Sitting of 20 April 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
  Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill
    Clause 1

      LOW ALCOHOL LIQUOR NOT TO BE INTOXICATING LIQUOR FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LICENSING ACT 1964
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 6, leave out from '1964', to end of line 12 and insert
      'for the words "not exceeding 1016 and of a strength not exceeding 1·2 per cent." there shall be substituted the words "not exceeding 1009 and of a strength not exceeding 0·5 per cent.".'.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out '0·5 per cent.' and insert '0·05 per cent.'.
      No. 9, in page 1, line 11, leave out '0·5 per cent.' and insert '0·1 per cent.'.
      No. 10, in page 1, line 11, leave out '0·5 per cent.' and insert '1·2 per cent.'.
      No. 2, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'cent.' to end of line 12.
      No. 3, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'sale' to end.
      No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
      'at the time of the sale or other conduct in question'.
      Miss Widdecombe: After that enthusiastic reception, may I apologise first to you, Mr. Speaker, and secondly to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for the fact that I shall be unable to stay for the whole of the debate? However, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to the amendments that stand in my name.
      One of the effects of the otherwise excellent Bill that has been promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is that it will make it very much easier to obtain low-alcohol liquor outside the context of licensed premises. My amendment would bring the Bill back into line with the Licensing Act 1964, but with a reduction to 0·5 per cent. alcohol and its corresponding level of specific gravity. I am most reliably informed by a professor of physics, since I have no knowledge of physics whatsoever, that that is 1009 deg Gay Lussac. I have tried to accommodate my hon. Friend by incorporating the
      1672
      reductions he suggests, but I have also tried to bring back within the scope of the Licensing Act all sales of low-alcohol drinks, wherever such sales take place.
      If the Bill is not amended, it will be possible to obtain that which is classified as non-intoxicating liquor—but which can in fact contain an alcohol level of 0·4 per cent., or even 0·49 per cent. —outside licensed premises. Alcoholic drinks of
      that kind would therefore be available to children if they were sold in unlicensed premises. According to the Bill, drinks with an alcohol content of below 0·5 per cent. will be available in all sorts of premises which do not have to be licensed to sell alcohol.
      A child will understand only one thing: here is some excitement, here is a drink with some alcohol in it. Unfortunately, due to the efforts of our advertising industry and the image projected by the drinks indusitry, children are inclined to think that there is something glamorous, grown-up and desirable about a drink with alcohol in it. If, therefore, alcoholic drinks are readily available—perhaps with an alcoholic content of only 0·1 per cent., although it could be as high as 0·4 per cent. —children will have access to them.
      We know that the problem of under-age drinking and the crimes associated with it are increasing. Therefore, it would be ill-advised for my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) to leave in an otherwise commendable Bill a loophole that would promote under-age drinking. If the Bill were enacted in its present form, teenagers and fairly young children of perhaps nine or 10 would learn to consume alcohol and, what is infinitely worse, taking it for granted.
      Unlike an adult, a child cannot reasonably be expected to compute the sum of the drinks that he or she is consuming and work out the likely effect. The child will think that it is fun and exciting to consume alcohol, but that it will do no harm because it is low alcohol. But if a child consumes five or six drinks which contain only 0·4 per cent. alcohol and are therefore deemed low-alcohol, and not dangerous, he will have taken in a fair quantity of intoxicating liquor.
      There are obvious dangers to a child or a young teenager whose constitution has not developed sufficiently to absorb that. If alcohol becomes a habit and children treat such drinks as if they were Coca Cola or orangeade, they will gradually develop an alcohol habit, however low. The mood of our legislation, all that the Home Office has said in recent years and certainly the social perception are that we should move in the opposite direction and encourage young people not to form a drink habit.
      Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of alcohol is just as relevant in Northern Ireland, and does she join me in regretting that the Bill does not seem to apply to Northern Ireland?
      Miss Widdecombe: I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says. I might well have mentioned that point, but, as my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue, he may wish to touch on it later.
      If low-alcohol drinks are available they affect the problem of drink driving. At present, the law is fairly clear. If one visits licensed premises and drinks more than a low quantity of alcohol, if one is driving one is likely to be over the limit and guilty of a criminal offence.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend for Hendon, South (Mr.

      1673
      Marshall) has my hon. Friend noticed that clause 1 does not apply to Scotland, but that clause 2 does? Does she not find that an extraordinary anomaly? In tune with what my hon. Friend said about Northern Ireland, should that not be addressed at this stage so that we can do something about it?
      Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the anomaly applies to Northern Ireland and to Scotland.
      Sir Peter Emery: To avoid any wrong assumptions, we should be clear that, as is so often the case, the law in England is different from that in Scotland, so it was necessary to table an amendment to part II of the Bill to deal with the law in Scotland, while the amendment in part I of the Bill deals with the law in England. It is my intention that the two clauses achieve the same legal definitions and legal structure in England and in Scotland. As my hon. Friends from Scotland are nodding in agreement, I am glad that I am giving the House the right information.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation and his clarification of the part of his Bill that applies to Scotland. Without meaning any offence to my hon. Friends from Scotland, drink is a considerable problem in Scotland.
      Mr. John Marshall: I must ask my hon. Friend to withdraw that comment. I spent Easter in Scotland, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I saw no excess of alcohol. My hon. Friend is clearly referring to what prevailed in Scotland 10, 15 or 20 years ago, when one could find a drunk at Glasgow central station at any time of the day or night. Following the changes in the Scottish licensing law and the civilisation of Scottish public houses, it is no longer true that one can find drunks at any time of the day or night. Scotland is not the alcoholic country that my hon. Friend envisages. She does a disservice to the good people of Scotland.
      Miss Widdecombe: I, too, spent Easter in Scotland and it was most enjoyable and pleasant. I did not spend my Easter on Glasgow central station, so I have no idea whether the level of drunkenness to be observed there has changed. I did not mean to impugn the Scots or to suggest that they uniquely have an alcohol problem. I merely said, —presumably my words are on record in Hansard—that there is a drink problem in Scotland. There is also a drink problem in England and in most of Europe.
      9.45 am
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Let me add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. My experience in Scotland is entirely the opposite of what my hon. Friend suggests. Every summer I spend the short amount of time that I allow myself to spend away from my constituency in the north-east of Scotland. Staying near Tain on Easter Ross, I found it extremely difficult to find a drink at all. One has to travel so far to find a drink, that I spent much of my short holiday there drinking low-alcohol drinks and canned beer that I had brought with me from England. I found Scotland to be an extremely abstemious place where it was difficult to get a drink.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: I am being extremely generous in giving way, so perhaps before I give way again perhaps I can answer my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).
      Once again, he has misunderstood what I said. I did not suggest that there was an undue level of drunkeness in Scotland compared with anywhere else. I am sorry that he had a problem finding a drink during his Scottish holiday. I took the precaution of staying on licensed premises. I must admit that I did not see any signs of excessive drunkeness. I said that there is a drink problem in Scotland, as there is in England and the rest of Europe.
      Mr. Walker: I would normally be in Scotland on Fridays, except when there are matters in the House that affect Scotland, as the Bill does, and I was on the Committee that considered the Bill. My hon. Friend was referring to the problem of under-age, drinking which is a matter of great concern. She is quite correct to say that there is such a problem, but I would remind her that 90 per cent. of Scotch whisky, which is Scotland's most famous export, is exported and not drunk by the Scots. I am a teetotaller. I do not drink it at all.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have established that there is no undue drink problem in Scotland.
      Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps I can conclude the discussion of the drink problem in Scotland by apologising unreservedly if I have offended any of my hon. Friends. I did not intend any slur on the Scots.
      Before my hon. Friends intervened, I was referring to drink driving. If one visits licensed premises and consumes intoxicating liquor, one knows that one must limit one's consumption severely, if one must drink at all. I should favour a law which prevents people from driving after drinking any amount of alcohol, but the present law requires only that one should severely limit the amount of alcohol one drinks. That is fairly easy to compute, and is readily understood.
      If low alcohol liquor is outwith the licensing laws, the temptation will be to confuse it with alcohol-free liquor and that because one is drinking something that is only 0·3 or 0·4 per cent. proof one is not consuming alcohol. Someone may be tempted to have two drinks in a public house, which should be sufficient, and instead of drinking orange juice or lemonade to think "I will be safe because this is so entirely innocuous that it need not be licensed." He therefore consumes a drink that is so low in alcohol that it has been removed from the licensing laws. That is dangerous, and I suspect that many people may take that incremental amount of alcohol when they would normally stop because they have been deluded by the licensing laws into thinking, "This is not really alcohol at all, is it?" That is my fundamental objection.
      Combining what I was saying about children and drivers drinking, and about low-alcohol drinks not being subject to the licensing laws, there will be official guidance saying, "You needn't worry about this; it isn't really alcohol." People will take their cue from that. If we are to ensure that children do not have ready access to drink, and that drivers are not deluded into thinking that a low-alcohol drink will do no harm, society and the law

