraltar has been in full compliance with the 1980 Athens protocol to the Barcelona convention for the protection of the Mediterranean.

  Mr. Maude
  The information required is not immediately available. A reply to the hon. Member's question will be sent to him in due course.

  Iraq (Aircraft Sales)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his colleagues in the European Community over the sale of jet aircraft to Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. We keep in close contact with our European partners over the situation in the Gulf. But policies on defence sales are a matter for the judgment of individual Governments.

  Kurds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports Her Majesty's Government have received on the conference on Kurdish culture held in Paris on 14 and 15 October; and if he will make a statement on recognition of Kurdish national claims.

  Mr. Maude
  We have received a number of reports about this conference and the attitude towards it of the Turkish and Iraqi Governments. The Government do not recognise any claim to an independent Kurdish state, although we acknowledge the Kurds' cultural identity.

  Defence and Disarmament Talks
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-governmental organisations present at the meeting on defence and disarmament developments held at the Foreign Office on 18 October; and if he will set out the main areas of non-governmental organisation concerns and disagreements with his Department's policies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I held a meeting with non-governmental organisations interested in arms control and disarmament issues on 18 October. The major topics discussed at the meeting, held under Chatham house rules, were nuclear non-proliferation, START, the partial test ban treaty, conventional arms control, chemical weapons, international arms transfers, and East-West relations.

  The following organisations took part:
  The Council for Education in World Citizenship, Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, the European Atlantic movement, the National Peace Council, Peace
  64
  Through NATO, Quaker Peace and Service, Scientists Against Nuclear Arms, the United Nations Association, Verification Technology Information Centre, the Medical Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, World Disarmament Campaign, International Peace Bureau, European Proliferation Information Centre, British Atlantic Committee, British Council of Churches, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Centre for International Peace Building Studies, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Coalition for Peace Through Security, Committee for International Justice and Peace, Council for Arms Control, Families for Defence, Greenpeace International, British Pugwash Group. Programme for Promoting Nuclear Non Proliferation Safer World Project, Institute for European Defence and Security Studies.

  Regular bi-annual meetings between Foreign Office Ministers and non-governmental organisations on arms control and disarmament issues began in 1983 and are continuing.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information was given to the group of non-governmental organisations specialising in defence and disarmament issues in the meeting held on 18 October at the Foreign Office on the subjects of(a) Her Majesty's Government's policies and initiatives for the fourth review conference of the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and (b) the forthcoming amendment conference for the 1963 partial test ban treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There was a general discussion of both subjects at the meeting which was one of a regular series held under Chatham house rules.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting in Paris on 25 October of the Co-ordinating Committee on Multilateral Export Controls.

  Mr. Maude
  The co-ordinating committee (COCOM) held its annual high level meeting in Paris on 25 and 26 October. The meeting reviewed progress in COCOM's work and reached agreement on a work programme for the coming year.

  Against the background of current international and industrial developments, partners recognised the need to maintain the process of streamlining COCOM controls whilst protecting their fundamental strategic security interests. The next high level meeting will be held in 1990.

  British Citizens (Detention Overseas)
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are in detention overseas; how many of these are on drugs charges; what were the comparable figures last year; what action Her Majesty's Government is taking on this problem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A total of 1,318 British citizens were in detention overseas on 30 June 1989, the latest complete figures available; 592 (45 per cent.) were on drugs charges. On 30 June 1988 the figures were 1,175 with 521 (44 per cent.) on drugs charges. Penalties for drug trafficking are becoming more severe—a number of countries now impose the death penalty. We have already taken measures to draw attention to the dangers of carrying and using
  65
  drugs overseas in consular advice leaflets issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Short films have been distributed to television stations, tour operators and other outlets, each carrying a consular message. The drugs film has been widely broadcast. In addition drugs warnings are given in pamphlets issued with all passports and British visitors passports. The Department has engaged a firm of consultants to advise on carrying forward our consular information campaign, including the drug message. We continue to seize every opportunity to obtain free publicity for the dangers of carrying and using drugs abroad.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to make any changes to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing cash limits and running costs limit for 1989–90.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The cash limit and running costs limit for class II, vote 1 (overseas representation) will be reduced by £85,000. The cash limit will be reduced from £453,855,000 to £453,770,000 and the Department's running costs limit will be reduced from £434,606,000 to £434,521,000. These reductions reflect a transfer of FCO payroll costs to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 2, (other external relations) will be decreased by £500,000 from £171,998,000 to £171,499,000 which also reflects a token increase in provision of £1,000. The token supplementary allows for the transfer of savings to the Overseas Development Administration to finance aid to Poland, partly offset by an increase to finance the United Kingdom's assistance to Colombia in the fight against drugs.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has happened to the 58·9 kg. of ivory tusks seized by the Hong Kong authorities as detailed in his reply of 27 July,Official Report, column 861, and what information he has on the second case referred to therein.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 18 October 1989]: The 58·9 kg. of ivory tusks were confiscated and retained in safe custody by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, the CITES management authority in Hong Kong. In the second case, in accordance with legal advice, no prosecution was initiated, but the owner voluntarily surrendered the 15 kg. into the custody of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants (Overseas Service)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are currently serving overseas; in what categories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  At 1 April 1989 there were some 6,200 civil servants serving overseas, of whom about 2,700 were members of Her Majesty's diplomatic service. Additionally, there were some 700 contract technical co-operation officers employed by the Overseas Development Administration.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any proposals to change the 1989–90 cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) will be increased by £1,370,000 from £33,819,000 to £35,189,000. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The increase is required to cover the additional cost of making physical security improvements to the Downing street complex and other buildings; the cost of further refurbishment and maintenance in 10 Downing street (this cost is partially offset by appropriations in aid from the Property Services Agency); the cost of expanding the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel as recommended in Sir Robert Andrew's review of the Government legal services; and the initial cost of improving the accommodation at the Civil Service college, Sunningdale park. The supplementary estimate also includes a transfer of provision between the Central Office of Information and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service to reflect the transfer of responsibility for the information officers management unit to the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service along with an increase in provision to cover the cost of expanding the unit. In addition the supplementary estimate takes account of a reduction in provision as a result of transferring responsibility for conducting language allowance examinations to the Home Office and a reclassification of certain receipts.

  Some of the increases have a consequent effect on the Department's running costs limit which will increase by £898,000 from £30,350,000 to £31,248,000.

  Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service which reports of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, relating to the Civil Service, have been the subject of a Government response during the current session; and what further responses to such reports he expects will be published in the near future.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government have made one such reply relating to the "Next Steps" initiative, published today (Cm. 841). The reply reports good progress in implementing "Next Steps". A total of ten agencies have been established and some 40 further activities have been announced by Departments as candidates for agency status, with more to come. I am grateful to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee for the positive and helpful interest which it has taken in this most important initiative.

SCOTLAND

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any information of the number of tenants who may wish to participate in his rents into mortages scheme.
  67
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since my announcement of the outline of the scheme earlier this year, there have been several hundred inquiries from people interested in purchasing under the scheme. We expect up to 5,000 participants during the three-year pilot scheme announced today.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the operation of his proposed rents into mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland today announced the issue by Scottish Homes of an explanatory leaflet which gives details of the rents to mortgages scheme and advises tenants how to apply. Copies of this leaflet have been placed in the Libraries of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons.

  Factory Accommodation
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance the Government propose to give in order to ease the demand for affordable factory accommodation in the Borders region in the light of the decision by the Scottish Development Agency that it could not develop prize sites due to a shortage of finances.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Scottish Development Agency has not decided to curtail its involvement in the development

  Site

  District

  Date designated

  Priest Island (Summer Isles)

  Ross and Cromarty

  1 October 1986

  Loch of Skene

  Gordon

  1 October 1986

  Loch Eye

  Ross and Cromarty

  1 October 1986

  Gruinart Flats

  Argyll and Bute

  14 July 1988

  Eilean Na Muice Duibhe (Duich Moss)

  Argyll and Bute

  14 July 1988

  Bridgend Flats

  Argyll and Bute

  14 July 1988

  Laggan Peninsula

  Argyll and Bute

  14 July 1988

  Gladhouse Reservoir

  Midlothian

  14 July 1988

  Din Moss—Hoselaw Loch

  Roxburgh

  14 July 1988

  The information sought in part (b) of the question is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government hope to be able to announce further designations soon.

  Listed Buildings (Orkney)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the principal inspector of historic buildings last visited Orkney to view listed buildings in the islands area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 14 and 15 August 1989.

  Contraception
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the breakdown of numbers of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment by(a) contraceptive method and (b) source of treatment, clinic or general practitioner, in Scotland for the years 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is as follows:
  68
  of factory sites in Borders region. The agency is actively involved in targeting its resources to meet the requirements of industry in the area. This year, the agency has completed a 12,000 square foot block at Tweedbank industrial estate near Galashiels at a cost of £250,000. A further block of similar size is under construction and the agency has plans to develop another 15,500 sq ft of accommodation on this site. Other developments for specific companies are underway and the agency, in partnership with the regional council, is committed to considering the potential for developing a number of sites within Borders region.

  Protected Birds
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state for each of the last five years, and for 1989 to date(a) the number and locations of special protection areas designated under European Community directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds and (b) the amount of public money in constant 1989 prices spent in each of the last five years on meeting the United Kingdom's responsibilities and obligations in Scotland under that directive; and if he will make a statement on the further implementation of the directive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following special protection areas in Scotland have been designated since 1984:

  1987

  1988

  Family planning (clinic services)1 2

  People attending

  126,955

  117,118

  Contraceptive method chosen

  Oral contraceptive

  68,222

  64,342

  IUD

  16,099

  14,268

  Cap/diaphragm

  8,911

  7,597

  Condom

  15,622

  13,077

  Other/not known/not applicable

  11,755

  11,458

  None

  6,346

  6,376

  Family planning (domiciliary) services

  Women seen

  2,994

  2,651

  General practitioner contraceptive services (as at 31 December)

  Women registered with a GP for ordinary contraceptive services or IUD fitting3

  272,598

  276,232

  1 Includes all clinic services provided including hospital, and including any provided on an agency basis. Excludes any non-clinic services which might be given to hospital inpatients or day patients.

  2 Excludes data from 1 December 1987 for Fife Health Board where the relevant information is not available.

  3 Excludes temporary residents.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost for 1987 and 1988 in Scotland of(a) general practitioner provision for National Health Service family planning services and (b) family planning clinic provision by area health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the years ended 31 March 1988 and 31 March 1989 the cost of fees to general medical practitioners for family planning services was £2,915,401 and £3,325,000 respectively. The level of provison of family planning clinics (and the cost of this provision) is a matter for individual health boards to determine within the resources available to them. Information about expenditure by boards on these clinics is not held centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how quickly his Department aims to reply to letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department aims to reply as soon as possible to all correspondence from hon. Members and others.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the number of applications for regional selective assistance received between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures requested for regional selective assistance are as follows:

  Number

  Applications received between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989:

  430

  Offers made between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989:

  346

  Total value of these offers

  £117 million

  Total gross expenditure on regional selective assistance (RSA) in Scotland in 1988–89 was £38 million (equivalent to around £40 million at estimated constant 1989–90 prices). Gross provision for 1989–90 is £52 million. Planned net provision for regional selective assistance and related schemes (including regional enterprise grants) consistent with figures given in "Public Expenditure to 1991–92, A Commentary on The Scotland Programme" for each of the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 is approximately £80 million. Actual expenditure, both this year and in these future years, will depend on the extent to which companies come forward with good projects and also on the extent to which they submit claims on existing offers. We shall continue to encourage Scottish businesses to take full advantage of the provision available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will give(a) the total number of applications for regional development grants outstanding at 31 March 1988, (b) the total number of applications
  70
  processed by 30 September 1989, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure planned for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash at constant prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures are for the revised regional development grant (RDG2) scheme.

  Number

  Number of applications outstanding at 31 March 1988:

  5,117

  Number of these processed by 30 September 1989:

  5,117

  Total value of approvals on these applications

  £189 million

  Total gross expenditure on the RDG2 scheme in 1988–89 was £51 million (equivalent to around £54 million at estimated constant 1989–90 prices). Estimated gross expenditure on the RDG2 scheme in 1989–90 is expected to be around £53 million. Planned net provision for both the old and revised regional development grant schemes consistent with figures given in "Public Expenditure to 1991–92, A Commentary on The Scotland Programme" for each of the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 is approximately £30 million.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the total income and expenditure of the Scottish Development Agency, (b) the total public expenditure contribution to the Scottish Development Agency and (c) the total expenditure and the number of staff of Locate in Scotland for each of the years 1979–80 to 1988–89 inclusive and in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The information on Scottish Development Agency income and expenditure is set out in the table.

  Total expenditure

  Total income

  Total expenditure contribution

  Cash

  1988–89 prices

  Cash

  1988–89 prices

  Cash

  1988–89 prices

  1979–80

  80·7

  151·6

  15·8

  29·7

  65·0

  122·1

  1980–81

  97·7

  154·8

  17·8

  28·2

  79·9

  126·6

  1981–82

  97·6

  140·9

  21·4

  30·9

  76·2

  110·0

  1982–83

  122·7

  165·4

  21·8

  29·4

  100·9

  136·0

  1983–84

  115·9

  149·4

  27·4

  35·3

  88·5

  114·0

  1984–85

  117·8

  144·7

  38·7

  47·5

  79·0

  97·0

  1985–86

  131·1

  152·6

  36·5

  42·5

  94·6

  110·1

  1986–87

  130·9

  147·4

  41·7

  47·0

  89·2

  100·5

  1987–88

  135·4

  145·2

  41·5

  44·5

  93·9

  100·7

  1988–89

  142·7

  142·7

  51·6

  51·6

  91·1

  91·1

  The agency's outturn of expenditure (as distinct from budgeted provision) is based on the net presentation employed in public expenditure White Papers, which excludes the agency's expenditure of income received on its investment function. Such income has been more substantial in recent years.

  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible in response to his questions about expenditure by Locate in Scotland and its staff numbers.

  Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the total number of applications received for investment grants and innovation

  71
  grants from 1 April 1988 to 30 September 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure planned for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash at constant prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures requested for investment grants and innovation grants, within the regional enterprise grant scheme, are as follows:

  Number

  Number of applications received between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989

  797

  Number of offers made between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989

  445

  Total value of these offers

  £4 million

  Total gross expenditure on regional enterprise grants in 1988–89 was £282,000 (equivalent to around £300,000 at estimated constant 1988–89 prices). Gross provision for 1989–90 is £6 million although we do not expect this to be fully taken up. Planned net provision for regional selective assistance and related schemes (including regional enterprise grants) consistent with figures given in "Public Expenditure to 1991–92, A Commentary on The Scotland Programme" for each of the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 is approximately £80 million.

  Hospitals (Self-governing Status)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the timetable for implementing his plans for self-governing status; and if he has a particular date by which expressions of interest have to be registered.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 October 1989]: If the hon. Gentleman studies the White Paper he will find that on page 79 we indicated that we aim to establish at least two National Health Service trusts in Scotland by 1992. No deadline has been set for the receipt of expressions of interest in self-governing status.

  Salmon
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the implementation of the recommendations of the Nature Conservancy Council's report of August on the genetic impact of farmed Atlantic salmon on wild salmon stocks.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: The Nature Conservancy Council's report is a valuable contribution to the increasing body of work on the genetics of farmed and wild salmon.

  DAFS fisheries scientists are already studying various aspects of the genetic relationships in farmed and wild salmon populations in Scotland. Scottish fisheries research report No. 42, "Genetic Protein Variation in Farmed Atlantic Salmon in Scotland: Comparison of Farmed Strains with their Wild Source of Populations" was published in August. Further studies on both wild and farmed populations of salmon have been completed. Others are in progress. The results of these studies will be made available as soon as possible. The suggestions in the Nature Conservancy Council report and elsewhere for future research will be taken into account in planning the Department's programme of scientific work in this field.
  72
  It is too early to predict what generally accepted scientific conclusions might emerge from current studies. At an international level, there have been discussions in both the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO). Further discussions are planned and scientists from DAFS and MAFF will continue to contribute to these.

THE ARTS

  Regional Arts
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last discussed regional priorities with the chairman of the Arts Council.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) earlier today.

  P. G. Wodehouse
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received seeking recognition of P. G. Wodehouse's contribution to the literary heritage of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not received any such representations, although I am of course aware of P. G. Wodehouse's immense contribution to the literature of this country.

  Museums (Grants)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what grants are available to museums during the current year; and what were available five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Over the last 15 years central Government expenditure on museums and galleries has risen as follows:

  1974–75, £17 million; 1979–80, £54 million; 1984–85, £98 million; 1989–90, £158 million. (All figures except 1974–75 include building expenditure.) The real terms increase since 1979–80 is 25 per cent.

  British Library
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the director of the British library with regard to its future as a copyright library.

  Mr. Luce
  I last met the chief executive of the British Library on 14 March 1989 to discuss the Library's strategic plan for 1989–94, "Gateway to Knowledge." I shall be meeting the British Library board on 1 November.

  Museums (Fire Precautions)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what fire precautions have been taken at national museums and their stores.

  Mr. Luce
  The reviewing and upgrading of fire precautions at national museum and gallery premises is a continuous process.

  Following untying from the Property Services Agency in April 1988 this work is now being undertaken by the institutions with the advice of local fire authorities. Several

  73
  institutions are working towards the introduction of new fire alarm systems. These include the Tate gallery, the National gallery and the British museum.

  Greater London Arts
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of Greater London Arts to discuss the level of arts funding in London.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not done so recently.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the budget commitment for the Office of Arts and Libraries for the business sponsorship incentive scheme for the current financial year and what sum is yet to be awarded.

  Mr. Luce
  The budget for the business sponsorship incentive scheme for 1989–90 is £3 million to which I have allocated an extra £½ million to meet an increased demand for awards.

  Commitments have now used up all the available funds and I have reluctantly suspended the scheme until April 1990 when it will be resumed.

  Leicester Theatre
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next proposes to pay an official visit to the city of Leicester to inspect the work of its theatre.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no present plans to do so. I last visited arts organisations in Leicester in September 1988.

  National Museums
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of maintenance and staffing in the national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  The current year's provision for the national museums and galleries building and maintenance programme is £48 million. The number of staff in post at these museums and galleries was 5,399 on 1 April 1989.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the progress of the business sponsorship incentive scheme in the north-west.

  Mr. Luce
  The business sponsorship incentive scheme continues to be highly successful. In the north-west over £1 million of new money has been brought to the arts since the scheme's inception in 1984. Forty-eight arts organisations have won awards and 51 first-time and 20 existing sponsors have supported the arts.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much has been raised by the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Over the last two years the business sponsorship incentive scheme has raised £13·34 million new money for the arts. Nearly £9 million has come from new sponsorship and over £4·3 million in awards has been added by the Government.
  74
  The demand for awards under the scheme has been such that I have increased the budget by an extra £250,000 to £3·25 million this year.

  Museums (Funding)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has recently met the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission to discuss the future funding of museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Museum and Galleries Commission quite frequently and discuss a wide range of subjects, which have included museum and gallery funding.

  Yorkshire Arts Association
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of Yorkshire Arts Association to discuss the future of arts funding and administration in the region.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not done so.

  Local Museums and Galleries
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many local museums and galleries there are currently in the United Kingdom; and how many there were in 1983, differentiating between publicly and privately funded institutions.

  Mr. Luce
  The Museum Association database indicated that of the 1,750 museums and galleries in 1984, 116 were national and Government Department-funded museums, 717 were in the charge of local authorities and 917 were privately funded. I understand that the Museums and Galleries Commission presently estimates that the number of institutions has risen to 2,500 in 1989.

  South Bank Centre
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he will next meet the directors of the South Bank centre.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so. However, I meet the chairman of the South Bank centre regularly.

  Royal Festival Hall
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning the future of the Royal Festival hall and the South Bank.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of representations about the future of the South Bank centre which I have drawn to the attention of the Arts Council as the body responsible for allocating Government funding to the centre.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total spending and the total number of full-time equivalent staff employed by(a) all local authorities in England and (b) all local authorities

  75
  within the counties of Somerset, Avon and Gloucestershire, taken together, for the years 1971–72, 1972–73, 1973–74, 1974–75 and 1988–89, respectively.

  a. All local authorities in England (thousands)

  Staffing position in June

  Expenditure1 £ million

  Total f.t.e.

  Total no

  Full-time no

  Part-time no

  1971–72

  3,123

  n.a.

  2,103

  1,411

  692

  1972–73

  3,661

  n.a.

  2,205

  1,472

  733

  1973–74

  4,218

  n.a.

  2,310

  1,526

  784

  1974–752

  5,531

  n.a.

  2,299

  1,493

  806

  1988–893 4

  1,862

  2,440

  1,486

  954

  1988–894 5

  25,403

  1,930

  2,514

  1,548

  966

  b. All local authorities within the counties of Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire6 (thousands)

  Staffing position at June

  Expenditure1 £ million

  Total f.t.e.

  Total no

  Full-time no

  Part-time no

  1974–752

  188

  n.a.

  n.a

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1988–893 4

  n.a.

  94

  54

  39

  1988–894 5

  909

  n.a.

  95

  55

  39

  n.a. = Not available.

  1 Available information about net spending in 1974–75 and earlier is denned as Rate Fund Revenue Account service expenditure on employees and running expenses, less sales, fees, charges, specific grants and other income. Other income excludes rate support grant and rate/precept income. The information for 1988–89 is, as far as possible, on the same basis as earlier years.

  2 Local authority responsibility for water, sewerage and health were transferred to regional water and regional health authorities. An estimated 90,000 employees were transferred to these authorities and to passenger transport executives.

  3 For comparability with data for earlier years (where available) these staffing figures cover local authority general services and police; all other law and order staff and agency staff are excluded since these figures were not collected before 1975.

  4 During 1986 and 1987 approximately 21,000 employees were transferred out of the local authority sector following the abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, and the change in status of local authority bus and municipal airport staff.

  5 Includes all local authority services.

  6 Expenditure information is not readily available for individual authorities before 1974–75 and staffing information for individual authorities is not available centrally prior to 1979. Comprehensive full time equivalent figures for individual authorities are not held locally.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what is his estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the number of the extra staff and other expenditure arising from the changes to the community charge announced in October.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials are in discussions with the local authority associations about the costs of preparing for transitional relief and about the costs of administration. In addition we are commissioning a study by consultants of these costs. Estimates of the costs will be made in the light of the discussions with the associations and the findings of the study. It is the Goverment's intention that a reasonable level of costs will be met in full.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide updates of tables J. 5 to J. 9 on pages 124 to 127 of Cmnd. 9714 "Paying for Local Government", for England only, incorporating the latest announcements on safety nets and transitional relief.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Updated estimates of the distributional impact of the new system of local government finance will be provided next month after I have announced my proposals on the distribution of standard spending grant for 1990–91. These will include the impact of safety nets and transitional relief.
  76
  Mr. Chope
  The available information is as follows:

ENVIRONMENT

  Skillnet Courses
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of trainees on skillnet courses in London Docklands achieved recognised qualifications.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Skillnet is an independent charity largely funded by the London Docklands Development Corporation. I understand that it has not been the practice to analyse the success rate of students sponsored by skillnet with reference to their achievement of recognised qualifications.

  Skillnet provides a wide range of training and counselling services aimed at helping some 5,000 local people each year to find work. Information about individuals accepted into all forms of training and counselling is routinely collected.

  As part of these activities skillnet funded 1,370 formal training places in the last financial year, almost entirely through other institutions. These courses are as much directed at securing training leading to early employment, or at basic foundation level, or in preparation for further education, as at obtaining recognised qualifications.

  In common with other funders of training, skillnet experience difficulty in regularly monitoring the results of such training courses for individuals, but a survey was undertaken recently. I am arranging for copies of the results to be placed in the Library of the House. Procedures for monitoring the performance of skillnet-assisted trainees are currently under review.

  Unlicensed Moneylenders
  Mr. David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to increase funding to local authority trading standards departments, so as to enable them to combat unlicensed moneylenders.

  Mr. Christopher Patten
  The main avenue for Government support for local authority services will be revenue support grant, which is in aid of services generally. It is for local authorities to decide how much to spend on any particular activity.

  Birchfield Estate, Birmingham
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department expects to make a decision on the request by Birmingham city council for grant aid for the Birchfield estate security project.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The scheme has been approved for funding under this year's Birmingham inner city partnership programme.

  Housing Action Trusts (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, as part of his consultation process, he has taken note of the recent public opinion poll on proposed housing action trust estates in the London borough of Lambeth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. I hope to discuss the proposals for the two estates comprising the proposed housing action trust with tenant and borough representatives soon. It is important that the proposals for the housing action trust should be fully understood.

  Housing Completions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the numbers of houses completed(a) in Burnley and (b) in each region in England by (i) local authorities, (ii) housing associations, (iii) private sector and (iv) housing co-operatives in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  Numbers of new housebuilding completions by local authorities, housing associations and the private sector in standard statistical regions in England, appear in table 6.4b, of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988". Figures reported by Burnley district council appear in table 1 of "Housebuilding in England by local authority areas 1980 to 1987", with figures for 1979 and 1988 being published in tables 4(b) and 1(b) of volumes 59 and 90, respectively, of "Local Housing Statistics".

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Information separately distinguishing completions by housing co-operatives is not available.

  Green Belt, Bramley
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations about encroachment on green belt for housing development at Bramley, Surrey; and if he will make a statement of Government policy towards such development.
  78
  Mr. Moynihan.
  My right hon. Friend is considering representations from the Surrey Society asking him to call in for his own decision a planning application for residential and other development on a site at Bramley, Surrey. The Government's policies on development in the Green Belt and on the provision of low cost housing in the Green Belt are set out respectively in planning policy guidance note No. 2 and in the reply which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on 9 June at col.259.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of letters from hon. Members to his Department received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is not available for the last three years. Since last October, my Department has replied to some 24,000 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, of these 64 per cent. were sent within four weeks of receiving the letter, 21 per cent. within four to six weeks, 8 per cent. within six to eight weeks and 7 per cent. in over eight weeks.

  EHOs
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to visit any local authority environmental health departments to familiarise himself with the extent and nature of the work and difficulties currently facing environmental health officers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are made well aware of the work, achievements and problems of environmental health departments—as of all other local authority departments—in the course of our many visits to local authorities.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many petrol stations in the United Kingdom are selling unleaded petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Unleaded petrol is now widely available. More than 16,000 outlets stock the fuel.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures available for the amount of rent arrears and the number of people with arrears for each local authority in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

  Mr. Chope
  A list of local authorities showing reported cumulative rent arrears at 31 March 1988 was placed in the Library on 1 March 1989. Information about the number of tenants in arrears with rent, rates or other charges (where reported) is contained in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publication "Housing Rents Statistics at April 1988", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Nuclear Accidents (Water Contamination)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list what representations he has received concerning adequate information within the water industry with respect to water resource consequences of a nuclear event; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have received no such representations.

  Ashford Great Park
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the result of the public inquiry into the NEDA planning application for Ashford Great park.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Shortly.

  Litter
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he will undertake to reduce the problems posed by litter.

  Mr. Trippier
  Our aim is uncompromising—to eradicate the litter problem once and for all. In order to achieve this we propose to take action against those who drop litter and ensure that any litter which is dropped is speedily cleared up.

  Our proposals include an increase in the maximum fine for littering from £400 to £1,000, an extension to all district and borough councils of the power to operate a fixed penalty scheme for littering, and the placing upon local authorities, some statutory undertakers and certain owners of other land, of a duty to keep their land clear of litter. We also propose to give aggrieved citizens the right to seek redress in the magistrates court if a body under the duty fails to discharge it. However, we realise that, ultimately, the only lasting solution to the problem lies in changing the attitudes of those who persist with their inconsiderate and dirty habits.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention to publish full details of the distribution incidence and precise locations in relation to emissions of naturally occurring radon gas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The results of the survey of radon in houses, which is currently being carried out for the Department by the National Radiological Protection board, will be published in summary form on completion. Results for individual dwellings are confidential to the householder.

  London Pensions Fund Authority
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to establish the London Pensions Fund Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The London Pensions Fund Authority—the "London Pensions Fund"—will be formally established tomorrow by an order made under sections 67 and 101 of the Local Government Act 1985. The order transfers to the London Pensions Fund on 180
  April 1990 the superannuation fund and associated functions, rights and liabilities which the London Residuary Body inherited on the abolition of the former Greater London Council.

  The establishment of this independent superannuation administering body is based on proposals received from the LRB under section 67 of the 1985 act and follows extensive consultations with the London boroughs and other interested parties over the future of the former GLC fund. The fund is the second largest in England operating under the local government superannuation scheme, with assets of some 1·5 billion at the end of 1988–89. The LRB has successfully managed and administered the fund since abolition, and the establishment of this new body will continue to safeguard the interests of contributors and pensioners alike.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today made the following appointments to the board members of the London Pensions Fund after consultations with organisations representing London local government:

  Sir George Blunden (Chairman)

  Mr. Michael Roberts (Deputy Chairman)

  Sir Nigel Althaus

  Councillor E. D. Barkway, OBE

  Professor R. N. Franklin

  Councillor A. King, JP

  Councillor A. S. Lourie

  Mr. C. J. Messer

  One further appointment will be made as soon as possible which will represent local London government.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is sponsored by his Department at Cambridge university, in conjunction with the United States National Science Foundation, into the soil mechanics and stability of geological sites to assess the migration possibilities from toxic waste disposal sites.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department is currently sponsoring research on radiochemical waste disposal at the University of Cambridge. It is understood that the United States army corps of engineers has sponsored research in the area described by the hon. Member.

  Development (Road Access)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants or other financial assistance developers may apply for to pay for providing road access to residential development sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 26 October 1989]: No such grants are generally available. In the 57 urban priority areas, however, city grant may be paid to assist developers with residential projects, and this may include the provision of access roads.

  EC Drinking Water Directive
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the timetable for ensuring Britain's compliance with the European drinking water directive.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 25 October 1989]: The Government are wholeheartedly committed to complying with the requirements of the Water Supply

  81
  (Water Quality) Regulations as quickly as possible, having regard to practicalities. Those regulations incorporate the standards of the EC drinking water directive. Most supplies already comply with the requirements and the water companies in England and Wales will be spending £1,400 million over the next five years alone for dealing with current failures. Those water supplies which currently fail to comply with the directive's standards are nevertheless of a quality suitable for drinking. If this were not so, water companies would take remedial action immediately. It is widely accepted that full compliance with the directive is extremely difficult to achieve and we believe that in some respects the directive itself requires amendment. We understand that no other member state has complied fully with the directive or drawn up comprehensive compliance programmes in the way that we have.

  Water supplies which at present regularly exceed the requirements of the regulations will be brought progressively into compliance by the end of 1995. It may take longer to achieve full compliance for some other supplies which marginally fail to meet those requirements. For example, a longer period will be needed in some places to achieve full compliance with the standards on pesticides while water companies investigate the opportunity for reducing pesticide usage in their catchments and develop appropriate technology for pesticide removal. Current pesticide levels represent minute exposures, far lower than any which would be likely to present a threat to health.

  National Rivers Authority
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the memorandum of understanding with regard to the working relationship between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 25 October 1989]: Details of the working relationship between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority will be published when the memorandum of understanding has been completed.

  Water (Disconnections)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing how many people were disconnected from their water supplies for each year between 1978–79 and the latest date available.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: The number of household supplies disconnected for nonpayment of charges by the nine English water authorities since 1984–85 is shown in the following table. Information on the number of disconnections by water authorities made prior to 1984–85 and those to household supplies by statutory water companies is not held centrally.

  Total for England

  1984–85

  2,052

  1985–86

  4,212

  1986–87

  6,450

  1987–88

  7,120

  1988–89

  8,091

  I believe that in the great majority of cases reconnections are made within 48 hours.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Yes. I propose the following changes subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 2 (central environmental services, etc.) will be increased by £32,174,000 from £280,423,000 to £312,597,000 principally to cover additional grant in aid to the National Rivers Authority of £30,325,000, increased funding for the United Nations environment programme of £1,750,000, and increased grant in aid to the Sports Council of £600,000 in respect of take up of entitlement to carry forward underspending in 1988–89 under the end year flexibility scheme for capital expenditure.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 4 (royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage) will be increased by £430,000 from £103,437,000 to £103,867,000 towards a compensation payment by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to the developers of the Rose theatre site, to enable preservation of the site for the public.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 5 (Department of the Environment: administration) will be increased by £5,995,000 from £153,864,000 to £159,859,000 to provide for public information on lead-free petrol and further public information to increase awareness of the community charge system, in particular eligibility for community charge benefits and transitional relief.

  The non-voted cash limit for DOE/UA1 (urban aid and derelict land reclamation) will be increased by £72,800,000 from £650,454,000 to £723,254,000 to cover increased grant-in-aid to London Docklands Development Corporation of £79,000,000 (of which £11,000,000 reflects the take up of entitlement to carry forward underspending in 1988–89 under the end year flexibility scheme for capital expenditure). The cash limit increase includes £4,000,000 covering the transfer of responsibility for city action teams from the Department of Trade and Industry to my Department. This has been offset by an equal reduction in the cash limits for class V, vote 2. There are some offsetting savings within the cash block.

  The non-voted cash limit for DOE/NTI (new towns) has been increased by £14,889,000 from minus £435,535,000 to minus £420,646,000 reflecting take up of entitlement to carry forward underspending in 1988–89 under the end year flexibility scheme for capital expenditure.

  The above increases will be partly offset by decreases in cash limits.

  The cash limit for class IX, vote 2, (miscellaneous housing administration and grants) will be reduced by £5,535,000 from £84,952,000 to £79,417,000 reflecting principally reduced expenditure on housing action trusts and grant to the Housing Corporation for the reclamation of land in Merseyside.

  The cash limit for DOE/HCI (capital expenditure by the Housing Corporation) will be reduced by £6,750,000 from £701,000,000 to £694,250,000. This includes full take up of entitlement to carry forward underspending in 1988–89 of £3,250,000 under the end year flexibility scheme for capital expenditure offset by a £10,000,000 reduction reflecting the fact that certain receipts formerly

  83
  surrendered to the Consolidated Fund will now be retained by the Housing Corporation. The cash limit reduction does not imply a reduction in planned gross expenditure.

  The increases above will also be partly offset by decreases in non-cash-limited expenditure. The net increase in my Department's programmes will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  I have also to announce on behalf of the director general of the Office of Water Services that the cash limit for class X, vote 10 (Office of Water Services) will be increased by £1,105,000 from £2,334,000 to £3,439,000, and the running costs limit for the Office of Water Services will be increased by £575,000 from £2,200,000 to £2,775,000. The increases will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRANSPORT

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the London road assessment studies.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I expect the results of the consultants' work to be published in early December and I aim to make a statement at that time.

  Leicester Bypass
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the proposed construction of a western bypass for the city of Leicester.

  Mr. Atkins
  The public inquiry into the orders for this scheme was held in May 1988. The inspector's report was received on 1 February. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport are considering it and hope to announce their decision as soon as possible.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many instances of industrial action there have been amongst air traffic control officers during the current year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There has been none in the United Kingdom during the current year. We do not collect data on industrial action in other countries.

  British Rail
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss with him.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I shall be meeting the chairman of British Rail tomorrow to discuss the board's future plans.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he has met the chair of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.
  84
  Mr. Parkinson
  I last met the chairman of British Rail on 17 October when we discussed a variety of railway matters.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chair of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chair of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the chairman of British Rail to discuss a variety of railway issues. The last such meeting took place on 17 October.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on proposals to denationalise British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  Studies are continuing but it will be some time before any decisions are taken.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) earlier today.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerard Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and if they discussed the Channel tunnel high-speed rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I last met the chairman on 17 October when we discussed a variety of railway issues including the proposed Channel tunnel rail link.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the Channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has continued to receive a large number of representations about the proposed rail link.

  Inner City Transport
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to improve transport infrastructure in inner city areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are improving trunk roads and helping local road improvements financially. I have today announced an Industrial Development Act grant of up to £1·77 million towards a road scheme in Rotherham, which will open up land for development, providing a boost for the area and reducing local unemployment. We are also improving public transport infrastructure in London's docklands. We have approved grant towards phase I of Manchester's metrolink and are helping the development costs of a proposed light rail scheme in Sheffield.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the London road assessment studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the London road assessment studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  There have been numerous representations from Hon. Members, local councillors, interested groups, and members of the public. All views expressed will be taken into account.

  Road Works (Leeds)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many calls have been received at the Leeds road works information telephone number of his Department in each of the last four months.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of callers to the road works information telephone service for the A1 in Yorkshire has been:

  Number

  June

  264

  July

  406

  August

  353

  September

  358

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the working of the Transport Act 1985.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no plans to amend the 1985 Act. Bus deregulation has encouraged a greater diversity of services, with more bus miles being provided by more operators at lower cost to local authorities.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the workings of the Transport Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no plans to review the working of the Transport Act 1985. Bus deregulation has encouraged a greater diversity of services, with more bus miles being provided by more operators at lower cost to local authorities.

  Dartford Bridge
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the privately financed Dartford bridge will be opened.

  Mr. Atkins
  The new crossing, and the improvements to the approach roads, are expected to be open by early summer 1991.

  Road Safety Schemes
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much spending on local road safety schemes has increased in 1989–90.
  86
  Mr. Atkins
  Over 10·5 million is being spent on local safety schemes on the Department's trunk roads this year compared with nearly £5 million in 1988–89.

  Our information about local authority expenditure on such schemes is not comprehensive. Information from the latest transport policy and programme submissions suggests that authorities plan to spend just over £10 million this year which is about the same as they did in 1988–89.

  North Devon Trunk Road
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the dates and number of fatal accidents along the route of the north Devon trunk road from Tiverton to Bideford bridge, indicating the number of prosecutions relating to these accidents and (b) the reported number of speeding incidents and prosecutions since its opening date.

  Mr. Atkins
  Four accidents, each resulting in one death, have occurred on the road since the first section was opened in November 1988. These were on 11 January, 5 May and 7 July, all in the Loxbeare area, west of Tiverton, and on 16 August at Bish Mill, east of South Molton. I understand that no prosecutions are pending in relation to these accidents.

  Up to 1 September 1989, over 1,000 traffic offences have been reported by the police, which have resulted in either the issue of fixed penalties or prosecutions in the courts.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses are included in the new road programme.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 173 schemes in the expanded trunk road programme are designated as bypasses or relief roads. A large number of other schemes, although not designated as bypasses, also help to take through traffic away from unsuitable roads.

  Disqualified Drivers
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions have been reached regarding the recommendation in the North report that disqualified drivers should be retested.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's response to Dr. North's recommendations was set out in the White Paper "The Road User and the Law" (Cm. 576). It is proposed that certain road traffic offenders should be required to take an extended driving test before their licences are restored. The views of interested organisations are being sought on the details of the proposals. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the county councils in south Wales concerning the Severn crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  Meetings of the Severn Bridge Consultative Committee take place every six months, while the Severn crossing traffic management liaison committee meets every
  87
  two months. Representatives of Gwent county council attend both sets of meetings, while South Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan attend the former. The most recent meetings took place on 1 June and 20 September respectively.

  Buses (Deregulation)
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many areas are now served by minibuses following the deregulation of buses.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest research shows that at the end of 1988 there were over 7,000 minibuses serving bus users in over 600 places.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new operators have resulted from the deregulation of buses.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is estimated that by 1 May 1988, there has been a net increase of 465 operators running local bus services since deregulation.

  Women and Transport
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken or plans to undertake into women and transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken or plans to undertake into women and transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) earlier today.

  New Roads
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to the Green Paper "New Roads by New Means".

  Mr. Portillo
  Over 160.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to reduce delays to road users caused by maintenance work.

  Mr. Atkins
  Existing measures include programming of roadworks to avoid where possible having works too close together, or during peak traffic periods; improved contraflow layouts and video monitoring to enable prompt responses to traffic incidents at road works; the use of mobile lane closures for some works, in which a convoy of specially marked vehicles protect workmen instead of static lines of cones; and the use of lane rental contracts. Since these contracts were introduced in 1984, they are estimated to have saved over 2,000 days of lane closures worth around £40 million in avoided delays to road users.

  New traffic management arrangements to increase vehicle flows past contraflow sites are being tested; these include the use of narrower traffic lanes to enable more lanes to be provided, and tidal flow systems in which the
  88
  number of lanes available in each direction changes to match traffic demand. The Department is also developing a computer system to assist in optimising the planning and scheduling of maintenance and improvement works on trunk roads, including motorways, to minimise disruption to road users.

  Docklands
  Mr. Neil Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to improve transport in docklands.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport is planning to double the capacity of the Docklands light railway from Tower Gateway early next year by the introduction of two-unit trains, which will be followed by further new sets in 1991, raising the capacity of the Tower Gateway service from the present 1,750 passengers to 6,500 passengers per hour. Completion of the first tunnel to the Bank is now scheduled for late 1990, with the second one to follow in late 1991, and I have asked LRT to do everything it can to advance the opening dates for the new services through them. We have also enabled LRT to let the first contracts for the DLR extension to Beckton, and in the meantime the reliability of the existing railway is being improved by an urgent programme of remedial measures.

  The British Railways Board has this month introduced improved services and rolling stock on its North London line service to North Woolwich, and has commenced work on a new station at Silvertown, which will give easier access to the London City airport. I hope to make an announcement shortly on the recommendation arising from the east London rail study as to an extension of the Jubilee line to Stratford.

  Docklands minibus have introduced a fifth service, and an improved LRT bus network is in place to serve the docklands. The riverbus now provides a weekend service and runs through to Greenwich, and is installing monitors on piers so as to improve passenger information.

  The London Docklands Development Corporation has a programme for the construction of a development road network through Limehouse, the Isle of Dogs and the royal docks. Work is well advanced and expected to be completed in 1993. As part of this, a £171 million contract has just been let for construction of the Limehouse link, a 1·8 km dual two-lane cut and cover tunnel from the highway to Westferry Circus and Poplar, which is due for completion by the autumn of 1993. Construction work should start on the Limehouse link by the end of this year. Work should also start on the proposed Lower Lea crossing by the spring of 1990. The Eastern Gateway access road was opened on 3 October. The opening of an extension to Aspen Way by the end of this year will provide a third major access to the Isle of Dogs from the A13, serving the island's eastern side.

  The Department has a complementary programme to improve the A13 in Tower Hamlets and Newham by the mid-1990s. Three interim schemes for the Isle of Dogs are scheduled to start in 1990, two for completion in 1991 and one for 1992.

  Final schemes at these locations and Cotton street are scheduled to start in 1993. At that time work should begin on the widening of the Ironbridge, including a connection of LDDC's proposed East India Dock link.

  An exhibition of our proposals to replace the Beckton flyover and improve the A13–A117 junction during

  89
  1992–93 was held at Brampton Road Manor school, East Ham on 27–28 October. Improvements to the A 13 junction with the A112 are scheduled for 1994–95

  We have announced reopening of the inquiry into the design of the east London river crossing bridge. The reopened inquiry will clearly have to take account of the inter-relationship with the proposed future development of the London City airport, on which a planning application has now been made.

  We have rationalised waiting and loading restrictions on the A13 trunk road in Tower Hamlets, and have let a contract for provision of a new east London traffic control system. We have invited tenders for the renovation of the northbound Blackwall tunnel. LDDC has in hand a study on the extension of the controlled parking zone to the Isle of Dogs. The Department and the other highway authorities have reached an understanding with the statutory undertakers on the conduct of highway works in Docklands.

  Rail Investment (North-West)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received concerning rail investment in the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In July approval was given to BR's proposals to invest £26 million in a new Manchester airport rail link. BR is already spending a total of nearly £50 million on new locomotives and driving van trailers on the west coast main line, and another £35 million on the Windsor link and the resignalling and remodelling of Piccadilly station in Manchester. The area is also benefiting from BR's substantial rolling stock investment.

  A41 Bypass
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the A41 bypass inquiry.

  Mr. Atkins
  Public inquiries into the A41 Berkhamsted and King's Langley bypasses finished in September 1988 after 48 sitting days. The considerable volume of evidence put forward is being carefully considered in the light of the independent inspector's report and recommendations. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will announce their joint decision as soon as possible.

  Aviation (Single Market)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards completing the single market in aviation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A first stage of aviation liberalisation was agreed in December 1987. The EC Commission has recently made proposals for a second major package, which would encourage greater competition and should bring down fares. The Council is due to decide on these proposals by the end of June 1990. Particularly bearing in mind the interests of consumers, my right hon. Friend has pressed hard for further liberalisation. I am glad that the commission has taken up the United Kingdom's ideas in framing its proposals. We will continue to press for measures based on these proposals to be adopted by the Council.

  Glasgow Abbotsinch Airport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to give Glasgow Abbotsinch airport gateway status before 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend announced on 13 September that he was to review Scottish lowland airports policy. A consultation document was issued on 27 September and respondents have until 29 November to comment. All views put forward will be considered carefully.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to visit Manchester airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so. I visited the airport myself on 23 October.

  London Underground
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extensions of the current London Underground have been agreed but not completed; and what schemes have been submitted but still await approval.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no outstanding proposals for extensions to the Underground which have been approved but not built. We are considering with the operators the new lines proposed in the central and east London rail studies.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take additional steps to(a) improve the standard of road signs, (b) ensure speedier repair of damaged and faded road signs and (c) ensure road signs are not obscured on motorways and trunk roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes.

  British Rail and Scotrail
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress towards the privatisation of British Rail and Scotrail.

  Mr. Portillo
  Studies into the possible privatisation of British Rail, including Scotrail which is one of British Rail's six regions, are continuing.

  Municipal Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any information on the management costs expressed per ton at municipal ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Regulations under section 42 of the Harbours Act 1964 require all statutory ports whose turnover is £250,000 or more to send their annual accounts to this Department, which also collects data on the trade which passes through ports. Because of the wide variety of goods handled, comparisons of costs per ton would not be meaningful.
  91
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out a financial and managerial appraisal of all municipal ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Any such appraisal would be the responsibility of the local authorities concerned or for the Audit Commission, in the case of a broader comparative survey.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those ports together with their tonnage for the last five years operated by municipal management.

  Million tonnes

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Anglesey Marine Terminal (closed March 1988)

  6·5

  7·8

  7·4

  7·7

  1·1

  Boston

  1·4

  1·4

  1·5

  1·5

  1·4

  Bridgwater

  0·5

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  0·2

  Bristol

  3·8

  3·8

  4·1

  4·0

  4·5

  Colchester

  1·5

  1·2

  1·1

  1·0

  1·0

  Orkney

  16·1

  16·1

  15·8

  17·1

  8·0

  Perth

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  Portsmouth

  1·6

  2·0

  2·0

  2·4

  2·8

  Ramsgate

  1·2

  1·3

  1·3

  1·6

  1·9

  Sullom Voe (Shetlands)

  59·7

  59·0

  57·2

  50·0

  50·6

  Sunderland

  1·2

  2·5

  2·3

  1·8

  2·0

  Watchet

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  Whitby and Scarborough

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  Whitstable

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·4

  Wisbech

  0·2

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  Workington

  0·6

  0·6

  0·5

  0·4

  0·7

  Statistics of freight tonnage through British ports are published in an annual report "Port Statistics", published jointly by the Department of Transport and the British Ports Federation. "Ports Statistics 1988" was published on 27 October and a copy has been placed in the House Library.

  Marine Rescue Services
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has had any representation on the cost of switching from Decca to Loran C for the marine rescue services;

  (2) if he will list the representations he has had about Loran C;

  (3) if he will publish his response to the paper submitted by Racal Decca on the Loran C proposals;

  (4) if he will publish the basis for his costings for updating the Decca transmitters.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Representations about the future choice of marine radionavigation system have been received from the following:

  Andrew Weir Shipping

  Brightlingsea and District Fishermen's and Boatmen's Association

  British Marine Industries Federation

  British Motorship Owners Association Ltd

  British Offshore Support Vessels Association

  British Ports Federation

  British Shippers' Council

  British Telecom (Marine) Ltd

  Brooks and Gatehouse Ltd

  Caledonian MacBrayane

  Coe Metcalf Shipping

  Comite International Radio Maritime

  Commissioners of Irish Lights

  Cruising Association

  Department of Agriculture for Scotland

  Department of the Environment

  92
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Freight tonnage handled over the last five years by those ports in Great Britain where the local authority is the harbour authority, and where traffic exceeded 100,000 tonnes a year, is given in the following table.

  There are another 14 ports in Great Britain where the local authority is the harbour authority but traffic was less than 100,000 tonnes per year.

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Electronics and Business Equipment Association

  Federatie Van Visserijverenigingen

  Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen

  General Council of British Shipping

  Highlands and Islands Fishermens Association

  Honourable Company of Master Mariners

  Humberside International Fisheries Institute

  International Association of Lighthouse Authorities International Chamber of Shipping

  International Hydrographic Bureau

  Kelvin Hughes Ltd

  Lights Advisory Committee

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  MOD Hydrographer

  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations

  Navigation Management Ltd

  NAVSTAR (Polytechnics Electronics)

  Nautical Institute

  Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  North Shields Fishermen's Association

  NUMAST

  Racal Decca Marine Navigation Ltd.

  Royal Institute of Navigation

  Royal National Lifeboat Institution

  Royal Yachting Association

  Royal Yachting Association for Scotland

  Scottish Development Department

  Scottish Fishermans Federation

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  STC Defence Systems

  Trinity House

  United Marine Aggregates Limited

  Wild Goose Association

  Some 12 individuals have also made representations.

  The RNLI has drawn attention to the cost of re-training marine rescue personnel and of re-equipping with receivers if a changeover were to be made to Loran C.

  These representations are all now being considered, and
  the Department proposes to publish a response in due

  93
  course to the paper submitted by Racal Decca Marine Navigation Ltd. The costings for updating the existing Decca transmitters are based on an offer made by RDMNL to the general lighthouse authorities in November 1988, under which the company would finance the work in return for an extension of their contract with the authorities to the year 2004.

  Ships Officer Manning Levels
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those countries that propose a reduction in ships officer manning levels, including radio operators, in the next 12 months; and if he will list and tabulate the United Kingdom's manning levels as against those of other EEC countries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has no information that other countries propose to reduce ships officer manning levels, including radio operators, in the next 12 months. The United Kingdom's manning levels are assessed on an individual ship basis in accordance with the principles of safe manning established by the International Maritime Organisation. The Department has not attempted to tabulate manning levels but a record of the safe manning certificates issued is maintained.

  Short Sea Prospects
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the estimated short sea prospects for the next two years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not forecast prospects for the shipping industry, but I have noted that British ship operators in the short sea sector have recently been more confident about future prospects, reflected in improved freight rates and some increased investment in new tonnage. British operators are among the most entrepreneurial and cost-effective and I will continue to argue vigorously in the Community for the liberalisation of cabotage markets and for the elimination of subsidies which distort competition and put British interests at a competitive disadvantage.

  Shipping Tonnage
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current percentage reduction of United Kingdom registered shipping tonnage over the same figure in 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of vessels registered at ports in the United Kingdom and their deadweight are given in the table.

  All United Kingdom registered vessels of 100 grt and over

  Number of vessels

  Deadweight tonnage ('000 tonnes)

  Percentage reduction in total deadweight

  September 1988

  2,030

  7,253

  —

  September 1989

  1,929

  6,544

  9·8

  Seafarers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated reduction in the number of seafarers in the first six months of the current year.
  94
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of seafarers on the General Council of British Shipping register at 31 December 1988 and at 30 June 1989 was as follows:

  Officers

  Ratings

  Cadets

  Total

  31 December 1988

  9,322

  12,860

  447

  22,629

  30 June 1989

  8,989

  12,593

  411

  21,993

  Per cent, reduction

  -3·6

  -2·1

  -8·1

  -2·8

  Port State Control
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the memorandum of understanding on port state control is strictly enforced to a uniform and high level throughout the EEC.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Each signatory country of the memorandum of understanding should achieve an annual total of inspections corresponding to 25 per cent. of the estimated number of individual foreign merchant ships which enter its ports during a 12-month period. The United Kingdom has always exceeded the 25 per cent. figure of inspection of foreign flag vessels since the memorandum became operational. United Kingdom representatives have always endorsed the efforts of the secretariat of the port state control committee to encourage signatories of the memorandum, which include all littoral EEC countries, to achieve the 25 per cent. inspection rate.

  Cycling
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from cycling organisations in England and Wales regarding(a) full provision for cyclists in new road schemes, (b) increases in local authorities' cycle budgets, (c) promotion of traffic-calming measures and (d) special funding for British Rail for cycle provision on trains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Cyclists' Touring Club wrote in July proposing a series of measures including the four included in the question. I have replied pointing out that cycling does not need to be stimulated by public funding. Interest in cycling is high. Sales of new machines have been buoyant. Unfortunately cycling is one of the least safe means of transport, so the emphasis of the Government's work must be on making it safer. Cycle provision on trains is a matter for British Rail.

  Council of Ministers
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the recent European Council of Transport Ministers meeting in Luxembourg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I was pleased that the Council reached agreement on a new directive to ban the addition of certain types of older, and noisier, jet aircraft to Community fleets. This is a useful step in the process of moving towards an era of quieter aircraft.

  The Council also agreed, subject to receiving the opinion of the European Parliament, to a regulation removing recommended road haulage tariffs between

  95
  member states. We welcome this as part of the process of abolishing tariffs and reducing bureaucracy across the Community.

  There was discussion but no agreement on the Commission's proposals for shipping "positive measures"; a proposed short-term road haulage cabotage experiment; a draft directive on training for drivers of dangerous goods vehicles; a proposal by the Commission for a programme of transport infrastructure funding; and fiscal harmonisation in road haulage. The Commission reported the current position in the Community's negotiations with Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. Notes by the Presidency presented proposals on road safety, and on the development of railways in the Community.

  I also attended an informal meeting of the Council in Paris on 6 October which was mainly devoted to a discussion of the Commission's recent proposals in the field of aviation.

  "The Road User and the Law"
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in implementing proposals contained in the White Paper "The Road User and the Law".

  Mr. Atkins
  Many of the proposals announced on 7 February in the White Paper "The Road User and the Law" (CMD 576) will require legislation.

  The further consultation outlined in the White Paper on the details of the legislative changes and administrative arrangements for key proposals is well advanced. Copies of the papers on driver retesting, vehicle prohibition and the use of technology for enforcement have been placed in the Library.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the total cost of the east London river crossing taking into account the changes in bridge design and the widening of the road to dual three lanes between the A13 and the Thamesmead spine road.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest estimate of the total cost of the scheme at average 1984 prices is approximately £195 million. When converted to mid-1989 prices the estimate becomes £300 million.

  Motorcycle Tests
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the budget allocated by his Department for the current financial year for motor cycle tests; whether that budget figure has been reached; and what arrangements are being made to ensure satisfactory delivery of the service for the remainder of the financial year.

  Mr. Atkins
  The new part 2 motorcycle test was estimated to cost £644,000 in 1989–90 (starting 2 October) on the assumption of 26,850 tests to be conducted and an average waiting time of four weeks. This remains our forecast. Following the pre-September surge to avoid the fee increase (to £24), both the new arrangements and demand are now settling down as forecast.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current waiting time for a96
  motorcycle riding test in Leicestershire; what is the existing waiting list; and what action is taken to ensure that applicants are tested before their provisional licences expire after two years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Six weeks planned to reduce to four weeks by the end of the financial year. There are 300 tests at present booked for dates up to 15 December. Waiting times of this order should not present difficulties for motorcycle riders seeking test within the two years' term of their provisional licence; applicants with specific needs may ask to be given priority bookings.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of test inspectors for motorcycle tests in Leicestershire; how many tests they have carried out since the new test was introduced on 2 October; and what arrangements will be made to hold tests in venues other than the city of Leicester.

  Mr. Atkins
  Two examiners are available to conduct part 2 motorcycle tests in Leicestershire; 45 tests have been conducted in the county since 2 October and 50 tests a week have been booked to be conducted in November and into December. Additionally, it is proposed to conduct tests at Melton Mowbray from December and at Hinckley in the new year.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what type and cubic capacity of motorcycle is made available to test examiners of his Department; what is the approximate purchase price of these machines; and what steps have been taken to ensure public economy in this regard.

  Mr. Atkins
  450cc to 800cc. The machines are lease hired at an average annual cost of £1,816 per machine following competitive tender.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what type of one-way radio equipment has been provided to motorcycle test examiners of his Department; what is the approximate purchase price of this equipment; and what steps have been taken to ensure public economy in this regard.

  Mr. Atkins
  Examiners have been provided with UHF FM 1·5 watt single-channel portable radios and ancillary equipment. Following extensive trials to identify the most suitable and cost-effective equipment these were purchased at a cost of £2,106 per set following competitive tenders.

  Nuclear Fuel Train Journeys
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many waste nuclear fuel train journeys have been completed(a) with no accidents involved, and (b) with accidents involved, for each year since 1982 in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are at present about 350 loaded fuel flask movements per year. It is not practical for British Rail to provide statistics of all movements since 1982, but in that period there have been eight incidents during transport, all of which were minor.

  In more than 25 years of nuclear fuel flask movements, not one incident has occurred which led to a release of even the smallest quantity of radioactivity, or to injury to any person caused by the nature of the contents.

  Road Standards
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on his plans to put on a sound, long-term basis expenditure on maintenance and minor improvements to bring classified roads up to reasonably modern standards over the next decade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are catching up with the backlogs of maintenance on motorways and other trunk roads as quickly as programming and traffic management considerations allow and in line with the targets announced in April. Once the backlogs have been eliminated, a steady programme of major maintenance will be required to keep pace with ongoing deterioration. We have greatly improved the strength of motorways and other trunk roads built in recent years to increase their life before reconstruction becomes necessary.

  Other classified roads are the responsibility of local highway authorities, who determine their own maintenance priorities.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support he is giving to research about aircraft noise reduction, and what financial support is available for the implementation of measures aimed at reducing the level of aircraft noise(a) near the main Scottish airports and (b) generally.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to spend some £.1·8 million in the current financial year on research on reducing aircraft noise at source. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made schemes for Heathrow and Gatwick airports under section 79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 whereby the airport company makes grants for noise insulation of dwellings; it is also intended to make a scheme for Stansted. At other airports, not designated under section 79, such measures are for the airport management.

  Public Transport Proposals
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the public transport proposals currently under consideration by his Department for grant or investment approval in London and the south-east.

  Mr. Portillo
  The majority of investment decisions are taken by the public transport operators, the passenger transport authorities and executives, and county councils.

  The Department of Transport is considering the case for new rail lines identified by the central and east London Rail studies; for an extension of the docklands light railway to Greenwich and Lewisham; and for the investment required to improve the existing BR rail lines and to buy new rolling stock to carry Channel Tunnel traffic in 1993. Channel-tunnel-related investment is not eligible for grant.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has received the consultants' reports on stage 2b of the London assessment studies;
  98
  (2) when he intends to publish the results of stage 26 of the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  We expect to receive reports from the consultants for all four London assessment studies in the next month or so. Arrangements for printing will be put in hand as soon as possible for publication early in December. The reports will be available for purchase and there will be free summaries. Displays will be offered at town halls and public libraries throughout the study areas.

  In order to reduce uncertainty, we intend to announce at the time the reports are published which options will not be considered further. We shall be inviting comments from local authorities, other organisations and members of the public before reaching firm decisions on the remaining options.

  Public Transport Fares (EC)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the comparative fares for a standard public transport journey in each of the European Community capital cities.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no agreed definition of a "standard public transport journey", and the nature and circumstances of public transport in European Community capital cities vary.

  Injuries and Deaths (Trunk Roads)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department has for use on trunk roads in order to prevent injuries or deaths to pedestrians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government attach great importance to making trunk and local roads safer for pedestrians. In April 1989 following a thorough review of pedestrian safety on all roads we published a leaflet entitled "Pedestrian Safety" which outlined a number of initiatives aimed at making walking safer. The implementation of the proposals on local roads, where the great majority of pedestrian casualties occur, is primarily for the local authorities. The proposals also apply as appropriate to trunk roads, standards for which already incorporate requirements to protect pedestrians. In addition, the trunk road construction programme will continue to take traffic away from roads in towns and villages which are heavily used by pedestrians, thus making a significant contribution to safety.

  M1
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the terminal date for completion of the road works near junction 12 on the north-bound carriageway of the M1; what financial incentive has been provided to the contractor to complete the work ahead of schedule; and what quantification he has made in financial terms of the cost to business and industry from the daily congestion and delay there.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: The works are likely to finish in mid-November, about a month ahead of the original programme. The contract was let on a lane-rental basis with the contractor paying a fee to the Department related to the amount of carriageway space he

  99
  uses. The fee in this case is a maximum of £25,000 per day. This provides considerable incentive to complete the works early. The lane rental fee is based on the estimated cost of delays to the travelling public. Calculations take into account the range of vehicles and whether business or leisure use is involved.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will specify any action taken by his Department to minimise the delay and inconvenience caused to road users by the major road works near junction 12 on the north-bound carriageway of the M1 since July; and why there has been no use of contraflow techniques.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: Lane rental has been used to encourage the contractor to complete the works in the shortest possible time consistent with quality and price. The traffic management arrangements use the minimum road space necessary for safe and efficient working on the site. In the current phase of lane closures the cones are removed during peak hours to enable three lanes to be open. Contraflow has, where appropriate, been used throughout the contract.

  A1
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend dual carriageway on the Al north of the Morpeth bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  An improvement scheme for dualling a section of the A1 at Cawledge, south of Alnwick, commenced on 10 April 1989 and is expected to be completed early 1990.

  Other dual carriageway proposals in the road programme for the Al north of Morpeth are the Brownieside improvement and Marshall Meadows to the
  100
  Scottish Border improvement. On current planning the start of works on these schemes is scheduled for the spring 1991.

  A56-M63
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will review urgently the road safety position with respect to the A56 Chester road, between the intersection with the M63 motorway and Warwick road north;

  (2) what information he has about the number of accidents involving motor vehicles and pedestrians on the A56 Chester road between the intersection with the M63 motorway and Warwick road north which resulted in (a) fatalities, (b) serious injury, (c) minor injury and (d) other over the last three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern in the light of the recent tragic accident there. However, these are matters for Trafford metropolitan borough council as highway authority for that stretch of the A56.

  Search and Rescue (North Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Devon, North to visit the north Devon coastline and the Swansea coastguard station in order to assess the efficiency of the emergency services concerned with search and rescue.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend thanks the hon. Member for his invitation. He is, however, content that there is adequate provision of services for maritime search and rescue in the area and has no immediate plans for any such visit.

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

Barony of Grey of Codnor
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that Her Majesty has been pleased to determine the abeyance of the Barony of Grey of Codnor in favour of Charles Legh Shuldham Cornwall-Legh. The barony fell into abeyance in 1496, on the death of Henry Lord Grey of Codnor, from one of whose aunts the present Baron descends. The noble Lord now attends at the Bar with his writ of summons to take his seat.
Lord Grey of Codnor: Took the Oath.

Frigates: Building Plans
Lord Ironside Lord Ironside asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for building anti-air warfare and anti-submarine warfare role frigates in the proportions needed to meet operational requirements in the late 1990s and beyond, following the United Kingdom withdrawal from the NFR 90 multinational project.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Royal Navy's requirement for anti-submarine warfare frigates will be met by the Type 23 frigate of which the first of class will enter service in a few weeks' time. The requirement remains for an anti-air warfare frigate to enter service around the turn of the century to replace the Type 42 destroyer, but following our withdrawal from the NFR 90 project we have not yet reached any firm views on the way ahead.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. My concern is for the future as there is likely to be more slippage in frigate ordering and also because the NFR 90 project definition phase has fallen apart. Therefore, can my noble friend say what will happen to Supermarine Consortium Limited which is the UK shareholder in the NFR 90 project definition phase? Is there not a case for keeping the project in being as we now have to look for a RN frigate for the 1990s to replace the Type 42, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Government are now looking at whole ship procurement and are placing much greater reliance upon industry to provide the solutions?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that following the UK's decision to withdraw from the NFR 90 project the company has been advised of the termination of its appointment as the UK nominee in the international joint venture. It will now be for Supermarine Consortium Limited and the International NFR 90 project office in Hamburg to decide whether SCL should take any further part in the NFR 90 programme.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain why Her Majesty's Government found it necessary to withdraw from the NFR 90 project—a co-operative scheme with seven other nations, including the United States—which was to build the first NATO common warship? Further, will he advise the House as to whether the other participants will continue and whether, in view of the importance of establishing and maintaining collaborative projects within NATO, the Government will reconsider their withdrawal? Will the Minister also assure the House that it is not just a cost-cutting exercise?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may answer just a few of the noble Lord's questions. We made it clear at the outset of project definition that continued participation beyond the first base line review depended upon agreement of a realistic timetable properly aligned with timetables for the ships' major weapon system. Following the base line review, we considered the programme very carefully

3
but decided that insufficient progress had been made towards meeting our concerns. In the interests of good procurement practice, this country decided to withdraw.
I can also advise the noble Lord that both France and Italy have withdrawn from the project and that the expenditure so far has been £4.5 million. But, of course, we can use results from investment in any future work.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that we were the first to start the withdrawal process? Further, will he say exactly why this was decided? What was wrong with the specification?
Is the noble Earl also aware that before this happened we altered the basic requirement for the European fighter and that before that there was a shambles for which we were responsible over the tank gun? Is he further aware that this decision, following many criticisms of the defence procurement department, further strengthens our reputation abroad as being thoroughly unco-operative and unreliable?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am aware that all that the noble Lord says is incorrect. This country's defence policy has never been regarded as a shambles. I cannot say more than I have already said in answer to my noble friend's supplementary question about our reasons for withdrawing from the project.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, while I accept my noble friend's arguments about type, is he happy that there are enough frigates and destroyers? The Government have said that they will have around 50. We now find that that means operationally fewer than 40. Can my noble friend reassure us that the Government are bothered about having enough frigates and destroyers to do the job that they have in hand at any one time?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is not right in one respect. He is correct when he says that the total number has always been around 50. There are currently 47 frigates and destroyers of which 42 are immediately, or shortly will be, operational. The five remaining are up for refit or repair or are undergoing sea trials.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that last week I was told by someone who knew, and who obviously must not be mentioned, that there were 39 operational ships? Is he also aware that the constant harping on what is on paper will not do?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is not a question of harping on what is on paper. I am telling your Lordships the current state of play as regards operational ships available at the moment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does that in any way damage the principle of twin pillars upon which the Government were at one time considering
4
embarking; that is to say, that all NATO countries would combine their research to develop weapons which could be shared among all NATO countries, as is done with the Warsaw Pact countries?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I said originally, the way forward is not totally clear. The point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as regards a collaborative effort by all NATO countries is very much a possibility.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend has said about the Supermarine Consortium, but will he give further consideration to the idea of keeping it in being?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hear clearly what my noble friend is saying, but it is up to the Supermarine Consortium to decide for itself the way ahead.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, as frigates proved to be so vulnerable to air attack during the Falklands campaign, will the Minister give us an assurance that an adequate carrier force will always be maintained to give effective air cover to the fleet?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that that is very much a high priority for the Royal Navy, and that an effective carrier force will always exist and will meet its NATO requirements.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does the figure for frigates and destroyers include those valuable vessels, corvettes, which we seem to be sending all over the world on most important duties and which are in fact smaller and cheaper than those other vessels?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not quite catch the noble Viscount's question. I can once again reassure him that the figure is 47, of which 42 are currently operational.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wanted to find out about the figure for corvettes and whether they are included.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is probably another Question, but I shall write to the noble Viscount and tell him whether the figure of 47 includes corvettes.

Development Blight
2.52 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will bring forward legislation to prevent local authorities from blighting privately owned property without previously consulting or informing the owner.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the procedures under town and country planning and other legislation for approving development projects already require affected landowners and the general public to be informed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am surprised by that Answer? I recently had personal experience of a local authority which has decided to protect a line along private properties without consulting or informing the owners involved. Is it not unacceptable that people should suddenly find when they want to sell their houses that the search shows that their houses are blighted? I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will have another look at the problem, because I rather think that he is misinformed about the whole matter.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot now go into the details of an individual case, but if the noble Lord cares to send me further details I can assure him that we shall look into the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord is looking into the matter, will he also look into the possibilities of breaches of the principle by central government? Is he aware that in my part of north London many properties were blighted for 15 months by the threatened Parkland Walk motorway which was announced merely on the results of consultants' preliminary studies rather than as a result of any notification to local residents?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is another case, and if the noble Lord sends me details of it I shall see that it is looked into. In general terms, we believe that town and country planning legislation provides adequately for consultation with affected land owners.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if a private developer has designs on the property of a private individual or a corporate owner of the property, not only has he but the local authority also has to inform the owner of that land? The same is not true in the case of local authorities. Since we have a Government which believes in individual freedom and a property-owning democracy, ought we not to have equity between the public and the private sector?
Lord Reay: My Lords, statutory development plans, which include both structure plans issued by the county council and local or unitary development plans issued by district or borough councils, must be advertised in local newspapers and the London Gazette. They are normally given other publicity as well. There is no specific requirement to inform affected property owners individually. However, as regards planning applications, property owners must be notified when these relate to their land. They then have the right to make representations which the authority must take into consideration.

Irish Republic: Postal Services
2.51 p.m.
Lord Moyne Lord Moyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Post Office is advising the public to mark all first-class letters for the Irish Republic "Air Mail" to the detriment of the Irish Mail service of our national railways.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the mode of transportation of mail is an operational matter for the Post Office board. I understand that two letter services are operated to the Republic of Ireland: air mail and surface mail, distinguished by price. The Post Office's notice in fact applied only to air mail traffic and made no reference to the surface service available. The Post Office is aware of this anomaly and intends to take steps to clarify the situation and resolve the matter as soon as possible.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As he has said that clarification is necessary, I take it that he will not be surprised that I have come across several postmen on the beat, as well as at the counter of the post office in Westminster, who say that under new regulations it is now necessary to put air mail stickers on letters for Europe and Ireland.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. However, the arrangement whereby there is a second-class service to the Republic of Ireland is unique to the Republic and certainly within the European Community. So although there are perhaps some disadvantages as regards the present arrangements, there are also advantages. Nonetheless, the situation is slightly anomalous and the Post Office has said that it intends to resolve the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the Republic of Ireland is a member of the Community, why should there be a distinction between mail sent to that country and mail sent to other members of the Community? Why should there be a first-class or second-class service, or whatever it is, to one and not to the other?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, frankly, that is the first question which I asked my officials this morning when I was being briefed on the matter. The short answer is that a special consideration applies because of the border with Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to elaborate on what that special consideration is?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are some places in the Republic which are very close indeed to places in the United Kingdom; namely, Northern Ireland. It has seemed to be appropriate to have a second-class service for those destinations.

Opticians Bill [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
Report received.

Employment Bill
Report received.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
("Qualifying period for work after pregnancy.
The qualifying period of employment for a woman seeking to exercise the right to return to work after pregnancy under Part III and sections 57 to 60 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall be six months' continuous employment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an amendment which would have ensured, if carried, that women could return to work after pregnancy without a qualifying period of employment. That amendment did not find favour with the Committee. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a case for the qualifying period to be less than two years as at present. Two years seems a very long while. Almost all the organisations consulted by the Equal Opportunities Commission, when it sought views, favoured a reduction in this two-year period. I believe, for example, that the British Institute of Management would be happy with the period being reduced to the six months mentioned in this new amendment.
Although I personally still feel that there is a case for doing away with the qualifying period altogether —as does the Equal Opportunities Commission —nevertheless I have attempted in this amendment to meet the views expressed by a number of organisations that they would support a reduction in the period but not complete elimination.
As we know, the Government are anxious to encourage women back into employment. We are all familiar with the arguments about demographic change: 50 per cent. of the workforce is likely to consist of women in the coming years. It will be in the interests of employers to retain women in employment, even after the shorter qualifying period.
What of the employer who has attracted into his employment a highly-qualified woman? This may increasingly be the case. He will not want to lose her if she becomes pregnant within a year or so of her taking up her appointment. Six months was the period stipulated in the original legislation providing for maternity leave. I believe that it was chosen because six months is the normal probation period in many types of employment.
However, the longer period of two years which is now in operation is not satisfactory. It fails to take account of a woman's need to work which is increasingly the pattern nowadays. Most mortgage arrangements at present take two incomes into account. If that were not the case, many young couples embarking upon house purchase for the first
8
time would simply not be able to acquire living accommodation at all.
Thus we are not nowadays talking about women working for pin money, if ever that was the case. It is a necessity which should be interrupted for as short a period as is commensurate with the health of the woman and child. It is not a special right for women; it is a family right. With this Bill there is an opportunity to make matters easier for working women. We urge that that opportunity be taken. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has made most of the points but I should like to stress the great importance of retaining women in employment. We shall need them desperately. If they have an established right to come back then obviously they are more likely to do so than if they have to apply again, as anybody else would do who has not previously been in the firm or organisation. Therefore, to limit it to the shortest possible period of time to establish rights is in the interests of the employer as well as of the woman.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there are two issues behind the amendment. In my submission both point clearly and cogently in its favour. The first is what one might call the equal opportunities, women's rights issue. The second is the one that has been mentioned forcefully today—the demographic, economic argument.
As to the first, my own concern has mainly been to entrench the rights of married women in the matrimonial home and its contents. But so far as I have been able, I have also supported the efforts of the Equal Opportunities Commission in this field and its principal spokespeople in your Lordships' House have supported my approach.
The argument here is plain and cogent. It is only through women becoming pregnant that society has continuity. In doing so women endure nine months of nausea and discomfort, followed by hours of pain and peril. That raises a concomitant duty on society to see that that sacrifice is adequately reflected in the law. However, there is more to it than that. There is the second argument which was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, just now. There will be an urgent need for married women in particular and for women in general to continue in employment. They must be given an opportunity and indeed an incentive to do so.
When the matter was raised in Committee, I felt, in spite of what the noble Baroness said, unable to support the approach because it seemed to me that the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was very difficult to gainsay. He said that if there were no period of probation, one might get a situation whereby a woman claimed pregnancy rights having been only two days in employment. That reflects the fact that, even though society owes a duty here, it does not properly perform that duty if it puts the whole, or an incommensurate, burden on a particular individual —here, the individual employer.