      1675
      must lay down extremely clearly that it is intoxicating liquor, that it is subject to the licensing laws and that it is available only at licensed premises.
      If society does not give that guidance, it is understandable that people will tend to think that it does not matter how much low-alcohol drink they consume, that it cannot be habit-forming because its strength is so low and that it does not matter, because if it did matter and if it was habit-forming, surely the law would require a licence to be granted. That is the mentality with which many people will approach the liberalising proposals in the Bill.
      Mr. Richard Page: My hon. Friend is raising spectres that worry me. I do not want people in licensed premises to be deluded into drinking low-alcohol beer, driving their motor cars, being breathalysed and losing their licences. Has she made any estimates of how much low-alcohol beer an average man, who legally can drink almost two pints of full-strength beer, will have to consume to be over the limit? How many pints of low-alcohol beer would have to be consumed to put that man near the limit?
      Miss Widdecombe: It is proposed to reduce the requirement from 1·2 to less than 0·5 per cent. Assuming that the man was drinking a 0·4 per cent. strength drink, he would have to drink about three times as much as intoxicating liquor. If he were drinking low-alcohol beer as if it were lemonade or bitter lemon—one can drink six or seven of those drinks without realising it—he would be gradually consuming the equivalent of one pint of beer or one measure of spirit.
      The prospect that alarms my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), of people losing their licence, is not the most terrifying one. The most terrifying prospect is of people getting behind the wheel of a car when not in a fit state and causing accidents and deaths. It is more desirable that they should lose their licences as a sharp warning than be allowed to cause accidents.
      I say again—I am well aware that it is outwith the scope of the Bill and that I would be called to order if I developed the point—that it is high time that we had a rule preventing people from driving when they have consumed any alcohol. That is the only way to guarantee safety.
      Mr. Gary Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that the nomenclature of different beers can confuse prospective purchasers? The word "light" has been misinterpreted many times. A court found special reasons for not disqualifying a person who was over the limit because he had been informed that a beer was low in alcohol because it was called light beer. Does my hon. Friend think that there is a need for much caution, particularly among brewers, in the names given to beers, which may or may not be low-alcohol?
      Miss Widdecombe: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for making that point. There is massive confusion, which will be compounded if certain forms of alcohol, which undeniably are alcohol but have a low content, are not subject to the licensing laws.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) raises an important gap in our approach to drink; that is
      1676
      in education. People should understand what they are purchasing and consuming. It is unlikely that they will if a licence is not necessary to sell certain forms of alcohol.
      Imagine trying to explain to a child that all alcohol is dangerous, is potentially habit-forming, should be avoided when one is driving, has some effect on the brain cells and does this, that or the other. The child would say, "If that is so, why don't you need a licence to sell low-alcohol drinks? Surely it can't be dangerous, and can't be alcohol." The mentality that worries me, which would grow under these proposals, is: "This is not really alcohol, is it?" If it can be purchased only on licensed premises and is subject to the licensing laws, it will be regarded more as alcohol and as having all the potential dangers of higher alcohol drinks.
      Education is important. I can well understand someone consuming light beer thinking that it is something to do with its light content. Such confusion is rife in our alcohol laws.
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and I agree with most of her arguments. I hope that she will be a little hesitant about the nomenclature of beers. There are traditions in this country on what we call beers, which are respected and well-known. To start talking about light beers as alcohol-free is pushing it a little. There is a tradition of what we call bitter, mild and all the other lovely names that British beers have. I hope that she is not suggesting some EEC mentality about what we must call different British beers. I should like to know when I am drinking a non-alcohol beer, but we must be cautious. I and most hon. Members know what a light ale is.
      Miss Widdecombe: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I represent a hop-growing area, where the EEC mentality definitely is not the flavour of the month. It would be hard for me, even should I want to do so, to make a case for introducing further legislation to assault well-established British institutions.
      I was saying—if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, it is reasonable to say so—that people are confused. He may be well up in the traditions of British beers, but I am not. He may understand the description of every beer on offer, but many people, particularly first-time drinkers, do not and are confused by the terminology. I was proposing not that we should remove those terms but that there should be proper education. I was not proposing that we should amend our laws and start trying to standardise descriptions—I would not do anything so dull or dreary —but there is a strong argument for proper education.
      I am particularly worried, as I have made clear throughout the debate on the amendment, about under-age drinkers. People going into public houses and learning the traditions of beers for the first time, or going into supermarkets and purchasing alcohol, do not have the benefit of the knowledge of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and could be confused. That is an argument for education, and I sincerely hope that he did not think that I was proposing to become legislative, because my line has always been that we should reduce, rather than increase, legislation.
      10 am
      Mr. John Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way with her usual courtesy and for the frequency with which she has done so. She mentioned the problem of under-age drinking resulting from individuals going into supermarkets, does she not think that it is an unfortunate social trend that, whereas 20 years ago it was almost impossible to buy cans of drink in supermarkets, it is now far too easy for far too many young people to do so?
      Miss Widdecombe: It is perhaps one of the most regrettable social trends that we have seen, but at least if a supermarket sells alcohol it must have a licence to do so, and as long as the definition of alcohol covers even those of low alcohol content, such drinks must be licensed. My big worry about the Bill is that a group of alcoholic drinks will be taken out of that requirement for a licence and will therefore be available in supermarkets and other shops that do not have to have a licence to sell alcohol.
      Sir Peter Emery: It is terribly important that we are clear about the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing. My Bill strengthens what she wants. It will stop beers or any alcoholic drink between 0·5 per cent. and the present level of alcohol being sold in shops or elsewhere. Therefore, I hope that, if my Bill is passed, it will meet my hon. Friend's arguments. I am delighted to hear her propose them because they strengthen, rather than weaken, the Bill.
      Miss Widdecombe: They would strengthen the Bill if it went as far as my amendment proposes, which is to take into account also those alcoholic drinks below the 0·5 per cent. level. I am grateful, as ever, for my hon. Friend's intervention and his clarification.
      I am worried that children will be able to consume 0·1, 0·2, 0·3 and 0·4 per cent. alcoholic drinks freely, without having to buy them from premises with a licence. They will have no idea of the build-up effect and will form a drink habit. They will not understand that such alcohol, in cumulative quantities, affects the brains and organs in the same way as high-level alcohol in smaller quantities. Those children will be affected if the Bill goes through unamended.
      I am worried about adults who will be lured into thinking that what they are drinking is not alcohol and will therefore think that it is safe to drink it in addition to what they have already allowed themselves before driving. I am worried that, if a range of alcoholic drinks appears saleable without a licence, it will be regarded, in general, as not really alcohol, and the social problems of drinking will not be solved by these proposals.
      Therefore, I propose what, I admit is a draconian amendment. It is right and in the social interest, and before the Bill reaches the statute book, I commend my hon. Friend at least to think about whether it needs strengthening. It is likely to be on the statute book for a long time, and its social effects are likely to be far-reaching.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has done a considerable service to the young people of this country in bringing forward his proposals. I wish them well.
      The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) wondered if the Scots took offence at what she was saying. This Scot takes no offence because, in candour, there is a problem, and those who do not recognise that would be
      1678
      deluding themselves. There was some banter about the position in Scotland. I was taken aback and appalled to be taken by the police in my constituency, in the early hours of the morning, to the Bathgate town centre to see the amount of drink being taken by people who, if they were not under age, were nearly under age.
      My contribution has one purpose: to ask the hon. Member for Honiton to outline the contact that he has had with various Scottish authorities, because he has worked on this issue. As a Member of Parliament, it behoves me to say, bluntly, that I am not an expert on licensing and I do not pretend to be so, but it is an important issue. Therefore, I should like the hon. Gentleman to outline the contacts he has had with the various Scottish organisations, not least those representing the trade, which has a problem involving under-age drinking. How does one tell how old people are, if they are not familiar when they come into a licensed premises or a supermarket? It is easy, particularly with girls, to confuse 13 and 18-year-olds in good faith. That is part of the under-age problem.
      I support the Bill and look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman about the Scottish contacts that he has had.
      Mr. Ian Gow: I join the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on his excellent Bill. It has been drafted with the care which has characterised my hon. Friend's parliamentary career. It came as no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just as it came as no surprise to the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, that the Committee stage of the Bill began at 10.30 am and lasted for less than half an hour. The Committee rose at 10.42 am on 28 February. That is one of the shortest Committee stages in the history of this place.
      Mr. John Marshall: In view of the subject we are discussing, should that fact not be entered in "The Guinness Book of Records"?
      Mr. Gow: I said that it was one of the shortest Committee stages in the records of this place. The conclusion I drew from that was that the Standing Committee, composed of formidable intellects, decided that the Bill should receive not one amendment in Committee. That is a tribute to the draftsmanship of my hon. Friend and the intellect of those who served on the Committee.
      I wish to remind my hon. Friends, some of whom are not familiar with these important matters, of the formidable intellects who adorned the Committee. First, my hon. Friend—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): No doubt this is interesting, but it is a long way from the matters before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The amendments deal with variations on the definition of intoxicating liquor, and I hope that we can get back to that.
      Mr. Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had the privilege of serving on that Committee, and I have never in this House been called a formidable intellect. I was looking forward to the opportunity of being described as such by my hon. Friend, and I would be grateful if he could be given the chance to do so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating amendments about the hon. Gentleman's intellect.
      Mr. Gow: We are discussing the level of alcohol in drink. Neither my hon. Friend the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household nor I would claim to be an expert on low-alcohol drinks. From time to time, my hon. Friend the Comptroller has summoned me to his own house for consultations. When I receive a summons from my hon. Friend, I naturally obey and the summonses are always for the hour of noon. At that very moment, my hon. Friend takes bottles from the cupboard. Are those bottles filled with low-alcohol drinks? They are not. Indeed, although I have frequently been my hon. Friend's guest over many years, there has not been one occasion when he has offered me a low-alcohol drink. That may underline the need for the Bill and the validity of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), whose arrival in this place we welcomed, although we deplored the departure of her predecessor.
      I want to remind the House of another important event a moment ago, which passed unnoticed even by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). For a short period of the debate, seated side by side on the Treasury Bench were the Comptroller of the Household and the Treasurer of the Household. I and my hon. Friend the Comptroller know that my hon. Friend the Treasurer—like my hon. Friend who sometimes wears a kilt, the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—is a non-drinker, or teetotaller. I do not think that one would describe my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone as a teetotaller.
      Miss Widdecombe: Not at all.
      Mr. Gow: Although neither my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone nor I am addicted to low-alcohol drinks, we are still entitled to a view on the Bill. I see that my hon. Friend the Comptroller assents to that proposition.
      There is merit in amendment No. 8. I shall be listening with the closest attention—
      Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend referred to our hon. Friends the Treasurer and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household. My hon. Friend the Treasurer would regard amendment No. 8 with grave misgivings, because he regards low alcohol as being as bad as any amount of alcohol. He believes in non-alcohol. If we had been able to debate new clause 2, as well as amendment No. 8, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone would have had the opportunity to draw a distinction between non-alcohol and low-alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is not wholly correct when he describes the attitude to the amendment of our hon. Friend the Treasurer. Our hon. Friend would be utterly opposed to the amendment, because it refers to low alcohol, whereas he believes in non-alcoholic drinks.
      Mr. Gow: I hope that our hon. Friend the Treasurer will be in his place later this morning.
      Mr. Brown: I have seen him.
      Mr. Gow: But he was not on the Treasury Bench. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will ask our hon. Friend the Treasurer to come in to clarify the point himself. I shall
      1680
      add only that I have been the recipient of the most generous—not to say munificent—hospitality at the hands not only of my hon. Friend the Comptroller, but of my hon. Friend the Treasurer. You may be rather shocked to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have received only full alcoholic strength drinks when I have had luncheon or dinner at the house of my hon. Friend the Treasurer. I have even been summoned for cocktails at the agreeable residence of my hon. Friend the Treasurer. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is not leaving the Chamber, as I was about to refer to him.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: As well as referring to our hon. Friends the Treasurer and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, my hon. Friend referred to our hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North has had to slip out of the Chamber to take part in a television programme—I do not know whether it is on the Bill—but I can reassure my hon. Friend that he is coming back.
      10.15 am
      Mr. Sheerman: I have heard the hon. Gentleman make some excellent speeches in this Chamber. However, as I sit listening to his present speech, I wonder quite what the recounting of the munificent, wonderful and abundant hospitality received in various places in and around the House has to do with this serious Bill.
      Mr. Gow: This is only the preamble; I shall he coming to more detailed aspects of the Bill later.
      One important truth may have escaped even my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Today is the anniversary of the birth of his late imperial majesty, Emperor Napoleon III of France. Why do I mention that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Brandy."] That is the point. I do not want to be discourteous to the imperial household of a friendly power, but it is said that the Emperor Napoleon III died as a result of overdoing the brandy. I do not say that the allegation is true. Even the solitary representative of Her Majesty's Opposition. the shadow Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), seems to assent to the proposition that his late majesty may have died of an overdose of brandy. If the Bill had been on the statute book during the lifetime of his late majesty, he might still have been with us.
      Mr. John Marshall: I know that Queen Mary died with "Calais" written on her heart. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, if the Bill had been on the statute book at the time of the reign of Napoleon III, we should have tried to apply it to France? We should have had to have extra-territorial powers, which no British Government have claimed for a long time.
      Sir Peter Emery: Even I am not claiming that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will now seek to address himself to the amendment. He has been speaking for 11 minutes and I doubt whether he has yet referred to the amendment. Will he please do so or resume his seat?
      Mr. Gow: You will have studied the text of the amendments with the same care as I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that we are discussing the group of amendments Nos. 8, 1, 9, 10, 2, 3, and 4. Some of them