9
However, six months seems to me to be a really fair spread of risk. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that that period had commended itself to a number of organisations, including some representatives of employers. I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting what seems to me a very plain case, and that the amendment will succeed.
3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for bringing up again an argument which I used at an earlier stage. As always, he recalled my words with punctilious accuracy. However, I do not think the position is quite so simple as he suggests. There is no dispute that there should be a right to be employed again if one has worked prior to pregnancy for a certain period. It is simply a question of specifying the period.
I believe that it is the general experience that a period of six months does not on the whole give an employer very much opportunity to judge the quality and reliability of an employee. There is obviously a case for a rather longer period than six months. However, whether the present period of two years is dead right is another matter, but six months seems to err on the short side.
I suggest, with respect, that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, gave her case away when she said that there was a great demand for women's labour for demographic as well as for other reasons. Of course she is right, but if there is a great demand, the necessity to provide a woman with a right to return to work, as opposed to having the opportunity to return, is quite another matter.
I believe that the noble Baroness is right to say that there is a great and increasing demand for women's labour. However, if that is the case, one is not penalising women who give up their job because of pregnancy if one insists, if they are to have a right of return, on their having completed a substantial period of employment prior to the pregnancy. If, in other words, there is such an overwhelming demand for their services, they will be re-employed whether or not they have that statutory right. On the other hand, if they have a statutory right based only on six months' experience, I doubt whether that is satisfactory. I doubt whether in any other field of employment six months would be regarded as an adequate period of trial. Although one can argue about whether the two-year period is right, I am pretty sure that the six-month period is wrong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, this amendment is obviously of great concern to women. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing the issue back to be discussed on Report. However, I must say at the outset that the arguments I have heard so far have not convinced me to change my mind.
The new clause seeks to give all women employees the right to return to work after having a baby after only six months' continuous service with their employer. As your Lordships know, presently most
10
women employees have the right to return to work after childbirth provided they satisfy certain conditions relating to length of service and hours worked. These are as follows: a woman who is employed to work at least 16 hours a week must have been continuously employed by her employer for at least two years before the beginning of the eleventh week before the expected week of confinement. Women working at least eight but less than 16 hours a week require five years continuous employment in order to qualify.
It is surely right that before a woman gains the right to be away from work for up to 40 weeks in connection with childbirth she should be required to serve a reasonable qualifying period with her employer and demonstrate her commitment to that employment. The length of a qualifying period must of course be a matter of judgment, but we feel that the current qualifying period of two years strikes the right balance between the needs of employers and employees. Certainly six months is far too short, although I recognise that it is an improvement on the amendment tabled in Committee which sought to abolish the qualifying period altogether. Some employers face difficulties in covering the period of absence and re-integrating the absent employee on her return. Many employees return to work but unfortunately many others do not, although before the birth they believe that they will do so. Giving all women this right would add to the difficulties employers face with the maternity provisions and can only make them reluctant to recruit younger women. It would reduce job opportunities for those very people the new clause is trying to help.
We have heard arguments in Committee and again today that demographic trends mean that married women should be encouraged to remain in employment and that therefore the employment protection legislation should make the right of return to work after pregnancy available to more women. I recognise that demographic trends mean that many employers will need to look to attracting married women back to work. But the best way to proceed is not to impose a further legislative burden on employers. Employers should be left to agree with their employees such arrangements as may be necessary to meet their need for married women. Some may wish to improve on the statutory provisions with regard to the right to return to work after pregnancy; others may wish to introduce flexible working hours and so on. To impose an extra legislative burden on employers irrespective of their own particular needs and circumstances does not make sense.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to dual income mortgages. I have no great experience in that matter, but I am sure that building societies need evidence of a person's commitment to continue working. I am not sure that they would regard six months as being a long enough period.
I have no argument with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he says that women make a great sacrifice when they have children. However, I disagree when he says that this is a plain case. I am not at all certain that it is. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put the case

11
extremely cogently. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, that is a very disappointing response from the Minister. I am very sad that, despite the fact that we debated the matter in Committee and brought back an amendment to meet some of the objections raised, the Minister does not find our amendment acceptable.
I cannot accept the arguments that have been advanced on the basis of demography. It seems to me that if the intention is—and clearly it is —to encourage women to remain in or to return to the workforce, there must be a lead from the Government. What better lead could there be than an improvement in maternity leave arrangements, spelt out in legislation?
When we first had legislation on maternity leave, six months was the qualifying period that was included. As I said in my opening remarks, six months was originally chosen because a six months' probation period is very common in industry and commerce and it was felt that a six months' qualifying period would chime in with many employers' arrangements. There is no evidence that the six-month period imposed a heavy burden on employers.
I do not accept the argument that changing the qualifying period would impose a further burden on employers. If it is left to employers to make their own arrangements many good employers will do so. As we have often said in debates on this Bill, it is not necessary to legislate for good employers. However, we have to ensure that minimum standards are available in order that less good employers will meet a reasonable standard. That is what statutory rights in employment are all about.
I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's response. In the circumstances I feel that I have no alternative but to test the feeling of the House.
3.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No.1

Contents

Amherst, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Birk, B.

Ezra, L.

Bottomley, L.

Falkland, V.

Brightman, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Galpern, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hanworth, V.

David, B.

Hayter, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Diamond, L.

Hooson, L.

12

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rochester, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jay, L.

Scanlon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

Kearton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stallard, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Phillips, B.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Porritt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Allerton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Ampthill, L.

Knollys, V.

Annaly, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Barber, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Monson, L.

Borthwick, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moyne, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Onslow, E.

Cayzer, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

De Freyne, L.

Rodney, L.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Eccles, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Effingham, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elibank, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Elles, B.

Sharples, B.

Erne, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Slim, V.

Faithfull, B.

Somers, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Sudeley, L.

Havers, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ironside, L.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause —
("Discrimination unlawful or ground on HIV
.—(1) It is unlawful for an employer, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against a person on the grounds that that person has contracted the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or is supposed to have contracted HIV except where such employment is the subject of an exemption order issued under subsection (6) of this section —

(a) in the arrangements he makes for the purposes of determining who should be offered that employment, or

(b) in the terms on which he offers that person employment, or

(c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer that person employment, or

(d) in the way he affords that person access to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities or services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford that person access to them or

(e) by dismissing that person, or subjecting that person to any other detriment.

(2) This section shall not apply if the person will ordinarily be expected to work in a country which requires people working there to take a test for HIV and to have a negative result.
(3) This section shall not apply if the employer can demonstrate that the person cannot physically fulfil his or her duties at that time.
(4) In this section, HIV refers to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV-2 and any other virus which may lead to the medical condition known as the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
(5) The Secretary of State may, in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, make such exemption orders as he thinks fit in such industries and services as he deems appropriate.
(6) Enforcement of this section shall be as set out in sections 62 to 68 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I introduced an amendment designed to protect against discrimination in employment people unfortunate enough to have contracted the HIV virus or full-blown AIDS. That amendment did not commend itself to your Lordships' Committee, but there was a good discussion and I had the impression that there was some sympathy for what I was trying to do.
One of the points made against the amendment in Committee was that it was too all-embracing—that there were certain industries and services where there might be a case for allowing exemptions. I have given a great deal of thought to that. I do not believe that there are likely to be many industries and services where, given a reasonable standard of hygiene which should apply anyway, it would be unsafe to employ people suffering from HIV or AIDS. There is no real threat to fellow workers or to the general public in most working environments and, as the Minister said in Committee:
"No risk should mean no discrimination".—[Official Report, 16/10/89; col 669.]
Hysterical press coverage, mostly in the tabloid press, has been responsible for spreading much misinformation about HIV and AIDS, but we know from medical evidence available that the virus itself is very delicate. It cannot live long outside the body and can be passed on only through an exchange of
14
body fluids in intimate sexual contact or by injection with infected blood or by infected needles.
Arguments were advanced in Committee that it was itself discriminatory to forbid discrimination against HIV sufferers while permitting it to continue against sufferers of other serious diseases. It seems to me that the answer to that is that there is something quite especially frightening about AIDS. That is largely because of the publicity which has surrounded it, but also because there would appear at present to be no known cure. It has claimed a number of well known victims, some of whom have been pictured in the last stages of the disease. The suddenness of its appearance, at least in the West; the perceived dreadfulness of the disease; the fact that it afflicts mainly the young —all those factors have combined to produce a special atmosphere which distinguishes HIV and AIDS from other serious diseases. So this is a very special case.
The Government acknowledge that fact. Their advertising campaign has been virtually unprecedented. There has not been a similar campaign in regard to any other disease in recent times. The campaign has had some success in changing the sexual habits of those most at risk, but people still become infected. As I said in Committee, it is bad enough for a young person to be diagnosed as having become infected; to have one's employment put at risk as well must be horrifying indeed. It must induce a state of near desperation.
I am therefore returning with another amendment. I do not accept the government argument that people are already protected by the existing legislation on unfair dismissal. It takes a great deal to mount a case to an industrial tribunal and, even if the case is won, it rarely results in reinstatement. What we want to do in this amendment is to prevent discrimination at the outset. I believe that introducing legislation of this kind will help to change public perceptions of HIV sufferers. There is a great deal of concern about discrimination in employment. I have received many letters about it, as I am sure have other noble Lords.
I must tell the House that I am not entirely happy about the wording of the amendment. I have included in it a provision for the Secretary of State to exempt certain industries and services, but I believe that in practice the number of such industries and services will be few indeed. Nevertheless, there is a risk that an HIV sufferer might end up with less protection as a result of the amendment if he or she happened to work in industries or services that became the subject of an order. So, from my point of view, the amendment is not perfect. But it might offer some protection more generally to HIV and AIDS sufferers. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Baroness reminded noble Lords, there is a difference between this amendment and the one which your Lordships discussed in Committee; namely, the provision in subsection (5) which the noble Baroness herself quite plainly does not like very much and which gives to the Secretary of State the power to exempt certain occupations.

15
As the noble Baroness said, that point was raised at an earlier stage. It was pointed out—it hardly therefore needs re-emphasis—that there are certain areas in which it would be very understandable that people should not wish to employ HIV sufferers. An obvious example is hospitals. Another obvious example is domestic help in the home, care of children and the like. To a point, therefore, in bringing forward the amendment, although she does not like it herself, the noble Baroness has sought to meet that point by giving to the Secretary of State power to exempt particular occupations. However, perhaps I may respectfully disagree with her. If the amendment were to become law, subsection (5) would be of some considerable importance because there are a number of occupations —one has only to think of them—in which most noble Lords would feel very unhappy at being compelled to employ a sufferer from that unfortunate disease.
However, the noble Baroness has not met the other great objection which was put at the Committee stage; namely, why pick out a particular disease? There are other diseases—for example, hepatitis, the syphilitic diseases and tuberculosis—sufferers from which are perhaps not very well placed for employment. One would be nervous of employing people who have suffered actively or are suffering actively from complaints of that sort. HIV is the disease which makes the headlines at the moment and attracts the attention. But if, by putting forward the amendment on the ground of fairness to the sufferers themselves, there would seem to be no justification for excluding from its benefits sufferers from other difficult diseases, unpleasant diseases and diseases which have been known to carry infectious power for a considerable time, it seems to me that the argument that my noble friend the Minister put at an earlier stage still stands; namely, that one should rely on the general law rather than pick out this particular disease for special treatment. I hope very much that your Lordships will not feel it necessary to accept the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in contrary distinction to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I wish to support the amendment. We had considerable discussion at Committee stage and I believe that the noble Baroness has gone out of her way to find ways of dealing with the criticism that was offered on that occasion.
Frankly, I do not accept the argument that, if the amendment were passed, it would be unfair to sufferers of other diseases. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, it is a question of how contagious those various diseases are. Tuberculosis, for instance, is a totally false analogy. There would be many cases in which tuberculosis was a danger to fellow employees. That is not the case so far as concerns HIV and AIDS, as will be known to those people who have taken the trouble to read and inwardly digest the Government's advertising and information.
We are dealing with people who are being unfairly discriminated against. We are not just dealing with people who are being discriminated against. Clearly,
16
in some cases, it may be necessary to discriminate against people because they are unsuitable for a particular occupation. If that is the case with HIV —and one has little evidence of situations where that would be the case —that discrimination may have to take place.
As we said at Committee stage, however, many people are being unfairly discriminated against because their employers find that they are suffering from this malaise and they are automatically being thrown out of work. That is unfair discrimination and this House should set its face against it. It appears that we have singularly failed to get across even to Members of your Lordships' House some of the realities of this disease. How much more have we failed to get them across to the general public and to employers? I believe that we must lay down a minimum condition which will allow people to carry on with their work. They are already suffering, as we said before, from all sorts of problems, psychological and other, as a result of having caught this disease.
I had the slight feeling at the last stage of the Bill that there were also people who discriminated between those who had caught the disease through routes which they considered acceptable and those who had caught it through routes which they considered unacceptable. I hope that noble Lords will dismiss that thought from their minds. People who have this disease, however caught, are suffering from it. They have a right not to be discriminated against. I certainly support this amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness opposite has tabled an amendment which closely resembles one tabled at Committee stage. As I made clear in that debate, I share the general concern that employers heed the message that the workplace risks from the AIDS virus are negligible and there should be no discrimination. As I said before, no risk means no discrimination.
The difference between us is over the meaning of getting that message across. In the Government's view the continuing public education campaign is the most effective approach. However, we certainly need to continue to monitor the situation carefully and to develop the campaign as effectively as possible. As I have announced, to that end we shall shortly be launching an updated version of AIDS and Employment which will come out very soon. Education, not legislation, is the way forward. In her opening remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, usefully explained once more how AIDS can be picked up.
The current amendment includes a subsection which would empower the Secretary of State to make exemption orders, in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, in such industries and services as he deems appropriate. That would give the Secretary of State a surprisingly wide power but not necessarily an appropriate one. Even in sectors in which there may be a potential risk of infection (such as the health care sector) those risks vary with the precautions taken.

17
The subsection seems to be based on the assumption that in those sectors, if people are careless over hygiene precautions, that would justify discrimination by employers in those sectors against those with the virus. But surely the solution should be better enforcement of hygiene precautions, not discrimination. Although the proposed power of exemption is meant to be helpful in response to some of the points made by noble Lords at Committee stage. I fear that if the clause were adopted and the power used it would be counterproductive to the aims of our education campaign.
It is worth repeating that to dismiss someone merely because he or she is suspected of having HIV infection is likely, depending on the circumstances, to be unfair. The point has been made that tribunals should order reinstatement more often. As with other unfair dismissal cases, those who want reinstatement should make it clear from the outset. If the dismissal is unfair, if there is no contributory fault and if reinstatement is practicable, then the tribunal would give it serious consideration. But I suspect that a very large number of applicants in tribunal cases do not want to return to their old job.
I am concerned that the Government should be successful in convincing employers that the risks of being infected by the AIDS virus in the workplace are negligible, that discrimination is not justified and that it is in their interests to adopt sensible policies in relation to AIDS. But, as I said earlier, education must be the answer and not legislation.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. In many respects I found it very useful and helpful. I am very glad to learn that the updated version of AIDS and Employment is shortly to be issued and that the Government accept the argument—the Minister restated it—that no risk must mean no discrimination.
I am very glad to learn that industrial tribunals are to be urged that reinstatement should be used as a remedy far more frequently than it is at the moment and that better enforcement of hygiene is something which should be carried out in any event in many occupations. I do not intend to press the amendment this afternoon. We have given the argument a very good airing again. We have emphasised the view held on this side of the House that individuals who have this appalling disease have enough to put up with psychologically without having to face the risk of unfair discrimination in employment. We have emphasised once again that HIV and AIDS represent a very special case. It is not in any way apposite to compare it with other diseases.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, dealt at some length with those arguments. I agree with everything that he said in that area. I shall withdraw the amendment but would like to say that we hope that, should discrimination apparently continue, there will be another opportunity some time in the future, if education does not seem to be working, once again to return to the legislative field so as to ensure that
18
people faced with this disease are not also faced with unfair discrimination in employment. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Power to exempt discrimination in favour of lone parents in connection with training]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 36, after ("parents") insert ("and women returning to work after pregnancy").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again this amendment is similar to one moved at Committee stage. It has to do with the need to get more women back into the employment field. Its purpose is to enable women who return to work after pregnancy to have the advantages in the Bill. They are not included at the present time. So many women who want to return to work are not eligible for benefits of one kind or another because they have not been unemployed. The need to get these women back into work is very great indeed. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the amendment. In our view it is very necessary to give support to women who return to work after pregnancy and in particular to ensure that training and other special arrangements can be made for them to play a full part in employment following disruption of their working pattern.
We accept that such amendments do not entirely cope with the situation in which most women find themselves when they have to discontinue work in order to have their children. There is a need for a proper programme of measures, including crèche and child care facilities, career breaks and so on, as well as better pregnancy leave to make this possible.
However, the measure proposed in the amendment is a step which I think can be taken via this Bill. We hope that it will commend itself to the Government.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of this amendment. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that there would be substantial costs in extending child care payments across the board. It is partly with that in view that my noble friend deliberately confined the amendment so as not to cover all married women returning to work at any time after bringing up their children but only those who return to work after pregnancy. It is therefore a limited amendment.
I suggest to your Lordships that it has the further advantage that it should not give rise to any problems of definition because the right of employees to return to work after absence due to pregnancy is adequately defined in Section 45 of the 1978 Act as:
"any time before the end of the period of twenty-nine weeks beginning with the week in which the date of confinement falls".
Last Tuesday the Secretary of State is reported to have said that a survey of 2,000 British firms had found that only one in three companies was trying to adapt its training, employment and working

19
practices to tap alternative sources; that fewer still were looking at more radical changes to employment policies such as child care; that only 3 per cent. of companies had introduced such schemes; that 5 per cent. more were considering initiatives; but that there was little interest outside financial and business services, transport and distribution.
In the light of that indictment of the current situation by the responsible Minister, I hope that the Minister here will feel able to accept the amendment. Many of these women are of very great potential value to the economy. They would soon repay in tax the grants for retraining that they would receive if the Government were to invest in them in the way proposed in the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must first point out that there are some technical difficulties with the amendments of the noble Baroness as drafted. As it stands, the clause deals only with discrimination on the grounds of marital status. To give favourable treatment to "women returning to work after pregnancy" would involve sex discrimination against men. It would therefore be necessary to amend subsection (2) of the clause to include a reference to Section 1 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Moreover it is not clear whether the amendments would cover women undertaking training with a view to returning to work. Neither is it clear for how long after a pregnancy a woman would continue to be able to receive special treatment.
However, setting aside those technical objections, I recognise that the intention of the amendments is to enable special help to be given to women returning to the labour market after a period of domestic responsibilities. In fact, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate may not be aware that the Government already provide a special entry route into employment training for both men and women who have been out of the labour market for two years because of domestic responsibilities and have not received unemployment benefit or credits. In addition, individual training managers and training providers are free to offer créche facilities at or near the place of training, flexibility in the timing of training or distance-learning materials so that some training can be undertaken at home.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point. It is true that at one stage there were facilities provided for training women who did not qualify because they had been receiving unemployment benefit. But the numbers were very limited. Have those numbers very greatly increased recently? That is part of our objectives. Those places were valued but initially the numbers were very small.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very fair point. It is a matter that I shall consider. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness at a later stage and let her know whether the numbers have indeed increased.
20
As I told noble Lords when introducing the Government's amendments to this clause in Committee, we believe that it is right to target special help on lone parents so that they can receive the training they need to get back into jobs. The cost of extending child care payments to all parents on employment training would be very great. It would unacceptably reduce the resources available for helping long-term unemployed people to get back into jobs. We believe that programme resources are better used on enhancing the volume and quality of the training available under the programme.
Lone parents face particular difficulties if they wish to re-enter the labour market because they have no partner with whom to share the responsibilities of child care. We firmly believe that it is right to target special help on this category of parent.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, raised a point about companies not changing their practices. That is exactly why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers are leading the campaign to persuade companies to realise some of the problems that they will face over the next 10 years and fundamentally to change their attitudes towards not only married women but also older workers and young people.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there is no point in dividing the House on the amendment. I very much hope that the Government will bear it in mind. I hear in the Minister's reply traces of sympathy with the objective. If we keep on long enough he may realise that it really is in everybody's interests that it should be made as easy as possible for these women to return to work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Repeal or modification of provisions requiring different treatment of different categories of employees]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 15, at beginning insert—
("(8) The provisions of subsections (1) (2) and (3) of this section shall be brought into effect by order made by the Secretary of State, and different orders may be made for different days for those provisions; but no such order shall be made until he has received a special report from the Health and Safety Commission concerning the implications of such orders for the health, safety; general welfare of the women and the young persons affected.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 28 which is a consequential amendment. Clause 9 deals with the repeal or modification of provisions requiring different treatment of different categories of employees. Our amendment is designed to modify the operation of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of that clause. At present the amendment would open up access to the employment of young persons or women wherever they are protected—both in the specified areas in the Bill and in any other areas that the Minister may subsequently discover —for the

21
operation of winding apparatus, for heavy work, and of course for their employment underground.
The amendment simply provides that any change in the existing restrictions will operate only after a special report from the Health and Safety Commission; and that no such order shall be made until the Secretary of State has received that report concerning the implications of such orders on the health, safety and general welfare of the women and young persons affected.
At Committee stage we moved four different amendments which were designed to seek to modify the unrestricted right of the Secretary of State to abolish these restrictions, including those not specified in the Bill and any that he subsequently finds. We were quite unable to persuade the Committee to do that. Many noble Lords who spoke said that they were concerned that there should be some check on the powers given to the Secretary of State, although they found that in other ways they disagreed with the detail of our amendments.
I submit that most of the criticism directed at our amendments in Committee concerned their inadequate drafting, or it was said that they presented certain precedents—in particular precedents that affected the role of Parliament. We have sought to deal with those matters in these amendments. We are not interposing a commission—whether it be the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Health and Safety Commission—and providing that the will of Parliament must be delayed, modified, prescribed or regulated as a result of the intervention of that commission. We are not saying—as some noble Lords stated that we should not say —that a Royal Commission should stand between Parliament and Parliament's intentions. We are trying to meet the objections that were raised.
The amendment covers the deregulation provisions in the Bill —Clause 9 subsections (1), (2) and 3). It narrows its modifications to cover only those of health and safety. It involves only the Health and Safety Commission. The delay that it prescribes is only until there is a special report on a specified aspect of the regulations for women and young persons. The amendment protects Parliament's position. We consider that we have met all reasonable objections. Therefore it is worth reminding the House of the case that was put in Committee.
First, we said that the position of most of the interested organisations on the employers' side—the BIM, the CBI, the IPM and so on—is very much at variance with the unqualified abandonment of all regulation of young persons and women of the kind prescribed in the Bill. Secondly, we said that some of the implications of the Bill—for example, those concerning night work for young persons—are almost certainly against EC regulations and international standards. Thirdly, we said that the Government's continued defence of their policy that everything can be solved by relying on Section 2 of the 1974 Act will not stand up. The 1974 Act creates only criminal liabilities and is mortally wounded by the absence of an effective inspectorate. For all those
22
reasons, and for some others with which I shall not burden the House at the moment, we say that the Government themselves admit that there is some exploitation and that something needs to be done to protect those who might be affected by total deregulation.
The only argument which the Government have advanced to us is that deregulation is now in some sense justified and is even required by the increase in demand for labour, particularly for young persons and also perhaps for women. We argue that this does not follow. A high level of labour demand does not affect the whole of the labour market. It affects the skilled parts and leaves unprotected significant numbers of workers—older workers and workers who are not necessarily affected by high labour demand in periods of high labour demand—who require a floor of statutory protection. This is admitted in most other European countries and it should be admitted in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as with most of the Opposition's amendments to date on the subject of women and mining, these amendment are simply a delaying tactic which will have the effect of perpetuating unequal treatment between men and women. There have been lengthy debates, both here and in another place, on the conditions below ground and whether or not they are suitable for women, but they have really been quite irrelevant to the central question: are there any grounds to justify treating women differently from men as regards a ban on working underground? The answer is no. There are no health and safety risks underground specifically affecting women and not men to justify such a ban.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that case law has established that the EC equal treatment directive allows special protection of women only against risks specifically affecting them as women. That is the approach we are following in Clause 3 of the Bill. Beyond that, women should be in the same position as men as regards working underground and should not be subject to any special dispensation or prohibition. These old-fashioned, discriminatory, protective attitudes cannot be allowed to perpetuate themselves through our legislation.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we have already consulted the Health and Safety Commission on the legislation in subsections (1) to (3) through the consultative document Restrictions on Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation. In response to the document, the Commission stated categorically that it,
"fully supports the removal of statutory protection which differentiates between men and women, where this can no longer be justified on health and safety grounds".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be saying that, in relation to dangerous jobs underground or elsewhere, any protection should be removed from women, presumably because absolute equality is required. However, the Home Office has recently issued a code of practice for men which expressly tells them that they should be protective of women and should

23
not put women under threat. When it suits them economically, the Government advocate measures which are against the best interests of women, but in other instances they do the very reverse. When will the Government get their act together?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is confusing two different and distinct issues.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he is not, but I believe that he is. We are removing discrimination between the two sexes. There does not seem to be any reason why women should not be able to work underground as successfully and as capably as men. The Home Office report to which the noble Lord referred deals with an entirely different issue. It is about intimidating women. I do not think that any woman who wished to go underground would then end up being intimidated by her working colleagues.
So far as concerns the Commission, we are not removing any necessary health and safety protection for women in subsections (I) to (3) of Clause 9. Nor are we removing any age-based restrictions in those subsections. The Commission recommended that we should keep the protection for young people in the machinery provisions in subsection (1), but that we should delete the discriminatory references to gender. That is what we are doing.
In subsection (2) we are extending to men the protection of Section 93 of the Act, which currently prohibits women and young people from being required to lift loads so heavy as to be likely to cause injury. Obviously that can only possibly be viewed as an improvement in health and safety provision and not unnaturally the Commission supported it "in principle". I am surprised that noble Lords opposite should want to delay extending this protection to men.
However, it is subsection (3), which repeals the ban on women working underground, that is at the heart of these amendments. The Health and Safety Commission declined to make a specific recommendation on this. It said that it would prefer to see that other responses before coming to a final view because of the social and welfare issues raised. Significantly, it did not say that the restrictions were needed on health and safety grounds and, as I have already said, it wholeheartedly gave its support to the removal of differences in treatment that are no longer justified on health and safety grounds.
I therefore see no merit in requiring the Commission to produce a report before subsections (1) to (3) are brought into force. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to know that we are not satisfied with the Minister's reply. For a large part of what he was saying I thought that he had the wrong notes. He seemed to be talking entirely about the position of women as though the clause and the amendment had nothing to do with young persons. They do. The issue does not concern women alone.
24
The noble Lord also said that we were perpetuating discrimination. The object of the amendment is not to perpetuate discrimination. It provides for an investigation by the Health and Safety Commission of the consequences of removing the regulations. It may well be that noble Lords should have more faith. It may well be that if the Government sometimes searched for the facts before reaching for legislation they would find that the facts were on their side. It may well be that if the amendment were carried and there were an investigation of the health, safety and general welfare of women and young persons affected by the clause, it would be found that they came away with a clean bill of health and the provision would run forward.
The provision would run forward in a non-discriminatory way. That is what we are suggesting. Even if they found that certain matters were at risk, it would be easy enough for the Government to amend the regulations in such a way as to take that into account. We are not being partisan and we are not proposing anything discriminatory. We are asking for a simple ordinary concession. The Government will not accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 25, at end insert—
("(3A) Where a woman has been denied unemployment benefit, or any other benefit to which she is otherwise entitled under a statutory provision, on the ground that she is not actively seeking, or has refused an opportunity for, work underground of a kind to which subsection (3) applies by reason of her refusing to do that work, that decision shall be set aside if she proves that she objects to doing that work on the ground of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the position of women working undergound. We have already moved many amendments on this matter. We have sought to try to get the House to accept our amendments, but unfortunately the Government have at no stage felt that they could do anything of the kind.
We now come before the House with a very modest amendment, which states:
"Where a woman has been denied unemployment benefit, or any other benefit to which she is otherwise entitled under a statutory provision, on the ground that she is not actively seeking, or has refused an opportunity for, work underground of a kind to which subsection (3) applies by reason of her refusing to do that work, that decision shall be set aside if she proves that she objects to doing that work on the ground of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction".
The Minister and noble Lords on the other side of the House will recognise the phrase:
"on the ground of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction".
It has been used before by the Government in industrial relations legislation. They have used it in relation to closed shops. They have said that workers who have a conscientious or other deeply held personal conviction should be able to operate in a non-closed shop environment, (in the days when closed shops were allowed on any grounds) as long as it could be shown that they had an objection on the ground of conscience or deeply held personal

25
conviction. We believe that what applies in the closed shop area could reasonably apply here.
It may be that the argument is made that we are doing something for women which we are not doing for men. It may be that the argument is made that we should say that the terms of the amendment should also apply to men; but we believe that that does not stand. The basic weakness of the Government's position and the basic problem as it arises from the point of view of the individual worker is, as I sought to say in Committee, that they have shifted from an objective test of availability to work, under which both men and women had to refuse three alternative jobs before they could be denied benefit, to a subjective test; that is, "actively seeking work". That now applies to both men and women. In the context of introducing at this point in time the removal of restrictions on women working underground, that is an illegitimate advance and a reduction of their rights.
We are saying that there could be many good reasons why women feel conscientious or deeply held convictions against working underground. They could agree with many of the arguments advanced by the Trades Union Congress, individual unions and other organisations that the present conditions underground are not adequate or appropriate for women. There could be all sorts of reasons which do not apply to men.
The Government have never told us that they wish to impose some sort of penalty to force women underground. They always say that they are stuck by the fact that the social security legislation has moved from an objective to a subjective test. We cannot deal with that legislation in this House at this time. If we attempted to do so, we should be told what we were told by a Minister on a previous occasion. We are trying to deal with this problem in as modest a way as possible and that is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I find this amendment puzzling. The noble Lord did not explain, I imagine because it cannot be explained, how anyone could have feelings of conscience against working underground. People may well not want to work underground and may be frightened of doing so. As the noble Lord said, the conditions may not be appropriate for women to work underground. However, perhaps he could explain, certainly to myself and perhaps to other noble Lords, how any human being could have feelings of conscience against working underground.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I found some difficulty with the word "conscience" as regards working underground. Nonetheless I hope that the Government will think again about this matter which we discussed at considerable length on Second Reading and in Committee. I believe that the arguments put forward then were more powerful than the arguments put forward today by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I understand that he has done this because he is desperately looking for a suitable phrase to put in at this stage of the Bill.
26
Can we not come to the simple fact that we are asking the Government to find a way of saying that no woman should be forced to take work underground if she is really frightened and wretched at the thought of doing so and that if she does not do it she will not lose her financial support? That is what we are asking in plain English.
I agree that the amendment makes an exception and that it is inconsistent with some elements of the Sex Discrimination Act. Someone said that consistency is the bugbear of little minds and I do not believe that the noble Lord has a little mind in a little body. I seriously ask the Government to see a way of removing this measure, which will be most unpopular and will be used against them. It will be said that this Government are trying to force women underground by starving them if they refuse to take work there. It is not asking a great deal that they should make this exception, perhaps for a period of years, so that for an interim period, until people become used to the idea, no woman will be told that, if it is the only job offered and it is refused because of fear of going down the mine, financial support will then be removed. I am sure that there is some way of meeting that point without going through the contortions of saying that it is a matter of conscience and so on.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as always the noble Baroness shows good sense and there is logic behind her argument. However, that is not what we shall be asked to vote on if the matter is pressed to a vote. As my noble friend said, the amendment brings in this almost unbelievable idea that there could be a conscientious objection. While one sees the force of the argument of the noble Baroness, I do not believe that that applies in considering whether we can accept this amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has answered the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter; namely, that my noble friend proposes the amendment in this form because he is desperately anxious to achieve something as regards this problem.
I shall not go through all the arguments which I advanced in Committee. However, I say this to the Minister in relation to this amendment and indeed the amendment moved in Committee. If he had worked or been underground and had seen the conditions there —the dust, the grime, the noise, the dirt, the dark, the filth and the sweat —he would understand why women who perhaps were initially attracted to mineworking may not wish to go down a mine again. They may indeed be terrified and may have a conscience not only as regards themselves and women working underground but anybody working underground in such abominable and disgraceful conditions as still exist in some of the mines of this country where the seams are very narrow.
Even if the noble Lord is unable to accept this amendment, I hope that he will at least accept that noble Lords on this side of the Chamber, and indeed I hope on his side, are most concerned about this problem and are most concerned that women who

27
perhaps have decided to try mineworking should not thereby be penalised at some future date. I urge the Minister to give his full attention to this matter. Even if he cannot support this amendment, perhaps he will try to come forward with an acceptable proposition which we can discuss on Third Reading.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for the debate which we have had on this subject. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said she felt that I did not have a tiny or small mind.
I am sure that everyone in the House agrees with the general thrust of what was said by the noble Baroness. I hope that I will be able to argue exactly why an amendment is not required. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is totally against the idea of women going down mines, and I respect his views, but I think that that is part of a wider sex discrimination issue rather than the amendment now before us.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, with this amendment seeks to provide a particular escape from benefit sanctions for women, though not for men, in certain circumstances. If such an amendment were law women, but not men, would be able to refuse jobs underground or refuse to look for such jobs if they had,
"ground of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction".
The intention is that certain women should not be put in the position of having to take jobs down mines or else risk losing their benefit.
Noble Lords will see that the amendment does not seek to provide an automatic escape from benefit sanctions for all women and I welcome, at least, recognition that there may be occasions when a woman has to make a choice between underground work and benefit. However, the protection that already exists for women—and, I am pleased to say, equally for men—will ensure that such cases would be so few and far between that once I have explained the position I hope noble Lords opposite will recognise that they have no legitimate cause for concern.
However, first of all let us be clear that the amendment is discriminatory and therefore against the whole spirit and nature of this Bill. Noble Lords are well aware that the Government's policy is to remove unjustifiable discrimination between men and women in employment. This amendment would of course be discriminatory against men. As such it would potentially place this country in breach of its obligations under EC Directive 79/7 on equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. Article 4 of the directive states unequivocally that,
"there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on ground of sex either directly or indirectly [among other things] in the scope of the schemes and the conditions of access [and] the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to benefits".
There is absolutely no justification for treating men and women differently as regards benefits in relation to mining any more than there would be in relation to other forms of industrial employment.
28
Turning now to the provisions of the Social Security Act 1989, as your Lordships are aware —not least from the lengthy debate on a not dissimilar amendment in Committee —this Act amended the Social Security Act 1975 relating to benefit disqualification for refusal of employment. The onus is now on the claimant to show that he or she had good cause for refusing a job. However, the regulations made under the Act say that, in the first place, sanctions can only apply in the sort of circumstances that concern noble Lords if the job in question was offered through the Employment Service. The Employment Service staff will, of course, act in good faith in administering this responsibility and will not offer jobs to people which are clearly inappropriate to their circumstances.
Nevertheless, I should explain that the regulations also set out a number of matters to be taken into account in considering whether good cause was shown. The list includes,
"any religious or conscientious objection, sincerely held by the person to his undertaking a particular employment".
Much of what noble Lords are seeking is thus already and obviously enshrined in law.
The regulations also require that in considering good cause account should be taken of,
"any condition or personal circumstance of that person which indicates that a particular employment… would be likely to… subject him to excessive physical or mental stress".
It may be helpful at this point if I remind your Lordships that when there is a doubt about a claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit the decision is made not by a member of the benefit office or Jobcentre staff but by an independent adjudication officer. The chief adjudication officer issues guidance in interpretation of the law in the form of the Adjudication Officers' Guide and says that a claimant may be likely to suffer excessive mental stress if working in an environment of which he or she has a particularly severe dread.
I mention this because of the emphasis placed now and in Committee by noble Lords on the fact that terrified women should not be forced down mines. Although interpretation of the law is for the independent adjudication officers and must be undertaken in the light of the circumstances pertaining to any individual case, it must be clear to noble Lords that there already exists ample protection for women—and, as I feel I must keep stressing, for men—who have good reason not to wish to work down mines.
The Social Security Act 1989 also amended the 1975 Act to make it a condition of receipt of benefit that people actively seek work each week. Noble Lords opposite wish women to be effectively excused this in certain circumstances. However, the Government believe that people who really have no prospects of getting mine work and for whom it would clearly be inappropriate will not actually fall foul of the actively seeking work requirement for benefit.
The regulations that relate to this condition say that the steps which a person is required to take are such of the steps which are reasonable in his or her case as to offer him or her the best prospects of

29
receiving offers of employment. People now, therefore, have a personal responsibility to look for work and from time to time will have to demonstrate that they are doing so to Employment Service staff. They will be able to do this by showing that they have taken active steps to find the sort of work that is appropriate to their particular skills and experience, bearing in mind the length of time they have been unemployed and so on. The Employment Service will not lay down what sort of work this will have to be, though guidance may well be offered.
If a person without any experience or qualifications in mining —the sort of person noble Lords are talking about —chooses to look for any work other than mining, then, so long as that person takes reasonable steps to look for the sort of work that is available and such steps offer the best prospects of obtaining it, the person will satisfy that condition. In effect, people will be able to meet the actively seeking work condition by looking for work that will meet their own requirements so long as they broaden their horizons if they are unsuccessful. But, in case any noble Lords are still not clear as to this, people genuinely fearful of working down mines have little prospect of getting such work and the Employment Service would have no intention of suggesting that such people should look for it.
I hope that what I have said in the course of a lengthy speech has satisfied noble Lords opposite about the effect of the Social Security Act and that the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not like the word "conscience". I can remember when in this House in 1980 we were trying to get the Government to say what was the difference between conscience and a deeply held personal conviction. Finally we persuaded the Minister to say that there was no difference. A "conscience" meant a "deeply held personal conviction" and vice versa, and he could just as well have one as the other.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if there is no difference between the two why has the noble Lord put both in the amendment?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am coming to that. It is because I am seeking to convince the Government. The last time I asked the Government to take out "conscience" because "deeply held personal conviction" would do they would not do so, even though the Government finally admitted that they could not see the difference.
Therefore, in an attempt to go with the Government I am saying, "Right, let us have the phrase you preferred last time of 'conscience or deeply-held personal conviction"'. We are at a late stage in the Bill but we can always come back at Third Reading if the Minister says that he would vote for the amendment if we take out the word "conscience". I shall happily take out the word on that basis, but I suspect the Government will then
30
say that they do not like "deeply held personal conviction".
Some people say that there is a point in including "conscience". In that respect it is possible to suggest —the point has been put to me —that there are some women, rightly or wrongly, who believe that they have what they would call conscientious objections to the kind of sanitation and changing facilities which they think operate in the mines and they do not think that the two sexes should be involved in those things. One may say that that is a deeply held personal conviction and not a conscience. In an attempt to get the Government with me I include both phrases but if it would help to get the Government with me I would take one of them out. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said that I would put in words to suit. Of course I would, if only to stop you doing what the clause forces you to do.
We therefore come to the Minister. He has given us some new arguments, which are always worth having. It is perfectly true, as he said, that we have moved away from the sort of automatic exemption which leads, of course, to all these problems. We have done that in an attempt to soften his hard heart, but it will not work.
He said that the provision is discriminatory. That is a very funny argument to come from the Government as regards this Bill. It already contains discriminatory provisions. For example, the Oxford women's colleges are allowed out of the Bill and that is discrimination against all the other colleges, apart from Cambridge. But if the Government have a good reason, they leave in the provision. As my noble friend Lady Turner said, the Equal Opportunities Commission said that the Government have not properly taken into account the European Community directive on equal treatment because they are only abolishing part of the discriminatory legislation; namely, that which concerns employment, education and training.
There are other aspects of discrimination about which the Government do nothing. The Government say, "One thing at a time because we cannot get rid of all the discrimination overnight". That is all right. They are not so unqualified in opposing all forms of discrimination except that which we are suggesting tonight. I do not believe that is an argument.
I believe we now have some new information which is most interesting. The government spokesman has drummed up some evidence as to how the benefit offices actually administer and interpret their guidance notes. He said that where they regard a person as clearly inappropriate to go down a mine then that person is not sent down a mine. Once again the trouble is that that is a subjective evaluation. Whether such a decision is appropriate or inappropriate is decided by the benefit offices and not by any objective test.
Further, the Minister says that if one looks at the very small print—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I said that if there is a doubt about a claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit the decision is not made by

31
a member of the benefit office or the Jobcentre staff, but by an independent adjudication officer.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I know the Minister said that and I shall come to that point in moment. Whatever the officer is called he is interpreting a subjective definition. That is the point we are making. Furthermore, the Minister said that religious and conscientious objection can be taken into account. It is taken into account, but is is not necessarily a ground for saying that the person does not have to work down a mine. That objection is taken into account. Mental stress and severe dread are also taken into account. The trouble with these arguments is that the more persuasive they are and the more the Minister seeks to convince us and we take them on board, the more we cannot understand why the Minister rejects the amendment.
The Government are saying that the amendment is merely declaring and making more precise and known to people how the guidance notes work in practice. Even though the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not like religious and conscientious objections, if they are operated and if mental and severe dread are allowed, then for the life of us on this side of the House we cannot see why the Government do not accept this modest amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it still discriminates against men.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it may do so, but I have already argued that there is already much discrimination in the Bill for all kinds of legitimate and positive reasons. I go back to the fact that the more the Government seek to persuade us that they are doing de facto what we ask them to do, we can only assume that they refuse to accept the amendment out of obstinacy. We intend to divide the House.
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 118.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hayter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jay, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ennals, L.

Listowel, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

32

McCarthy, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stallard, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mulley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Underhill, L.

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Scanlon, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Annaly, L.

Knollys, V.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lawrence, L.

Barber, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Benson, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Bramall, L.

Marley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Monson, L.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chalfont, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L,

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Croham, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pennock, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Reigate, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rodney, L.

Elibank, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sharples, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Slim, V.

Erne, E.

Somers, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Strange, B.

Faithfull, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gardner of Parkes, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gridley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Haddington, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Thurlow, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Havers, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Holderness, L.

Wolfson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 7:
page8, line28, at end insert—

33
("; and at the end of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2) The cleaning of any dangerous part of any machinery shall be carried out by a competent adult person who

(a) has received adequate training for that task, or

(b) is under the full supervision of a person who has received such training and has a thorough knowledge and experience of the machinery."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved Amendment No. 10, which suggested that the abolition of the prohibition on the cleaning of machinery—where it is either moving or dangerous, as in Section 20 of the Factories Act 1961—by women or young people should be modified. This would mean that in future all cleaning of machinery would need to be carried out by a competent adult with sufficient training or under the full supervision of a trained or experienced person. That amendment did not find favour with the Committee. It was argued against by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who said:
"The amendment is also far too Draconian because it applies to the cleaning of any machinery, not just dangerous machinery. Most cleaning can be undertaken in a manner which does not give rise to risk of injury at all. However, setting aside those obvious deficiencies with the amendment, the Government sympathise with some of the concerns behind it. Clearly, no one should clean dangerous factory machinery unless he is competent to do so or is being closely supervised." [Official Report, 16/10/89; col. 707.]
Our amendment attempts to follow that line of thought by specifying, this time quite clearly, that the cleaning should relate to a dangerous part of machinery.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord went on to say at column 708, as the Government so often do, that despite their sympathy they did not accept that a new provision of this kind was necessary because there existed Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. In addition, the noble Lord said that Section 6 of that Act requires the designers and manufacturers of articles for use at work to ensure that they are safe when being set up, used, cleaned or maintained. Just to confuse us, the noble Lord continued:
"I should add, however, that we are by no means complacent about machinery safety. The Committee is no doubt aware that there is a proposed European Community directive on the safe use of work equipment which is expected to be adopted by the end of the year, and the question of how it will be implemented in the United Kingdom is under active consideration." [Official Report, 16/10/89; col. 708.]
We have tried to take all of those remarks into account and have confined this amendment to dangerous parts of machinery. In reply to other comments made by the Minister in Committee, we do not accept that the provisions of the 1974 Act provide a substantive alternative, partly because they give rise to no civil remedies and partly because we no longer believe that the state of the inspectorate makes for effective supervision. Therefore, we say that as long as we have taken into account the general drift of the arguments advanced in Committee and have changed our amendment so that it relates simply to dangerous machinery, it ought to find acceptance with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, this amendment carries the nannying state a little too
34
far. Every machine is a dangerous machine if it is mishandled or if people are careless. Anything which is in the control of a power which makes the wheels turn round is dangerous. This amendment would make it almost impossible for a young seamstress to be taught dressmaking because modern machines can be dangerous. Young girls trained as therapists to do massage use all sorts of machines which, if carelessly dealt with, are dangerous. One could go down the whole list.
The amendment would make it difficult for an employer to encourage young people who come from schools and colleges to be trained. The amendment produces an inhibition against general advancement in certain modern facilities that people enjoy. It is quite unnecessary. At the end of the day we must rely on the common sense of the people in charge of establishments. From experience of businesses where these innocuous machines are used, one knows that the people in charge give the kind of supervision that we all want. However, to legislate in this definite way would be retrograde and nannying in the extreme. I think that we should avoid doing so.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has misunderstood the amendment. It talks about the cleaning, not the use, of machines. There can be, and often is, a fundamental difference between using a machine and cleaning it. In many cases cleaning the machine means dismantling part or all of it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I read the amendment very carefully. It was becaue I have personal experience in some of my own businesses that I reacted to the amendment. Sometimes the machines used for massage on people with rheumatism stop. The top has to be taken off in order to get at the slight leak of oil. In that process the cleaning and using are almost conjoined. We must recognise the common sense of normal people who use these machines.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord. However, I would feel happier if the amendment related to any part of any factory machinery. I do not agree with subsection (2)(b). I have knowledge of machinery; I believe that we should certainly not accept the second part of the amendment. If someone has not been trained in the cleaning of machinery and a person supervising has turned away for just a second, the untrained person could do something dangerous. To support that argument, you have only to see the number of skilled machinists who, although they are trained and skilled, still experience bad accidents. Moreover, on certain types of machinery a small accident tends not to lead to a small cut; it may well lead to the loss of a hand or a limb.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was most encouraging to hear that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, listened so carefully to what I said in Committee. Indeed, he repeated much of what I said. I should say to him that I also listened carefully to his remarks. The trouble is, however, that I suspect I may have bored the noble Lord and that he then

35
stopped listening to me. I say that because the Government must oppose the amendment for exactly the same reasons as we opposed the previous amendment; namely, on the simple grounds that it is unnecessary. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for pointing out why it is unnecessary.
Section 2(2)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 requires the employer to provide,
"such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees".
Clearly, any employer whose employees are likely to operate dangerous machinery is required by this provision to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, they are adequately trained or supervised. An inspector who found that employees were operating dangerous machinery without such training or supervision would have no difficulty whatever in taking enforcement action using this provision.
So far as concerns the Health and Safety Executive, it is perfectly adequate. Indeed, in one respect it is considerably better than this amendment because it covers all workplaces and not just factories. I should like to remind noble Lords who seem to be under the impression that the Bill is removing necessary protections in this field that all we are doing by way of Clause 9 and Schedule 2 to the Bill is removing a discriminatory prohibition on women cleaning and moving machinery and on women and young persons working between the fixed and traversing parts of self-acting mules.
We are doing so in both cases with the agreement of the Health and Safety Commission. The many other detailed requirements of the Factories Act 1961 and in the numerous regulations under the Act relating to the fencing and operation of dangerous machinery remain unchanged. We have an expert body in this country to advice us and enforce the law on health and safety. I am content to rely upon that body to ensure that the legislation in this area is adequate.
I mentioned in Committee that the Health and Safety Executive was reviewing the adequacy of the legislation in this area in the light of the proposed EC directive on the safe use of work equipment. In my view there is absolutely no reason for Parliament to pre-empt the outcome of that review. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, speaks of the nanny state. So far as I understood him, he said that all machinery is unsafe, although he subsequently said that the cleaning of all machinery is unsafe. Of course, the regulations as they are now do not apply to all machinery; they apply only to moving machinery which is dangerous. If we took the view taken by the noble Lord that the moving of all machinery is unsafe—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I did not say that all machinery was unsafe; I said that all machinery was potentially dangerous.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, very well, all machinery is potentially unsafe.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is dangerous!
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, very well: if it is dangerous, then it is unsafe. Therefore, the noble Lord is saying that we cannot have any regulations in the matter and that if we try to do so we shall have a nanny state. If the noble Lord really takes that view, he is perhaps in advance of his party. He should not be in support for handing the matter over to the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive; he should be in support of the abolition of the Health and Safety Executive.
I say that because the executive puts an injunction on employers to operate safe and healthy machinery. No doubt the noble Lord would also denounce that as being part of the nanny state. Indeed, he may well go back and abolish all those provisions and ideas put forward by Lord Shaftesbury, because they, presumably, were also part of the nanny state. However, he does not do that; he simply objects to our amendment.
As I understand it, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was complaining about the fact that our amendment covered more than factories. It does not cover more than factories, because we are dealing with the Factories Act. Therefore there is no reason for him not to support us in the matter.
The Government say, as they said in Committee, that this provision already exists, that all employees are looked after and that we have our own form of nanny state through the operation of the Health and Safety Commission, We have said many times that, for the reasons we put forward, we do not regard the present operation of the commission as adequate. We believe that there should be additional remedies, especially civil remedies. Therefore, to keep telling us about the 1974 Act is not an effective answer.
Of course the Minister cannot say that our proposal is discriminatory. We suggest that the protection we propose—protection which the Minister agrees with in principle, because he said that no one should clean dangerous factory machinery unless he is competent to do so or is being closely supervised —should apply to both men and women. Therefore it is not discriminatory; it is extremely moderate. However, I am quite sure that the Government will not accept it and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("Part I") and insert ("Part IA").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 9 and Amendments Nos. 29 to 35. All these amendments are, so to speak, a technical apparatus designed to ensure that the purpose of the amendment is achieved: that is, to postpone for at least a year the repeal of the protection of workers in particular industries where they are at present protected against

37
the lifting of loads of a particular weight. We thought that this point was important enough to return to on Report because it seemed to be generally agreed that this area of injuries is very widespread; for example, about one in four of reported industrial injuries relate to back strain and more serious back injuries.
Our discussions in Committee revealed a great area of common ground. The amendment accepts by implication that all such regulations will be phased out. The reason for this is that the Health and Safety Commission is hard at work on revising regulations on the lifting of loads—it has been for some 10 years—and that the draft European directive has now come into the picture and, therefore, the two together will produce new regulations some day in the future. I wonder whether the Minister has more to tell us about when that day will be, because it is of great importance to many workers. There is therefore an interim period in which it is accepted on all sides that the old method of protecting against back injury of absolute weight limitation, if I may call it that, is not the best way to do the job in the light of more modern knowledge.
The European Commission communication dated 20th March 1987, from which I quoted in Committee, makes it clear that a general limit on manually shifted loads, combined with adequate training in carrying loads to that limit, is one method of protection and that this can be much more sophisticated than absolute weight limits. Therefore the amendment brings us back to the question—as debated in Committee—of what will happen in the interim; that is, in the interim between the coming into effect of this legislation and the regulations and/or directive whenever they become effective. The Government have not so far suggested whether this will be within a year or possibly even two years.
Therefore we say, by way of this amendment, that in those industries where that form of protection has been thought to be necessary in the past—with weight limitations which apply, it is true, differentially to men, women and young workers—such protections, inadequate as they are in the light of modern knowledge, should remain in place until better regulations come into force.
I must put one matter to the Minister which, I admit, only became clear to me on reading through the Committee stage proceedings. We have said that on a number of these matters many bodies are against the Government, but of course the most important body is the Health and Safety Commission. When I looked back at the debate in another place I found that the Minister, Mr. Nicholls, had said that the Health and Safety Commission would have preferred to await the proposed comprehensive new manual handling regulations before the repeal of the existing law which the clause would undertake. He continued (in Committee on 9th February 1989 at col. 195):
"That is certainly its preference. I dare say that its words were carefully chosen, but clearly that is what it prefers".
In Committee on 16th October the Minister said—I shall quote just a few words but they are not out of context—
"We have already consulted the HSC. It tells us that it is already working on draft regulations designed to ensure safety when
38
loads are handled manually and that it is content for the other subordinate legislation to which Section 6(a) applied to be revoked".—[Official Report, 16/10/89; col. 711]
That is a serious discrepancy of great importance. The normal understanding has been that given by his honourable friend in another place: that the Health and Safety Commission was not entirely happy with the total repeal of the weight lifting regulations for the interim period until its general, modern and better regulations come into force.
On general grounds, it seems odd that the Government should be taking the harsh and curious view that they are taking. The Committee revealed that the Government are not here deregulatory. They do not say, "This is an area where deregulation is needed". It is common ground between us that regulation is needed. They say that the regulations will be better. We agree. We are for their introduction tomorrow; but when they go on to say that the interim should be covered by no regulation, even in the special industries where weight regulation has been thought to be necessary for so many years, that strikes one as strange. It is a kind of interim affliction with deregulation when the Government are almost cured of the disease.
The regulations would not necessarily have to remain in the precise form that they have been. My understanding is that under Section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 the Secretary of State could make additional or amending regulations if he thought that some aspect of the older regulations, such as in the jute industry, were better amended. By accepting our amendment the Government can maintain some protection in an area where we all know that there will be better protection, with the ability under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to make such amendments as their experts decide are needed.
We feel that the debate in Committee revealed that the Government should have another look at this issue. In the light of what we believe to be the Health and Safety Commission advice and that of other bodies—it is well known that the TUC has asked for further research before all existing regulation on the manual lifting of loads is swept away—we asked the Government whether it is possible to have an interim of reasonable protection rather than an interim of deregulation, when we all know that back strain and manual lifting need protection and will get it from the new regulations when they come. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to explain to your Lordships why it is that we want to repeal these provisions and why we feel that there would be no benefit in the minimum one-year delay that would be required by the amendment.
These provisions were all identified in our consultative document Restrictions on Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation as containing discriminatory differences in treatment. They set different weight limits for males and females and different weight limits again for young people and adults.

39
As I am sure your Lordships are aware by now, our intention in the Bill is to remove all unequal treatment between the sexes in protective legislation where it cannot be strictly justified on health and safety grounds and to remove all outdated restrictions on young people's employment. Clause 1 will of course render of no effect unlawful discriminatory requirements in pre-1975 legislation.
The consultative document aimed to identify those provisions that were still justifiable and those that were not on the grounds that justifiable discriminatory provisions would need to be specially protected in the Bill so as not to be overriden by Clause 1. Our advice from the Health and Safety Commission in response to the document was that specific limits by age or sex were not consistent with medical advice that there are wide variations in individual capacities and in the demands made by various tasks. The commission's new draft manual handling regulations do not contain weight limits, and nor does the proposed EC directive on handling loads. In addition the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended the early removal of those particular provisions and pointed out that the adoption of maximum weights,
"was not generally valuable or justifiable".
We therefore have strong grounds for either amending or repealing those provisions to remove the differences in treatment both between men and women and young people and adults as soon as possible. If we do not, specific protection against their being overriden by Clause 1 will have to be built into the Bill, and we do not consider that to be justified.
The question is, do we remove the unequal treatment by repealing the provisions altogether or do we equalise up or down? The Health and Safety Commission said that it "would have preferred" to await its new regulations before repeal, but as your Lordships are aware, those are likely to be some time coming and the commission's clear advice was that limits are not consistent with medical advice. On the basis of the wording of the commission's response that was clearly the most important point.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. It is expected that a common position on the proposed EC directive on handling loads will be reached by the end of October. Adoption, following consideration of the directive by the European Parliament, will probably be in the first half of 1990. In view of those rapid developments, and because it would in some cases cause confusion in the workplace to be developing simultaneously two sets of proposals on manual handling, the HSC decided in July this year to put into abeyance further development of its own proposals for regulations pending the outcome of negotiations in Brussels. Therefore there is no discrepancy between myself and Ministers in another place. The HSC has however continued its analysis of the comments made in response to its 1988 consultative document Handling Loads at Work.
The trouble with maximum weight limits is that their adequacy will vary depending on a variety of
40
factors including the lifting capacity of the individual. If we set the limit for women and young people at the same level as for men, that may well be too high for some women and young people, just as it may be too high for some men; but if we bring the limit down to the lowest possible level, that may make many jobs unworkable without reason.
There is also the argument that guidance based solely on maximum weight limits is likely to be misleading and may in fact be dangerous. That is discussed on pages 23 and 24 of the Health and Safety Commission's 1988 consultative document Handling Loads at Work. The problem is that,
"Such guidance is often restricted to symmetrical, two handed lifts, in front of and close to the body. In reality such lifting tasks are comparatively rare since most will involve lateral movement, rotation or some other asymmetrical requirement. Limits also need to be modified to take account of other factors such as degree of repetition, and the physical characteristics of the lifter".
Taking those factors into account we take the view that the most sensible course of action is to repeal these weight limit provisions and we see no need for any delay. There will not of course be the total gap in protection implied by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, because the general protection of Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and the more specific prohibition on lifting excessive weights will remain in Section 72 of the Factories Act 1961. I realise that, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Section 72 may not be ideal. But then, nor by a long chalk are these provisions applying only in jute, woollen and worsted factories and potteries. A great deal of work is being done on providing a better system.
The point was made in Committee that we were being inconsistent because we are not removing weight limits in agriculture. We have not considered or consulted on the limits in agriculture because they do not discriminate against women and young people. We do not therefore have to act now, as we do in the case of these three sets of regulations, because of the effect of the sex discrimination clauses in the Bill. That is the important point.
In my view the only real effect of these amendments would be to delay the removal of differences in treatment that have now been outstripped by current medical opinion. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not think much of what the noble Lord says about current medical opinion. A good deal of his argument rests on the force of the general provisions and the work of the Health and Safety Executive. That is fine if that body is adequately staffed. Can the Minister say how many establishments there are to each inspector? In the old days—I was in industry for 10 years—I never had one full-blown inspection because there were not enough inspectors to go round. They would come in occasionally to look for one particular point. The Minister talks as though the general requirements are adequately enforced because there are inspectors. That flies in the face of reality with the limited number of inspectors.

41
Perhaps the Minister will say that there is to be a great increase in the number of inspectors. If so then I agree that much of the argument put forward would fall. Without that assurance, it is a fantasy to think that the inspectors would be able to enforce the general provision or any other provision, for that matter, because the inspectors do not exist. Can the Minister give us some idea of what the provision is?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can understand that the noble Baroness is concerned and feels that there are not enough inspectors. I do not have the information before me but I am well aware that there is an increase in the number of inspectors. The targets over the next few years are an increase in the number.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that there has been a change in government policy towards increasing the number of inspectors? This is a remarkable time to tell us that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that I said that I did not have the information before me but it is up to the HSE to decide how many inspectors it has.
I have now found the figures. The HSE expects to meet its publicly announced targets for staff in the factory and agricultural inspectorates by April 1990. I shall demonstrate the figures. The publicly announced figures of the HSE for 1st April 1990 are that the factory inspectorate, currently 619, will grow to 640 and that in the agricultural field, the figure of 167 will grow to 175. Before the noble Baroness rises, I know she will say that that is not enough.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for another fact, not an opinion. How many establishments under the factories legislation are to be inspected by the 619 existing inspectors? That is the interesting figure. We can then do a sum and work out how often they will visit any one establishment. I am sure that the advisers in the box have the figure.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall have to look further to find out how many factories are inspected by those inspectors. However, I believe that that argument misses the point we are trying to get at. It does not prove anything to suggest that inspectors should visit every single factory. Obviously some factories are better than others. Some factories in certain industries need to be inspected more often than those that are not considered dangerous or which have excellent records. The Government have allocated sufficient resources to the HSE to allow it to meet its targets. The HSE's request for resources has been met in full.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that my amendment has led the House into interesting areas. As regards his reply to me, most of it is common ground because it meets a case which was never put. The case put accepted that absolute weight limitation is not now the best method. Medical evidence on that is strong. However it would be good to have, and we must
42
have, regulations to protect those in work against back injury caused by lifting loads.
The fact that we agree upon that shows the irrelevance of Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and Section 72 of the Factories Act. If those two sections were good enough; we should have nothing else. However we agree that we must have further legislation. We have to agree because the European Commission has now ensured that all member states have agreed to this, and the Government have signed their word on it. We support the Government on this matter; we must have more inspectors who will do the job properly.
However, we say that there is a tiny area —and were it not for the Minister himself we might call it myopic —where people cannot see the need for provisions in the interim. In that interim many people's backs will be injured at work. There are regulations, especially in these three industries. I must return the point to the Minister because he did not answer the case. I hope that he will add to his answer on another occasion, perhaps at Third Reading. In these industries there are protective limits. It is true that that is not the method of protecting people which we all now wish to achieve.
The Minister says that such ways of protecting people can be misleading. He also said that they could be dangerous. He used that word in a previous debate, I think in Committee; but I do not believe that his honourable friends used it in another place. If there is evidence of these methods being dangerous, then another conclusion follows. If the method of protection is dangerous, what on earth are the Government doing in not repealing that precise type of protection in agriculture? If they know that it is dangerous, they had better get rid of it everywhere.
However, the Government are not getting rid of it in agriculture, they are only getting rid of it here. I understand what the Minister says. There is a little discrimination in agriculture against which the Government are legislating, but these methods of protection have a discriminatory impact. I make two points on that which I put to the Minister in my speech but which he did not answer. First, ad interim, it is possible even to have discrimination between men and women where, in the words of the European directive, the concern for which the regulation was passed on a discriminatory basis is still well founded. I say that a concern about back injury is well founded and we all know it is well founded because the common European position will lead to a new directive. We all desire that protection for men and women alike.
If that were not acceptable then there is a power under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to level up in the way suggested by the 1987 document from the Commission and do away with the discrimination anyway. I find it extremely awkward that the Government have all these tools in their hands and a Health and Safety Commission. Its remarkable papers on injury to backs show the fund of advice that exists, but that body itself is not happy with the repeal in the interim.

43
However, the Government stand alone and say, "No, no, these workers must have no protection at all because the protection is defective. We shall wait until the protection is perfect". That is a curious kind of millennialism which is not usually associated with the Government. I suspect that, to use a fashionable concept, the Government are not wholly unassailable on it. I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I ask the Minister to tell his right honourable friend that there is power still to make regulations which can do something in the interim for some of these industries in terms of protection against back injury. With that hope, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 10:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
("Further education and training.
. Any young person who is not in full time education or training, and who is in employment, shall be entitled to time off with pay for one day per week to attend an appropriate further education or training course for the purpose of improving his or her work skills.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I ask the Government to think very seriously about the purpose behind it, even if they do not like its exact form, before we come to Third Reading. The purpose behind this amendment is one with which I think the Government have great sympathy, in that in some of their other actions they have introduced measures along the lines we are suggesting here.
The thinking behind this amendment is not just a matter of relieving the burden on youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18. The amendment is being put forward in the context of the changes that are being brought about in which there will be no restriction on hours of work for 16 to 18 year-olds. As we discussed in Committee, 16 to 18 year-olds will be able to do any variety of shift work and night work. Leaving aside whether or not that is a good thing, the point I wish to make here very strongly is one that I have made often before and which many other noble Lords have made. We are desperately in need of a better trained labour force. Our competitors are putting much more effort into the training of young people coming on to the labour market. They have done so in the past and they are doing so now.
The kind of work in which we will be engaged in the future requires a decent background of education, competent skill and, above all, the ability to learn. We have all made this speech again and again. That concept is simply not compatible with saying that youngsters can work all the hours there are, including shift work.
The Government themselves have clearly recognised the need for the kind of measure included in this amendment because the YTS required periods of off-the-job training. It was a very valuable introduction to work. However, it was not always carried out as well as it could have been. It can be done in the training establishment of a works; it does not have to be carried out outside in some college.
44
Training is often better when carried out in a good training establishment inside an enterprise which takes training seriously, but it is nevertheless off-the-job training. It had two great advantages. It made up for the deficiencies in youngsters coming out of the education system who were hopelessly inadequately prepared in the basics. A lot of the training comprised teaching numeracy and literacy. Without that there was not a hope of training those youngsters to carry out the jobs they had to do immediately in the enterprise, let alone in the future. So the Government rightly included that concept in the YTS, and it is still there.
The difficulty today is that because there are more jobs for youngsters a great many are not going through the YTS but are going straight into employment. Some employers recognise the value of training and take it seriously, but there are a great many who want the short-term immediate results of having the youngster there to do the job. Those employers see training as interfering with that. In a great many enterprises when difficulties arise training is the thing that goes. Employers cut it out. However, it is extremely dangerous to allow that to happen.
As regards the changes in the control over working hours, if youngsters are on shift work it will play havoc with attendance at any kind of planned classes. One Thursday, for example, a youngster will be available but the next he will not. Everyone who has studied these matters knows that shift work makes it difficult to continue with any kind of planned education or training, however practical it may be, because the participant is not always present. If a participant is not present and misses a couple of classes, he will get behind, give up and cease attending.
I stress that this matter is important from the point of view of the youngsters. However, from the point of view of the economy it is vital that there should be a requirement that youngsters do not go straight into jobs which serve the short-term interest of both the youngster and the employer, but which involve no training. The idea that a youngster will bargain with an employer to get training is pie in the sky. To be honest, a great many of them do not wish to undergo training and have to be encouraged to do it. Many of them do not wish to undergo any kind of formalised training. Nevertheless, they will be a tremendous load for the rest of the economy to carry unless we ensure that they are trained now. The Government know that. If they will not accept the amendment, will they bring something forward on Third Reading which will safeguard this position? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I think it is time that the noble Baroness set her speech on training to music. It is getting very much like blank verse. Even if it does not rhyme, it is extremely persuasive, although of course the Government say nothing. I wish to vamp a little in the background. I agree with everything the noble Baroness says. This is a training Bill and that is set out in the Long Title. The training

45
part of the Bill sets out a lot of provisions. It dissolves the Training Commission and it sets up employer-led training boards which we shall come to subsequently. It transfers the staff of the Skills Training Agency, and the remarkable thing about it is that, although it dismantles what is left of the tripartite system of training, it puts nothing in its place except the wishes, desires and initiatives sponsored by employers themselves.
The noble Baroness is trying to put a little bit of something in its place, starting from the other end. If I may say so, in some ways she is suggesting a more modest and perhaps a more practical version of the amendment that we sought to move in Committee; that is to say, to start with the individual worker. If there are not to be institutions, levies and pressure, and if we cannot leave this matter simply to employers —that is central to what the noble Baroness is saying —we must do something for individual workers. We must start at the bottom by giving the individual worker some kind of right to paid time off one day a week. If workers are interested enough in their own future, education and training to wish to take time off to improve their work skills, that is surely something which should seriously commend itself to the Government.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord will say that this measure is another burden on business. Everything is a burden on business for the noble Lord. He may say —as he said in Committee when we sought to mitigate the consequences of the provisions for the right to time off—that we already have trade union membership and activity rights, trade union duty rights, and public duty rights in that people can have time off in order to become a JP or to serve on local authorities. It is rather remarkable that the Government permit time off for those activities —I am not suggesting that it should be otherwise —but we do not have any analogous provisions to permit time off for training. Surely in the Government's priority of things, training, education and improvement of skills must be more important than membership and activities of trade unions. There is of course a small provision in relation to training, but it only allows a worker to make arrangements for training for future employment; in other words, it is all built into assumptions about redundancy.
This very modest amendment suggests that we should give those workers who are committed enough to want to further their own education and training in their working time, an appropriate small concession of paid time off one day a week. If the Government really believe that training is the key to our economic recovery, I cannot see why they should reject this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is a very well intentioned amendment, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, perhaps subconsciously or unconsciously indicated some of the difficulties behind it. She said for example that many employers would be unwilling to allow a young worker time off in order to undertake a training course. I think that she put it a little too generally, but no doubt there are some. If that is so—
Baroness Seear: My Lords —
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish that the noble Baroness would allow me to finish my sentence. I shall give way in a moment and give her a full opportunity to explain her position. If that is so she would discourage employers from taking on young people who wish to undertake a training course. Now I shall give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the requirement existed employers would not be able to discourage them. That is another point. On a previous occasion at Committee stage I asked what percentage of youngsters taken on in that age group who were not on YTS were being released for training. The answer that I was given from the Government Front Bench was 5 per cent. That suggests that it is not just a small number of employers who are not releasing young people for training.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness does not appear to see that in saying that she is giving away a great deal of her case for the amendment. What she has said amounts to this: if an employer is unwilling to provide paid leave every week for training he will not take on, or having taken on will dispense with the services of, young people who want that extra paid day off for training. The effect of her amendment may be the exact opposite of what the noble Baroness intends.
In a certain number of cases —I do not want to generalise—the effect would be that those admirable young people who want to undertake a training course would either not be given a job or would lose it. That is the difficulty with plunging in with legislation of this kind without perhaps fully apprehending how it will work. That is the basic objection to the proposal.
There is another objection to the amendment as it is drafted. What happens in the case of employers who employ young people for three or four days a week? There are quite a number who do so. Does the noble Baroness really say that, although they have two or three days free in which they could undertake the training, they should nonetheless take one of their employer's days, and their employer's pay, as the day on which they undertake training? That is what the effect of the amendment as it stands would be.
Therefore, I very much hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment, not because its intentions are other than admirable but because its effects could be quite disastrous.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I do not often have the courage to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because I know that he will always have the last word. However, I must say that in my view this is an excellent amendment. It does away with what I have always felt was one of the chief evils in the employment of the young. Nowadays young people are too apt to go into a job and, regardless of the fact that they know nothing about it, expect that they will at once be paid exactly the same wage as experienced workers. The amendment will give them the chance to make that good.

47
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that if the employer did not want to give the time off the young people would not take the job.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I said exactly the opposite. I said that the employer would not take them on.
Lord Somers: That is another point. It may not occur to the young person at first that he needs the extra training. He may only realise it as he learns more about the job. I believe that the idea is excellent and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite right to say that the Government sympathise with a great deal of what she said. However, I am not sure that everything that I am about to say will be music to the ears of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. The amendment has the worthy aim of improving the skills and competence of young employees in the workplace. However, we believe that it is misguided in its approach.
The Government fully recognise the need for all employees, including the young, to have access to appropriate vocational training to improve their work skills. However, giving an enforceable right to paid time off for training to every young employee regardless of his or her employer's ability to meet the obligation will not help achieve that in the most efficient or cost effective way.
One of this Government's many achievements has been to remove as much as possible of the unnecessary burdens which have restricted the labour market. Their removal has contributed greatly to the growth in the new jobs which we have seen in this country since 1983. I remind the House that employment has risen by over 2.5 million since then and that the British economy has created as many new jobs as the rest of the European Community countries combined.
The new clause would impose a number of burdens on employers which could well adversely affect their ability to create new jobs and opportunities. Employers need the freedom to deploy their employees on activities which are most cost effective. The clause would inhibit such deployment. Changing economic conditions inevitably mean changes in the way a business operates. The provisions of the new clause could well restrict the ability of employers to react and would not necessarily add to the quality of training.
No one can deny that this Government have invested in the training of our future workforce. I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree. YTS, which is the Government's main vocational training programme for young people has been a resounding success. Since 1983 well over 2 million young people, including many young employees, have been trained through YTS. At present there are over 400,000 young people in training on YTS and part of each one's training programme includes periods of further education or training off the job.
48
The success of the programme is wholly dependent on the involvement of employers. The Employment Department's Training Agency estimates that employers contributed £200 million towards the cost of YTS training in 1988–9. Employers gain most from having a well trained workforce and it is our belief that they should progressively assume a greater share of the costs of YTS. We said so in our White Paper Employment for the 1990s. But that will only be possible if we continue to allow flexibility of training for young people. The proposals of the new clause would be an obstacle in the way of that flexibility. They would impose an indiscriminate and unnecessary financial burden on employers in relation to the benefit that employers, young people and the country as a whole would obtain.
What is appropriate for one industry or employer does not always meet the needs of others. That is why I believe that it is important for each industry sector to have the flexibility to develop training in a way that is most appropriate to its needs. Experience has shown us that that is the best way in which employers can train their workforce and create additional opportunities. That is why a package of flexible provisions for YTS training providers whose training meets nationally recognised standards already exists.
We should have failed to achieve the best possible training for young people if we had not allowed YTS that flexibility. Of course off-the-job training under YTS may be undertaken on a one day per week basis, and some schemes operate in that way, but we would not wish to insist on that approach.
However, we are not resting on our laurels. In the Government's White Paper Employment for the 1990s we set out our proposals and objectives for training in the coming decade. A key to achieving those objectives will be through training and enterprise councils (TECs) TECs will give leadership to employers. Through their participation and involvement the focus of training will change and the importance of training to business success will be brought home to employers throughout the country. By increasing local involvement TECs will ensure that training provision is more relevant to employers' needs and so improve the skills and enterprise of the total workforce. TECs will need as much flexibility as possible to ensure that they carry out their tasks effectively. The new clause would restrict them in that.
In conclusion, we recognise that the rapidly changing circumstances of the youth labour market require the scope and role of youth training to be kept under continued review. Our White Paper commits us to that. Noble Lords already know of the Government's commitment to raising the level of skills and competencies and to the greater use of vocational qualifications, especially for new entrants to the workforce. But that points to more flexibility to achieve success, not to the introduction of a rigid requirement. Having said that I generally welcome the approach of the noble Baroness. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the noble Lord had given me any response to what I said at the very beginning —namely, that if he did not like the form of the amendment, he would meet the points that I had made in some other way at Third Reading —I should have been prepared to withdraw the amendment. But he has not answered any of the points that I raised. He has said nothing about how one squares the relaxation on hours of work and the introduction of shift work and night work for 16 to 18 year-olds with proper training programmes. He said, extremely complacently, how good the Youth Training Scheme is, but those of us who have been close to it know that some of it has been very good and some of it has been anything but very good.
Will the Minister put his hand on his heart and say that, if it had not been a condition of the Youth Training Scheme that there should be offers of job training, that would have been done, especially in view of the fact that youngsters of that age going into employment who are not on youth training are not receiving the training? I find the answer totally unacceptable and I must test the feeling of the House.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blyth, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Moran, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northfield, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay, L.

50

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allerton, L.

Joseph, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brookes, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Greenway, L.

Gridley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Haddington, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Westbury, L.

Holderness, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wynford, L.