      1681
      have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the parliamentary private secretary to our hon. Friend the Minister for Industry. Those amendments relate to the strength of alcohol and how we should describe the alcoholic strength. I had great sympathy with amendment No. 8, which was moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I want to go back to the point about territoriality and the question whether the Bill applies outside our shores. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is on to an extremely good point here. As I hope to demonstrate in my speech, if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is considerable confusion about the way in which EC directives apply on low alcohol here and in other countries in Europe. It is impossible to divorce the laws that we pass in the House, which affect this country, from the decisions and directives made by the European Community and their effect upon the definition and distribution of low-alcohol drinks, not only here but throughout Europe.
      Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend anticipates a point that I had intended to address later in my speech. I shall be referring to the European Commission. I shall also refer to the former right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks., who used to be Home Secretary and then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, before his regrettable departure from the Treasury Bench. I shall be referring to the Commission, because the amendment would include in the Bill the words
      "not exceeding 1009"—
      Hon. Members will note the little nought above the figure—
      "and of a strength not exceeding 0·5 per cent."
      Those are very important words. I wonder—as does my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton—whether, if we include those words, the Commission in Brussels will apply its mind to the question whether we are acting in accordance with Community law. We do not want to make the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone only to discover that the Commission proposes to overrule us.
      Mr. Michael Brown: I had some difficulty with the little nought to which my hon. Friend referred, but my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) tells me that it means specific gravity.
      Miss Widdecombe rose—
      Mr. Gow: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone.
      Miss Widdecombe: The little nought does, indeed, mean specific gravity, and in this case 1009 is 0·5 per cent. and 1016 is to 1·2 per cent.
      Mr. Gow: I know that I can rely on my hon. Friend the Treasurer of the Household to instruct me in specific gravity. We warmly welcome the Treasurer, who is already in his weekend attire. For those in the Whips Office, the weekend begins early, while some of us have to man the barricades and do the best we can to understand specific gravity and all sorts of other problems. My hon. Friend the Treasurer will be able to comment later on the extent to which he favours my hon. Friend's amendment.
      1682
      This is a momentous occasion: we now have the Treasurer and the Comptroller seated side by side, with a Lords Commissioner sitting even closer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have a kind of Trinity on the Treasury Bench. I shall not lay myself open to the charge of blasphemy by trying to describe their different roles. In the centre is the Treasurer and on either side are his guardians. It is the Treasurer to whom we referred earlier in the debate, and who will continue to feature prominently because, along with my hon. Friend the Member with the kilt, he opposes the consumption of alcohol. I am sure that both my hon. Friends will be in favour of the amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone made a moving speech. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has made a journey to Scotland, agreed with my hon. Friend. What we do not know—we all await the answer with some expectation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gelding—
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Gedling.
      Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is son to his father. I noted that, during an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend used the word "Ireland". He did not mean that; he meant "Northern Ireland". If I rebuke him it is because his father served as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department also served at the Northern Ireland Office, did he not?
      Mr. John Marshall: He was a PPS.
      Mr. Gow: Yes, he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. We ought not to refer to Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling knows very well, there was a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference yesterday, and this afternoon the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, who has made a journey from Dublin, is to wait on the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I stand rebuked for using the wrong terminology earlier. Let me offer my hon. Friend this deal: if he will forgive me for describing Northern Ireland inaccurately, I shall forgive him for inaccurately describing my constituency.
      Mr. Gow: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I transposed the letters d and 1. Perhaps my hon. Friend will table an early-day motion recording my apology.
      Mr. John Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, with his customary charm and courtesy. He referred to the Anglo-Irish Conference and the fact that the Prime Minister of Ireland has made a journey from Ireland to the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfortunate that a number of criminals have not made that journey?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are supposed to be discussing specific amendments that are before the House. I have heard no direct reference to them for the past half hour, and I hope that the House will now address itself to them.
      Mr. Gow: I was addressing myself in particular to amendment No. 8, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. We have clarified matters so that we now know that the little nought above the figure 1009 refers to specific gravity. The key question

      1683
      is, should we insert the words? My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone wants the words inserted because she wants added protection to be given to teenagers; that was the burden of my hon. Friend's remarks.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow made a short intervention. In his short speech, he made his point more vividly than some people make theirs in longer speeches. I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The problems of under-age drinking and the difficulties in deciding whether a girl is 13 or 18 years old are not confined to Scotland: we have the same problems in Eastbourne, and it is a serious matter. I hope that later the hon. Member for Linlithgow will suggest how we might address ourselves more effectively to that problem.
      Mr. Dalyell: Nothing is as likely to persuade hon. Members to make short speeches as the fact that they are responsible for business which could be talked out. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is really so well disposed towards me this morning, perhaps he will bear it in mind that the third item on the Order Paper is my important private Member's Bill dealing with certain aspects of the Security Commission. I had hoped that perhaps my Bill might have the hon. Gentleman's blessing.
      Mr. Gow: I have no wish to injure the glittering political career of the hon. Member for Linlithgow but I must tell him that I almost called him my hon. Friend, and I really think of him in those terms. I hope that that will not injure his prospects. I am aware—we are all students of these matters—of the business that is before the House. We are now discussing the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill. Incidentally. I tabled an amendment to shorten the title, because the titles of our Bills tend to be too long. I know that one must never ever criticise the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I regret that my amendment was not selected. Perhaps it is no criticism of the Chair to express one's regret.
      I want to come back to amendment No. 8. Other amendments are grouped with it, but it deals with the key issue. Do we change the wording of the Bill? If we do, will that help to protect young people who are led astray in the way that my hon. Friend described?
      There is real merit in amendment No. 8. Whether my hon. Friend will press it to a Division I do not know. I assume that, after contributions from others of my hon. Friends—I do not think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can speak again—we shall all listen with bated breath to the first of today's speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), because he will advise the House whether to accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. If my hon. Friend should advise against her amendment, I do not know whether she will press it to a Division. Only time will tell.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone will press her amendment to a Division. We could even vote on amendments Nos. 1, 9, 10, 2, 3 and 4, some of which stand in the name of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary of State.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Michael Brown: Can I advise my hon. Friend that, were my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone to press her amendment to a Division, I would most emphatically oppose it? I would recommend to the House and urge
      1684
      upon my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, the sponsor of the Bill, support for my amendment No. 1 instead.
      If, during the course of the day, I should catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall urge upon the House the merits of amendment No. 1, rather than amendment No. 8, which is an alternative to that amendment.
      Mr. Gow: The House is a little puzzled by some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, because they do not make reference to the specific gravity problem.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has given way a third time. Further to the comments by the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister for Industry, were the amendments to be put to a vote I would also emphatically, although apologetically, oppose the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, and would urge the House to support my amendment No. 10 which, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to suggest to the House is worthy of serious consideration.
      Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend has overlooked an important point. His amendment does not address the question of specific gravity either. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone was kind enough to explain to me what that little nought meant. At least I admitted to my ignorance on that matter. Of course, my hon. Friend the Comptroller is an expert in specific gravity—I am told that he wrote a treatise on the subject—so there was no need to give such information to him. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, knew at once what that little nought meant. It was only I who was unable to follow it. It perplexes me why none of the other amendments refer to specific gravity. The scholarship of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone made her refer to specific gravity in her amendment; that is why, despite interventions by some of my hon. Friends, I prefer Maidstone to Brigg.
      Mr. John Marshall: Surely it is not surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is so expert in these matters. After all, Maidstone is in the centre of Kent, which is the hop-growing county of England. Therefore one would expect representatives from a hop-growing county, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), to—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a duty to the House and to all those other hon. Members who are awaiting an opportunity to present and argue the case for their Bills. Twenty more Bills are waiting to be dealt with, and I hope that hon. Members will have some sense of their responsibility and obligation towards the other hon. Members who are waiting for the House to deal with their Bills.
      Mr. Gow: In view of that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall resume my seat.
      Mr. Michael Brown: As I said in an earlier intervention, I tabled amendment No. I before the Easter recess and I should like to recommend consideration of it. Since I tabled it I have been in correspondence with Guinness plc regarding the amendment. The manager of public affairs, Mr. Mark Leverton, wrote to me as follows:
      "I have been sitting on your Christmas card for months …I have heard about your promotion from the Back

      1685
      Benches…I would like to take this opportunity to point out that we seem to have common interests in the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill. I see that you have tabled various amendments at the report stage and it might be of interest and advantage for you to know that over the last 12 months Guinness has been trying to persuade the Home Office"
      and subsequently my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)
      "that 0·5 per cent. is too high as a definition of intoxicating liquor for the purposes of sale in unlicensed outlets. We have not of course been successful."
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I want to refer to what he has just said about 0·5 per cent., because I was sorry not to have the opportunity to respond to the last issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on specific gravity. I would like the House to address, I was about to say the gravity of this issue, but that is not quite what I had in mind. It is a most important matter. The specific gravity refers to what happens in the process of producing the alcohol, and that is ignored in amendment No. 1. Under my proposal, if, in the process of making the alcohol, specific gravity rises to higher than 1009 degrees, it is very intoxicating. My amendment tries to link the final product with the process so that there is no stage at which highly intoxicating liquor is produced as a by-product. Does my hon. Friend intend to address the important problem of degrees of specific gravity?
      Mr. Brown: Yes, and it is for that reason that my hon. Friend's amendment is unnecessary. Were we to pass amendment No. 8 it would have no effect on the Bill, as it seeks only to define; but amendment No. 1 seeks to change the Bill. In line 11 of the Bill we see the figure 0·5 per cent. by volume of alcohol. I wish to delete 0·5 per cent. and insert 0·05 per cent. Therefore, my amendment will have a major effect on the Bill.
      I have a suspicion that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) will be unable to accept my amendment at this stage. However I hope that he may be more favourably disposed by the time I have finished my speech.
      I have known Mr. Mark Leverton for many years. I sent a Christmas card to him and received one from him. He is the manager of the public affairs department at Guinness and in the last sentence of the third paragraph of his letter he said, in relation to his efforts to persuade the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton:
      "We have not of course been successful and I note that one of your amendments relates to this point. In view of this I am attaching a note which I have prepared which I hope will be helpful to the debate on 20 April … I should also point out that we were put on the spot"—
      by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton—
      "who accepted our concern, in general terms."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is a reasonable man. I find it reassuring to know that he has addressed the concerns expressed by Guinness about my amendment. However, at the end of the day my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton chose to ignore those concerns. He wrote 0·5 per cent., not 0·05 per cent., into his Bill.
      It is fair to say that Guinness would be happy with half a loaf if it cannot have the whole loaf. I have no doubt that Guinness would prefer to see the Bill enacted rather than
      1686
      for it to fail. However, Guinness has made it clear that it would prefer 0·05 per cent. rather than 0·5 per cent. in clause 1. Mr. Leverton continues in his letter:
      "Naturally we chose the former"—
      that is, 0·05 per cent.—
      "but we were not particularly happy about it.
      You may also know that definitions of 'alcohol free' and low alcohol' are under some threat from Brussels, which is likely to complicate matters."
      Although I make no criticism of the Chair's selection, I had hoped that we could have addressed the issue of alcohol free and low alcohol as distinct from non-alcoholic and separate from de-alcoholised. We could have considered that under new clause 2. However, I believe that in the context of amendment No. 1 it is relevant for the House to consider the distinction between low-alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks because my amendment seeks to bring us closer to the non-alcoholic position.
      Mr. Page: My hon. Friend has come to the nub of the difference. In introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is trying to introduce a practical aspect rather than a theoretical one. In response to an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said that there was something in existing law like a 3:1 ratio of the amount of drink one must consume to reach a specific alcohol level. That is highly dangerous and could be confusing. The Bill as presently drafted reduces that figure to the extent that if a man went into a pub he would have to drink about 15 pints of low-alcohol beer at 0·5 per cent. to reach the same alcohol level.
      I suggest that amendment No. 1 moves us into the realms of—dare I say it—the ridiculous. A man would have to drink 150 pints of beer at the low alcohol level suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in amendment No. 1 to have the same practical effect. Surely we are concerned with practice rather than theory.
      Mr. Brown: Clearly my hon. Friend has not studied the issue seriously. Guinness, as a responsible company, would not have invited me to table amendment No. 1 and offered me its full support if it believed that this was just an esoteric or theoretical discussion. My hon. Friend has not had an opportunity to read the study carried out by Professor Li Wan Po, whom we all know is at the department of pharmacy at Queen's university, Belfast. He has studied the effects on the human body of the consumption of quantities of alcohol at 0·5 per cent. by volume. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that his comments were completely untrue. I will show that it is possible to get very drunk, very quickly by consuming relatively low volumes of alcohol in so-called low-alcohol beer.
      I have very grave misgivings about low-alcohol beer. Like the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, I believe that if we are to talk about low-alcohol beer, we should be honest and talk about non-alcoholic beer. I will consider the non-alcoholic beer products that are threatened by the Bill.
      Mr. Sheerman: Guinness has also corresponded with other hon. Members. Those of us who want to get this point right want to be clear about the issue without talking about the Government Whips Office ad nauseam.
      I believe that the Guinness case is as follows; someone may believe that he can normally drink one and a half