Hooper, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 10 [Removal of restrictions relating to employment of young persons]:
5.40 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 25, at end insert —
("(3A) The Health and Safety Commission, after consulting the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and such other persons as it deems appropriate, shall issue a Code of Practice under section 16 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974, to provide practical guidance about the steps which it is necessary or desirable for employers to take in respect of young persons in their employment whose working hours include —

(a) any period at night, that is to say between ten o'clock in the night and six o'clock in the morning, or

(b) any period on a Sunday,

for the purpose of providing and maintaining adequate facilities and arrangements for their working environment, including their safety, health and welfare, as required by section 2 of that Act, and in particular adequate arrangements in the

51
circumstances for their transport to and from the place of work ("night transport").
(3B) Particular regard shall be paid to the arrangements for, and availability of, night transport for such workers by —

(a) an inspector who frames an improvement notice or prohibition notice under section 23(2) of that Act with reference to a Code issued under this section, and

(b) a tribunal which hears an appeal against any such notice under section 24 of that Act.

(3C) A Code issued under this section is admissible in evidence and may be taken ino account by a court or tribunal as if it were a Code to which section 3(8) of the Employment Act 1980 applies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12.
In a sense, this amendment is a last-ditch attempt to have the Government make common cause with us on their own premise concerning the night work which it will now be possible, without the protections of the past, for young workers to undertake and more particularly to be asked (or demanded) to underake by some employers in a situation in which employment prospects are at the lower end of the scale. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested that one could look for that situation in the North rather than in the South-East.
The view seems to be very widespread that some weapon should be left to dissuade those employers, however much they may be in a minority, who would be what the CBI called unscrupulous employers; those who oblige young people now to work excessive and unsocial hours. But it is not something that the Government would undertake. The CBI made such a point. The British Institute of Management made a similar point in welcoming the enactment of a general provision to replace the existing complex and, as the Government say, outmoded tangle of regulations for night work for young workers.
The Health and Safety Commission's view —I quote from the way in which the Minister put it in Committee —is that:
"some restrictions should operate to ensure young people's welfare and opportunities for social development as distinct from health and safety".—[Official Report, 16/10/89; col. 693.]
The amendment makes that point very strongly. Albeit that health and safety may not be an issue in terms of nightwork for young workers —and what passed in Committee showed, as I put it then, that the jury is still out on the precise effects on health and safety —there is another aspect of welfare; namely, as the Health and Safety Commission put it, opportunities for social development. That of course overlaps with our earlier discussion on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. This is a time when young workers need to develop and should still be undertaking education and training opportunities. In Committee the Minister undertook to look further at that point.
There is nothing between us on the matter of age. This measure concerns workers from 18 years of age downwards —not to 16 years but possibly to 15 years and 8 months; that is to say, school-leaving age. Although some of the legislation is couched in terms of young people of 16 years of age, it must be remembered that in certain cases with date of birth
52
the young person of whom we are speaking may be under 16.
All the bodies that I have cited, all the international conventions and all the areas of expertise suggest that there are problems in terms of welfare, of social development, and indeed sometimes of sheer danger to young workers who work at night. Therefore this amendment suggests that the Health and Safety Commission, after consultation with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, should issue a code of practice under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, as it can do at the moment. Perhaps the amendment should have repeated the words of that Act —with of course the consent of the Secretary of State for making such codes.
I come now to what it is desirable or necessary for employers to do in respect of those young workers whose working hours will be able to be extended through the night —night shifts. Those hours are defined in this amendment as between 10 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock in the morning, which is one of the options from the previous factories legislation, and we have also introduced work on a Sunday. We believe that there may be a number of welfare matters concerned with young people being leaned on to work on Sunday for longer periods than is desirable. However that would be a matter for the commission to consider.
The 1974 Act, upon which the Minister has relied a large number of times, imposes a duty to maintain adequate facilities and arrangements for the employees' working environment. But Section 2(2) (e) of that Act includes an obligation on the employer to provide and maintain:
"a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work".
In that section, on which the Minister very often relies, the employer is therefore already under an obligation to maintain a working environment in which the facilities and arrangements for welfare are adequate. We believe that the new era of nightwork for young workers makes it necessary to have some special provision, at least for an interim period. Our predictions about what will happen may vary. However, it is clear that there is concern among industry, employing bodies and trade unions.
At one point the Government made an important announcement. I looked at it again and realised that, although it had been made rather shortly in another place, it had not been picked up by any of us, and no doubt that was our fault. It was made with customary vigour by the Minister and more strongly in this Chamber, where it was repeated three times in different ways. At Committee stage the Minister said:
"I should like to announce at this point that my department and the Health and Safety Executive will be producing a joint advisory leaflet for employers on working hours. This will outline the legal position in the light of the changes introduced by the Bill and will contain advice on matters of good practice that employers should consider if they want to change their employees' hours".—[Official Report, 16/10/89; col. 733.].
I think the Minister will agree that in two of the places at which it was made that announcement was

53
very much in the context of hours of work of young people, especially at night, and in connection with the transport of young workers to and from work, in particular at the end of a night's shift. Therefore in the code we suggest that there should be very clear advice to employers on that matter as part of general welfare.
The fact that the Government accept that there will be good and bad practices is shown by their intention to issue a leaflet. This Government never waste money, I am sure, and they would not waste money on a piece of paper to send round to employers if they did not think that there was a problem. The Government know that there is a problem. With public transport as it is now, there is a problem about a boy or girl of 15 years 9 months of age who leaves a night shift at 2 a.m. in an urban area. We all know that that is so. Indeed, the Minister himself said exactly what I would have said, given the fact that I have a daughter and he does not. He said that if he had a daughter he would not be pleased to see her going home in that situation. Of course everyone knows that that is right.
In a sense the code that we suggest is the leaflet made serious. If the problem is serious enough to issue a leaflet on this matter and if we know that there will be good and bad practices with pressure on young peiople to work at night, with inadequate welfare facilities in some workplaces and inadequate transport in others, then it is serious enough to have a code of practice.
There are codes of practice on other matters. If there were a code of practice the Government know what the difference would be. First of all it would be taken into account in any prosecutions brought under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. To make clear that it could be taken into account in any civil cases we have added a special subsection which gives it the status of a code issued under the 1980 Act. We have done so partly because that was the quickest way of dealing with it. It is subsection (3C) of the amendment. That touches upon the amendment which I am not moving but to which I am speaking.
It seems to us that there will be some situations in which there will be dispute when a young worker or workers are told that they must work the night shift next week. If they walk out the issue will arise, since it will be a change in their conditions of employment, as to whether there is a constructive dismissal. In such a situation we say that the code should be taken into account. I do not know whether the Minister would agree that, if there were such a situation of constructive dismissal, it would be right to take into account whether the employer were acting in accordance with the standards of his leaflet. I hope he will at least think that.
In order for the tribunal to do that, the legislation would have to have the status of a code. All Members of the Committee joined in applauding the number of employers who provide night transport for staff working late. Of course it happens. But we disagreed with the Government at the Committee stage. We said that there would be some employers who would put pressure on young workers in circumstances
54
where such a welfare facility for transport was inadequate. Such a practice would have to have a tangential legal significance.
We do not ask for a regulation. We accept the Government's deregulation of the conditions regarding night work for young persons. However, it appears that everyone, including now the Government, agrees that there will be a problem of bad practice in some places. Young workers will be exploited by some employers. If that is so, then surely the general consensus that has emerged from the Committee stage is that there should be at least a code of practice which will have a suitable status and not merely a leaflet. It is to that aim that the amendment is directed. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he was sure that we could return at Report stage to the question as to whether it was reasonable to require employers where necessary to provide transport for young people, in particular girls, at night. In opposing the proposal at that time, he rested his case very largely on the contention that the people concerned could exercise a choice as to whether or not they took a job where transport was not provided. In response, my noble friend Lady Seear said that in some small towns no job market operated between a girl of, say, 16 years and an employer who controlled one of the few employment opportunities in the area. In this Bill the Government are relaxing the conditions for night work. It is up to them therefore to ensure the safety of these young people at night.
The amendment does not go so far as the matters discussed in Committee. It calls only for a code of practice to provide guidance about the steps that it might be desirable for employers to take under such conditions especially regarding night transport. I confess that I do not understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said why Sunday working has been included. However, if that were the only reason for rejecting the amendment, I am sure that it is a matter that could easily be rectified at Third Reading. The principle is clear. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the amendment raises a serious and important issue and merits a little discussion by noble Lords. There is no doubt that the changes effected by the Bill that affect young people will raise a number of practical problems for the young people concerned, their employers and the public. There is some attraction for me in the idea of a code of practice to cover this area of activity. Where I part from the movers of the amendment is on the suggestion that the Health and Safety Commission should issue the code of practice. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has indicated, I should have thought that a code of practice would be better if produced by the Government. The Government are responsible for the very considerable changes that we are effecting, most of which —unlike noble Lords opposite —I welcome. However, the Government are responsible for creating a situation which it is difficult to

55
consider without feeling that a code of practice could serve a useful purpose.
Subject to what my noble friend may say, I should have thought that a code of practice issued by these worthy bodies —the Health and Safety Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission, or the Commission for Racial Equality —may not be wholly satisfactory. It might be better if it were produced by the Government, with the further advantage that if the noble Lords or Members of another place were critical of it, a Minister could be held to account.
I hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment which operates in rather the wrong way, but that he will not dismiss the idea of a code of practice. That seems to me, as at present advised, to be a rather useful idea in the circumstances.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is quite right. This is a most interesting issue and needs to be fully aired and discussed. I totally appreciate therefore the anxieties that have been expressed by noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend. I agree that employers should consider the availability of transport and welfare facilities before they employ young people at night or even on Sundays. In particular they should ensure that the working environment is safe and healthy and that there are adequate arrangements and facilities to ensure young people's welfare.
There is a specific duty on employers to that effect under Section 2(2)(e) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act which applies regarding all employees at any time when they are at work. That is quite plain.
However, I cannot support the amendment on an approved code of practice because it is for the Health and Safety Commission to decide whether or not to issue codes of practice under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The commission is responsible for making appropriate arrangements with a view to securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work and for ensuring that employers and others concerned are adequately advised.
I have no doubt that if representations were made to the commission that a code of practice on the lines proposed was necessary, it would give the matter very careful consideration. Noble Lords may be aware that the proposed EC directive on minimum requirements for the workplace —which we anticipate will be adopted around the end of the year —will cover a number of factors relating to welfare at work including facilities that should be provided in the workplace such as restrooms, washrooms and first aid. The HSE is considering at present how these proposals will be given effect in this country. It is anticipated that there will be a need for new regulations. To that extent a narrow code of practice on welfare facilities for young people as envisaged in this amendment might involve some duplication of effort. However, that would be for the commission to decide.
On the provision for transport, I agree that employers and young people should consider its
56
availability before they come to any arrangement about working at night. But I do not agree that we need a new statutory provision to cover the matter. Good employers will provide transport where necessary but in many circumstances it would not be reasonable to expect transport to be provided, for example, if a young person lives a very long way from the place of work. I am aware that the amendment would require only adequate arrangements in the circumstances. However, the problem for employers will be that they have no idea what that means and what an industrial tribunal will consider that it means.
It is important not to lose sight of two points. First, young people themselves may welcome the opportunity to work at night, in particular in view of the enhanced rates of pay that night work often involves. We are lifting the restrictions on their working at night in order to give them that freedom of choice.
Secondly, young people are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether transport facilities are adequate, and, if they are not, of making alternative arrangements with their employers. Young people go out socially late at night and have to make their own transport arrangements in those circumstances. I am sure that noble Lords opposite do not suggest for one moment that there should be some kind of curfew for young people.
I do not accept that there is any need to amend the qualifying period provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 to give young people special treatment as envisaged in Amendment No. 12. A qualifying period is necessary to allow employers time to assess an employee's suitability for the job and for an employee to demonstrate commitment and loyalty before acquiring rights against him. The length of a qualifying period is a matter of judgment. It is our judgment that the present qualifying period strikes the right balance between the interests of employers and employees.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, pointed out that my department will be producing jointly with the Health and Safety Executive a new advisory leaflet on hours of work. I hope that that covers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Both we and the executive believe that this is the most practical approach to the question of guidance. Like the leaflet that was produced when we lifted the restrictions on women's hours, the leaflet will cover matters that it is good practice for employers to consider when changing their employees' hours; matters such as consultation, supervision, the availabiliy of transport and refreshment facilities. These considerations apply as much to adults as they do to young people, as will the advice in the leaflet.
I hope that I have explained the background of why the Government do not accept the amendment. While we sympathise with its intentions, we believe that we have the balance right and that young people will not be adversely affected.
6 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I thought that we had

57
almost got there, when I was within shouting distance of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, until I heard that the Government sympathised with our objectives. Then I knew that we would not make it. One cannot be lucky twice.
I was seriously disappointed by the Minister's reply. We had noticed one or two defects in the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that special questions are raised by Sunday work. They relate more to the issues raised by his noble friend Lady Seear as to five, six or seven-day working and education opportunities. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carptenter, that we thought long and hard about how to put the point concerning the code of practice. I appreciate that the noble Lord is not fond of consulting the worthy bodies which he named, but we chose the Health and Safety Commission under the Health and Safety at Work Act precisely because under Section 16 of that statute the commission has the normal task, as the Minister suggested, of putting forward and approving codes of conduct in this area. More specifically, we chose it because under subsection (2) of that section it cannot approve a code of practice without the consent of the Secretary of State. So whichever way round one comes to it, the two bodies must work together. That is good sense. The Secretary of State and the Health and Safety Commission will consult on such a code. That is why we feel so disappointed by the noble Lord's reply.
There is one image about which I must take issue with the Minister. He set it out in Committee and he has done so again tonight. We are not talking of the case where the young worker and his employer will sit down and talk sensibly together about the arrangements for night work. That will happen. We are talking about employers with whom, as the CBI has indicated, it is not possible for young workers to sit down and reason. The Minister talked about young workers and not their trade union; they are non-unionised so they are in a weak position.
The employer knows that his position is a strong one. The noble Lord says that young workers will want to go there because of the rates of pay and that they can then decide whether transport facilities are adequate. That is not social reality in some parts of this country. Of course they will go for the rates of pay and they will do rather more night work than is sensible. They will do so in poor conditions and with lousy transport facilities. Somebody will be injured on the way home. We want to do something to offset that state of affairs and so do the Government, it seems, but they insist that it should be done by leaflet.
There is a great deal of literature on leaflet law. It has been augmented by the Government over the years, and by all governments to a certain extent. But why issue leaflets when something can be agreed after consultation with all the bodies concerned? One of the oldest arguments for some basic floor or regulation in the market is that it is in the interests of good employers who will not then be undercut by the outrageously bad. Everyone knows this argument and everyone knows the speech of Sir Winston Churchill in 1909 on the Trade Boards Act. I am
58
sure that the Minister does. He is teasing me when he says he does not. It is a good argument. Good employers will want to come forward and say, "Let's have tough competition but let's not engage in this kind of thing". This kind of thing includes getting hold of young workers in a tight labour market and in the absence of restriction exploiting them. Some people will do that. We cannot get the Government to accept that their leaflet would not be of much use against such employers, would not be adducible in court and would not be usable by inspectors in regard to improvement notices. However, it would be if it were turned into a code. It might be much the same document. All that we are asking for is the status. We are not going to get it. We can see that the Government are adamant on this point. Therefore we wish to register the opinion of the House.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the noble Lords sits down, perhaps I may make one or two points before he decides whether to call a Division. There is a certain misconception that the Government are removing all restrictions on all employers. That is simply not the case. The proposals concern the restrictions on young people's hours of work in industrial undertakings and shops. Other sectors of employment such as offices have never been regulated. There is no evidence that this has led to young people being exploited. The noble Lord does not even try to produce evidence of exploitation.
Provisional figures from the 1988 labour force survey show that 97 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds work 49 hours a week or less in both regulated and unregulated sectors, and 90 per cent. or more work 44 hours a week or less. This is well within the usual statutory maximum of 48 hours a week. Secondly, the noble Lord said that unscrupulous employers in a tight labour market would deliberately go out of their way to exploit young people. In the next 10 years there will not be a market for unscrupulous employers. Young people will be in a strong position to protect their rights and interests. That is why we believe that the leaflet is the best approach. As I said at the end of my opening speech, we do not think that this provision will affect young people detrimentally.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am glad to have that information. I wish to add to those comments two serious points. The first point is the one that came out of the deep freeze which we have not had before in this House but which was much discussed elsewhere; that is, the hours of work at present for young workers in the regulated and unregulated areas. The figure is 49 hours per week, which is rather above the norm of most national and international limitations, but I shall let that pass.
The Minister says that that applies in both regulated and unregulated employment. Of course in regulated employments there are many exemption orders which the Minister and I have not touched upon tonight. But we all know that those orders go directly to such matters as night transport and so on. However, citing what happens in an unregulated area does not tell us what will happen in a regulated area, when the regulation is taken away.

59
It is clear in the literature and everybody knows that there may be a 40-hour week in an unregulated area. However, what will happen if there is a 45-hour week with no night shifts in a factory and there is a tight situation? The Minister must not misunderstand us. Unscrupulous employers are not necessarily evil but they are maintaining the drive to enterprise by any lawful means at their disposal. For example, there may be an order which must be dealt with and the employer may say that in order to do that everyone must work through the night. That happens. Of course at present we cannot know what will happen in each of those factories and other places of work without legal regulation.
The second point concerns young people being in a strong position. The easiest way to put that is that young people will be in a strong position if they realise that having been deprived of one of the two main ways in which work people can protect their position —namely, legal regulation —their only possible route for discussion with harsh employers is, as the Webbs put it, through a method of collective bargaining; that is, through a trade union. The difference in image between us and the Minister is that we see young people in the labour market in a new situation. But in those sectors where they need protection and where that protection is to be taken away by the Government they will not be protected by merely talking individually to their employers. If the employer is a good employer that may work, but many young people will need to combine.
The Minister has given us an excellent case for trade union recruitment in those areas, because that is the only way in which there will be any protection. He has not convinced us and we wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Galpern, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blease, L.

Hayter, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hughes, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kagan, L.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Listowel, E.

Ennals, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Gallacher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

60

McCarthy, L.

Stedman, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Monson, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rochester, L.

Somers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Allerton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Arran, E.

Margadale, L.

Auckland, L.

Marley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Belstead, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookes, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Rees, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Feversham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, L.

Seebohm, L.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hives, L.

Holderness, L.

Sudeley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thurlow, L.

Joseph, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lawrence, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wise, L.

Long, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
6.20 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 13:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause —
("Discrimination on grounds of age
. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer employment at an establishment in the United Kingdom which may discriminate unreasonably against any person on the grounds that he or she is older or younger than any other person or persons in:

(a) any advertisement or other arrangement made to notify prospective employees, or

(b) the terms and conditions on which employment is offered, or

(c) refusing to offer employment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, less than two weeks ago a Bill was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on the subject of age discrimination. It received a Third Reading and was passed in your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, there will not be time to test the opinion of another place on the matter in the current parliamentary Session.
However, in Committee on this Bill my noble friend Lady Seear introduced an amendment in precisely the same terms as the one I am now moving. It suggests that the time has now come to ensure that attempts to counter unreasonable age discrimination in employment should receive statutory backing. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he had much sympathy with the intention of the amendment but that there were barriers of both prejudice and lack of knowledge to overcome. He said that the Government believed that the best way to overcome them was not by legislation but by encouraging and persuading employers to amend their personnel policies where necessary.
The noble Lord went on to tell the Committee what was already being done in this area by the Employment Service and how employers such as Tesco—to whom I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute —are already recruiting older workers to fill vacancies. My noble friend did not press her amendment in Committee, as it was then 11 o'clock at night, but she expressed the hope that the Government would think again. The amendment has been retabled to give the Government an opportunity to tell the House whether they have had any further thoughts on the matter.
Of course we would all prefer progress to be made on a voluntary basis, but to judge from recent statistics volunteers are not yet coming forward in sufficient numbers. I recognise that if there are to be statutory sanctions against age discrimination we must decide whether any defences should be made available to employers. In the United States there is an age discrimination in the employment Act which contains a defence permitting the employer to show that age is:
"a bona fide occupation qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business",
or that,
"the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age".
In the United States public safety has become a key defence, involving such occupations as airline crew, air traffic controllers, bus drivers, police and fire staffs. The courts in the US have consistently ruled that any increase in risk to others resulting from the abandonment of age-related employment criteria should be viewed as an important legal consideration in age discrimination cases.
For my part I concede that, where a firm can demonstrate that an effect of having no age limit would be unreasonably to distort the age distribution of its employees or hamper planning for succession, those considerations too might constitute a justified exception to the general rule. It is with such factors in mind that this amendment proposes that in the
62
United Kingdom it should be unlawful to offer employment which may discriminate unreasonably —I stress that word —against anyone on grounds of age alone.
No doubt the drafting of the amendment could be improved. However, I suggest that we should now re-examine the principle involved. I believe the time has come to introduce limited legislation against age discrimination in employment on the lines proposed in the amendment, not just for the sake of equity but to avoid the enormous economic waste of not making use of the talents of older people in this country. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to say that we are happy to support this amendment, just as we supported the Private Member's Bill introduced recently by my noble friend Lady Phillips.
Britain, it seems to us, is very much an ageist society. It is hardly possible to read a report in a newspaper of an interview with someone without the age of that person appearing in brackets, whether or not age is relevant to the story. We must accommodate ourselves to the notion that there will be far more older people in the country and that older people have a contribution that they want to make to society. They are still useful to society and want to be used in a productive way.
I am sure that we all have examples from our own experience of discrimination of grounds of age, when an inflexible rule has been applied which has not been of advantage ultimately either to the employer or the employee. I know of instances where women in particular have falsified their age in order to maintain employment when reaching an age at which they would no longer normally be employed. We should not have to countenance such subterfuge. If this kind of amendment were included in statute it would not be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the experience that is available in the United States where it has proved possible to have legislation involving the utilisation of the experience and ability of older people, with exemptions available if the discrimination is reasonable. The wording of the amendment has been carefully thought out to include "reasonableness" —the reasonable test. For that reason, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support this amendment for perhaps unusual reasons. In principle I have always disliked social engineering legislation of this nature, preferring that aims should be achieved by persuasion rather than coercion. However, if one happens to be one of those people, who at present appear to be in a majority, who approve of banning by law discrimination on the grounds of sex or race, I do not see how it is either logically or morally possible to oppose banning discrimination on the ground of age.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is interesting to speculate what would be the effect of this amendment if it were to be carried into law. Once

63
again the noble Lord opposite has excellent intentions. There is no doubt that for demographic reasons it will be plainly necessary to endeavour to secure the continuance in work of older people in this country. That continuance is to some extent put at risk by various conditions as to age.
However, it would be interesting to see how this amendment would apply. Would it apply to government service? I do not understand whether the drafting of the amendment covers that. It has always seemed to me a most ridiculous aspect of our whole system that in the foreign service an efficient man in excellent health is made to leave in general when he reaches the age of 60. I can understand a restriction applying to the armed forces where anyone, however senior, may have to be up all night, night after night and sleep in a ditch, indulge in various forms of physical effort and cope with exposure. It has always seemed quite ridiculous to apply those restrictions to the foreign service. I suppose that nowadays an ambassador lives more comfortably and is better looked after than almost anyone else in the community. The foreign service —and to some extent the senior ranks of our home Civil Service —not only waste a good deal of manpower but set thoroughly bad examples to the rest of us.
I do not know whether this amendment will affect that situation. However it brings out the fact that if we want to encourage the continuance in work of older people it is up to Her Majesty's Government to set an example. They could set a very good example as regards the foreign service and the Home Civil Service although not, I believe, as regards the armed forces.
The other fascinating question concerning this amendment is its effect on the Companies Act. Your Lordships may be aware that directors who reach the age of 70 and who wish to be re-elected have to succeed with a special resolution which not only draws attention to their age but which also carries with it the implication that they should not go on very much longer. Will the amendment affect that situation? If non-executive directors of companies remain physically fit they are probably doing an extremely useful job well beyond that age. The restrictions of the Companies Act tend to eliminate them. That is not totally the case because robust companies carry a resolution exempting a valued director from these restrictions.
This is a very important matter. I doubt whether it can be effectively dealt with by legislation which, I believe, will run into all kinds of difficulties as to whether it is unreasonable, for example, to refuse to employ a footballer of 50 years of age or a trapeze artist at 55. It would involve highly complex legal proceedings. I feel quite strongly that it is for the Government to set a good example in their own area and, by so doing, to set a good example to employers.
The expectation of life is steadily rising and people live longer. In parenthesis I may say that it is not exceptional to see announced in the birthdays column of The Times birthdays of people who have reached the age of 100. People are healthier, living
64
longer, and at the same time the squeeze on the younger groups of the population is making the services of older people more essential in economic terms. This is a real issue. The doubts that I express are whether a clause of this kind will serve much useful purpose. I wish to hear from my noble friend the Minister what is the Government's approach. If they wanted to do so, they could set a very effective example.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am concerned about the amendment. When I first saw it I wondered whether it was an attempt to limit grey power and, if so, what a shame that would be because I am all in favour of using older people. I read the amendment again carefully and considered again a case that I recently heard. I felt that there were great dangers in the amendment. The greatest danger is the point that I brought out previously; namely, that of the vexatious litigant. It may be decided not to employ someone because he is old. That person may be looking for an occupation in life. In such a case that person may do what I described as regards the earlier case. Each time he applies for a job and is not interviewed or chosen he can immediately bring a case to the industrial tribunal stating that he was unreasonably discriminated against on the grounds of age.
Such cases can be brought without any qualifying period or employment being offered. Such a course will result in yet another category where cases can be brought in advance of any real contact with an employer. A large number of grey power people may look on this as a marvellous opportunity for an interesting diversion in life. That may be the disastrous effect.
I believe that natural forces will ensure that older people will be employed. I am pleased that the European Court upheld a woman's right to work on in the health service until the age of 65 whereas before we insisted that women had to retire at the age of 60 while men continued to the age of 65. The case of Pereira was quoted to me recently where age was held to create unreasonable discrimination. Therefore that power already exists. The age of 32 was set as a barrier. It was a case involving racial discrimination. It was found that not many immigrants could have achieved the qualifications required by the age of 32 if they had come to this country. It was a back-door way in which age became quite a factor in a case.
I oppose the amendment. While I am totally in favour of older people being given opportunities, I would hate to set up yet a further industry. I wish to see older people who have spare time and who are unsuitable for employment or cannot obtain it because a younger person is chosen, using their time in the way which I believe so many will in the future. For example, there is the retired senior volunteer programme to help others. Such activity would be much better for older people than for them to turn into vexatious litigants on the basis of age discrimination. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again we have had an interesting debate on exactly the same amendment as we discussed in Committee. Perhaps we shall see it again at Third Reading. It is a very important issue. I sympathise with the intention behind this new clause. Age discrimination is unfair to individuals. It also hurts businesses and the economy. We cannot afford to waste the talents of older workers, particularly now that the number of young entrants to the labour force is steeply declining.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the situation in the USA. We understand that a number of recent cases have been brought successfully by employees claiming discrimination. We do not know whether these cases were brought under state or federal law. Apparently, these cases have led to employers changing their procedures to prevent further discrimination. A recent British Institute of Management report found that last year 20,000 charges of age discrimination in America resulted in only 116 lawsuits and most of those were won by the employers.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter mentioned at some length the role of the Government and the Civil Service. I believe that he will be very pleased to know that the Civil Service record in recent years has been an excellent one and that 90 per cent. of Civil Service recruits are not subject to age limits. My noble friend also mentioned retirement ages and particularly the role of ambassadors. This amendment is concerned only with the offer of employment and has nothing to do with retirement which is an entirely different issue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, of course my noble friend is right in what he says. Her Majesty's Government offers employment to young men to join the diplomatic service with the condition that the employee will be forced to retire at the age of 60. The Government cannot slide out of the situation quite as easily as that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will read carefully what the noble Lord has said and they may make some changes in the future. The issue is about means and not ends. In the case of race and gender discrimination, Parliament decided to deal with discrimination through legislation. I do not believe that this is appropriate in the case of age. There are important differences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that the United Kingdom is an ageing society. I am not sure that that is entirely correct. As regards employment, in general it is older people who determine the employment policy of companies. If it is true that there is discrimination, it is they who are ultimately responsible for age discrimination. Men discriminate against women; white people discriminate against black people, and too often deep-seated personal prejudice can be involved. This does not seem to be the case with age discrimination which makes an approach based on persuasion and appeal to self-interest more likely to succeed. Moreover, ageing can be more relevant to job performance than race or gender. This does not make
66
it impossible to legislate but, if we do so, it greatly increases the risk of rigidities and anomalies being created.
The Government are making a substantial investment in helping older people to get jobs. The full range of our employment and training programmes is open to people in their fifties, and many programmes such as jobclulbs and the enterprise allowances scheme are open to people up to the age of 64.
However, even more than any government action, labour market realities will compel employers to make better use of older workers. Companies like Tesco, B & Q, British Rail and British Telecom are already taking active steps to do so. Just a week ago, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment opened a store in Macclesfield where all but one of the 60 employees are aged over 50. Where these employers have led others will follow, compelled by the logic of the decline in numbers of young people.
The Government are committed to hammering home to employers the message that their practices must change. Over the past year Ministers have publicised the facts of demographic change and the implications for age discrimination in a number of speeches, articles and interviews. We have recently instructed Jobcentres to challenge all upper age limits on vacancies notified to them.
The Government have sought to create a climate in which there is no longer the automatic expectation that people will retire at a fixed age. The removal of earnings rule on pensions, announced earlier this year by the Chancellor, will powerfully assist in this. Employers will increasingly recognise that it will be in their interests to introduce greater flexibility into their own retirement policies in order to retain the valuable talents of those who are keen to stay on at work.
The Government are now taking a further major initiative. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last week that there would be a new campaign, based on the Employment Department/National Economic Development Office publication Defusing the Demographic Time Bomb, in order to bring home to employers messages about demographic change. Action will be pursued through national and sectoral organisations, through professional personnel organisations and locally through seminars and workshops directed at smaller and medium-sized companies. The importance of making full use of older workers will be one of the major themes. The Institute of Personnel Management has already given considerable prominence to this at its conference in Harrogate last week.
It is in the employers' own interest not to discriminate unfairly on grounds of age. Demographic change is making fairness not only a duty but a necessity. The Government are taking vigorous action to get that message across. That action will be much more effective than any anti-discrimination legislation.
Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Monson, from the Cross-Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The debate has been an interesting one. I am always a little troubled when I hear that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, admires the good intentions of my noble friends and myself and fear that something pretty damning may follow. On this occasion, if I may respectfully say so, the noble Lord treated the matter in a very balanced way, seeing the pros and cons of the argument.
The amendment is framed to cover the Civil Service, not in regard to the retention of people in employment, as the noble Lord seemed to be saying, but as to their recruitment. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the fact that there might be a difficulty about vexatious applicants. It seems to me that that point could easily be exaggerated, but I recognise that it is the kind of thing that any legislation should guard against.
The Minister seemed to be reproaching me for again putting down an amendment in the same form as the amendment which had appeared in Committee. I am glad to see that he shakes his head. I explained at the outset that the intention was to give the Government the opportunity to let the House know of any further thoughts that they had on the matter. I was interested to hear that the National Economic Development Office is shortly to issue a publication dealing with this matter.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was published last week and I shall make sure that the noble Lord gets a copy.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, if it could be placed in the Library for the benefit of other noble Lords, that would be great.
Once again the noble Lord has advised us that this is a matter which is better dealt with by persuasion rather than by legislation. The noble Lord may be right. I can only say that I fancy that the time will come when labour market conditions are such that the Government will have to do more about this matter.
I do not intend to press the matter further tonight. I hope that the fact that the matter has again been discussed in a Bill which is so largely concerned with discrimination of one kind or another will have helped to bring it more clearly to public attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Exemption of Sikhs from requirement to wear safety helmets on construction sites]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 14:
Leave out Clause 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to make two preliminary statements. First, we do not intend to divide the House on this amendment. Our sole objective in
68
moving it is to seek to clarify the arguments and the principles which the Government put forward when they introduced their own new clause in Committee. Secondly, I apologise to the House that I have to go through the arguments that were advanced in Committee in some little detail. Unless that is done, it is not possible to make the points that we should like to make and to suggest to the Government why we are very dissatisfied with the clause.
Clause 11 sets aside the statutory requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets by Sikhs on construction sites. I say that it sets aside those statutory requirements, but there are no statutory requirements at the moment. We are being asked to legislate in advance. I am not enough of an expert to know whether that situation is entirely unique; but it is very exceptional. There are draft regulations making the wearing of safety helmets compulsory, but they are not before the House. I do not know when they will be before the House. Most of us have not seen them. They may be changed. However, in advance of having sight of those regulations, we are being asked to amend them and to set them aside concerning Sikhs.
Secondly, there is a part of the clause which sets aside what one might call "consequential employer and other liabilities" which would come as a consequence of an injury received because the Sikhs on the construction sites are being exempted. Those are the two measures which will be implemented as a result of this clause. Many other provisions will come into being by virtue of the following clause for which we have tabled an amendment. However, we shall come to that proposal in due course of time.
I should first like to remind the House about the short defence which we were given in respect of this clause. Noble Lords will remember that we complained when this proposed new clause was put forward. The Leader of the Opposition complained to the Leader of the House that this was one of the complicated amendments which were delivered to the Printed Paper Office some six days before the Committee stage. I think that our complaints have considerable force when we consider the 36 lines of explanation (reported in Hansard on 16th October) given by the noble Lord to explain the introduction of the clause. I should like to quote the significant elements of what was said. He said:
"The exemption is necessary because we intend to make new regulations which will generally make it compulsory for construction workers to wear safety helmets. I am sure that Members on all sides of the Committee will appreciate that the decision to exempt Sikhs from new regulations was not an easy one to take"
of course we agree with that—
"We are firmly committed to improving safety standards in construction and we are convinced that the regulaions will be a significant step forward. However, the many representations that we received from the Sikh community convinced us that the regulations would cause real hardship for orthodox Sikhs who for religious reasons will not wear anything on their heads except a turban in public.
It was decided on balance that in this case the wider issues of religious freedom and relations with the Sikh community must take precedence and I hope that the Committee will be sympathetic". —[0ffcial Report, 16/10/89; col. 738.]
That is the sum total of the arguments put forward in Committee.
Of course it is true to say that there was considerable discussion and debate in Committee. Many Members were not at all comfortable with the proposal as it stood. Some said that what was proposed was in itself an act of discrimination in favour of Sikhs. The Minister has been telling us this evening that our amendments cannot be accepted because they represent discrimination. Well this exemption is an act of discrimination.
It was also said —and it is difficult to gainsay this —that such a precedent could be the basis for further exemptions from the safety regulations. It was also said that in any case the exemption from general laws and regulations on religious grounds was itself a dangerous precedent. I do not suggest that all contributors to the discussion in Committee agreed with those views. Indeed, there were those who said that the Government were justified in what they did. They said that we had previously accepted this kind of exemption as regards Sikhs, for example, in the case of the wearing of crash helmets and that this had seemed to work quite well. There were others who said that we must do all we can to respect religious convictions of a deeply felt kind coming from a significant minority group.
I suppose that at this time one can only state one's own position and ask the Government to clarify theirs. I accept that they have acted sincerely in response to what they believe to be a genuine and deeply felt demand. However, I am more convinced now than I was in Committee that the Government have acted unnecessarily precipitously without giving the House sufficient time or evidence to consider the matter and that, curiously enough, they have acted in advance of the legislation and the regulations.
My position, and I think that of many of my noble friends, is that one should ultimately take up a utilitarian criteria. It is on the basis of utilitarian principles that I question the need for this exemption from the regulation. As I said in Committee, I believe that we should allow people in religious groups who feel as deeply as Sikhs do in this matter the freedom to do what they clearly wish to do unless we can demonstrate that they are significantly damaging people other than themselves.
In my view the issue should turn basically on whether other workers are being damaged, on whether the employer is being put at risk and on whether there is an unnecessary and significant increase in the likelihood of accidents —even perhaps fatal accidents. It is on those criteria that we say to the Government tonight, in the best spirit that we can muster and in no sense of party advantage or wish to embarrass them, that the case is unproven and therefore it is not necessary to go forward with it in this form at this stage. There is no reason that we can see why the exemption cannot be withdrawn and thought about again.
As regards the questions raised by those on this side of the House, the Government gave us much information. The Minister said that he was opposed to general exemptions in this industry but that the industry was special. The reason he gave was that there were 40,000 Sikhs in the industry. We do not regard that as a sufficient enough reason.
The Minister also said in regard to the question of liability and legal protection that protection would remain for certain categories. However, I suggest to him that the answer he gave in Committee (at col. 744) —which I do not intend to read out at present —did not in fact state or suggest that there was total protection. There would be certain circumstances in which certain third parties would receive injuries which they would not have received if the Sikh in question had been protected in the normal way and the compensation and the damages which would be received in those circumstances would be affected by whether a safety hemet was being worn.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, asked whether the Government could guarantee that as a result of the exemption of the 40,000 Sikhs there would be no increase in the total number of accidents. Again I shall not quote what the Minister said at col. 745 of Hansard. However, I think that I represent him accurately when I say that he did not give a guarantee. On the contrary, if one reads what he said, the suggestion is that there may well be an increase in accidents —perhaps not a large increase —compared with the number that would occur if the compulsory regulation was universal.
Indeed, it is because the Government are widely convinced of the need for the regulation that, although they do not like compulsion and like to leave matters to employers, they are forcing employers to make people on construction sites wear helmets. That is not a normal course of action for this Government. In other words, we believe that the clause would cost lives. It is not clear that the injury compensation situation is satisfactory. Therefore we must ask the Government a number of questions, and that is what I wish to do in conclusion this evening.
First, thinking in terms of what the Minister said in Committee at col. 745 of Hansard, I ask whether it is possible for the Government to give us any figures on the likely accident consequences of these exemptions. After all, he said that there are a thousand accidents a year resulting from falling objects on construction sites and that it is because of those accidents that the regulations are being introduced. But what are the likely consequences of introducing 40,000 exemptions?
Secondly, what about the third parties who we believe are affected by the imperfect damage cover? One way to put that point is to say that the Government have at last created a no-fault clause in the sense that Sikhs cannot be asked for compensation and the employer in certain circumstances, unless he is vicariously liable, cannot be asked for compensation. If there is a no-fault clause, should there not also be a no-fault compensation?
Surely the Government are saying that there are circumstances where one receives less damages because a worker is not wearing a hat, and the law allows that, than one would if the worker were wearing a hat and the law does not allow it. The Minister has said that there would be no claim against a Sikh even if the accident would not have

71
happened if he had been wearing a helmet. We do not disagree with that. We see the argument. Here is an area where compensation and damages might occur, but they will not.
The Minister says that the claim against the employer arises only if he is vicariously liable: if the Sikh's injury arises from the employer's negligence. Let us suppose that it is decided that the employer is not liable in the sense that he has not been negligent; but, nevertheless, the individual is damaged as a result of the absence of a helmet. What is the position? Once again, we do not say that the Government should make those employees liable in those circumstances. We say that there should be a social security umbrella. No doubt the Government will say that that is in the Social Security Bill. That is what they often say. We say that the Government should agree that, if there are circumstances when additional liability will lie as a result of those exemptions, it is for the Government at the same time to provide legislation to take up that liability, to set aside that liability and to provide an umbrella.
My last point relates to the regulations. We understand that, when the draft regulations come before the House, if they come before the House in their present form, they will include a facility for the Health and Safety Executive to grant an exemption certificate; in other words, if there were no such clause as this before the House, it would still be possible for an employer to apply for an exemption certificate because he employs Sikhs. As I understand it, the draft regulations go on to say, however, that such certificates,
"shall not be granted unless the Executive is satisfied that the health and safety of persons who are likely to be affected by the exemption will not be prejudiced because of it".
My final questions are: why will that not do? Why will that not cover it? Why is it not possible to say that, so long as an employer can demonstrate that the workers in his employ will not be prejudiced because of the absence of helmets —the employer can apply to the executive for an exemption certificate to that effect —that is sufficient?
For all those reasons, we are not satisfied with the clause at it stands. We beg the Government to withdraw it now; to reconsider the position; and to come with their further considered position when the regulations come before the House.
7 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I intervene in the debate on the amendment with some diffidence because the House will have listened to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, with his considerable experience of these matters, with great interest. I declare two interests; first, as an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; and, secondly, as a non-executive director of a small civil engineering and construction company. I should point out to the House that the views I express are entirely personal.
I have been on construction sites as a non-executive director of that company and on various visits to building sites in this country and
72
overseas. It is my belief that safety helmets should be worn at all times on building sites. I must confess that I do not have the noble Lord's knowledge of the legal ramifications. Perhaps I may at once say that I have the greatest admiration for the Sikh community and that any remarks I make which are critical of the amendment do not reflect on that community.
The noble Lord referred to the regulations. I hope that, if it has not already been done, my noble friend the Minister will introduce regulations to ensure that everyone on a building site, irrespective of race or creed, will wear safety helmets, because there are all too many accidents on those sites. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will be resisted. On the other hand, I hope that my noble friend will make it clear that whoever goes on to a building site, whether it is someone who is employed on it, or someone who is visiting it, will wear those helmets because dreadful accidents can occur. I believe that mandatory legislation should come as soon as possible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I listened carefuly to my noble friend and to the case that he made for the amendment. I sincerely hope that the Minister also listened carefully. I hope that he will take into account the argument used by my noble friend, who is something of an expert on these matters.
The noble Lord heard the arguments which I adduced in Committee. Although I do not intend to reiterate them all, I want to emphasise that, if we discriminate in favour of a group or sect, we discriminate against other people. There is a great danger in this country at present that the vast majority of people feel discriminated against in some respects. I could instance many occasions when people might feel they are discriminated against. Only recently, a person in this country incited other persons to murder someone else. He was a Moslem. Nothing has happned to that man. He is still at large and, apparently, still at liberty to incite his fellow citizens to murder a fellow citizen.
If you or I did that, if we went out in public and incited other people to murder one of our fellow citizens, we should be gaoled or locked up in a mental institution, and quite rightly. There is a great danger that when people see legislation such as this, they may well feel that they are hard done by. It is even worse than I thought it was in Committee, because I now understand from my noble friend that we are amending regulations which we have not yet seen, which have not yet been before Parliament and which, when they come before Parliament, will not be amendable. That is so, is it not? When the regulations come before us, if they ever do, they will not be amendable. The Minister wishes to intervene?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the regulations will be health and safety at work regulations, which normally go through on the negative rather than the affirmative procedure.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for confirming what I have just said. It is most odd. I believe that when employers and

73
employees understand what is being done, they will be most put out. I do not intend to labour the point much further, except to ask for clarification on exactly what is a construction site. I raised this matter at Committee stage, but received no satisfactory answer.
Clause 11(7) of the Bill states on page 11:
"In this section—
'building operations' and 'works of engineering construction' have the same meaning as in the Factories Act 1961;
'construction site' means any place where any building operations or works of engineering construction are being undertaken".
Exactly what does that mean? This is a serious issue. There are sites where works will be carried out which will be of an operational nature rather than a constructional nature, yet they will be building works. I instanced one case at Committee stage when I mentioned the boiler rooms of a power station. Perhaps I may give another example: Didcot power station has a 650-foot smoke stack. It has to be maintained, pointed or perhaps other work will have to be carried out 650 feet up. Spanners may drop; bolts may drop; cement or bricks may drop. Is that a construction site or an operational site? It is the day-to-day work of the power station to maintain the stack for operational purposes. Are we to have the situation where Sikhs who wear turbans on certain sites will be exempted from wearing steel safety helmets but on another occasion, doing similar work, they may not be exempted?
These questions need to be answered. This is a serious matter involving the fundamental freedoms of our citizens a well as many other issues. I hope that the noble Lord and the Government will listen carefully to what has been said and particularly to the points so admirably raised by my noble friend. There is still time to get the matter right and I hope that the Government and the noble Lord will take it very seriously indeed.
Lord Johnston of Rockport: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I am very happy indeed that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised the question again and gave the assurance that he would not divide the House. I too am unhappy about this clause making exceptions for one section of the community: it worries me.
For example, what is the situation concerning insurance? Who will deal with that? If an insurance company refuses to insure a Sikh, is he discriminated against or what happens? I do not understand that side of it at all. It is quite wrong that we should allow a section of our community in Great Britain to go without the necessary safety measures which apply to all our own citizens. If her Majesty the Queen goes to a construction site or an engineering site or a similar place she wears a steel helmet. Why can Sikhs not wear bigger helmets to cope with all the hair and the binding around it? I am not being frivolous, I think such people should be made to wear something like this. I hope that the Minister will take the matter back and consider it carefully. It is an unhappy situation.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have listened with care to the remarks of my noble friend and others who have spoken on the subject. I recognise that this is the kind of issue which creates a great deal of division. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will recognise that other matters affect people of other religions which are to some extent acknowledged in the way that we allow them—for example, the Moslems—to carry out certain activities such as the slaughter of animals. Perhaps we might not all agree with those practices.
As regards Sikhs, my noble friend says that it might be possible to fit a helmet over their turbans. I do not see any real difference between what he described in the case of Moslems and the slaughter of animals which we ourselves do not recommend. The reason I say that is because these involve a sincerely held religious view.
Of course there is a risk. Any Sikh who goes on to a building site and to whom the definition under subsection (7) applies will realise that if something lands on his head it will not do him any good at all. He is bound to recognise that. Nevertheless his sincerely held views are such as to make it worth his while to adhere to his religion as opposed to going the other way and saying, "I shall disregard my religion and wear a helmet on my head".
I noted the remarks of my noble friend Lord Auckland about the wisdom of wearing a safety helmet at all times. Of course that makes sense to me and to many of us. But that should not necessarily increase the level of risk, for the simple reason that to the best of my knowledge Sikhs do not at present wear helmets when they work on construction sites. Nor am I quite sure that the negative discrimination point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is entirely relevant in this case. One could argue that in relation to almost anything. Here we are talking about a specific class of citizen who holds a particular religious belief to which he sincerely adheres. He is prepared to take the risk of being struck by a piece of construction machinery or whatever it may be.
I do not think that it could be said that subsections (4) and (5) make the organisation or person who might be liable for the injury responsible in any way for the damage that might ensue. I do not suppose for a second that that goes against the grain of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. There is a let-out in subsections (4) and (5) for the company or individual concerned which makes the matter perfectly safe. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I understood that the whole argument arises out of the fact that at present, unless it is a condition of service, no employee is forced by law to wear a safety helmet. That is what the whole matter is about. When the provision becomes law, a specific group of people—namely, the Sikhs—will be exempted from it.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that may be the case. So far as I am aware, there is no compulsion on anybody, other than through the employer, to wear a form of helmet. As concerns Sikhs, I genuinely believe that there are special circumstances which need to be addressed. That is precisely what the Bill does.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, started his remarks by chastising me for explaining in Committee what the clauses did in only 36 lines. I am not sure what point he was trying to make—whether I had spoken for too long or too short a time or whether I had not fully explained what was being done. I am happy to come back at this stage and explain exactly what the Government propose.
I say again that the decision was not taken in the least bit lightly. I appreciate that Clauses 11 and 12 raise important points of principle. I hope that I shall be able to reassure noble Lords that the Government have given a great deal of consideration to the concern expressed both in this House and in response to the consultation on the proposed regulations to require construction workers to wear head protection. On the question of timing, the reason why we are concerned that the exemption should be made in the Bill is that we have committed ourselves to making the regulations as soon as possible. They are a vital part of our strategy to make the construction industry safer and they are wanted by all sides of the industry. Clearly the exemption must be in place when the regulations take effect in order to be of any value. The Bill is the most suitable vehicle for that. A commitment has been made in a recent construction supply debate in another place that the new construction head protection regulations will be made by the end of the year, if possible. As I have said, the exemption must be in place when the regulations take effect to be of any value.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the exemption must be in place before the regulations come before the House. If I have misunderstood I hope that he will tell me; but if I have understood the position correctly, when the regulations come before the House they will contain an exemption or the provision for an exemption order. Why cannot the Government build on that? If they want something more than that, why cannot they put that in the regulations? Why do we have to have this measure now?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the regulations will deal with health and safety at work considerations. This is not a health and safety consideration; it is something entirely different. It deals with a religious issue and therefore it needs primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, complained that we could not amend the regulations. We shall not need to amend the regulations. We are having this discussion on the amendment on primary legislation. I am sure that the noble Lord would be far happier amending this legislation than amending any regulation.
76
As I said in Committee, the decision to exempt Sikhs from the regulations was not an easy one. There are strong arguments both for and against treating Sikhs involved in construction as a special case. However, in our view the arguments in favour of an exemption clearly outweigh those against.
I wish to address the question of discrimination in favour of one particular religion and section of the community. I accept that any exemption for a particular group could be said to discriminate in favour of that group, in this case in favour of Sikhs on religious grounds. That could be seen as indirect discrimination on racial grounds in favour of the Sikh community. However, equally, a statutory requirement to wear a safety helmet might indirectly discriminate against a Sikh community, orthodox members of which need to wear a turban on their heads.
We have had to make a difficult judgment about which of these alternatives would have the worst consequences, taking into account both our commitment to equality of opportunity and to health and safety at work. One of the points raised has been the possible resentment of non-Sikhs. However, is it worse for a non-Sikh who is obliged by law to wear a safety helmet to see someone else enjoying an exemption on religious grounds, or for an orthodox Sikh who feels unable to comply with the requirement to wear a safety helmet to be liable to lose his job and perhaps his livelihood because he cannot as a matter of religious conviction comply with the law? It is estimated—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for giving way, but can he say whether in the regulations there will be an exemption from wearing safety helmets on health grounds? If there is no exemption, will those employees not be discriminated against in the matter of employment?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not see the comparison between people who are in some way unhealthy and Sikhs. However, I have yet to see the regulations and no doubt we shall have to wait and see whether there will be further exemptions. But I do not believe that there will be any. We are talking about Sikhs in a religious connection, which has nothing to do with health.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does not the noble Lord accept that we are talking about a large number of persons or a number of persons who are mutually interdependent, especially on such sites, for their safety? Therefore, the consequences of an injury or an accident to one who is a Sikh and not wearing a helmet may be, for example, that he falls awkwardly or lets go of a rope which he might not have done had he worn a helmet. That incident might well affect other workers who would then be injured. As my noble friend said, it is the consequence of the injuries to other workers rather than any question of discrimination on religious grounds which is surely the focus of this debate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no evidence to suggest that there will be any more accidents because some people are not wearing safety helmets. At the moment it is not compulsory to wear hard hats. Some employees in the construction industry already do so, but some do not. The point I should make to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as to why we are making the provision compulsory is that the industry generally believes that it would be safer if everyone wore hard hats. All we are doing is exempting Sikhs on the grounds that I am trying to explain.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords—
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, complained that I had spoken for only 36 lines. Now I am trying to speak at some length, but I keep on being interrupted.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting again, but the noble Lord was kind enough to write to my noble friend Lady Turner on 24th October. I have not read this letter out, but I must do so now. It concerns what the Minister has just said. As I understood it, he has just said that there is no evidence to suggest there are likely to be any more accidents or damages as a result of the exemption. In his letter to my noble friend the Minister stated:
"You asked about the possible dangers to other workers. Certainly we did consider the fact that the non-wearing of a helmet by a Sikh could in theory endanger those workers alongside him. As you say, a Sikh could drop something on another worker as a result of being injured himself. However, in practice the chances of a third party being injured in these circumstances are fortunately very remote".
The term "very remote" is not the same as no chance at all.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that the chance of someone causing an accident and injuring a third party purely because he is not wearing a hat is very remote. The noble Lord says that I claimed there would not be an increase in accidents because of this exemption. The two claims are very close indeed. I think we are getting away from the central argument, which is one of principle. It concerns whether a group should be exempted on religious grounds from certain regulations. That principle was already broken in 1976 when the party of the noble Lord was in power as regards the wearing of helmets on motorbikes. Here we are in 1989 considering a similar exemption on construction sites.
As I said in Committee, it is estimated that there are up to 40,000 Sikhs working in the construction industry who could be dismissed if they felt unable to comply with the requirements of the new regulations. This could cause damage to those construction firms which employ Sikh workers and craftsmen and to the industry as a whole in loss of talent. The effect on the Sikh communities themselves, particularly in the West Midlands, would be a severe economic blow and cause unnecessary damage to their perceptions of British society and its laws.
It is said that an exemption, misunderstood as a special privilege, might be resented by fellow workers
78
at first. However, I wonder whether there is any general resentment about the exemption of Sikhs under the law on motor cycle crash helmets. Is it not more important in the longer term for our diverse society and its harmony and cohesion that we should show that we mean what we say when we speak of toleration and respect for the religions of others where—and this is an important proviso —our own core values and commitment to human rights are not at stake?
The point has been made that the fact that a Sikh is not wearing a helmet could endanger the safety of others on site. A Sikh could, for example, sustain an injury which caused him to drop something on someone else. We discussed this a moment ago. That is possible in theory, but in practice it is extremely rare. Moreover, how would the Sikh have suffered his accident in the first place? It is almost inconceivable that the accident would be solely attributable to the fact that the Sikh was not wearing a helmet. It is much more likely that it would be due to the fact that there was an unsafe system of work in the first place or that somebody acted negligently, causing injury to the Sikh. The fact that people on site may or may not be wearing helmets in no way relieves employers of their responsibility in that area, and we must be careful not to give the impression that it does.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but this is a very important matter. The Minister has just touched upon another important, practical point. I am grateful to him for giving way. He posited the case in which the system of work was unsafe so that the employer started from a position of liability. That is common law. What is the position if the damage which occurred was more extensive than it would have been if the Sikh who was exempted under the clause had been wearing a hat? It was an unsafe system of work; he might have partially recovered but, because he was struck more heavily by an object than would otherwise be the case he could not recover and as a result injuries were caused to other workers. I must ask the Mnister to take the matter very seriously.
The Law Reports are full of cases in which a lot of people are injured in particular circumstances. If there is a system of work which is unsafe, does Clause 11 mean that, where the damage is more extensive, affecting a chain of people, than it would have been had the Sikh not been without a hat, the ordinary worker would receive full damages? Or would he receive only a proportion of the damages, given the exemption in the clause? I have studied the clause and I do not know the answer. Does it affect the measure of damages as well as the liability?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. If an injury occurs involving a Sikh who is not wearing a helmet —and we are talking of proximate cause —the third party's claim will not be dependent in any way on whether the Sikh's injury would have been prevented or lessened by a safety helmet. I hope that that clears that point.

79
On the question of how far we should bend our laws to take account of non-Christian religions and on the question of integration, the Government have made it clear that integration is our aim, in the real sense of participation in the economy and life of this country. It is not an aim of assimilation. We have emphasised that it does not imply for those of different cultures and religions any forfeiting of their faith. Tolerance and respect for religion, as for free expression, are a part of our heritage.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked a number of questions. I have answered some of them. If there is anything that I have missed I shall write to him, but I believe that I have covered the majority of the points that he raised.
I see no issue of core values. We are following a clear and unobjectionable precedent and are right to provide an exemption. In this case we are not yielding to religious bigotry, but giving expression to our own values of tolerance and respect for religion. The noble Lord has said that he will not divide the House, and I hope that he will abide by that. However, I hope that he will understand very clearly why the Government have made the decision. A great deal of thought has gone into it. We are certain that our proposals are the right ones.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I recognise that it would be extremely difficult for the Minister to withdraw the clause today. Therefore, in a sense I am talking not to him but to those who are ultimately responsible for the Bill. I ask them seriously to reconsider their position. At this time of night I do not want to go through the contributions made by other speakers other than the Minister. I would argue that in general terms they all supported our position, except in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who was worried about certain aspects but generally came down in favour of the clause.
I should like to revert, very briefly, to the four questions that I asked the Minister. I asked him whether he could say that as a result of the exemption there would be no increase in accidents. I suggest that when he looks at Hansard he will find that he said something different from the something that he wrote to my noble friend. He will see in Hansard that he said that there would be no increase; he wrote to my noble friend that there will be little increase. We have given reasons why we think that there will be a rise in the number of accidents, or at least that the number of accidents will not be reduced in the way that it would have been if the regulations were universal.
The Minister knows as well as I do that that is why the building employers' association has come out against it. That is why the unions are against it. That is why the Health and Safety Commission is very concerned and does not like it, although it has said that it is a matter for the Government. They are all very worried about the possible effects of the exemption on accident trends. Therefore the answer which the Minister gave to my first question is not good enough.
The second question that I asked was why the Government could not provide a form of social
80
security umbrella. The Minister gave the answer in reply to an intervention by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. I am sure that I got it right but again Hansard will show his answer. I ask the Government to read Hansard very carefully tomorrow to see whether they agree with what the Minister said. As I understand it, he said that if there is vicarious liability, or the employer can be shown to be negligent, the employer is fully liable. I suggest that that is unfair to employers. That is not something that I normally say about this Government. It is unfair that the employer should be liable when, as a result of Government legislation, he cannot provide the protection that he would like to provide on behalf of the worker and himself. If that is the case I suggest that that is why the CBI is against it.
The Minister also seemed to suggest that if a court decided that an employer was in no way negligent he would not be liable and the third party would have no protection. The worker alongside the worker who did not wear a helmet would receive no protection. I suggest that that is why the TUC does not like it. Nobody likes it —because what the noble Lord said about damages is not satisfactory.
The third question I asked was why the Government did not develop the exemption order which is contained in the regulations. The most remarkable thing that the Minister said to me this evening —and again, I may have got it wrong and we shall have to look at Hansard —was that he had not seen the regulations. Therefore he cannot tell me whether it would be possible to build on the exemptions because he does not know what the regulations say. I suggest that it is implausible to say that it is necessary to come to this House with primary legislation because it is a matter concerning race relations whereas there can be general exemptions based on exemption orders in the regulations themselves. I do not believe that that is true. The Minister may have that in his brief, but I do not accept that that is the case. I ask the Government to think about the matter. Do they really want to say that. Does the Minister want to intervene?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. I do not know whether the noble Lord misunderstood me or not. The exemptions provided for in regulations would not cover Sikhs because they can be given only if they are consistent with health and safety provisions. We are not talking solely about health and safety provisions. The Sikh will be less safe to a certain extent wearing a turban than a helmet. We have never suggested otherwise. That is why the matter has not been brought in under regulations and that is why we are discussing it now.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I have two answers to that. The first point is that the cat is out of the bag: the Government have accepted that it is unsafe —all right, less safe —and would not be covered by an exemption order which would be safe.
The second point is that that does not really answer my point. My point was that the provision does not have to be rushed through today. The exemption

81
order could be changed. I fully accept, since I have seen the exemption order, that in its present form the exemption order would not do the job. The exemption order is based on what is safe, and this is unsafe —or less safe. But there is no reason why the Government should not widen that exemption to include the kind of provision that they have included in the clause, if that is what they want to do. The difference would be that we would then have time to discuss and consider the matter. We would not have to rush through the issue in an unjustified manner at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.40 p.m.
Move accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8.40 p.m.]
Clause 12 [Protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with wearing of safety helmets]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very mild amendment and, once again, we have no desire to press the issue to a Division. We simply ask for an explanation.
One might argue that it was our fault that, when the amendment was first moved, it was not debated at all. The Minister explained what happened and the reason why the Government were moving what became Clause 12, but he neglected to explain why we had what became Clause 12 and we neglected to ask him. So the whole of the debate that took place in Committee and the whole of the debate that took place before dinner today did not deal with the reasons for Clause 12.
Clause 12 appears to be necessary to protect Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with the wearing of safety helmets; yet it appears in some sense to protect employers rather than Sikhs. We are simply asking the Minister to tell us the purpose of the clause. What is it here for, and what does it do? I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is obviously a great pleasure to have the opportunity of explaining what Clause 12 does. The purpose of the clause is to clarify the effect of the exemption contained in Clause 11 on the application of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Clause 12(1) ensures that any requirement on a turban-wearing Sikh to wear a safety helmet on a construction site will not be justifiable within the terms of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Given the protection from liability contained in Clause 11, employers should have no difficulty in applying the exemption allowing turban-wearing Sikhs not to wear safety helmets on construction sites. However, there may be a small minority who, irrespective of the exemption, would claim that the
82
non-wearing of a helmet justified their refusing to employ Sikhs. They might cite health and safety considerations or relations with other workers as reasons for refusal.
The Government feel that to refuse to employ Sikhs on such grounds because they would not wear safety helmets is unjustifiable. The employer no doubt would argue that the condition is justifiable, as he is applying it to all his employees equally. However, the proportion of Sikhs who could comply with the requirement would be smaller than the proportion of non-Sikhs, and it is the Government's view that the employer should not be able to defend a claim of indirect racial discrimination under the 1976 Act by arguing that the requirement is justifiable.
Subsection (2) of the clause provides that any special treatment afforded to Sikhs in relation to the exemption in Clause 11 cannot be regarded as racial discrimination against others falling within the terms of Section 1 of the Race Relations Act.
As I have already said in our debate on Clause 11, the Government acknowledge that any decision to include or exempt one group as opposed to another from a requirement is in itself an act of discrimination. That point was very much in the forefront of the Government's thinking when deciding whether or not to exempt Sikhs from wearing helmets on construction sites. However, as I said when your Lordships considered the matter in Committee, the hardship that the requirement would impose on the Sikh community, plus the wider issues of religious freedom and relations with that community, led us to proceed with an exemption.
Having made that decision, it is only right that we do all that we can to ensure not only that it applies only to the specific areas concerned —we have done that by restricting the exemption solely to the construction industry —but also that the exemption will work in those areas. It is for that reason that Subsection (2) of the clause has been included. Subsection (3) of the clause is concerned with making the interpretation and extent of the clause consistent with that of Clause 11.
Noble Lords will therefore see from what I have said that Clause 12 is necessary to clarify the position under the Race Relations Act with regard to the application of the exemption contained in Clause 11 freeing turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirement to wear a safety helmet on a construction site. I hope that that explains the matter sufficiently.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sure that we are all obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation. However, perhaps he would go a little further and say what would be the position of an employer who did not go as far as dismissing a Sikh because he refused to wear a safety helmet, but who, for example, said to a Sikh who refused to wear a safety helmet when he was working with other people that he may not work on that project and in that situation. That is a very important clarification which is needed from the employers' point of view. That would be stopping short of dismissal, but would

83
it be discriminating against the Sikh because he was not allowed to work in that position as his employer believed that it would be dangerous not only to the Sikh himself but also to others working with him? That point needs to be clarified because it is a serious and important point about which I and employers are concerned.
It is interesting to note that the noble Lord has also said that there must be protection for the Sikhs, although he appreciates that, in giving protection to the Sikhs, the Government are discriminating against non-Sikhs. I believe that he has put it on record that the clause is discriminatory —in my view very discriminatory —on religious grounds.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said in the previous debate, but I should like to ask him one question: since when have we legislated in this country on the basis of whether it is a Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh or Confucius law? I thought that we regulated and governed this country on the basis of good law.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord has a very good but difficult point save that, according to the religious tenets of the Sikhs, one cannot wear a safety helmet over a turban. But is it right to look upon that as a question of discrimination? With respect, that is the only point upon which I join issue with the noble Lord.
We must look at the position of a responsible employer. On a construction site there will obviously be some operations of extreme danger and others of virtually no danger at all. A good, humanitarian, reasonable employer would take the Sikh off those very dangerous operations. Let us forget about discrimination a little; I think we hear too much about it. The only way to deal with that matter in humanity is to leave it to the employer to try and do the best he can. I see that the noble Lord takes my point. I am grateful to him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that that is precisely why I am asking for clarification. I should like to know whether an employer who does exactly as the noble Lord wishes him to do will be guilty of discrimination? Perhaps we can hear the answer to that question.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am very pleased to allow the Minister leave of the House in order to answer the questions. As I said at the beginning, we are asking him only to explain the reasons for the clause and the Government's thinking on it. I want to know why it was put down and what the clause effects and changes. As I listened to him I did not agree when he said that it is only there to clarify and to make evident what might not otherwise be evident. It seems to me that it is there to extend certain categories of protection which might not otherwise be there. That is why it says "Protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with wearing of safety helmets". It cannot be simply clarification of race relations law because it would not be required. Anyone who went to law would find
84
out what the law was. This is not just a clarification but in effect it significantly changes the law. It is necessary because of the consequences which follow from Clause 11.
I am not trying to score points. I am trying to understand. It seems to me that in his answers the noble Lord now accepts not only that these two clauses taken together and in particular Clause 11 add to the likelihood of dangers, accidents and liabilities —I think that he accepted that reluctantly before dinner —but that in particular it creates an additional liability for the employer which has to be set aside by the provisions of Clause 12. So this is a significant additional piece of legislation and we are pleased to have that made clear to us.
I hope that the Minister will answer all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to some extent also the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, since he too asked some questions. I should like to ask the Minister one further question. As I see it, the Minister has accepted that despite the protection of Clause 12 there is a sense in which greater liability arises because Sikhs will not wear helmets or have been told that they do not have to wear helmets. Suppose an insurance company comes along and says to an employer, "You are employing Sikhs. That raises the possibility of accidents and liability so we shall raise the insurance premiums in those circumstances". I ask the Minister: is that lawful? Is that allowable? Or should we have to have some subsequent legislation which makes that not allowable or even protects it? I do not know. That is simply my question. There are many other questions which the noble Lord has been asked to answer, and I hope that he will do so.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I think it would be unwise at this stage to go over much of the old ground that we discussed for 50 minutes in the debate on Clause 11. We recognise that each different religious group has particular practices or issues which are uniquely important to it. For the most part there is no actual conflict between these and our own laws and practices. Whether they are Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Moslem or any other, religious and traditional practices lie largely in the private domain of their own lives or in the area of negotiation with the various authorities.
We have made it quite clear that our aim is integration in the sense of real participation in the economy and life of this country. This is not an aim of assimilation. We have emphasised that it does not imply for those of different cultures or religions any forfeiting of their faith. Tolerance and respect for religion as for free expression are a part of our own heritage and that is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a specific question. He put forward an example and asked whether a certain practice would be discriminatory. That would depend entirely on whether the Sikh suffered any detriment. Detriment is clearly defined within the meaning of the Race Relations Act and therein lies his answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, detriment is very hard to define. For example, suppose the job involved overtime and the man had lost overtime because he would not wear a safety helmet. Is that the kind of detriment about which we are talking?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have not the faintest idea. That will depend on who would decide. Ultimately, I suppose it would be the courts which would decide whether or not there was a detriment. The noble Lord has brought up that hypothetical situation. We should have to see what the effect of that would be. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, accused me of not having clarified the point —or of saying that the use of the word "clarify" meant something else. It does not. Clause 12 makes clear the effect of Clause 11. In that sense it clarifies.
The noble Lord went on to give the example of an insurance company asking for potentially higher insurance premiums from a construction company which employed Sikhs. He said that that would be because there was a higher accident rate. But he brought no evidence to prove that there would be a higher accident rate. There is no point in raising insurance premiums if there is not to be a higher accident rate.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord has misrepresented me. But let us give him his case. Let us suppose that there is no increase in the accident rate but that the insurance company takes a very cautious view and thinks that there might be such an increase. They might or might not be right. They may be absolutely wrong. Insurance companies are not always entirely rational but they are cautious and careful people. Let us suppose therefore that it raises the premiums. I am asking a question of law. Is that lawful or not? I am not asking whether it is justified or right. I am asking whether they are entitled to do it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point. The answer is assuredly at the moment yes; but if one is to carry the argument to its finest end, one will legislate against every conceivable possibility that exists. At the moment the answer is yes. If it became an abuse on a vast scale any government—and assuredly the government which I support—would do something about it. But it has not.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has explained the situation extremely well.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am afraid that we do not accept that reply. The noble Lord says that his noble friend Lord Campbell has explained the situation. He has not. He has stated his opinion. With great respect, that is his opinion. I could take a contrary one. That is not the issue between us. It is this: what do the Government say? That is the issue. I may think it is lawful and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, may think it is lawful; but what do the Government say? I do not believe the Minister has answered some of my other questions. I shall not press this amendment to a Division. However,
86
will he tell me finally whether he agrees with me or with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and give his reasons?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He gave the example of an insurance company charging more money because a construction company employed Sikhs; if the insurance company were to increase the premiums, he asks whether that would be judged as discriminatory. That may well be; but the fact is that it has not happened, it is most unlikely that it ever would happen and whether it is an insurance company or a supply company or any other kind of company, discrimination is discrimination. That is quite clear.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord's dogma is unassailable but his logic is not.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to refer to the standing orders of this House on the question of how often a noble Lord may speak at Report stage. It says something to the effect that except for the mover of the amendment, a Peer may speak only once. I wonder whether we are observing the standing orders.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 13 [Provision of particulars of disciplinary procedures]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 12, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert ("if the relevant number of employees was less than twenty throughout the period of thirteen weeks specified in section 1 following the date on which the employee's employment began.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment No. 17. We are now concerned with Clause 13 on the written statements of terms of employment. The Committee stage concentrates briefs wonderfully. Perhaps I may start with common ground with the Minister by reading his account of the clause as the Government wish it. At col. 771 of the Official Report on 16th October, he stated:
"I cannot deny what the noble Lord … said; namely, that the Government proposal could produce the effect that employees in one particular firm may have different statutory entitlements. Those who joined the firm when it was small and had fewer than 20 employees will have the statutory right to be told the name of a person to go to with any grievance, whereas those who join once the firm has grown"
—I interpolate the words "above 20" —
"will be entitled to receive a note of any disciplinary rules in the normal way".
At Committee stage, we asked the Government whether the fragility of the small British enterprise was so great that it had to be saved from ruin by exempting those in charge of it from writing down the disciplinary rules although they still had to write down the name of the manager to whom grievances must be taken. It is a most bizarre analysis of the organisation of a firm which is inherent in this clause.
We suggested at Committee stage—and when we read the report we believe that we were right—that not only is it bizarre but it works in a way that is also rather arbitrary. The passage by the Minister indicated very clearly why. One employee who is engaged on the Monday has a right to the name plus the procedures; the employee who is engaged on the Tuesday when the workforce —not merely the workforce of the employer but the workforce of the employer plus any associated employer—has become 20 is entitled to a piece of paper with a few more words on it describing the disciplinary procedures.
However, this is Report stage and we pursue the point about the provision's arbitrary character in these two amendments. Our previous amendment proposed that, once the firm went above the 20 mark with regard to employees, everyone should be in the same position and entitled to the same written particulars. That seemed to us sensible. We thought that employers would like it better because it made life certain and clear. It was not acceptable. We now propose in the amendment what we suggest is second best but better than the provisions in the Bill; namely, that the matter should not be a question of what happens between the Monday and the Wednesday but that a period of stability should be imposed whereby the rights of the employees in this respect on which the Government insist are tested. The period that we have suggested is 13 weeks, that being the period during which the written particulars have to be produced by the employer. We do not believe that it is perfect but that it is better than the Bill as it stands. That is the function of Report stage.
We very much hope that the Government will introduce some more stability into the clause, which at the moment is a legal see-saw for firms on the margins of a workforce of 20 or less. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, repeated more of what I said in Committee. Obviously that logic is unassailable. That is what I said and that is what I meant.
Let me remind the House that our purpose in introducing this clause is to reduce the burdens on small firms by exempting them from the requirement to provide an additional note on any disciplinary rules. Employees in these firms will still need to be given the name of a person to whom they should apply with any grievance.
The first amendment allows that the exemption for small firms to provide a note on disciplinary rules would apply only if, throughout the first 13 weeks of an employee's employment, the firm had less than 20 employees. It is clear that this amendment is designed to overcome some earlier objections to our proposal which noble Lords raised during the Committee stage. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has come some way towards meeting the fundamental principle of our proposal—to reduce the administrative burdens on small firms—with this amendment. The amendment addresses the issue of those firms which fluctuate in size and I admit, as I did at the
88
Committee stage, that in an expanding firm some employees may have different statutory entitlements. But this amendment will not change that situation. Under these proposed arrangements some employees within the same firm would have the full note while others would receive the shortened version. The information which the employee receives would depend on the size of the workforce during the first 13 weeks of his or her employment. I fail to see how these arrangements will provide the uniformity that the Opposition say they are seeking or how they will ease the administrative burden on expanding employers.
For our part, we have sought in the Bill to make the requirements for small firms simple and straightforward. The first 19 employees will receive the name of a person to go to with a grievance. The twentieth and subsequent employees will receive the full note including any disciplinary rules which apply. I do not accept that this is an unworkable arrangement. The noble Lord will know that there is no statutory requirement for any firm to have disciplinary rules. This clause applies to those who do.
The second amendment would affect the position of employees who have a written contract of employment. As the legislation currently stands there is no requirement for them to receive a written statement of terms and conditions, subject to a number of conditions, including that they are given a note on disciplinary rules. The Bill therefore provides that, where the number of employees is less than 20 on the date on which the employee's employment began, the employer need provide only a note specifying a person to go to with a grievance. This amendment would have the same effect as the earlier amendment. Provided that the firm had less than 20 employees during the first 13 weeks of an employee's employment, that employee would be entitled to the short note. But, if a firm expands to 20 and beyond during the period in question, that employee would be entitled to receive the full note.
Like the earlier amendment, this amendment is designed to overcome some earlier objections to our proposal raised by noble Lords during the Committee stage. I accept, and I have said so during earlier debates, that the Government's amendment could produce the effect that in an expanding firm some employees had different statutory entitlements. This amendment, and the earlier one, will not alter that situation in any way, however. Under these arrangements some employees within the same firm would have the full note while others would receive the shortened version.
Under the Government's proposals the employer's obligations relate clearly to the number of employees on the date when a particular employee was taken on —and the employee's entitlement is clearly established on that date. Of course some employers may choose to provide to all their employees on an entirely voluntary basis a note on disciplinary rules. That is a matter for their discretion. In our view, the amendment will make the legislation more complex for small firms. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. When he says that I have come some way towards him, he is being unduly optimistic. The Bill has come some way towards him because he is in charge of it, and except for rather strange affairs late at night he normally has a large majority to see that it goes through. It is a bad Bill. The noble Lord plays down and has throughout the proceedings the importance of procedural arrangements in themselves. In Polkey v. Dayton a year ago the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, delivering the judgment, insisted on the importance in industrial relations law and practice of good disciplinary and dismissal procedures. With respect, it was right, and the Government are wrong in not taking account of that. It does not really matter how many people there are. It is essential to have stable and sensible procedures in the firm.
It will be more difficult for the small employer to remember the rules under the terms of the Bill than even under our present amendments and certainly under our previous amendments. For example, in a firm of between 10 and 30 employees a dispute breaks out. One employee says, "I am entitled to the procedural rules but I didn't get them". The employer replies, "Oh no you're not, you were hired on 1st July when we had only 19 employees". "Not a bit of it", says the employee, "I was hired on 3rd July when we were 21". How much work will be involved in trying to remember who is entitled to what? It is absurd. In any case, the man is entitled to the name of the person to whom he must make the complaint.
There has never been a more curious and quite useless clause. It will place extra burdens on small firms. People will have to remember who is entitled to what. I suspect the answer will be that sensible employers will give the procedures to all their employees irrespective of the numbers. This is another little balloon in the Government's "burdens on business" theme. This one has, in the debates upon it, gone pop. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Trade union duties for which time off must be allowed by employer]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 13, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("; and ") in line 28 and insert —
(" (a) such duties as are necessary to represent the members of the union employed in the employer's establishments for whom he has been given responsibility by the trade union;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 14 deals with time off with pay for individuals undertaking trade union duties. Our amendment seeks to provide this time off where the individuals are undertaking,
"such duties as are necessary to represent the members of the union employed in the employer's establishments for whom he has been given responsibility by the trade union".
90
In Committee we sought to amend this clause in a number of ways. We sought to include reference to the ACAS code of practice as containing the duties for which trade union representatives should be entitled to claim time off. The amendment did not commend itself to the Committee. However, the clause as it stands, unamended, is unnecessarily restrictive. We have therefore produced at Report stage this other form of wording.
It is surely in the employer's interests to deal with union representatives who know what they are about. All kinds of avoidable problems can arise unless that is so. The representative must be properly trained to start off with and then he must be aware of the procedures and how they are to be used. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn has just referred to the importance of procedures in good industrial relations. It may very well be necessary for such representatives to have time off to attend training courses or conferences organised by their union to ensure that this information is available to them. The representative must have the trust of the workforce. This means that he or she must be properly informed and briefed on the issues that are likely to come before the workforce and on which members are likely to require representation.
In Committee I gave an example of the need for time off to attend a course on pensions. At the time the firm in question did not recognise the union as negotiators for the pension scheme. On appeal it was decided that the individual was entitled to attend the course on pensions because it was necessary to enable her to represent the members in the company. It is necessary therefore from a good industrial relations standpoint to have a broader and more flexible clause.
For those reasons, I hope that the Government will not oppose this amendment unless they are against collective representation altogether. Although we on these Benches sometimes believe that that is the situation, the Government, through the Minister, have not yet said that that is so. I hope that this amendment will commend itself to the Minister this time. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in Committee I recall that the stated purpose of the present statutory provisions on this subject was to aid and improve the conduct of industrial relations. I did not see how the Government's proposals in Clause 14 could be justified within that purpose.
One of the arguments adduced against the amendment moved in Committee was that an employer who did not recognise a particular union should not be obliged to pay an employee for time spent in working for the union in another company. As I see it, this amendment acknowledges the force of that argument in proposing that a trade union official should be given paid time off by his employer only in respect of duties undertaken to represent members of the union working in the establishments of that employer.
This is a much more modest proposal than that discussed in Committee. Therefore, I hope that,