      1687
      pints of beer and still drive safely. That is something that many of our citizens still believe. If that person then switches to low-alcohol beer at 0·5 per cent., he can quickly become a drunk driver. If he were to switch to 0·05 per cent. beer, that danger would not exist. That is the crunch. I have been waiting with great interest to hear what the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has to say about that.
      10.45 am
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That is precisely why I tabled the amendment.
      A very serious point is at issue here. I believe that no motorist should consume alcohol before sitting at the wheel of a car. However, for better or for worse, legislation has permitted a motorist to consume a certain amount of alcohol to a level beyond which it is illegal for a motorist to climb into his car and drive it away. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has outlined the problem about which Guinness is concerned and which prompted its support for my amendment.
      It is possible for someone to go into a public house and consume up to two and a half pints of beer of full, normal alcoholic strength and then decide that he is near to the limit. He may then decide to change from beer of full alcoholic strength to low-alcohol beer. As I shall show in a moment from studies carried out by Professor Li Wan Po, it is possible for someone to switch to low-alcohol beer at 0·5 per cent. by volume as recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton in clause 1 and then climb into his car under the impression that he was driving safely within the limit. It is likely that that person would be over the limit and would fail a breathalyser test.
      Although my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) made a persuasive speech, I believe that we should reject amendment No. 8 and consider amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Brown: I will give way in a moment.
      There is an industry concern. Companies like Guinness have successfully developed and marketed non-alcholic beers and drinks. I believe that that is the route that we should follow if we want to reduce the consumption of alcohol.
      Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend spoke about the risks inherent when someone who intends to drive changes from a full-strength to a low-alcohol beer. We live in an imperfect world; is it not possible that an individual who was planning to drive would be prepared to transfer to a beer containing little alcohol at some point in the evening, but, if faced with the choice of transferring to a beer with negligible alcohol—as my hon. Friend proposes—might stick to the full-strength beer with which he started? It is not as simple as my hon. Friend suggests.
      Mr. Brown: I think it is. Let me cite a product that I have had the opportunity of consuming with great pleasure. Kaliber is a beverage that contains not negligible amounts of alcohol but no alcohol whatever. We should be encouraging such products, but they have not been as successful in the past as I hope that they will be in the future because our legislation militates against their production. The taxation policy in our budgetary legislation has given a strong steer to consumers to buy
      1688
      unleaded petrol. Similarly, our taxation policy and any reforms that we make to the Licensing Act 1964 today should always err on the side of non-alcoholic beers rather than favouring alcoholic beers, whether of full, medium or low strength.
      A Mr. Lisscomb, managing director of Guinness Brewing GB, sent a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton—and may have sent it to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and a number of my other hon. Friends who are taking part in the debate. The letter, which concerns my amendment, talks about the consequences of the existing legislation, which
      "limits the availability of 'low alcohol' and 'alcohol-free' beers by making them available only in licensed premises. Section 201(1) of the Licensing Act 1964"
      —which this Bill seeks to amend—
      "stipulates that: any drink that has an alcoholic strength of 1·2 per cent. alcohol by volume or more must be sold through licensed premises.
      Moreover, any drink of less than that strength, but which was stronger at any time during its manufacture, must also he sold through licensed premises."
      I accept that that is what my hon. Friend's Bill rightly seeks to change. I do not criticise what he is seeking to do with regard to the selling of low-alcohol beers in unlicensed premises; that is not the concern of my amendment, although it is the concern of his Bill.
      The letter continues:
      "These criteria were formulated well before there was any demand or adequate technology to produce 'low alcohol' or 'alcohol-free' beers."
      The debate on the Licensing Act 1964 was the last occasion on which we had the opportunity of considering this issue at some length, and with a certain amount of serious discussion on both sides of the House. That Act now guides the sale of alcohol in licensed or unlicensed premises; it has been on the statute book for 26 years. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton to it is the first of any significance that makes some reference to the new beers that were not on the market when the 1964 Act was framed.
      In those days we were a nation without speed limits and without the breathalyser. Those of my hon. Friends who have been successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills have sensibly decided, now that the breathalyser puts so much pressure on the motorist, that it is proper for us to amend the 1964 Act.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He referred to Kaliber; does he agree that it is partly because of its success that we have reached a different phase in the market, and low alcoholic and non-alcohol beers are now being marketed heavily for reasons other than those connected with drink-driving?
      Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is probably right. The current position has resulted not only from the drink-driving legislation, but from the fact that today we are far more aware of the evils—including the social evils —of alcohol than we were in 1964; the greater concern that the public now have for their health; and the government's policy on preventive medicine. There has been a general and voluntary move away from alcohols of full strength to alcohols of low strength and non-alcoholic beers. It is generally acknowledged that there is much greater public demand arising naturally, notwithstanding the drink-driving legislation. I am prepared to concede my hon. Friend's point: we may agree on one point, although we disagree about the various reasons.

      1689
      There is now the public demand and adequate technology to produce low-alcohol or alcohol-free beers and the past few years have seen the emergence of such beers. To be brief, I will use the jargon of the trade and refer to NABs, non-alcoholic beers, and LABs, low-alcoholic beers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said, the consumer demand for such beers is growing rapidly.
      NABs and LABs, the letter says,
      "are important alternatives to the usual range of alcoholic drinks and give the consumer greater choice. They are particularly important in the context of the Government's strategy against alcohol abuse".
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will confirm that the Home Office accepts the anomalies that have been outlined by me, and by Guinness. It may not be possible for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give me the information today—he may prefer to write to me —but I would like to know whether the ministerial group on alcohol misuse—I forget who chairs it now that my right hon. Friend the former Patronage Secretary has been transferred to the Department of Energy, but it involves several Government Departments—has had an opportunity to consider the Bill and my amendment. My amendment would certainly be in line with the group's concerns.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The ministerial group has welcomed the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Brown: I welcome that only as far as it goes. I would have expected my hon. Friend to go one stage further and say that the Committee would also welcome amendment No. 1 which goes in the direction of the objectives that the Committee has set itself. Nevertheless, I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assurance that at least that committtee has considered the Bill. It contains an anomaly. We are concerned that the Bill redefines intoxicating liquor as having no more than 0·5 per cent. alcohol. We have been talking about 0·;5 per cent. alcohol and about the alternative measurement of specific gravity. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne reprimanded me for not being precise in my amendment.
      11 am
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is now 11 o'clock. May I ask whether you have had any request from Ministers for a statement on the alleged pressure on Customs from Government Departments not to prosecute firms in relation to the Iraqi gun export order? I have raised this matter with the responsible Treasury Minister, and he knows about it. Has there been any request for urgent clarification of the authority given to the Ministry of Defence press office to suggest that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) was less than clear in his warnings?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not received any request for permission to make a statement to be made to the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether from now on—this is a matter of some importance—Members of Parliament giving warnings to Governments have to do it in—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say to the House what he might have had the opportunity to say following a statement.
      Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has there been any request for a statement on when Ministry of Defence Ministers first knew about this matter? The question that I put last Wednesday—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I have not received any request for permission to make a statement of any kind whatsoever to the House.
      Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was somewhat saddened to hear you say that, because I was wondering whether you had received any request to make a statement on the ever-worsening situation in Lithuania, which is a cause of—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have told the House that I have not received any request for permission to make a statement of any kind whatsoever. Perhaps we can now get back to the business before the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made it clear that I have dealt with it.
      Mr. Dalyell: It was suggested that one Government Department, the Department of Trade and Industry, is pointing a finger at another Government Department—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that, if I allow him to make those comments, in all fairness I must allow other hon. Members to make comments on the same matter. I cannot allow that. We are debating a private Member's Bill. I call Mr. Brown.
      Mr. Michael Brown: As I was saying, the Bill redefines intoxicating liquor as having more than 0·5 per cent. alcohol. I was upbraided earlier for some lax draftsmanship in my amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said that amendment No. 8 defines the terminology in terms of specific gravity. I used the term "0·5 per cent." We are talking about 0·5 per cent. alcohol by volume. I concede that I should have defined the term in my amendment. I assume that anybody taking a serious interest in the Bill—including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne—would have readily understood that the alternative way of measuring alcohol is commonly referred to as 0·5 per cent. alcohol, and we normally understand that to mean alcohol by volume. I accept my hon. Friend's apologies.
      If it is possible in the House of Lords, should my amendment be accepted, and should it be necessary for drafting purposes to redefine it, I should be willing to accept, perhaps, the addition of the words "by volume". I should have thought that it is such a small drafting amendment that if the other place were pleased to grant a Second Reading to the Bill it would be quite possible to add the words "by volume" to my amendment. I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's injunction, but I am surprised that he. of all people—he is normally very precise in his use of language—did not recognise that I should have added those two words.

      1691
      Drinks with a strength of 0·5 per cent. by volume or less would be able to be sold in unlicensed premises.
      Sir Peter Emery: If my hon. Friend looks at the definition in the principal Act, he will see that his point is not necessary, because there is the use of percentages in the original Act, and it is made clear that it is by volume of alcohol within the totality of that being tested. There is no difficulty, and my hon. Friend's amendment would be in order.
      Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton for his help. I am seeking to amend my hon. Friend's Bill, which would amend an Act that is already on the statute book. That Act is the reference point for him and, therefore, the ultimate reference point for me. I accept my hon. Friend's case.
      There is a strong case for redefining intoxicating liquor at 0·05 per cent., not 0·5 per cent.
      Mr. Page: I suggested earlier that we are dealing with practicalities rather than theories. With respect, my hon. Friend is confusing a marketing policy for no-alcohol beers and full-strength beers, and not considering the practicalities of the amendment to the licensing laws. I hope that we shall hear about the immortal research by Professor Po to see how dangerous is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) as against the theory being advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
      Mr. Brown: I am delighted to advise my hon. Friend that, if only he will be patient, all will be revealed. I have in my hand, and the Minister has in his file, several pieces of paper; they are the study that was carried out by Professor Po. If my hon. Friend will be patient, he will see that I am not talking theoretical nonsense. I am talking practicalities. My hon. Friend continues to be muddled. I am anxious to get us away from low-alcohol beers. I regard them in the same way as my hon. Friend the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household would regard them. They contain alcohol; they are alcoholic. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone that if the Bill is passed unamended it will be possible for a child to purchase low-alcohol beers from unlicensed premises. I am not sure whether that child would be breaking the law. I have a suspicion that, if the child were breaking the law, the supermarket sales girl at the cash checkout would be unaware whether the law is being broken.
      Hon. Members must realise that I am seeking to put low-alcohol beers on one side. They are a dangerous commodity. For the reasons that the hon. Member for Huddersfield outlined in his intervention from the Opposition Front Bench, it is possible for low-alcohol beers to contribute to people committing a motoring offence, albeit unwittingly. Therefore, I should prefer that the House accept my amendment. It would then be absolutely clear that there is no danger whatever.
      The current definition of intoxicating liquor excludes products which at any time in the process exceeded approximately 1·2 per cent. by volume. All are agreed—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton agrees —that that is a nonsense. Low-alcohol and no-alcohol beers are normally made by evaporating the alcohol from normal strength beers. The move to define the strength at the point of sale is welcomed by all.
      1692
      At 7·45 this morning, when my clock radio alarm woke me, I heard the dulcet tones of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton coming through loud and clear. He was challenged by the interviewer, Sue MacGregor on the "Today" programme, on the attitude of the brewing industry. He reassured her, the nation and me—4 million people heard him—that the move to define the strength at the point of sale is welcomed by the industry.
      Sir Peter Emery: As is my Bill.
      Mr. Brown: As is the Bill. On that point, the Bill is welcome unamended.
      However, my hon. Friend and I part company on whether the definition of intoxicating liquor at retail should be left at 1·2 per cent. or put at some lower figure. Some of my hon. Friends have challenged me about the matter, but 1·2 per cent. is quite high. There seems to be general agreement that the figure should be lower. The case for putting it at 0·05 per cent., as in my amendment No. 1, rather than 0·5 per cent., is based on the following three reasons that I can think of. You may be able to think of 33 reasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne may be able to think of 333 reasons. However, there are three good reasons that should command the full support of the House.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said, consumer demand can be met by current technology for beers of 0·05 per cent. alcohol or less. It has been suggested —I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has returned—that even at no-alcohol levels, and certainly at low-alcohol levels, alcohol must be made from full-strength alcohol and a dilution process then takes place. However, the technology that now exists has proved successful in manufacturing no-alcohol and low-alcohol beers at 0·05 per cent. alcohol by volume. Those tests have been successful to the extent that no-alcohol and low-alcohol beers below 0·05 per cent. now have a 30 per cent. share of the market. Both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton may challenge me on whether it is technically feasible to manufacture low-alcohol beers at less than 0·05 per cent.
      11.15 am
      When I took my amendment to the Public Bill Office. the Clerks were at first disinclined to accept it on the grounds that Mr. Speaker would not select it because low-alcohol beer could not be made at 0·05 per cent. Like me, they did their researches, as they always do. We are well served by all who work in the Public Bill Office. One cannot bounce them into anything, because they are experts and they are never wrong. On this ocasion they were not wrong. They did their research and noted, as I have noted, that 30 per cent. of the market for no-alcohol and low-alcohol beers is accounted for by beers of a strength of 0·05 per cent. alcohol by volume which are on sale and available. Therefore, my amendment was not only tabled but selected by Mr. Speaker.
      We have proof positive that if, in the early stages, there is any element of doubt in the Public Bill Office about an amendment, it will get its facts right before recommending to the House an amendment that cannot be anything but in order.
      There is no technical reason for stopping, as my hon. Friend wishes to do, at 0·5 per cent. alcohol by volume. To bring it down to 0·05 per cent. would remove all danger of anyone becoming intoxicated from low-alcohol beer. I

      1693
      forget which of my hon. Friends said in an intervention that one would have to drink vast quantities—pints and pints or gallons and gallons—of beer at 0·5 per cent. alcohol by volume before one could become intoxicated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne would say, I beg to be in respectful disagreement with my hon. Friend.
      It seems sensible to avoid the danger of intoxication from the sale of low-alcohol beer from unlicensed premises. I shall use as evidence for my remarks the report to which I have already referred by Professor Po at Queen's university, Belfast. I shall refer to it in a moment.
      Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend has referred more than once to that learned report. He said that he had sent it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or that it found its way to him. Did he send a copy to my hon. Friend the Treasurer of the Household, who has a deep interest in these matters? As it is from a professor in Northern Ireland, did he also send a copy to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who also has a deep interest in these matters?
      Mr. Brown: I did not send the report to my hon. Friend the Minister. Ably briefed as ever, and suspecting that I might refer to the report, he has a copy on the Front Bench with him. I spoke earlier of the way in which Back Benchers are served in the House. Not only do we have brilliant and accurate advice from the Public Bill Office, but we can be assured that, when a Back Bencher refers to a report that others might regard as obscure but which he regards as eminently important, my hon. Friend the Minister has it available for his reference. I am only sad that he has not learned the lessons of the conclusions of the report, which I shall reveal to the House in a moment.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for giving way. He has cited the report more than twice. Does he have additional copies for me, and my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to peruse before he takes us through it, as I hope he will?
      Secondly, will my hon. Friend tell the House a little more about Professor Li Wan Po? If we are to attach great weight to what he has said, we need to know a little more about where he did the treatise and about his experience. I feel sure that that would enable the House to give sufficient regard and weight to his report.
      Mr. Brown: If only the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy would be patient, all will be revealed. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Budget statement. Before he does so, you always say that copies of the Budget speech and related papers are not to be passed around the Chamber until the Chancellor has sat down. When I have completed my speech, I shall take such copies as are necessary for the hon. Member for Huddersfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and any others—
      Mr. John Marshall: What about the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household?
      Mr. Brown: I shall come to the Treasurer in a moment. I shall take copies of the report with great pleasure, so that, if any hon. Member doubts what I am saying about my amendment and wishes to challenge me, he or she can do
      1694
      so with all the evidence. Therefore, the answer to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is yes, but when I have sat down.
      I am aware that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the same Mr. Deputy Speaker who is in the Chair on Budget Day and who takes a dim view of papers and copies of reports being circulated while the Chancellor is making his speech. We have to wait until the Chancellor sits down before papers and copies of reports relating to his speech can be circulated in the Chamber. Therefore, once I have concluded my speech, I shall go straight to the photocopying machine and take such copies as are necessary.
      Nobody can challenge the evidence of a professor at the University of Belfast—
      Mr. John Marshall: Why?
      Mr. Brown: Because as my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and for Eastbourne will testify, that university is probably one of the best institutions of academic learning in the United Kingdom.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has referred to the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household. I have a suspicion that the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household has read the report and that it was he who sent the report to the Minister. Everything in the report supports all that the Treasurer has said about the dangers of alcohol both in the Chamber and outside the House during the 11 years and two months that he has been a Member.
      I said that there were three reasons to support my amendment. So far I have adumbrated two of them, so here is the third. If the level were confined to 0·05 per cent. of alcohol by volume, consumers in unlicensed premises would need to make no judgment about the level of alcohol. That is highly desirable in this already confused area. Consumers have difficulty distinguishing no-alcohol brands from low-alcohol brands, as is clear from some of the interventions made this morning. That is perfectly understandable. We glibly talk about "low-alcohol" and "no-alcohol" drinks, but there is not only confusion in the public mind; there is still greater confusion in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is seeking to clear up that confusion, and I have no complaint with the general tenor of what he is seeking to do.
      If the definition of "intoxicating liquor" were pitched at 0·05 per cent., matters would be much simpler. All products with a "low-alcohol" descriptor would be confined to licensed premises and all products with a "non-alcoholic" descriptor would be available in both licensed and unlicensed premises. What could be simpler? The simple test would be, if there is any alcohol in it, it must be sold in licensed premises only; if there is no alcohol in it, it can be sold in unlicensed premises. Surely that is even simpler than the clarification that I fully acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is seeking to bring to section 201(1) of the Licensing Act 1964. However, there is still an element of confusion in my hon. Friend's Bill.
      Sir Peter Emery: I know that my hon. Friend would not want to use words that might mislead the House, but surely he accepts that some of the products that are marketed as containing 0·05 per cent. alcohol nevertheless contain some alcohol. As they contain the slight 0·05 per