91
rather than run the risk of antagonising trade unions further and opening up new areas of potential conflict, the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was rather surprised to see this amendment. Most other Opposition amendments this evening have seemed to come some way towards the Government's approach or even to return to the status quo. But this amendment seeks to give the employer even less rights in respect of his obligation to provide paid time off to trade union officials. It rides roughshod over the single and abiding concern that the Government have returned to again and again; namely, that there can be no justification for an employer being required to pay for time off for trade union officials to carry out duties which are concerned with matters in relation to which the employer does not recognise the union. Under this amendment that unacceptable state of affairs would continue to obtain and therefore the Government cannot accept it.
However, as I have said, this amendment would place even less of a limitation on the right to time off than that which exists under Section 27 as it stands. The noble Baroness who moved the amendment would not even require that the duty for which time off is sought need be one which is concerned with industrial relations with the employer who is to pay but merely a duty that is necessary to represent the members of the trade union at the employer's establishment.
We do not dispute that trade union officials can perform very useful functions on behalf of their members. However, what we are talking about here is the employer's obligation to provide paid time off. The purpose of a recognition agreement is that the employer and the employee agree those matters over which the employer and the union are going to negotiate and those functions which, while they are not going to be the subject of negotiations, are functions that the employer and the union have agreed may be performed. It would be quite inappropriate for the employer's obligation to provide for time off to extend to duties which are outwith that agreement.
However, if a union official exceptionally wishes time off to represent the members of his union in respect of matters for which he is not recognised or in respect of functions that the union and the employer have not agreed may be performed by the union, he has a clear course of action: he goes to his employer and makes his case. If the employer feels that it would be in the mutual interest of his employees and his organisation he may well give the official time off. However, I repeat, it is absolutely not a circumstance where there should be a statutory obligation on the employer to provide paid time off.
This amendment would open the door to wholesale abuse of the right to paid time off for trade union officials and would increase rather than diminish the burden placed on businesses. I am not sure that that was the intention of the noble Baroness in moving this amendment, which I hope she will withdraw.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not entirely surprised at the Minister's response but I cannot see that the amendment, if put into legislation, would lead to wholesale abuse. It states quite clearly:
"such duties as are necessary"—
and I emphasise the words "as are necessary"
"to represent the members of the union employed in the employer's establishments".
Quite clearly, that is a responsibility connected with industrial relations because it is concerned with employment in the employer's establishments. The individual concerned would have been given responsibility by the trade union to undertake those duties.
I cannot see why the Government say that the enactment of this amendment would lead to wholesale abuse. However, I do not intend to press the issue at this time of the evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, line 30, at end insert ("; and
(c) in paragraphs (a) and (b) above the word "employer" includes the employer and any employer who is an associated employer of that employer.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that this amendment raises a matter relating to a change in Section 27 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which is made by the Bill, if the Government have their way, and which has not been explained by the Government in either House. I raised the matter in Committee and told the Minister that if he did not explain it then we would again raise it on Report.
The matter arises in this way. In broad terms the right to time off as a union official —in effect, as a shop steward —arises only where the employer has recognised the union concerned. The definition of recognition is in Section 32 of the 1978 Act, and I quote the essential words:
" 'recognised' means recognised by an employer, or two or more associated employers, to any extent for the purposes of collective bargaining".
It is clear, therefore, that the two associated employers could at the very least recognise the same union in different extents but it would count as a recognised union in both under the section. That definition is left intact by the Government and I think I am right in saying that it is not changed by the Bill.
The Government's change is in terms of the substance of the right to time off which was debated yet again on the previous amendment. Under the section as it stands a shop steward's right to time off—and I quote the essential words of Section 27—is:
"for the purpose of enabling him … to carry out those duties of his as such an official which are concerned with industrial relations between his employer and any associated employer, and their employees".
The words which the Government wish to insert into the section speak of duties which are concerned

93
with negotiations with the employer and —I now go to the end of the paragraph (a) (i)—
"in relation to which the trade union is recognised by the employer".
It appears that the Government are changing the ambit of the right in respect of time off to a significant degree. The omission of the associated employer is of course of great importance in the Goverment's change.
The associated employer is not as far off as the words colloquially sound. The definition of an associated employer goes as far as companies which are under the same control or where one controls the other; in other words, the group of companies. If the associated employer is not included within the substance of the right, having been included at any rate to a degree in the definition of the word "recognition", of course the employer is doubly in control and can stop time off as a right to any extent that he wishes, even beyond the matters discussed in Committee to which I refer but do not repeat. Therefore, if we have the Government's wording, with one company employing members of a union in six different plants, the six shop stewards will fall under parallel rights to time off, even under the Government's understanding, so long as the employer does not withdraw from recognition altogether, which he can legally do at any time.
If in fact the six plants are changed into one holding company and five subsidiary companies, each owning and operating one of the plants, for reasons not directly concerned with time off, each of those separate employers, as they now are in law, may well limit recognition in different ways. It is very difficult to see the justification for that where the industrial relations problems remain the same, where the employer is in terms of economic reality the same (the one economic unit), where the workforce is the same, where relations between management and the union do not alter but where the incidence of five separate legal personalities through the subsidiaries may give rise almost by chance to rather different edges to the limitations or frontiers of what is actually recognised for bargaining at the particular plant involved. As a consequence it will be much more difficult for those trade union officials to find any common pattern of rights to time off in that situation. Faced with a hostile management it will be even easier than we have shown previously for management to prevent common meetings between officials who have every reason —and at the moment every right —to have paid time off to discuss the problems of industrial relations in those plants.
I am sure that the Minister will say that the good and sensible employer may well arrange for time off as before. I wish to make a point as regards the Minister's answer that he has given again and again. I hope he will stop giving it because it is irrelevant. It is quite irrelevant whether nice people will do even better than what is provided by the law. The fact that 90 per cent. of employers or union members are very nice chaps and will have a drink and get over a problem by agreement is irrelevant to legislation. It is always the bad legislator who says "The problem will not arise because people will do even better".
It is to the percentage of cases in which standards are not upheld that the law primarily addresses itself. The law is not concerned with the normal case and, for the most part, certainly not cases concerning industrial relations. The associated employer point is important. It could be a factor through which relationships are inflamed when they need not be. Trade union officials are well aware of the differences that arise in respect of new companies being formed within a group. They are also well aware that in this area of the law that fact has never made any difference to the description of the right to time off. I cannot believe that the Government really intended to change that because there does not seem to be any good reason to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this amendment presupposes that the omission of the notion of an associated employer from the wording of Clause 14 would, if it were to be enacted, restrict the right to paid time off to carry out trade union duties in respect of employers which are associated employers of the trade union official's employer. The clause will certainly restrict the right in respect of associated employers as it restricts the right in the case of the principal employer. The degree of the restriction depends however on one's interpretation of the rather opaque wording of Section 27 as it is at present; a subject to which I shall return in a moment.
In fact the issue at stake here is again the one that underlies all that the Government have said about this clause; namely, that we are determined to tie the right to paid time off for trade anion duties to the scope of the recognition agreement between the employer and the trade union. While a recognition agreement could be concluded by two or more associated employers —and this is reflected in the definition of "recognised" in Section 32 of the Act —this has not been the definition of recognition that has been used in Section 27(1) or indeed Section 28(2) of the 1978 Act.
Both speak of recognition by an employer and of an independent union recognised by him, that is, that employer. Therefore we are addressing in Clause 14 —as indeed the legislation has always been addressing —a recognition agreement between a single employer and a trade union. Of course if the recognition agreement were concluded by two or more associated employers it would not mean that Section 27 would not apply. It would mean that the section would relate to that recognition agreement to the extent that it applied to each individual employer and the union.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, referred during the Committee stage to the fact that the term "associated employers" is within the definition of recognition in Section 32 of the Act and he said that it would be very odd indeed if it were left in the form in which it is now. I quite agree with the noble Lord. As I have just indicated, the definition in Section 32 is redundant. It has been so since at least 1978. It is for that reason that the Government brought forward an amendment in another place proposing the wording which is to be found in paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 to the Bill.

95
Be that as it may, the current legislation does however provide a right to time off for duties concerned with industrial relations between the official's employer and any associated employer and his employees. The current legislation is not clear as to whether time off would be required to be given if the duties were concerned with industrial relations just with the associated employer. The word "and" and not the word "or" is used. However, if it gives such a right it is an inappropriate one. An employer should be under no obligation to provide paid time off so that a trade union official can carry out duties concerning another employer —duties which do not concern the employer who is providing the paid time off.
If the requirement is currently limited to industrial relations which concern both the official's employer and the associated employer, Clause 14 must change nothing in this respect except to ensure that the official does not have a right to time off for duties in relation to matters for which the union is not recognised by his own employer and to ensure that the time off is for duties proximate to negotiations with his own employer.
The effect of Amendment No. 19 would be that an employer could be required to grant paid time off to a trade union official for duties which did not concern that employer but solely related to an associated employer. This would be an unjustifiable burden. When the noble Lord has time to consider what I have said, I hope he will agree that that is the correct position.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, one part of the Minister's explanation is unacceptable to me, and that is that there is anything opaque about the law as it has been until now. Section 32 of the 1978 Act states that its definitions are for the purpose of Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. That is the definition and it includes associated employers.
The Minister has referred us to the fact that the Government are also going to change the definition in Schedule 6. Therefore all he has done is to maintain the consistency of unfortunate policy by changing Section 32 as well as Section 27. What he has not done is to tell us why the rights of shop stewards in six plants to time off should change when there are six companies controlling them independently in the same group with the same directors, the same registered office, the same shareholders, the same debenture holders and the same economic unity, compared with the situation when there is only one company.
I apprehend that I gave the Government's drafting too few marks: it is full marks. Why it should be done and what contribution it will make to industrial relations are very hard matters to follow. However, we have the explanation fully on paper and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, [Period of employment necessary to qualify for statement of reasons for dismissal]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 13, line 34, leave out (" "for six months" there shall be substituted "not less than two years." ") and insert (`there shall be inserted at the beginning of the subsection "where the termination is unfair or otherwise unlawful," and there shall be inserted at the end of the subsection "but where the termination of the contract of employment was lawful, an employee shall not enjoy that entitlement unless the period of continuous employment ending with that date has been, or will have been, not less than two years." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another small matter where the Government ought to think again. If the Minister could give us the idea that he will have a think about some of these things, we on this side would all be a little happier. However, I do not think that his object is to make us happy, so I will proceed.
Where a worker is dismissed from his job, we say that he is entitled to reasons. As a matter of fact it is our belief, rather informally, that that presumption should apply to all workers. However, it may be that there should be some period of qualification.
This amendment is a much weaker amendment. I hope that the Minister will not say that the fact that this is a weaker amendment than the amendments that we moved in Committee shows that we are moving towards him. It is a mark of our desperation about his ever listening to us at all. (We know that he does of course, and I am only joking.) This is a very weak amendment and goes much less far than what was said in Committee.
I should like to pursue the point about why people are entitled to reasons. If you are sacked, there are all sorts of consequences for you in life, not just the thought of going to an industrial tribunal. Most people do not think of going to an industrial tribunal. Sometimes their character is involved; sometimes there is tittle-tattle about why; sometimes they will apply for social security benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in Committee that this is what happens when someone goes to claim unemployment benefit:
"When a person first makes a claim for unemployment benefit a standard inquiry form is sent to the last employer seeking reasons why the claimant left his employment. Claimants are allowed to comment on those statements given by their former employer. A case will be referred to adjudication only where the employer has given written confirmation of the reasons for dismissal. —[Official Report, 17/10/89; cols. 828–9.]
That certainly confirms our impression of what not infrequently happens.
Of course the Government must take the matter seriously because they increased the maximum period of discretionary disqualification for misconduct from unemployment benefit from six weeks and 13 weeks to six months. Therefore one is talking about a possible six-month disqualification from unemployment benefit. Indeed, here we have a case where the employer will give the reasons to the officer at the social security office; and at that point, and only then, in many cases, as the Minister described, will the employer who has been sacked have a chance to comment upon the matter let alone answer any charge.
We do not think that that situation is right. We put forward amendments in Committee whereby we tried to lessen the period of disqualification to a much lower level. That was not acceptable to the Committee. The amendment we now put forward —which, I apprehend, may not be perfectly drafted —tries to make a rather different distinction; namely that where someone's dismissal is lawful and if the Government must have their way regarding the long period of disqualification, then so be it. But, where a person's dismissal is unlawful, be it through lack of adequate due notice or be it an unfair dismissal, then surely there must be at some stage a right to know the reasons therefor.
I appreciate that this matter may need further attention; but there is plenty of time between now and Third Reading. I am sure that the Government would never wish to rush through the stages of a Bill in such a way that they could not draft matters properly before Thursday. It is not impossible to do so. It is a distinction which we think is a workable one, even though it is a weaker version of what we previously proposed.
We submit that those unlawfully dismissed should always have the right to know the reasons. Of course, this can work by way of presumption. In some cases it would be quite clear. For example, in a summary dismissal where a worker is entitled to notice, quite clearly the right to know the reasons would emerge. Where the dismissal is clearly unlawful, that would be so. But, where the dismissal is clearly lawful with notice and for no reason which can be challenged, the Government say that the employee should not have the right to know the reasons for another two years. So be it, we must give way on that issue.
There are many different reasons for which people ought to have this right. I do not know how many Members of this House have been dismissed without knowing the reasons. Indeed, it would be most interesting to know just how many noble Lords who vote in the Lobbies have been dismissed without a reason. Morever —and this is the important question —how many of them would feel it justified that they were not told the reason? I do not believe that many people would feel that that was justified.
The Minister may say that we have been driven into a corner in the matter and that this amendment is not the right way to solve the problem. We tried a better way in Committee. However, this proposal is put forward to the Minister in order to ask him to think again on the basis of his own description of the social security aspect of the matter. He mentioned other descriptions of the importance of workers' rights when they are dismissed. We do not disagree. In other words, this is a despairing cry to the Minister: will he not do something in the Bill which would, if not improve the legislation, at least maintain the position for those who are entitled to know the reasons for their dismissal and thereby not make the position intolerably worse as the Bill does at present? I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I should remind the House that the word "for" has been omitted from the first line of the amendment
98
as it appears on the Marshalled List. It should read, "for six months".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have listened, as always, with attention and respect to what has been said by the noble Lord, but I cannot understand any of it. If an employee is unlawfully dismissed, he has his rights at common law so to complain. We are not concerned with that. We are concerned with the statutory regime, and within that regime the Government's proposals seem to be entirely fair and reasonable, holding the balance between an employer and the employed. It is understood that the noble Lord looks at that matter from the point of view of the employed only, and wishes to extend the area of statutory protection; but that is not holding the balance.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy, not with the wording of the amendment, which looks rather unworkable, but with the principle behind it. It is serious that people can now lose their social security benefit for six months. In the past, if at the end of that period one's case was justified, one received the benefit retrospectively. I understand that one does not receive it at all now. That can create hardship.
I find the amendment unworkable because it seems to say that if the dismissal is unlawful, one is entitled to have the benefit; but if it is lawful, one does not receive it for two years. Who will decide whether it is lawful or unlawful if one does not have the reasons to consider? Anyone who takes a case to a tribunal receives the reasons at that stage because they are always stated on the originating application or the defendant's reply to it. The only way to determine the matter is to take the case to a tribunal because one then receives the reasons if one is determined to have them.
In Committee I made the point that I do not see any cast-iron reason why the period should be two years. My noble friend the Minister might consider whether it could be one year, which would be a compromise. I do not see a valid reason for setting the two years in stone. I believe that it is only administrative tidiness. The wording of the amendment would create more problems.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am afraid that the Government cannot support the amendment. I try hard to make the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, happy; but I seem to fail more often than not. I am pleased to note that the Opposition are prepared to go some way (although the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked me not to say that) and that there seems to be a willingness to look at both sides of the argument.
The purpose of the written statement provision is to help someone to decide whether they have a case for making such a complaint: it makes no sense for a person to have the right to a written statement giving them the reasons for their dismissal if they cannot then pursue their complaint of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal. The noble Lord said that a written statement might avoid tittle-tattle. I do not believe that that would be so.

99
I should perhaps make it clear in view of the apparent confusion that existed in Committee that the written statement of reasons for dismissal is just that. It is not connected with the procedure of oral and written warnings that ACAS recommended should normally take place before an employee is dismissed.
Introducing two qualifying periods according to the circumstances in which the employee was dismissed would make the legislation more complicated and also mean that the qualifying period for that right and the right not to be unfairly dismissed would not be wholly aligned.
Further, I have to say that the amendment, as drafted —the noble Lord admitted that the drafting was not perfect, —would produce strange and even absurd results. First, it is clear that where an employee had more than six months' but fewer than two years' continuous employment, the tribunal would have to decide that he had been neither unfairly nor unlawfully dismissed before it could decide whether he was entitled to a written statement of reasons for dismissal.
However important the right to a written statement may be, it is obviously a relatively far less important right than the right not to be unfairly dismissed, or an employee's common law right in respect of wrongful dismissal. Yet the amendment would apparantly force tribunals to go through the complicated and often difficult process of determining the issues of unfair and wrongful dismissal merely to determine whether an employee was entitled to a written statement. That cannot be sensible.
Secondly, in determining the issues of unfair and wrongful dismissal the tribunal would inevitably have to consider the reasons for dismissal and declare what those reasons were. That declaration would make it entirely unnecessary for the employee to obtain a written statement of reasons and yet the whole legal procedure would have taken place for the sole purpose of deciding whether he was entitled to such a statement. I think it would be difficult to imagine a scheme which would be more obviously wasteful of public resources or more of an unnecessary burden on business.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will know that industrial tribunals have no jurisdiction to hear claims that a dismissal was wrongful at common law. As I have already said, this amendment would apparently require tribunals to decide the issue of wrongful dismissal. That is quite inappropriate in the context of the right to a written statement; moreover it would create a potential clash of jurisdictions in this area between tribunals and the ordinary courts which would be most undesirable. For all those reasons I urge the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to think again.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the Minister. His most important words were the last few sentences. The division he is drawing between the industrial tribunals and what we may
100
call the common law courts, the county courts and the High Court, makes one think that perhaps the Government will not go ahead with the transfer of jurisdiction on which they have produced a paper in connection with industrial tribunals. I do not know whether that was an indication by the Minister that the Government will not now introduce an order to transfer to the industrial tribunals the common law claims under Section 133 of the 1978 Act. No doubt the Minister will ponder the point. The division is not so hard and fast, if that jurisdiction is to be transferred to the tribunals. The same goes for the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
I wish to say only one word more. The efforts of the noble Lord to make me happy fill me with a sense of nostalgic déjà vu. For a decade he and his predecessors have tried to make me and my noble friends happy on these matters. They have not got very far.
Of course I said that the amendment was worded in a rather strange way. We did not do it but it would perhaps have been better if the amendment had distinguished between dismissals, with and without notice. We felt unable to do that in view of the debates which noble Lords had in Committee. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that with notice and without notice would be better.
In tonight's debate on Report there is a much greater sense of the ambit of importance of the written reason for dismissal. If I may say so, the Government, weakly in the Minister's statement, tried yet again to link the written reason for dismissal only with the unfair dismissal tribunal's jurisdiction. We all know that that equivalence is faulty. The Minister took rather lightly the notion of workers who, as I said, find tittle-tattle or rumours or stories about them emanating from their dismissal. Does he not know that this happens every week? Workers —working people —are prouder of their character than some other people because they have nothing else to defend. If they do not know why they are dismissed, they may find it more difficult to get another job.
I did not read it but perhaps the Minister will look at the Law Society's response to the Government's Bill and papers. He will find a clear statement by that society of how difficult it is for their clients when they are not given reasons for their dismissal. I do not feel that he has attended to this point at all; he has just produced some formula: unfair dismissal equals written statement. Two years for one equals two years for the other. That is the end of it. What does it matter if people are dismissed and do not know why and then cannot get another job or unemployment benefit for misconduct? Does all that matter? No, of course not, that is the end of the matter. The Government are putting through a Bill which in moral terms is at a pretty low level. I must be frank. However, all I can do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, until that last sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn,

101
I should have been quite happy to leave the matter like that. However, it is monstrous to say that the Government do not care whether or not somebody gets unemployment benefit. The employment service tries extremely hard to make sure that people receive their unemployment benefit when it is justified. That is why there are quite clear procedures to decide whether or not somebody is entitled to it. For the noble Lord to say that it is just the written statement and that if everybody had a written statement there would be no problem is nonsense.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the Minister goes from the procedural to the substantive. I was not arguing the substantive case about the Government's change of rules, although I pointed out that the misconduct —
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord is not following the rules of procedure.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I understood the Minister was asking me a question before I had sat down. Is that not correct? If the Minister does not wish me to have the right to reply, I shall not do so.
Noble Lords: That is all right!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have the right to continue. However, I have two points to make. The Minister misunderstands in the sense that I am not attacking the Government's policy on social security rules, although I could. I did not say that everything would be all right if everyone had a statement of reasons. I hope that what I said was that where someone is dismissed there can be an accusation of misconduct. I adopt precisely the Minister's description as stated in Committee. Where an accusation of misconduct is levied, that is precisely one example of where the worker who is dismissed is entitled to know the reason for his dismissal. I repeat that it is morally wrong that the first time he or she knows the reason for the dismissal and sees it on paper is when it is produced by a social security officer. That is not right, but we must leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should remind the House that if Amendment No. 21 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 22. I now call Amendment No. 21.
Clause 20 [Pre-hearing review of proceedings before industrial tribunal]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 16, leave out lines 32 to 48 and insert —
("(a) for authorising the tribunal, or with the agreement of the tribunal a person, carrying out the pre-hearing review under the regulations to inquire, in circumstances specified in the regulations, whether further steps in the proceedings by a party are likely to be frivolous, vexatious or unreasonable, and, if this is the case, to inquire into the
102
likelihood of that party being able to meet such order for costs as might be made in the proceedings and to warn that party of the likelihood of such an order being made, but such regulations shall not include 2.uthority to impose any monetary payment or other security for costs by reason of the pre-hearing review;
(b) to ensure that, where such a warning is given, no member of the tribunal conducting or concerned with the pre-hearing review shall be a member of the tribunal at the hearing.").
The noble Lord, said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, need be in no fear about the latter matter. However, this is a matter that I wish to propose with some care. Our amendment would make one main demand as a change in the clause. However, before I come to that I wish to put three preliminary points to the Minister. Those points are in the amendment, but it would be useful if he commented on them.
First, the amendment provides that where the industrial tribunal, or a chairman, has taken a preliminary view of a claimant's case such that it is unreasonable, the tribunal which hears the full hearing later must be differently constituted. That is the rule now under rule 6(4) on pre-hearing assessments. There is good reason for it. It is mentioned in the report of the organisation Justice in 1987. I wish to refer to that report on the way through this argument. Has that measure been omitted by mistake or is there some good reason for departing from the normal principle?
Secondly, our amendment gives the jurisdiction on the preliminary hearing, as the Government would have it called, to the tribunal unless the tribunal agrees to the chairman hearing it alone. We believe that this is right. Previous debates have convinced us that this issue should be put forward now because neither another place nor this House validates in itself an argument which allows the chairman to sit all the time by himself or herself. I could go further on this point, but I shall not do so.
Thirdly, there are different formulae involved as regards the ambit of the clause itself as it stands in the Bill. Sometimes the Minister here and sometimes Ministers in another place refer to the pre-hearing review, as it will be called, operating as regards deciding to impose a deposit where the case is one which is vexatious, frivolous or unreasonable or is being conducted unreasonably. Thai is the formula for costs in the tribunal. Sometimes Ministers have added, and the Minister himself added (at col. 853 of Hansard for 17th October):
"where a case appears at the pre-hearing stage to have little prospect of success",
a deposit may be ordered. That is a quite different kettle of fish —not frivolous, not vexatious, not unreasonably conducted but having little prospect of success. We should like to know whether the area that we are discussing is that wide.
I turn now to the main point of the amendment. In Committee the Minister (at col. 853 of Hansard) made a most important statement which for me clarified the nature of the clause, and I am most grateful to him for that: He said
"it is our intention that a deposit will only be forfeited if the person required to pay it loses the case and has an order for costs made against him. In other words, he will only forfeit the deposit

103
where the tribunal carrying out the full hearing considers that the case was indeed frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable".
That is the narrow formulation.
"In such cases the deposit will be paid to the other party in part setttlement of the costs".
It may have been our fault and the fault of everyone in the other place, but in my submission that sentence is the key to the clause. It shows that much of what we discussed earlier is irrelevant to the clause. Perhaps I may explain.
What was irrelevant was the debate about vexatious litigants. Vexatious litigants are one problem and security for costs is another. On analysis the clause turns out to be about security for costs.
I shall not go over the ground that was traversed in Committee, but the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the question of the power of a tribunal to deal with vexatious litigants and the like. None of us gave her a completely correct answer. Under rule 12(2) of the rules of tribunals, the tribunal may if it thinks fit:
"(e) subject to the Proviso below, at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any originating application or notice of appearance or anything in such application or notice of appearance on the ground that it is vexatious".
The proviso is that the tribunal shall send notice to the party against whom it is proposed that any such order shall be made giving opportunity to show cause why the order should not be made. That is a rule of natural justice.
That does not carry one all the way. Nevertheless the power exists. I was interested to find in the Justice report that there were comments upon it and a note that the power is used sparingly, but it exists rather more than some tribunals apprehend.
There is a great deal more to that discussion. There is a great deal more to be said about tribunal procedures, vexatious litigants and so on. I claim that they are very, very few in number but very, very few can do a great deal of damage and waste a great deal of time. However, that is not the problem at which the clause is aimed. It has nothing whatever to do with vexatious litigants. The Minister has said so.
He has told us that what is proposed in Clause 20 is much wider. It may concern the vexatious litigant but he is a minute speck in the wall to be built by Clause 20. Its nature was made clear by the Minister's statements, from which I have quoted the central point.
The new power is to be a power in the chairman of the tribunal —it is clear from the formulation of Clause 20 that it is normally to be the chairman —to make an award or an order not exceeding £150 against someone which will be passed on to the other party if he is made liable for costs. As the rules stand —and I ask the Minister for an assurance that the rules on cost are not to be changed —costs can only be awarded where the applicant has conducted his case frivolously, vexatiously or unreasonably.
That is security for costs. That is what security of costs is all about. In the absence of any guidance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor —I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord who is in his
104
place —I believe that in Scotland it is called caution for expenses. I have done a certain amount of work to try to discover the Scottish jurisdiction. It is relevant because those new rules for the tribunals will presumably apply to the English and the Scottish tribunals and to the English and Scottish EAT.
A most serious question therefore arises: what is the relationship between the new rules on security for costs in the tribunals in England and the High Court and in Scotland and the Court of Session? Inquiry produces some very strange answers. If one looks at the High Court in England, one finds that security for costs is normally very restricted and applies only against plaintiffs who reside abroad or mistake their address or who are nominal plaintiffs suing for others where there is no good reason. In one case the Scottish equivalent is called the case of the cat's paw which appears for other people. The Court of Session appears to have similar but by no means identical rules so far as I can apprehend. In England the Court of Appeal may make an order for security for costs against a vexatious litigant, but only on appeal under Order No. 59.
There is a great deal of literature on the matter. I merely quote the late Lord Fraser when he said in one of the Scottish cases that we must always be careful not to extend security for costs or caution for expenses. In 1983 he said:
"It would clearly be wrong that a litigant with a statable case should in effect be excluded from the court by an order for caution with which he could not comply, unless in very exceptional circumstances".
What is the justification, therefore, for applying to tribunals of justice in respect of which there is no legal aid for the litigant, as there is in the High Court and the Court of Session, rules on security for costs which are stricter than those in the court of superior jurisdiction and even stricter than those in respect of the Court of Appeal, although the court there has a wide discretion?
The Government have certainly not explained the true nature of the proposal, except in that one sentence of the Minister. I asked them in Committee whether they intended to introduce similar rules in relation to the High Court. I am sure that I can now ask the question more confidently: is security for costs in other courts and tribunals to be looked at? If not, why are those litigants picked out for that peculiar form of security for costs? As the late Lord Fraser said, it is always the impecunious who are at risk from strict rules on security for costs. If we look at some tribunals in other countries, we see that security for costs is a well known way of keeping the poor out. It was only in 1969 that we in England repealed a possible jurisdiction in the county courts to demand security for costs solely on the grounds that the person was of impecunious means. We abolished that because everyone felt that it had had its day and was unfair.
One might well say that the rule will apply to the rich and poor alike, as do so many freedoms, but a large percentage of the people about whom we are talking here are unemployed and poor; yet it is to them that that strict rule on security for costs can be applied on the word of the chairman. Once again,

105
all kinds of bodies which were quoted in Committee have said that the proposal will not do. I merely refer to one sentence of the Law Society. Its response to this proposal was that it was of the opinion that the introduction of such a procedure would be undesirable as it might have the effect of discouraging impecunious applicants from approaching a tribunal at all. That statement is based on the knowledge of people who had considerable experience of tribunal work.
One can now grasp the true nature of the clause. It does not mean that there ought not to be a debate about a more efficient method of dealing with the very narrow but troublesome area of the vexatious litigant —not at all. This clause is not about that. It
106
means that this clause has never been justified as a special rule concerning security for costs because, except for that one sentence in the brief which the noble Lord was kind enough to read out (and which I tracked down elsewhere and should have spotted before), it has been so debated in that way. But it should have been debated.
Let it be debated in that way. We believe that this special rule against the impecunious in respect of security for costs should not appear in this Bill. If there is a problem about the efficiency of tribunals, vexatious litigation and so on, let it be discussed. But this particular, rather mean proposal is not one that we think should be activated by a security for costs provision. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be very brief. The noble Lord has assailed us at this very late hour with an academic lecture about security of costs in England and Scotland and the High Court which has absolutely nothing to do with the point that we are discussing. It is quite wrong to say that this is an abuse of our time because "abuse" would not be the right word. The noble Lord would never wish wilfully to abuse time.
I sit on these Back Benches and wonder why on earth we submit to an academic lecture on a subject about which I happen to know a little but which is totally irrelevant to the matter in hand. What is relevant to the matter in hand is the position as regards this tribunal, which operates under a statutory jurisdiction, where there is little prospect of success that a deposit would be paid. How on earth that concept can be equated with the esoteric learning on both sides of the Border, especially at this hour of night, on security of costs totally defeats me.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I could not allow this matter to pass without speaking as I raised the issue of vexatious litigants at Committee stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that cases are rare. Certainly in the 15 years during which I have sat on these tribunals I only found one applicant who had brought 60 to 70 cases. However, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned during our last discussion that he also had come across a number of cases, mostly under the Race Relations Act. People had brought such cases at a very early stage, when they were simply job applications. They were not even cases in which they had been interviewed for the jobs concerned. It involved a great waste of public time and money. Indeed one of the tribunal decisions in a previous hearing of the case to which I referred said that cases of this type did much to discredit the discrimination legislation by abusing the system. So the vexatious litigant is one category; but there are others.
The noble Lord referred to cases with little prospect of success. That is a phrase currently used in an industrial tribunal. Recently I sat on a pre-assessment hearing (which is now to be called a pre-hearing review) where it was stated that the case had little chance of success and to progress further with it would be considered unreasonable. Therefore a costs warning was given. From what the noble Lord was saying, he found it surprising. The phrase "little prospect of success" is currently used. It is not a new suggestion.
He raised the matter of the £150 deposit. I have had cases where we would ask for that from the employer. I have had cases where the employer has considered it beneath his dignity to bother to reply to the matter and has treated it in a most unfair way. We would have asked for a deposit from him. It would have done much good because it would have made him take the issue more seriously at an earlier stage and would therefore have been fairer to the applicant.
108
The Minister made the point last time that the deposit is up to 150; a much smaller sum could be demanded. Surely it would be the equivalent of a means inquiry in court, where one asks people what they are able to pay. Any fine fixed in a magistrates' court is related to the income and position of the person. I do not think that £150 would be asked automatically from any party. The amount may be up to £150. When the noble Lord mentioned that it would be in part settlement of the costs —I realise that he was quoting the Minister —I presume that it would be only in cases where the costs awarded were in excess of £150. If the costs awarded were only £50 there would be a refund of £100. I do not think that there is any argument on such a point.
The noble Lord stated that under Rule I 2(2)(e) the tribunal may order proceedings to be struck out at any stage. I agree. However, I was informed by the tribunal that it can happen only if the defendant applies for it to be struck out. One has to send written notice to the party stating that it is intended that the case shall be struck out. That could take as long as the hearing of the case. It would again mean days of delay. If on day one of the case one sends the applicant a notice that the case will be struck out, he then has a right of appeal.
There is a right of appeal even on the matter of the deposit. I ask my noble friend to confirm that. If one is asked to produce the deposit and one cannot do so, I am sure that the free representation unit, which represents many clients in the industrial tribunal, would take the case to the employment appeal tribunal on the ground that it would be a real injustice to have to produce the deposit.
I believe that these issues are not such a worry. With regard to what is currently called the pre-assessment hearing, in the tribunal on which I sit, the decision of the chairman on the pre-hearing is sealed in an envelope which is opened at the tribunal after the conclusion of the hearing of the case. The envelope is opened in the presence of the applicant. That is the only moment at which the tribunal hearing the case knows whether or not any costs warning has been given. The content of the envelope might state that no costs warning has been given. I have been present when the chairman has opened such an envelope and a contentious litigant has said that he did not believe that the envelope had not been opened before. He may say, "Surely I saw you shuffling a second piece of paper there with it". Such comments have been thrown up quite unjustly. However, the present procedure is that whichever tribunal hears the first stage of the pre-hearing, none of those people sit at the second stage. I believe that it is the Government's intention to continue that process. If so, paragraph (b) of the amendment is unnecessary because it would be a continuation of the existing process.
A point that will be raised on the next amendment was discussed last time. It concerns interest payments. I know that many people believed that the matter would be concluded so quickly that the matter of interest payments would not become a sufficient problem —that there would not be enough time to attract an interest payment. The Government should

109
look at this point. I have sat on a number of cases which it was originally believed would take one day but which instead have taken many more days. To reconvene the bench with the same three people who were hearing the case —the two lay members may be involved in other things in their lives —is not easy. Sometimes there is a considerable delay between the earlier days and the later days of a hearing. A time limit should be attached beyond which the Government should pay interest, perhaps not right from the beginning but after a certain time.
I have sat on many cases when costs have been awarded. This has always been done unanimously. We have never had a disagreement among the members of a tribunal. However, awarding costs in no way guarantees that the person will get them. In many cases the party who wins the costs considers that so much further civil legal action is required to recover the money that he often does not pursue it. Some applicants rely on the fact that the case will not be followed up and the money will not be claimed. That is another reason why the deposit would be a good thing. It would mean that that amount of money would at least be there.
In one case in which I was involved, a wife was forced by her husband to bring a case. She was completely dominated by him. He was not a pleasant individual. The wife felt so threatened by giving evidence in front of her husband that we believed that whichever way the case went she would have a terrible time at home afterwards. We asked for the case to be heard in the absence of her husband. He was persuaded to leave the room. She then gave her evidence much more confidently. In that case where the applicant did not wish to bring the case the husband would have been deterred if there had been a deposit. There had been a pre-assessment hearing and costs were awarded at the end of the case.
I have quoted one or two cases. The fact that the appeal procedure is available even in terms of the deposit means that the person has recourse to a further stage if he cannot manage to pay. I support the original view and I oppose the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment but in supporting it I shall be even briefer than the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I shall resist the temptation to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in what she said about payment of interest on deposits. As she herself began to acknowledge, that is better dealt with in the next amendment. In Committee I moved an amendment to leave out subsections (2) and (3) of this clause. I submitted that the way to eliminate the considerable amounts of time and money which could be spent in dealing with frivolous and vexatious cases at tribunal hearings was not to authorise orders requiring payment of a deposit but to improve the effectiveness of pre-hearing reviews. That is just what this amendment seeks to do. For that reason I shall support it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for giving us all those
110
useful and interesting examples. They demonstrate some of the problems that exist with the present system. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to some of the matters that arose in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked one or two questions which I should perhaps answer.
First, as the noble Lord explained, paragraph (b) of this amendment is designed to ensure that those involved in a pre-hearing review are not involved in any subsequent hearing. I assure the noble Lord that we fully support this priniciple and it is our firm intention to include such a provision in the drafting of the regulations. So I hope it can be accepted that a provision does not need to be included in the Bill.
Secondly, the Opposition seek to prevent a tribunal chairman who is carrying out a pre-hearing review from taking any action on an ill-founded case without the agreement of the full tribunal. Let me remind the House that the purpose of this clause is to make the tribunal procedure even more streamlined than it is already, by tackling the small number of ill-founded cases so we can concentrate resources on the far greater number which are genuine.
I am not entirely sure I understand how the Opposition think this amendment would work in practice, but so far as I can tell they have accepted that the tribunal chairman will be able to carry out a pre-hearing review alone. They therefore envisage somehow then restricting his ability to take any action over ill-founded cases —even issuing a costs warning —without the agreement of a full tribunal. That would mean in effect retaining the status quo whereby the full tribunal needs to be involved in every case. It would therefore largely frustrate the Government's intention of enabling tribunal chairmen to deal, sitting alone, with the kinds of issues which do not require the practical expertise of lay members.
I must emphasise that the Government recognise the need, in particularly complex or contentious cases, for the pre-hearing review to be conducted by a full tribunal and the drafting of this clause allows for that. But to let a tribunal chairman carry out the pre-hearing review alone and then not let him take any decisions about it without bringing in the whole tribunal is an administrative nonsense.
The noble Lord's third point was on the question of no reasonable prospect of success. The noble Lord said that I had used that explanation on other occasions and that it had been used in the other place. It comes from the present industrial tribunal regulations under the pre-hearing assessment procedure. The test is whether a case has no reasonable prospect of success. It is the Government's intention that the chairman of the tribunal conducting the pre-hearing review should be able to order the payment of a deposit where a case or defence has no reasonable prospect of success.
The noble Lord also asked whether there are plans to look at the issue of security for costs in the ordinary courts. That is beside the point because in industrial tribunals there are no costs except in the

111
unusual case where, for example, a party has acted frivolously. In fact, as my noble friend Lord Campbell said there is no connection between the High Court and industrial tribunals as regards this matter.
I must emphasise that the deposit will only be forfeited if the person paying it loses the case and has an order for costs made against him. That means that the only cases where the deposit will be forfeited will be where the tribunal carrying out the full hearing considers that the case was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable. In those cases the deposit will be paid to the other party in part settlement of the costs. In all other circumstances —and I emphasise that —the deposit will be returned at the end of the case.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on our amendment. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that in terms of analysis —if I may dare use such an esoteric or academic term —there does not seem to be a great deal between us. The problem exists of the vexatious litigant in the industrial tribunal. My estimate of the number of such litigants would be smaller than that of the noble Baroness. With the greatest respect, one is always terribly impressed by the particular case which is an extreme illustration. This clause is scarcely likely to deal with that problem. I also apprehend that the phrase, "little prospect of success" is well known throughout the pre-hearing jurisdiction. The reason I wanted a clearer statement from the Minister as to its place in the scheme of things is that I wished to know whether the regulations were going to tell the chairman —as it seems they must, though I shall come back to that later —that the deposit was to be ordered where the action appeared to be vexatious, frivolous or unreasonably conducted, or whether the deposit could be ordered (up to the maximum, of course) where there was little chance or appeared little prospect of success.
As I understood him, the Minister clarified that for us this evening in his answer to my third question. The chairman is going to be able to demand a deposit in the wider range where he thinks there is little prospect of success. But at the end of the day it is going to be used —that is, it will not be refunded —only where costs are awarded and that is within the narrower range of a case which is vexatious, frivolous or unreasonably conducted.
I hope the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that I looked at his speeches and I went back to the other place to try to understand the position. I think this is the first time that we have had an explanation of such clarity this evening; that the jurisdiction of the tribunal to make the new demand is over the wide area in the case that has little prospect of success.
The eventual outcome of the payment depends on the narrower area where the case is vexatious, frivolous or unreasonably conducted and where costs are awarded. The first thing to say about that is that
112
there is absolutely no justification for having the chairman sitting on his own.
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the Minister makes up his mind too quickly. I ask him to think again. If the wide area is assessing the chance of success, that is not a legal chairman's point alone. The lay members of the tribunals will not feel happy about the Minister saying that these questions do not suit —I hope I quote his words near enough —the practical experience of the lay members. The lay members have much to contribute on the tribunals. With modest experience, and talking to those with far more experience, I say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that it is a well-known fact that on many tribunals the legal chairman and the lay members often get very mixed up in the work of the tribunal and everyone has something to contribute. Therefore, if the case for the chairman sitting alone is simply that the lay members have nothing to contribute, then the Government should think again if the first criterion is to be a reasonable prospect of success.
I must make one final comment because this is the last occasion on which we shall deal with this important matter. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that I am not in the least troubled about finding out the truth at any hour of the night. If one stumbles across it in the dim dark of the night it is better than never having been there at all. I quoted many publications and the reports by Justice, which is a committee of very experienced people. I again assert that the correct analysis of what the Government have put before us —I apologise for not having seen it before —is in the nature of security for costs.
What is security for costs? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here and he will correct me if I am wholly wrong in thinking that it is caution for expenses, or near enough. It is an order whereby a party is required to make some monetary payment, a transfer of property, or an undertaking in respect of the costs which may fall against him at the end of the day, in its broadest understanding. I say again that the Government have put forward a plan for security for costs. It is a plan which will do little for the problem of the vexatious litigant which was raised by the noble Baroness. On the basis of what we have heard —we have heard of the regulations to come and there may be more because governments always bring more —there is nothing in the clause to help the noble Baroness with the vexatious litigant, except I suppose where he cannot find a way round depositing something which the chairman thinks he ought to deposit; and he is the chap who is likely to be able to find a way of doing it.
The people who will be put off will be those about whom the Law Society committee wrote. They will be the people who have to pay 100 deposit. They may be unemployed. They are the people who believe honestly that they have been unreasonably dismissed. They will have no legal aid. Thank

113
heavens for the hard-worked citizens' advice bureaux because many claimants will be utterly lost without them. These people will be asked whether they have any written reasons for their dismissal. They will reply that they have not. They will say "We were not given written reasons. We have not been there two years so we cannot have them. We do not know why we were dismissed but it was unfair."
Such persons are lost and it is from them that the Government ask for £100. The Government still have time to think about this matter and not merely on the basis of this Bill. All that we can do now is trust that those who run and often wisely administer the tribunals can introduce into the regulations better practical, sensible and just measures than this clause suggests are forthcoming. It is with great regret that I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 16, line 45, at end insert ("In such circumstances the deposit shall be refunded or paid over with interest.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having sought unsuccessfully to persuade the Government that the way in which to deal with frivolous and vexatious cases at tribunal hearings is to improve the effectiveness of pre-hearing reviews, we are left with the requirement that parties wishing to participate in proceedings should pay a deposit of up to 150. At an earlier stage reasons were given why that was not the right way in which to tackle the problem. The House will be glad to learn that I do not intend to weary it by rehearsing those reasons once more.
However, at the end of the discussion on this subject in Committee, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether it was the Government's intention, in appropriate cases where deposits were returned to claimants, that interest should be paid on the deposits, bearing in mind the high rates of interest that now obtain. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has just reminded us of the length of time that can elapse in these cases. The noble Lord then gave what to me was an unconvincing answer. He said that if someone was willing to put down a deposit of —150 in the first place he would not mind forfeiting what would be only a relatively small amount of interest over a few months.
On reflection I hope that the Minister will agree that however small the amount involved, to an impecunious applicant it may be a matter of considerable concern. A principle is involved here. If the amount is small it follows that it would cost little to accept the principle. The amendment gives the Government the chance to do just that and I very much hope that the Minister will take it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this must be the most modest amendment that has ever been moved even in this series of extraordinarily modest amendments to this most extreme Bill. It is the last amendment that we move as regards this clause. We tried two amendments in Committee and we tried another on
114
Report. The Government have been quite adamant. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is no longer seeking significantly to change the thrust of the clause; that idea has been given up. The chairman of the tribunal can have his pre-hearing review. There will be a deposit of up to £150. The clause remains substantially as it is.
It is being said that if we go through to the end the individual worker will get his deposit back because it turns out that he need not have put it up —the claim was not frivolous or vexatious, but perfectly reasonable. He won and he has not had costs awarded against him. If he gets the deposit back he should not suffer in the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, says, the only argument put forward by the Minister against a similar amendment which was moved in Committee was that he or she who can afford £150 and is fortunate enough to get it back should not complain.
I should like to anticipate another argument that the Minister might make this evening. He may say that the situation will not arise, or he may say that the whole process of the tribunal works so quickly that the interest would not be worth collecting. There are examples of people who get involved in the industrial tribunal process and it take:3 a long time for them to get a settlement. It depends on whether there is an appeal; whether they are facing an employer who, even when there is a case against him, is extremely reluctant to pay; whether the employer has to be proceeded against to make him pay, and whether the litigant has to go back to the tribunal again and again. There are quite a few examples where this process has taken several years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has told me of a concrete example that she knows of from her direct experience. It involved a member of her union. It took three years because it was ordered that the individual should be reinstated. If reinstatement is ordered, almost all employers in British industry, when they get over the surprise of such a thing being done, refuse to do it. Therefore one has to go back to the tribunal and get a sum of money awarded. The employer in this case refused to pay this sum of money. In the end, £4,000 was paid after a period of three years. If a rate of interest of something significantly less than 10 per cent. —8 per cent. or so —had been applied over a period of three years, there would have been another £1,000 to pay. I feel that that would have been quite reasonable.
We are talking about exceptional cases, a small number of cases, but cases in which a significant wrong is done because it takes a long time to pay and it turns out to be the case that there was no justification for the individual being asked to make a deposit in the first place. Surely the Government will accept that in those circumstances some interest should be paid.
At Second Reading we asked the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about this question. We were told that it was under consideration in the sense that the Government were considering the general policy of changing the position so that there would be interest on compensation payments ordered by industrial tribunals if they were delayed. We were told that

115
the situation was being considered in general. The Minister may say that this matter will be settled when a general settlement is made on the issue. If that is the case, we should be pleased to hear it. If not, we should like to know why this very reasonable amendment is not to be accepted by the Government.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the deposit is held for over 12 months, why should interest not be paid? I am not talking about de minimis; I am not talking about £7.10 or whatever; but, if the deposit is held for over 12 months, why should interest not be payable? I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to consider a period over 12 months.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, whenever the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, prefaces his remarks by saying that this is a most modest amendment, I feel the urge to look very closely at the amendment again to make sure that there is not a hidden agenda. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was unconvinced by my answers at Committee stage. I hope that I shall be able to help him further tonight.
This amendment provides that when the deposit is refunded or paid over at the end of the tribunal hearing, that sum will attract interest. It may be helpful if I explain some of the provisions of the clause. The tribunal chairman will have discretion to set the deposit at a level which he believes to be appropriate for that particular case. That means, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, that it could be £5 or £150. However, £150 is the maximum. When a small figure is involved, I think that it would be nonsensical to add an element of interest.
Further, the majority of cases are heard within 12 weeks of the date on which the original application was received. Substantial sums of interest will not accrue in such a short space of time. Indeed, taking the current rate of interest of 15 per cent. (as in the Judgments Act 1838) it would mean a maximum interest of just over £5 which is hardly the cost of the noble Lord's dinner this evening. I know that this does not cover the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway about a tribunal continuing for over 12 months. That is perhaps a matter at which we can look again. However, we are really talking about sums of £7 or £8; we are not talking about large sums of money.
I know that perhaps £5 is a lot of money to some people, but I hope that the chairman of the tribunal will take that factor into account when setting the limit which should apply. In my view this amendment would create more problems than it would solve. I am sorry to say that I do not feel that the Government can accept what is proposed.
Perhaps I may just make one point to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He mentioned a case which lasted for three years. He said that if interest had been payable on the amount outstanding it would have been a very considerable figure. But, surely the point is that a case which lasts for that period of time will not be a vexatious one. It will not attract
116
the kinds of problems about which we are talking. That factor must be seen in the context of what we are debating.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I do not know how the noble Lord can say that. Whether the case was vexatious, or whether it was said to be vexatious or frivolous, the fact is that it took three years to obtain the money. In other words, the money was received three years after the tribunal decided the case in favour of the complainant.
In such a case under this procedure the trouble could have been started by a tribunal chairman saying in a pre-hearing assessment that it was a vexatious, unnecessary and frivolous claim. The individual would have had to put forward the deposit because otherwise the matter would not have proceeded further. Then, although the case was decided in that person's favour, it subsequently took three years to obtain the money. Therefore there is no connection between whether the case is vexatious, or thought to be vexatious, and how long it will take.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their support. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, there may not be many such cases, but there will be a small number which take a significantly long time to resolve.
I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his suggestion that, as regards those cases which occasionally take as long as, or more than, 12 months to settle, the Minister may agree to look again into the matter. I drew one crumb of comfort from the Minister's reply. I understood him to say —but, perhaps he would care to confirm this —that the Government would be willing to look at this point. Do I understand correctly that that means they may be prepared to bring forward an amendment on Third Reading to that effect?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no; I doubt very much that we shall do so. This is a matter about which the Government are prepared to think between now and Third Reading. However, I make no commitment to bring forward an amendment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I do not see much point in the Government thinking about the matter if they have no intention of doing anything in this regard. It seemed to me that the Minister relied very much on the kind of defence which he put forward on the last occasion; namely, that the amounts of money involved are small and therefore it would not really cost a person very much to forfeit such a sum.
I started my remarks by saying that it seemed to me that a principle was involved here. I retain that view. I am disappointed by the Government's attitude. It seems to me to be, and I hesitate to use this word although it is what it amounts to, a mean one. There is nothing more that I can do about it now. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Consultation in connection with industrial training orders]:
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 17, line 40, leave out ("("if any")") and insert ("including bodies representative of employee interests").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we come to the different subject of industrial training. The amendment has to do with industrial training boards. This is another attempt to ensure that there is consultation with representatives of the workforce. As we said in Committee, it is most unlikely that a good training programme will get off the ground unless the workforce is at least not hostile to it. The Government have turned away from the tripartite system which has operated hitherto. For some reason they lay at the door of the tripartite system some of the failures of the past. That is not warranted.
Most people professionally concerned with training speak favourably of union involvement. That is true of the most successful of the ITBs (the CITB and the EITB). The schemes which unions have opposed have often been those which did not appear to offer quality training. Unions were concerned that young people in particular would be exposed to unscrupulous employee exploitation and would not receive proper training. In many instances those fears appear to have been well-founded. The amendment however does not even refer to unions but merely to bodies representative of employee interests. If employers are to be represented, if those concerned with training are to be represented, as they should be, what about the consumers, in this case the employees and potential employees? I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I have some experience of training in a large industrial organisation. In supporting the amendment I should like to say that in my experience training cannot be carried out satisfactorily in a company unless it has the support of employees and their representatives. The amendment is modest. It does not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has just reminded us, ask for any powers to be given to bodies representative of employee interests but only that they should be consulted. The bodies concerned need not be trade unions; they could well be works councils or committees. That proposal I welcome. The essential point is that if training is to be effective it must have the consent and co-operation of the people to be trained or it will fail in its purpose. I gladly support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this proposal is on the face of it a minor one and it would still appear to leave considerable discretion with the Secretary of State as to who, apart from employers, he chooses to consult before making an industrial training order. However, I do not feel that we need to accept it.
Noble Lords opposite may well see this as another example of what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, described as my "doctrinaire refusal" to understand
118
the value of the support of working people and their representatives in developing training. I assure the House that that is not so. The changes that we have made to the Bill in Committee should be seen for what they are: pro employer and emphatically not anti trade union. Only by making employers feel responsible for and committed to providing adequate training arangements can we achieve the improvements that all sides of the House agree are needed.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, when he says that we cannot train people who do not want to be trained. The agreement of the trainees —if I can use that word — is necessary for it to be successful. That does not mean that we have to go as far as the amendment.
Our reservations about the amendment are that it seeks to restrict the flexibility of the Secretary of State to consult as he sees appropriate. It does that by removing the possibility of him deciding that there are no appropriate organisations to be consulted in particular cases other than employer organisations. There is some ambiguity it seems to me as to precisely what would be the effect of the amendment. If it is intended to require that consultation be undertaken with organisations representative of employees and others even when this is not appropriate then it is not acceptable to us.
If, on the other hand, it is intended to permit consultation with employee organisations and others, then it does nothing in practice to give greater rights to employee organisations than are already provided in the clause as it stands. The Secretary of State will be free under the existing provisions to consult any organisations in addition to those representing employers that he sees fit. I am sure that this will include employee organisations in appropriate cases as indeed it will include education and training bodies.
Perhaps I should say at this stage, when we are dealing with a new set of amendments on the individual training boards, that I do not think there is very much between noble Lords opposite and the Government. We all perceive the need for greater training and we all see that developments over the next few years will require that. I hope that we shall not become bogged down in discussion as to whether or not trade unions can do that better than employers. The Government's position has been made quite plain in debates in the House and at Committee stage. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am altogether surprised at the response from the Minister to this amendment. I cannot follow his line of argument. He seems to accept that it is necessary for an employer to take his workforce with him if he is serious about training. Yet at the same time the Minister is not willing to have written onto the face of the Bill an obligation on the part of the Minister to consult representative organisations.

119
I have made a note of what I think is almost a minor concession when the Minister said that he was sure that the Secretary of State would include employee organisations in appropriate cases. I am very glad that that at least will be on the record. I do not think we can get bogged down any further this evening in discussion about representatives from employee organisations because we have been over that ground substantially in Committee. With some regret, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Transfer of assets or staff of industrial training boards]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 18, line 15, at end insert ("except that no transfer of assets nor of staff concerned with the provision by a training Board of services (for women, disabled people, minorities requiring special provision) may be made to any person unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the said person will maintain those services provided by the training Board.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a fairly substantial amendment on the whole issue of industrial training. Its object is to try to ensure that the special projects embarked upon by the EITB in particular will continue when it ceases to have a statutory role. The board has undertaken a number of special projects. That for women is of particular importance. As I have said before, and as I said in Committee, these projects enable women to train for skills in an area not traditionally very welcoming to women. I have met women on the EITB courses and they are very enthusiastic. It would be a great pity if those initiatives were to be lost.
However, that is not all. Other training activities could be at risk. There is no guarantee that a successor organisation funded on a voluntary basis by employers would do all that is necessary to build upon what has already been achieved. It is crucial that the successor organisation should be able, for example, to build upon the EITB's national system of training standards. There is a need to improve the quality of industrial management at all levels. That is widely recognised. The EITB has placed particular emphasis on management training and has developed a number of training programmes which have been welcomed by industry.
Furthermore, as the amendment says, projects for disabled people and minorities need to be developed. Again, there is no guarantee that the successor bodies will do this. The Government's emphasis has been on voluntary action by employers. It is apparently the Government's view that employers will see to it that it is in their interests to train and therefore they will participate on a voluntary basis. We have said on this side of the House that we have grave doubts about this because it has not happened in the past. Many firms poach trained staff from firms that undertake training. That is recognised as a destructive feature of the engineering employment market.
A new mechanism must place pressure on non-training firms to contribute, through training,
120
to their own efficiency and the wider interests of the industry as a whole. It is my understanding that the EITB has made some proposals to the Government about future projects and successor arrangements generally. Those proposals were made as long ago as June. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are yet in a position to respond?
Finally, I wish to say a few words about the European Social Fund. Under the system which has existed until now, public money, or at least public money in the sense of the European Social Fund rules, has been available from the fund because the EITB and the CITB have had a statutory basis and because they have been able to raise money by way of a levy.
It is my understanding that in the engineering industry in the past 10 years some £60 million has been made available through the European Social Fund and much of it has been directed, as I understand it, to some of the special projects which I have already mentioned. It would be a great pity if the loss of a statutory role also meant the loss of this valuable extra money. If this money is not available, how do the Government intend to make up these funds? It seems a pity that because of the Government's insistence upon an entirely voluntary employer-led system, as compared with the one we already have, we should lose money which hitherto has been available from the European Social Fund. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government's policy on the development of industry based training bodies was set out clearly in last year's White Paper Employment for the 1990s. We wish to see voluntary employer based organisations across all sectors of employment which command the commitment of senior management in particular sectors and are thus able to exert influence on the sector. Their task is to define, monitor and review skill requirements of their sector, to take the lead in establishing standards for key occupations in the sector and to ensure that arrangements exist for assessing and accrediting learning achievements. These are minimum objectives and there will, of course, be others that are appropriate for particular sectors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said that employers have conspicuously failed to provide training in the past. The reason for that is that they have never had the opportunity that we are offering them of this tremendous chance to take over the training role.
In looking at proposals from bodies wishing to take over the assets of ITBs, the Secretary of State will want to be satisfied that these various criteria have the best possible chance of being achieved as quickly and effectively as possible. Beyond this, however, each sector is different and has different problems and priorities as our White Paper acknowledged. For that reason we do not wish to dictate to the voluntary successor body to a statutory industrial training board that it must take on particular services currently being run by that board.
If particular services are needed by the industry, then clearly the successor body would be wise to

121
maintain them. Looking at future demographic trends, as noble Lords may be aware from the study published last week that I have already mentioned, industry would be well advised to look to all possible alternative sources of skilled labour as the supply of young people dries up over the next few years. Also, given our concern to achieve equality of opportunity, we hope we can persuade industry to do all it can to promote equality of opportunity for all groups with particular disadvantages in the employment market. But that is not the same as imposing an obligation to maintain this or that service just because it is currently provided by the ITB. We believe it is for industry and not the Secretary of State to decide what is in its own best interests as regards industrial training.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the EITB has set up some very valuable services. However, we must return to the point that, ultimately, if these courses show their worth they will be retained, and if they do not it is up to the new ITBs to decide on their future. The noble Baroness also mentioned the problem concerning the European Social Fund. We are well aware that there is a problem here, and naturally we are discussing the situation with the European Commission with a view to clarifying the position. The situation is still slightly murky and we are keeping a close eye on what is going on.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness understands the main thrust of the Government's proposals and will agree to withdraw her amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, that was a most disappointing reply. The Minister said that employers have not had the opportunity to offer training in the past. On this side of the House we have repeatedly said that employers have had opportunities in preceding years and have not done what ought to be done.
One of the problems which industry has had to face, which has not been argued against by the Minister, is that employers who do not train tend to poach the staff of employers who do. That was why it was felt necessary years ago —not under a Labour Administration but under a previous Conservative Administration —to have an Industrial Training Act and to set up statutory bodies to ensure that some kind of national programme was followed. Although it has been held to be a failure because not enough training has been done, one wonders what on earth the situation would have been if those bodies had not existed. If there had been no EITB there would certainly have been no projects for women of the kind to which I have referred. The employers did not run those by themselves on a national basis. As has been acknowledged, the EITB has done excellent work in that area.
As for the Minister's comments about the European Social Fund, are the Government really willing, by abandoning a statutory role for those bodies, to lose money which might otherwise be devoted to training in this country? Sixty million pounds is a lot of money. That is what the engineering industry has received from the European
122
Social Fund. It has enabled it to run courses and projects which, by common accord, are extremely progressive and well worth undertaking.
The Minister has still not answered my question about the EITB proposals made to him way back in June and to which I understand there has still been no response. Perhaps he could, with the leave of the House, answer that question before I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that, as the noble Baroness knows, the matter is under discussion and review. We hope that there will be an announcement shortly.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I note that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment as I do not intend to press the matter at this hour of the night.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 18, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Any liability in respect of pensions, superannuation allowances or gratuities which, but for the passing of this Act, would have arisen or existed on or after that date as a liability of the industrial training board to the staff of that board, shall instead be a liability of the successor body.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to give protection to the pension expectations of present members of staff of industrial training boards. As I understand it, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations of 1981 will give employees some protection so far as concerns their contracts, but those regulations specifically exclude pension rights. The matter is therefore of some concern to industrial training board staff. I am told that a high proportion of staff in the boards are over the age of 50, so clearly they will be concerned about pension rights.
The wording of the amendment is very similar to that in Clause 22(3) of the Bill, which refers to the chairman of the Training Commission. We do not see why there should not be a commitment to the staff of the board and therefore we expect that the Government will accept this very modest, simple and straightforward amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we oppose the amendment, not because we do not believe that the rights of industrial training board staff involved in transfers should be protected. Quite the contrary. That is why we have created the specific stipulations that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations should be extended to include industrial training board staff.
Those regulations already cover employee rights other than occupational pensions rights. The pensions of industrial training board staff are currently covered by the ITB Combined Pension Fund. The fund's trustees are more than willing to continue to manage the pensions of the staff of successor bodies to industrial training boards. However, the provisions in Clause 24 on ITB staff

123
will apply to all transfers of ITB activities not just in the context of the transfer of ITB assets to successor bodies under the terms of Clause 24. We do not think it right to bind a new owner to the previous pension arrangements of the ITB regardless of the circumstances.
Similarly, we do not believe that the successor bodies should be compelled to maintain current pension arrangements against their will. They should have the same flexibility to vary these as has any other new owner of an undertaking. We believe that the successor bodies to ITBs should be placed in no better and no worse a position than others in that respect. By the same token, the staff of ITBs should enjoy the same rights as other employees involved in a transfer.
I appreciate the importance that staff attach to their pension entitlements. If the successor bodies are to retain the services of the staff of ITBs currently employed, I have no doubt that they will want to offer terms and conditions of employment that are attractive to those staff as far as concerns pensions and to reach agreement with staff on any variation. But that should be a matter for them to agree, not for this Bill.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment not because I accept what the Minister has to say but simply because of the lateness of the hour and because it does not seem appropriate to divide the House at this time. Quite frankly, I do not regard the response as at all satisfactory. I do not see why it is impossible to give the sort of guarantees in relation to pensions for which we have asked in this modest amendment. After all, the individuals concerned have been covered by their present pension schemes and have not expected that there would be a change in their circumstances in quite that way. They have not been responsible for the change in their circumstances. It has been brought about by government policy and by a separate piece of legislation.
For all those reasons I find it quite unsatisfactory that the successor bodies should not be committed to assume the responsibilities and liabilities that have hitherto been carried by the pension schemes of the boards. However, as I said earlier, in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Constitution of industrial training boards]:
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 19, line 43, at end insert
("Before making any such appointment the Secretary of State shall consult with those organisations which appear to him to be experienced in training for employment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the constitution of training boards where they are to remain in being under the Government's new proposals. It is entirely in keeping
124
with the Government's view that the boards, like training and enterprise councils, should be employer-led. We understand that Clause 25 is concerned mainly with the appointment of employer representatives. Paragraph 3(1)(c) states that an industrial training board shall consist of:
"such other persons (if any) whom it appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate to appoint in addition to those appointed by virtue of paragraph (b) above".
In Committee I asked the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether he could assure us that under that paragraph people who are professional trainers would be considered as possible members of the boards. In reply the Minister said that the Government were generally looking at that proposal in a positive way.
The purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Minister to go just a little further by agreeing that, before appointing to boards people other than employers, the Secretary of State should consult —merely consult —those organisations which appear to him to have practical experience of training. I feel keenly that those boards need to have access to experienced, professional advice in that way. I hope that the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Minister does not like it when we say that these are modest amendments. We had better say that they are minimal amendments. This is a very minimal amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, it deals with industrial training boards. It is not asked that the Government should put on anybody who is experienced in training for employment but that before making any appointments the Minister should consult with organisations which appear to him to be experienced in training for employment. So he could implement the amendment and there would still not be anybody who in fact was experienced in training for employment.
I do not know whether I or the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is right. But as I read the clause, paragraph 3(1)(b) does not give us any help because that paragraph is qualified by paragraph 3(2); neither does paragraph 3(1)(a), where the chairman or deputies must have industrial or commercial experience. They may have some experience in training as well but they are not primarily trainers. Paragraph 3(1)(b) says:
"such number of persons appointed after the appropriate consultation".
But paragraph 3(2) states that they shall be engaged in the management of the activities of the employer. On the other hand, there is paragraph 3(1)(c) which says:
"such other persons (if any) whom it appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate to appoint in addition to those appointed by virtue of paragraph (b) above".
So as I read it, it is possible that the Secretary of State could decide to put one or two other such persons on the training boards if he thought it appropriate. We suggest that one of the criteria of appropriateness might be that such names are put

125
before him by organisations which are experienced in training for employment.
That is a minimal amendment. The case for it is the case that we have made in what one might call a wearisome way all through the Committee and Report stages; namely, that we are not in a situation which will get us very far if we make employers the dominant influence in industrial training boards. One needs industrial training boards because employers do not train enough people.
There are some people in the world whose main experience and interest lies in professional training. They know a great deal about it. They know that there are deficiences in the level and volume of British training and in particular groups that are undertrained. In the past on the whole most people who had any experience of ITBs would have said that those people have been extremely valuable as an influence on the training boards. They have brought to them expertise and congenitally have been expanders. They have been the people who tried to get the training boards to expand their provisions. If they are not to be on training boards, the boards will be even more useless than we fear they may be now.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I recognise the concern of noble Lords opposite that those with a professional interest in the training field should be as involved as possible in the selection and indeed membership of industrial training boards. I share their concern, as I indicated in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, during discussion of the Bill in Committee. However, I have to say that this amendment is not the way to achieve that aim.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, pointed out that there might be a little ambiguity in the drafting. I shall not go into that matter at the moment. It remains the Government's view in principle that it is employers who have the primary interest in industry-based training arrangements. Beyond employers there are several other groups —educators, trainers, employees —who are also concerned. We wish to give the Secretary of State the freedom necessary to appoint the most appropriate indviduals and to be able to consult as he sees fit before making such appointments.
I can assure the noble Lord that where it is considered right to consult or appoint representatives of professional trainers the Secretary of State will do exactly that. But we believe flexibility, depending on circumstances rather than obligation, is the best way forward.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord that while he believes that training can best be done by trade unions, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, believes that there needs to be an involvement of professional trainers. I do not disagree with either of them. I say that the main direction must be in the hands of employers because they are the people best capable of telling what training is required for the future. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, telling us that that is not the case and that they have never done it properly before. They will do it. We have laid the framework for that and they have never had
126
it before. That is why I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment but not because I am satisfied. On the last point that the Minister has made, yes, I am concerned with the position of professional trainers. Equally, I am concerned not necessarily with the interests of trade unions—although it seems to me that they have done a good job in a number of cases before these industrial training boards —but certainly with the interests of employees and their representatives.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was exactly right in saying that the amendment was concerned with paragraph 3(1)(c). It asks only that there should be consultation with organisations representing professional trainers. But I did indeed have in mind that this might lead to such experts being included as members of industrial training boards.
The Minister has given some indication that in appropriate cases the representatives of such professional trainers will be consulted. Quite clearly, he and the Government have not the slightest intention of seeing any such view incorporated into the Bill. I can only hope that the statement that the Minister made will be realised in practice when the time comes. Meanwhile, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 19, line 43, at end insert —
("( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that appointments to the Board adequately represent all interests concerned, including those of employers and employees in the industry.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if there were any logic or consistency in the Government's position, in the light of what he said on the last amendment, the Minister should be forced to accept this amendment, because it proposes a joint solution. It provides that:
"The Secretary of State shall ensure that appointments to the Board adequately represent all interests concerned, including those of employers and employees in the industry".
It is corporatism, according to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. I am afraid it is. I prefer to say that it is representative democracy. Instead of representing employers, or sections of the employee population that the Government consider are acceptable, we believe that the industrial training board should be genuinely representative.
The noble Lord said —I do not know where he obtains the information —that I believe that training is best done by trade unions. This is not the time of night to cite one's bibliography, but anything that I have written on training has been published by the Manpower Services Commission. One does not have items published by the MSC if one considers that matters are best undertaken by trade unions. Training is best done jointly. If one has institutions to facilitate training, they should be joint institutions. That is what the amendment provides.
One may say that it is not a minimal or modest amendment; it is a somewhat more radical amendment. However, we got nowhere when we put forward modest, minimal amendments, so let us try a more radical approach. But it is not so very radical, because the provisions in the Bill still leave the employer in the dominant position.
Under paragraph 3(1)(a) and (b) the bulk of people who come forward will have to have industrial and commercial experience. They can be directors or managers. They do not have to be trainers. However, in general terms there is a suggestion that the Secretary of State should ensure that on balance the appointments to the board adequately represent all interests —not equally, but adequately—including those of employers and employees in the industry.
I should have thought that that aim was modest and reasonable enough. But I have very little belief that that is what the Minister will say. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is extraordinary that I should need to rise when the noble Lord thinks that he already knows what I am going to say.
The amendment would very probably frustrate the changes that we believe are necessary to our present system of sector based training, changes made in the amendment to the Industrial Training Act that have been agreed to in Committee. It would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the membership of a board "adequately" —which is not defined—represents "all" interests concerned. This seems to us to be a charter, first, for endless wrangling as to whether the members chosen do in fact represent all interests "adequately". Perhaps I may take one example. The most recent annual report of the CITB includes 32 different "main activities" of employers within its scope. Are all of these to be represented on a future board as a result of this amendment? Are employer representatives from all of these different sectors also to be given places? If so then a board of more than 65 members is necessary if the majority of employer members required by Clause 25 is to be preserved. There may well be more sub-sectors not included in the CITB list which could claim that they are not adequately represented, and this is to say nothing of the representatives of professional trainers about whom the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is rightly concerned. Is this a recipe for greater effectiveness in industrial training? I do not believe it is. We expect any future boards to be smaller rather than larger than at present to make them more effective and more efficient.
My second objection to this amendment is that its objective is inconsistent with the creation of employer-led boards, a change which we judge vital to achieving greater employer commitment. It might allow the argument that the interests of employees could only be "adequately" represented by having parity with the employer members, which would conflict with the intention of the clause.
The amendment to the Industrial Training Act already made by Clause 25 of the Bill will require the Secretary of State to appoint such persons if any apart from employers who appear to him to be
128
appropriate. As I said in Committee, if they are to succeed, boards will have to command the support of all those with an interest in training in a particular sector. But the Secretary of State should be able to judge what is appropriate in particular cases.
I am sure that I have not convinced the noble Lord. Indeed, I am sure that he predicted everything that I said. What I have said represents what is true in industrial training. I hope that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if the noble Lord had any facts, he might convince us. He said that this amendment would frustrate the objectives of the new training boards. Is he saying that the objectives of the new training boards will be frustrated if they become representative? He said that an amendment which says that they ought adequately to represent both sides of industry would frustrate their objectives. Do their objectives depend on their being unrepresentative? They are by their essential nature, and must remain, unrepresentative institutions; and, presumably, the more unrepresentative they are, the better. That is what the Government say. The noble Lord says that the EITB—he is nothing if not contradictory—is representative. The only trouble with the EITB is that, although it is representative, if it had to be representative statutorily it would fall apart through endless division. That is what he asks us to believe. It is absolute nonsense. However, he will not listen to us, so we shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Revocation etc. of subordinate legislation requiring different treatment of certain employees]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Dissolution of Training Commission: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 35, line 6, leave out ("paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 to") and insert ("section 23 or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order.

Children Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY
  PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY
  CAMDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY
  CAMDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY
  NEW TOWN HOUSING: TRANSFER ARRANGEMENTS
  NEW TOWN HOUSING: TRANSFER ARRANGEMENTS
  COMPUTER MISUSE: PREVENTION
  COMPUTER MISUSE: PREVENTION
  EC TRANSPORT MINISTERS COUNCIL
  EC TRANSPORT MINISTERS COUNCIL
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: PUPILS WITH STATEMENTS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: PUPILS WITH STATEMENTS