      1695
      cent. of alcohol, my hon. Friend's argument that there is no alcohol in such drinks is misleading, and I am sure that he would not want to mislead the House.
      Mr. Brown: I see the point that my hon. Friend is making. I must acknowledge that even non-alcoholic beer may have contained alcohol at, say, one part per million —[Interruption.]—perhaps it is one part per 100 million —but it might be even less than that. Alcohol may have been involved because of the process of manufacture that my hon. Friend has described.
      That is where the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is absolutely correct. One would have to drink a swimming pool full of such a drink before there was any danger of one registering even 1 mm on the breathalyser. If one consumed such a quantity of drinks of 0·05 per cent. alcohol by volume to register that level, one would almost certainly be dead from causes other than alcoholism because one would have had to drink several times one's body weight.
      I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton about not misleading the House. I certainly do not want to do that, but I am sure that he will agree that it would be impossible for somebody to become intoxicated in any way—even a seven-year-old—if my amendment were accepted. As I have said, by the time that one started to register as intoxicated on any breathalyser machine, one would almost certainly be dead for other reasons.
      Sir Peter Emery: Much of my hon. Friend's argument has been about topping up the extra amount that one would have to drink if one were to be positively breathalysed on leaving a bar. If a person with 79·97 mg of alcohol in his blood per 100 ml leaves a bar and is breathalysed, that person is not considered to have committed an offence. We may deprecate the fact that he has that amount of alcohol in his blood, but he will not have committed an offence. However, if, with a reading of 79·97 mg per 100 ml in his blood, that person then drank something with 0·05 per cent. alcohol by volume, he would be over the top. Therefore, there is no absolute factor to suggest that, even if my hon. Friend's amendment were to be accepted, topping up would be done away with. As much of my hon. Friend's argument rests on that point about topping up, he should admit my argument. I accept that the level that he is proposing is not as great as that which I have proposed, but a level still exists and must be accepted as still existing.
      Mr. Sheerman: Before the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) resumes his speech—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention. I call Mr. Brown.
      Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is technically correct, but it is impossible to measure the degree of accuracy to which he has referred on any breathalyser machine—
      Sir Peter Emery: Is my hon. Friend sure?
      Mr. Sheerman rose—
      Mr. Brown: Well, I believe that the hon. Member for Huddersfield is sure, at any rate.
      Mr. Sheerman: We are not doing full justice to the scientific evidence. It is not just a question of Professor Po's evidence. I have similar evidence from King's college and other universities and institutes, which all points to the fact that it is impossible, in terms of the research carried out on the capacity of the human body, to reach the 79·95 level and then to become over the limit by an alcoholic content of 0·05, although an alcoholic content of 0·5 could put one over the limit. The hon. Gentleman is not doing full justice to his case.
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We should not rely only on Professor Po's research. I have all the other evidence to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred.
      Mr. John Marshall: And my hon. Friend is coming to it.
      11.30 am
      Mr. Brown: Yes, I am. I have also the report of Professor Tipton of the university of Dublin and the report by Dr. Badawy, a top-grade biochemist with the South Glamorgan health authority. The hon. Gentleman's point is also confirmed by Professor Merton Sandler of the postgraduate medical school at the university of London. I have also the policy statement of Professor Timothy Peters, FRCPath. of the King's college school of medicine and dentistry, King's college, London, regarding the top-up question. I shall return to that statement in a moment, but not until I have dealt with the university of Belfast report.
      Mr. John Marshall: Much of the discussion has centred on whether taking another drop of alcohol would push someone over the breathalyser limit. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the discussion should centre on whether a person's ability to drive would be impaired? There is a great deal of evidence that the driving of many of those who are below the breathalyser limit is impaired, that they cause unnecessary accidents and that they may cause unnecessary loss of life. That is the real issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: But that is not the purpose of the amendments. I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will return to that purpose.
      Mr. Brown: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were quite right to rule my hon. Friend's intervention wholly out of order. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the amendment, which addresses the top-up question. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has always been concerned about the effect of alcohol on driving. He knows a great deal about the subject. He has demonstrated his expertise and knowledge whenever he has served on Standing Committees that have considered transport Bills.
      If my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South had wanted to challenge me, he ought to have questioned me on the top-up policy by referring to the Guinness policy statement on the top-up question.
      Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Brown: Before my hon. Friend starts to challenge me on the top-up question, which is wholly in order insofar as it relates to the amendment, I ought to tell him about the top-up question. If the blood alcohol level is 78 mg per

      1697
      100 ml of blood, one pint—that is, 568 ml—of low-alcohol beer containing 1 per cent. by volume of ethanol, consumed over 20 minutes is almost certain to increase the blood alcohol level of many adult subjects to a value above the legal limit for driving of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.
      Mr. Page: Who says?
      Mr. Brown: Dr. A. Badawy, a top-grade biochemist, says that. He represents South Glamorgan health authority.
      Mr. Page: I chide my hon. Friend for the way in which he is presenting his case, but it pains me to do so. Normally, one produces the evidence in scientific matters and draws conclusions. My hon. Friend has been drawing conclusions for a considerable time. I hope that we shall soon hear about the valuable evidence of Professor Po, on which the whole of my hon. Friend's case rests.
      Mr. Brown: If I had walked into the Chamber, picked up Professor Po's report and read it, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have immediately called me to order and asked what it had to do with the amendment. You would also have ordered me to resume my seat. We have to keep within the rules of order and we have to speak to amendments. If we do not, we are ordered to resume our seats, or we are called to order. An amendment is tabled to do this or to change that, and we have to consider the basis is for wanting to make the change. We have to provide a basis for the argument. Then we use the evidence. It ought to be done my way, or hon. Members would be ordered to resume their seats. We make our case and then introduce evidence to support it when we are challenged by colleagues, as I am being challenged.
      I hope to be able to rebut those challenges, at least to the satisfaction of the Chair, as each challenge is put to me, by revealing my evidence. The Minister is in possession of all the evidence that I have in my hand. I am not making up these names. Every piece of paper that I possess is also possessed by the Minister and can be found in his files. He has the report by Dr. Badawy of South Glamorgan health authority. He also has the report on the Guinness policy statement on the top-up question from Dr. Timothy Peters and also the report from Dublin university by Professor Tipton, who is the head of the department of biochemistry at Trinity college. If my hon. Friend does not believe me, I hope that he will believe the Minister when he refers to the evidence.
      I said earlier that the House should support my amendment rather than the amendments of my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and for Gedling for three reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has been absolutely irresponsible in tabling his amendment. According to amendment No. 10, the level of 0·5 per cent. would be deleted and would be replaced by a level of 1·2 per cent. Dr. Badawy, of South Glamorgan health authority provides the evidence on which we should reject my hon. Friend's amendment. Dr. Badawy says that it is possible for someone to consume 1 per cent. by volume of alcohol ethanol over 20 minutes and that in the case of many adults that alone will mean that they are above the legal limit for driving. According to my hon. Friend's
      1698
      amendment, that limit would be raised to 1·2 per cent. He wants people to drive while they are under the influence of alcohol.
      My hon. Friend's amendment is irresponsible. I do not believe that he intended it to be irresponsible when he tabled it. It is quite possible that he may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and rebut the charge that I have levelled at him, but I prefer to use the evidence of Dr. Badawy, a top-grade biochemist, as the basis on which I shall cast my vote if my hon. Friend is irresponsible enough to call a Division on his amendment. I hope that he will not even move the amendment. If he does, I hope that he will not press it to a Division, but if he does that, I urge the House to reject it utterly. The amendment is irresponsible, but my hon. Friend is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, so he cannot be irresponsible, but that is the effect of the amendment. I shall give way to my hon. Friend and I hope that he can account for his amendment.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an uncharacteristically intemperate attack on my amendment. If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall certainly move amendment No. 10 and I shall demonstrate that, far from being irresponsible, I am seeking to join the rest of the House and act in the spirit of the Bill in making it safer for children and those who drive having consumed modest amounts of drink, by making the definitions clearer. If my hon. Friend stays to hear my brief intervention in the debate, I hope that he will realise that my amendment has the same intention as his, but I am approaching the same common task with a slightly different emphasis.
      Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but that will not do. I am seeking to reduce while my hon. Friend is seeking to increase. It is that simple.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am seeking to maintain the status quo.
      Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is wrong. He is not seeking to maintain the status quo. The Bill reduces the limit from 1·2 per cent. to 0·5 per cent. I am proposing that it should be 0·05 per cent. My hon. Friend says that he is in favour of the status quo, but he is in favour of returning to the limit set in 1964, which is not the base from which we should be starting now that there has been a 30 per cent. growth in the market in low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers.
      Mr. Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend really want to intervene again after what he has just heard?
      Mr. Mitchell: I merely wish to stress that I am seeking to maintain the status quo. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is not yet law, so the status quo is currently 1·2 per cent.
      Mr. Brown: Why do we change legislation? Why do we seek to alter the status quo? Because we are not satisfied with the present position. The Government have been in power for 11 years. On 4 May 1979, when the Prime Minister first appeared at the Dispatch Box, she did not say that we had just been elected as a Conservative Government and we were here to maintain the status quo. We are not here to maintain the status quo; we are elected to implement our beliefs and to make changes in

      1699
      legislation. We are here to make improvements. My hon. Friend should not defend the status quo, which is indefensible. Clause 1 of the 13111 amends section 201(1) of the Licensing Act 1964. It is a move in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It rightly amends the status quo that was set in 1964 and that is unacceptable in 1990. It has to be changed for the reasons that several hon. Members, certainly the hon. Member for Huddersfield, have mentioned. The status quo once left us without the breathalyser and without speed limits. We changed the status quo because it was wrong. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will seek to make a case for his amendment, but he has not made a case for it in his interventions so far.
      Mr. Roger Gale: I, too, hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has quoted a statistic several times. He said that 30 per cent. of the market represents low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers. The House might find that slightly misleading. Perhaps my hon. Friend can explain what proportion of that 30 per cent. represents low-alcohol beers and what proportion represents non-alcoholic beers.
      11.45 am
      Mr. Brown: I cannot do that as I should need to take advice from Guinness Brewing G.B., as that was the source of the statistic that I quoted. Unfortunately it did not break down the figures within that 30 per cent. into LABs and NABs.
      Mr. Sheerman: I do not want to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech, which has lasted for more than one hour and 10 minutes, but the letter that I received from Guinness pointed out that its products at 0·05 per cent. alcohol now represent 20 per cent. of the LAB and NAB market.
      Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, which answers the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale).
      I have set out three reasons why we should accept my amendment in preference to the status quo, to the figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton suggests, to the figure chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone in her amendment No. 8 and most certainly in preference to the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling seeks to move later this morning.
      If the definition of intoxicating liquor were to be struck at 0·5 per cent., there would be three categories: low-alcohol products allowed to be sold in licensed premises only; low-alcohol products allowed to be sold in licensed and unlicensed premises and non-alcoholic products allowed to be sold in licensed and unlicensed premises. In those circumstances it is possible that there would be a move to reclassify 0·5 per cent. alcohol by volume as alcohol free to avoid consumer confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton would be the first to say that that would be utterly misleading.
      I referred earlier to the note that Guinness Brewing G.B. sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister also received a copy of that letter.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although it seems an awful long time ago, I have heard all this before. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is not getting repetitive.
      Mr. Brown: You have not heard it all before, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I quoted paragraphs 1 to 4 and I referred to paragraph 5. I referred to the report of Professor Li Wan Po of the department of pharmacy at Queen's university, Belfast. I did not refer to that report in detail; I merely referred to the author, the title and the author's credentials. Most emphatically, I deliberately did not do so because I knew that if I were to read out paragraph 5 of the letter and I then returned to the report, you would probably call me to order, so I took great care not to refer to Professor Po's report in the context of my amendment.
      I left out paragraph 5 of the letter, as the record of my speech will show, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must stress that that study showed the following fact to be true. A calculation has been made. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think that you have heard this all before I shall stop, but I do not think that you have. The intake of a single bolus—I may have to define that for hon. Members who are not familiar with the term—of one pint or steady drinking of two to three pints per hour of beer containing either 0·5 per cent. by volume of alcohol or 1 per cent. by volume of alcohol—0·2 per cent. by volume of alcohol less than the status quo—increases the blood-alcohol level, whereas the intake of beer containing 0·5 per cent. of alcohol by volume is perfectly safe. Who says that? Not me. Have I said it before this morning? No, because there must be verification of the fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling upbraided me for stating a conclusion without first giving the evidence. To keep myself in order, I have just given the conclusion.
      The evidence of Professor Li Wan Po—
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Seventy-seven minutes into his speech, is it in order to move that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) no longer be heard and that we hear the Minister and the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will take that as a message of resentment about how speeches have been needlessly protracted. I remind the House that more than 20 private Member's Bills are on the Order Paper. At the end of every Session, there arc complaints from hon. Members who have been frustrated in their efforts to bring their Bill before the House and make progress. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the interests of other hon. Members and my duty to safeguard them.
      Mr. Brown: Most certainly, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will acknowledge that before the Bill, which was a balloted Bill, is put on the statute book, we should consider its implications. In its present form, the Bill may mislead people outside into believing that by consuming low-alcohol beers, having consumed two and a half pints of full-alcohol beer, they are safe. They may be endangering themselves and others by being over the limit.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have your guidance? Is there a qualitative difference between balloted Bills and ten-minute Bills a legitimate parliamentary procedure whereby hon. Members have had the sweat of queueing at the Public Bill Office? May I have a ruling on whether balloted Bills are qualitatively more important than and different from ten-minute Bills?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position is quite clear. All the Bills on the Order Paper have equal status, except in terms of the sequence in which they come before the House.
      Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, more than any other hon. Member, have experienced the frustration of even a second-placed Bill failing because the debate before it was protracted, sometimes deliberately. Many amendments have been tabled to the Bill, which reflects serious interest in it. I have spoken to an amendment about which I feel extremely strongly. I am interested in the points being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). He is addressing not one, but a series of amendments. If his speech is lengthy, surely it has been in order and surely he is addressing the Bill. As it has precedence, we are entitled to do so.
      Mr. Brown: I apologise for detaining the House, but I remember that when the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone was before the House there were 30 or 40 Bills following it. We debated the Bill until 2·30 pm, but it did not proceed beyond the first amendment. I do not remember hon. Members expressing much concern about that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The concern that was expressed to the Chair on that occasion prompted my remarks this morning. I hope that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) will bear in mind her resentment of how some hon. Members treated her Bill when considering the rights and interests of other hon. Members. Let us get on.
      Mr. Brown: I shall deal now with the report from Queen's university, Belfast, but I do not know how to do so. Should I read out the facts or the summary? From what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be satisfied —if you are satisfied, other hon. Members will be—if I simply paraphrase it.
      Theoretical modelling of alcohol pharmacokinetics in humans was carried out to investigate whether low-alcohol beers could raise blood-alcohol levels to toxic level. A literature search was carried out to obtain the prerequisite parameters for alcohol pharmacokinetics in humans. Data published in studies were pooled and described statistically to provide mean values and variance data. Simulation using those parameters was carried out with the computer packages non-lin and minitab. Non-lin is a general non-linear programme, while minitab is a general statistics package. The conclusions that can be drawn from the current study are:
      "Wide inter-subject variability exists in alcohol elimination from the body. Factors known to alcohol elimination rates and effects include gender, previous exposure, age, genetic variability in enzyme activity and social setting and a blood-alcohol level 800 mg per ml is reduced to half that level in about two and a half hours."
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: These are complex scientific matters. May I emphasise that it would be helpful if hon. Members could have a copy of the research that my hon. Friend is producing?
      Mr. Brown: I have been generous in giving way. I have had rather more interventions than I should have liked, but as soon as I sit down I shall photocopy the report and ensure that it is available to hon. Members so that they may challenge what I am saying if they wish. You, Mr.
      1702
      Deputy Speaker, thought that you heard me say something before. I am happy to provide you with a copy, and perhaps the Clerk might like one in order to assist you. It is an important report.
      Conclusion No. 4 shows that a pint of non-alcoholic beer had a negligible effect on blood levels. A pint of low-alcohol beer may increase the blood level to over 150 mg per litre. That is almost twice the legal limit for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to drive to Doncaster or for me to drive to Cleethorpes.
      There can be no doubt that this is a serious amendment that deserves the serious consideration of the House. My comments have been challenged, but I have not relied on my intuition or my statistics and I have not made them up. I have not relied only on the views of Guinness, although it must be acknowledged that it has a vested interest in how the Bill gets on the statute book. I have relied on medical and academic evidence, not just on the report from Queen's university Belfast. I have relied on a host of other medical experts, so I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be the first to agree that I have approached the debate reasonably and responsibly.
      Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is at last coming to the evidence on which he has based his case so far. I accept the learned professor's words when he says that if one drinks 0·5 per cent. by volume of alcohol, more alcohol will be put into the blood than if one drinks 0·05 per cent. One does not have to be a professor to reach that conclusion.
      Did I hear right? Did my hon. Friend say that the learned professor said that if one drinks one pint of the 0·5 per cent. by volume low-alcohol beer, it could reach levels of 150 per cent. in the blood?
      Mr. Brown: Yes, my hon. Friend heard precisely that. He was the one who intervened in my speech earlier to say that someone would have to drink gallons and gallons of low-alcohol beer for it to have a negligible effect. If my hon. Friend wants further evidence, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has the very report.
      12 noon
      Sir Peter Emery: It is 1 per cent., not 0·05 per cent.
      Mr. Brown: It is contained in conclusion No. 5 in the report. If my hon. Friend wants me to refer to the evidence, I must turn to page 12. I have a suspicion that while I do not think that I would be out of order, it appears that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might think that I was out of order if I were to refer to page 12, but my whole case rests on conclusion No. 5, and I think that I would be perfectly in order to draw that to Mr. Deputy Speaker's attention.
      I shall turn to conclusion No. 6, on page 13, which states:
      "Drinking non-alcoholic beer at a rate of 1 pint per 20 minutes does not increase alcohol levels beyond 15 mg per millilitre."
      There is even more damning evidence in the report, where it states:
      "Drinking low-alcohol beer at a rate of one pint per 20 minutes may raise the blood-alcohol level"—
      wait for it—
      "to 800 mg within three hours."
      [Interruption.] I thought that that would cause some murmurs and raise the temperature. The report continues:

      1703
      "Rapid drinking of one pint of de-alcoholised beer when the blood-alcohol level is already at 800 mg per ml, will increase that level to higher levels for half an hour."
      Mr. Gale: Really?
      Mr. Brown: Yes, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I represent northern constituencies. It is not unknown for people in the north, if they do not today, to have drunk such quantities in the past. That is what we are dealing with. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Member for a constituency not far away from the one that I represent, will agree that we have problems with people who drink such volumes of alcohol.
      Mr. Gale: If we get the opportunity to debate this matter further, some of us may wish to refer to the report and demonstrate that it has already been widely debated nationally, and not all its conclusions are as readily accepted as my hon. Friend would seem to say. Does he not accept that anyone who drinks nine pints of beer in three hours might consider that he should not drive anyway?
      Mr. Brown: Yes, but if that person was drinking low-alcohol beer, he would say, "Oh, but it is low-alcohol beer. I have drunk nine pints of low-alcohol beer, so I am all right. I shall get in my car and drive away." When the person is breathalysed and the breathalyser goes through the roof and virtually blows up the police car as well as the machine, he will not think so any more.
      Much levity is expressed about this issue in certain quarters, but it is serious. Someone may drink nine pints of low-alcohol beer, get into his motor car and think that he is safe from prosecution. Nothing could be further from the truth, as paragraph 8 of the learned professor's report shows.
      Mr. John Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has suffered from a great deal of injury time this morning. We should not complain about the length of his speech in view of his courtesy in giving way. Does he not agree that some of the advertising of low-alcohol beers is highly misleading? A well-known brand is advertised as 100 per cent. Tennents and 1 per cent. alcohol. Would not anyone reading that advertisement assume that he was quite safe to drink an unlimited supply of Tennents low-alcohol beer?
      Mr. Brown: That is the nub of the question. Low-alcohol beer is not safe to drink in vast quantities. The type of person who might be encouraged-because he likes to drink a lot of alcohol in terms of volume-is the type of person who may well be inclined to drink beers such as my hon. Friend mentioned.
      The report from the department of pharmacy at Queen's university, Belfast contains another 23 conclusions that support my amendment. I have drawn the attention of the House to only six of those conclusions, and the outrage and shock expressed by my hon. Friends at those conclusions suggests that they will be incapable of coping with any more.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is drawing to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) some of the more incredible facts, supported not only by the department of pharmacy at Queen's university, Belfast, but by the university of Dublin and a number of others.
      1704
      Therefore, I hope that I have made my case. There are another 20 conclusions that I shall not draw to the attention of the House. I shall photocopy the report arid ensure that it is in the hands of my hon. Friends should they wish to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. If they want to challenge anything that I have said, I shall happily reply.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in today's interesting arid important debate. I shall try to follow some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg arid Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), but at less length, because I am conscious that a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak both on this Bill and the next. I see that the proposer of the next Bill is present. It is appropriate that, for a Bill dealing with horses, he should attend on us in his riding gear and apparel.
      For the sake of good order, I start by declaring a loose interest in the debate as a shareholder and adviser to a family business in the wine trade. As far as I am aware, no low alcohol drinks are sold in that business, so my comments are not related to that. My constituency contains the Home brewery, an outstanding supplier of ales of all kinds to my constituents and others in the Nottingham area. I have not spoken directly to the company on this issue, although I have meetings with the management on many matters of local concern, and am aware of its views. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have a chance to give the brewing industry's professional view on many of these matters because that is extremely important.
      Every day 40,000 pints of low-alcohol and nonalcoholic drinks are drunk. We are dealing with a growing and important market. That was one reason why I was so surprised that Northern Ireland was excluded from the Bill. Scotland is also excluded from one of the first two clauses. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has already told us informally, and I believe he will say more in his speech.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton on bringing before the House an important matter that needs our attention. I propose my amendment No. 10 as a probing amendment. Before today's debate I was not fully decided about the matter and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister.
      There is clear agreement in the House about what we seek to achieve. We want clearer definition and a greater ability to understand the effects of alcoholic drink and to ensure that the consumer is able to understand those effects. I listened with intense care to the peroration of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Although he produced a great deal of complicated evidence, he was not successful in persuading the House that we should all adhere to his aim.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton on the way in which he has guided the Bill. He has brought it to the House in a form that is largely acceptable and I make no bones about that. He has also managed to steer it through Committee with little unrest and without disturbing any of the professional lobbies. The only group that has made representations to the House is Guinness plc, and I am sure that we are all grateful to Guinness for giving us its view.

      1705
      I have tabled a probing amendment, and I wish to speak about the other amendments in the group, too. Amendment No. 10 seeks to leave out "0·65 per cent." and to insert "1·2 per cent." As we have already established, I wish to maintain the status quo. I shall dwell on a number of aspects, especially the labelling of spirits and beers, and the way in which amendment No. 10 would bring about some rationality in the market which does not exist at present.
      My hon. Friend the Minister has already referred briefly to the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, which is more generally and rightly known as the Wakeham committee. Many of us regarded it as an important contribution and we were pleased by the high prominence that the Prime Minister gave to that committee, which sought genuinely to make some inroads into the tragedies caused by alcohol misuse. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us a few thoughts on what came out of that committee and on what progress it made.
      I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay tribute to the considerable good work of the working group on alcohol and young people which produced the Masham report. I am sure that we need to hear something on that. In addition, we need a qualitative statement from the Minister about the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred and about the detailed scientific evidence on which he touched. Even now, he is circulating copies of the papers to which he referred.
      I am content to leave the decisions on the scientific evidence to the Minister. If the Government support the Bill—I am pleased to see that they do in effect—my hon. Friend will, no doubt, have already considered the weight that should be attached to the evidence. He should be able to give us the benefit of the Government's and his Department's views of the detailed scientific evidence, which is too much for me, a humble Back-Bencher, to weigh in the balance.
      One area of concern today has been to find out the precise alcoholic strengths of various drinks and to know how they compare with other alcoholic drinks on sale. I want briefly to shed some light on that. I have managed to persuade the Library to provide some information. In beers generally, the alcohol content varies from 2 per cent. for some of the mild Scandinavian varieties to about 8 per cent. in especially strong beers. Most American beers vary from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent.
      The natural, unfortified and dry wines, such as Burgundy, Chianti and Sauternes contain between 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. alcohol and most American varieties contain between 12 per cent. and 14 per cent. Vermouth and aperitif wines usually contain about 18 per cent. Cocktail wines, and dessert and sweet wines, such as sherry, port and moscatel, contain 20 per cent. to 21 per cent. That is the magnitude of the range of wines with which we are comparing low-alcohol beers and it is important for us to be aware of those figures.
      12.15 pm
      It is also extremely important to hear what the Department of Health feels about the Bill and about the alcohol content of the drinks that we are discussing. The central point of my case is that I fear that 0·5 per cent. may be the worst of all worlds. That is a point made by the hon.
      1706
      Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has kindly sat through our debate this morning. The tipping-over-the-top effect may be made worse by having a 0·5 per cent. level.
      We discussed briefly the importance of specific gravity and whether that was the issue, but I do not believe that it is. It is more important for us to focus on the signals that we send to children who will be able to buy these goods and to people who may drive following a drink and who may be even more confused as a result of the Bill than they would be otherwise. It is helpful for our deliberations to have with us the Minister for Roads and Traffic with whom we so often discuss what he can do to enhance the safety of roads in our constituencies. I am sure that he would have a signal contribution to make, if he were to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what he considers to be the Bill's likely effects.
      I had two major concerns in tabling a probing amendment. It will be difficult for us to pass the Bill unless we are certain of the signals that we send to children and of the effect it may have on those who drive after a modest amount of drink and who want to be clear where they stand. They have no wish to go anywhere near the limit. We must not send them false signals which fail to help them to carry out their perfectly legal and law-abiding aim to have a modest drink and then to be able to drive.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes gave three good reasons for a figure of 0·05 per cent., in respect of which he has tabled an amendment. I do not find the argument as compelling as he did. I am content to leave the analysis to my hon. Friend the Minister who will be able to set our minds at rest. However, it is important to recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made an eloquent and accurate tribute to the Public Bill Office for the way in which it handled the advice on all the amendments which, although closely related, are slightly different. I am sure that all of us join him in that tribute.
      I mentioned earlier that the Home brewery, which is now owned by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, is a distinguished and important business in my constituency. I shall touch briefly on some of the technical problems with 0·05 per cent., the figure that was so eloquently and lengthily supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Near beers—that is, beers that are not full strength—are produced with more alcohol than normal. That alcohol is then drawn off to create beers with an alcoholic content of, for example, 0·05 per cent.
      The first of my two great concerns is that there may be severe technical problems with the process. I am not an expert, but I understand that the industry has advised that such problems might arise. My other fear is that if most of the alcohol is drawn off, leaving only 0·05 per cent., the resulting taste will not be as attractive or the drinks as palatable as beers containing slightly more alcohol. If we set the limit so low, the product may not prove at all popular and may not sell well, and that will undermine an important aim of the Bill.
      Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The net effect of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that we reduce the limit not to 0·5 per cent. but to 0·05 per cent. would be to make many of the products so upalatable that people

      1707
      would choose stronger beers rather than opting for the low-alcohol beers whose consumption the Bill seeks to encourage.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is more knowledgeable than me about the brewing industry. I suspect that he knows more than many of us about the technical aspects of the production and marketing of such products. He has cast some doubt on the first hour of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and I am sure that the House will be grateful to him for his intervention.
      It is perhaps an illustration of the unity that exists on these matters that I can support absolutely one of the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who said that under the Bill children might learn more easily about alcohol and might learn to consume alcohol. She said that ease of access by children to alcohol and near-alcohol was highly undesirable. She also said that children cannot commute the amount of alcohol that they have consumed. She was worried about alcohol addiction—the habit-forming nature of the product—and mentioned the possible effect of alcohol on brain cells, which is a matter of scientific evidence.
      I should like to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has to say on the subject of children and it would also help to hear the Minister's view, not so much on the health aspects but on matters affecting the Home Office. Under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, then the Home Secretary, the Home Office set up a group designed to work to make parents more responsible for the actions of their children as a means of combating juvenile crime and ensuring better parental control. Clearly, the Bill can be seen in that context. I shall find it more difficult to support the Bill if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot tell us that it is likely to make it easier for parents to exercise control over their children. We regard that as fundamental to the credo of our party on law and order, which we wish to see enforced and enhanced. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what the Home Office thinks.
      Hon. Members have argued eloquently about the topping-up effect on drivers. We must be clear of the effect that the drinks will have on drivers and the drivers themselves must be clear of it if the Bill is to have a beneficial effect. Many people were not in favour of the introduction of seat-belt legislation—a cause that I know is near to your heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those who work in the National Health Service have seen the significant effect of that measure in reducing driving accidents. My wife, who worked some years ago in a major hospital close to the M4 and often had to deal with road accidents, is an avid supporter of the measure because it has greatly diminished the frequency with which she had to deal with the sad and tragic results of road accidents. As important as the argument about children is the argument that drivers must be able more easily to see the effects that drinking the products will have. It is important to keep both those considerations at the forefront of our minds.
      It has been suggested that six or seven pints of low-alcohol beer could be treated in the same way as six or seven pints of lemonade and that the levels are potentially misleading. There is always the fear that low-alcohol drinks will be regarded as effectively non-alcoholic and that the Bill will serve only to create confusion and diminish responsibility. That was the consideration at the
      1708
      heart of my probing amendment and that was what led me to believe that there was considerable merit in maintaining the status quo.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I almost regard the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as my hon. Friend because of his kindness to me on my first day in the House. He emphasised the dangers of encouraging under-age drinking, and I cite his remarks to support my case.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne spoke in a style and manner unique to this place and made famous by him. He eloquently supported my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. He made it clear that he favoured the focusing of attention on specific gravity. I listened carefully and with an open mind and I thought that he put a good case in favour of the House accepting my hon. Friend's amendment rather than mine.
      I hope that in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the amounts and their effects. I hope that he will also consider carefully the interests of other Departments in the Bill. It will have an effect on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as on the EEC, which introduces measures affecting the definition and labelling of low-alcohol drinks. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I have suffered a calamity today. When we cannot be in our constituencies we reside in the borough of Islington, where the community charge bills have been delivered this morning. I fear that no amount of alcohol-free lager will be able to mitigate their appalling effects on my hon. Friend and me.
      Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend referred to the fact that he received his community charge bill—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has the community charge to do with it? Let us get back to the amendment.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Mitchell: I am extremely grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my hon. Friend was seeking to guide me down a route which was clearly out of order. I was making the point that whatever amendment, if any, was included in the Bill could not make up for the tremendous size of the community charge bill which I received in the letter box this morning, and on which it would not be appropriate for me to comment further, despite my hon. Friend's inducement. Nor would it be appropriate for me to mention that one third of the charge is to finance the special arrangements that the authority made and should not have made.
      As the Bill stands, for drinks to be sold legally in unlicensed premises, they will have to contain 0·5 per cent. alcohol at the time of consumption or supply rather than during manufacture. When my hon. Friend sums up, could he advise us and make it quite clear whether the change in the way in which the level of alcohol is calculated has any other significance that we should be aware of? For example, alcohol commuted during fermentation may have a different relationship to the level of alcohol commuted during production. Can he give us advice on the difference between those two at the time of sale?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has been careful to make it clear that the Bill rationalises a position which has previously been confused. We need to know

      1709
      whether eliminating the tests during preparation will have any other effects. Also, if the figure was 1·2 per cent. in 1964, what good reason is there for changing it now?
      Amendment No. 1, which would leave out 0·5 per cent. and insert 0·05 per cent., would be too restrictive, and is therefore not compelling. Amendment No. 9 comes close to the amendment standing in my name. It would reduce the figure from 0·5 per cent. to 0·1 per cent. and is similar to amendment No. 1, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.
      Amendment No. 2 aims to delete all words after "per cent.", but there must be a point of definition, so it would be helpful for us to know the thinking behind that amendment. In amendment No. 3, what does "other conduct in question" mean? That is a relevant point that needs to be explained.
      I have already dealt with amendment No. 4, which is important because it would bring Scotland into line with England. Generally, we are in favour of that, particularly in some areas of public spending, where I would strongly favour that.
      Mr. John Marshall: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Mitchell: I think that my hon. Friend is thinking of the National Health Service—and who can blame him when the Scots can spend 25 per cent. more than we can? However, that is an avenue down which I would not wish to advance, or I would try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      One effect of the Bill will be to align some of the provisions of the licensing laws on the sale of drinks in unlicensed premises with requirements about the labelling of non-alcoholic and low-alcohol drinks. However, I fear that the Bill, if passed in its original form, may create new anomalies.
      As I understand it, the Bill would mean that drinks containing up to 0·5 per cent. alcohol by volume would be allowed to be sold in unlicensed premises but that 1·2 per cent. alcohol by volume would remain the lower limit for the purposes of excise duty. By deviating from the 1·2 per cent. figure, we will create an additional anomaly: there will be a potential range of drinks between 0·5 per cent. and 1·2 per cent. which will come within the new definition of low alcohol, which may only be consumed on licensed premises but on which no excise duty will be payable. The 0·5 per cent. limit corresponds with the labelling requirements for de-alcoholised wine and beer.
      There seems to be a division of opinion about the minimum level of alcohol required for a drink to be intoxicating, and after our discussions today, I am not sure whether any of us are clearer about that. In a consultation document issued in 1988, the Government stated:
      "drinks below 1·2 per cent. alcohol are non-excisable and generally regarded as non-alcoholic … there is evidence which suggests that it is not possible to become intoxicated from the consumption of drinks with a strength of up to 1·5 per cent."
      What has changed the Government's view since then? No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will want to address that point.
      Later, a concentration of 1·2 per cent. was described as "unlikely to be intoxicating." That statement was made in a press notice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8 September 1988.
      1710
      A consultation letter that appeared on 19 April 1989 stated that low-alcohol lagers can contain 0·9 per cent. It continued:
      "Ministers are concerned to ensure that consumers are not misled into thinking that such drinks are lower in alcohol than they are in reality."
      In a debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton on 26 January, there was some discussion about the significance of the 0·5 per cent. threshold in terms of its effects on blood alcohol levels, particularly on drivers who had already been drinking normal strength drinks. It is difficult to know what is meant by the term "non-intoxicating" in that context even when the Government use it.
      A cat's cradle of different levels of alcohol is being referred to in different ways by different Departments. There is a danger that that could be misleading. We all know that different amounts of drink affect different people in different ways. A former Opposition Member, Mr. Russell Kerr, was acquitted of a drink-driving charge because he managed to show that something in his gut generated alcohol. That was a most ingenious defence; and it shows that applying absolute levels in the way that the Government have applied them in different press releases can be extremely misleading for people who want to know what they have drunk.
      Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is just talking the Bill out, and he knows it.
      Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will be able to speak to his Bill later. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will be successful and also that the next Bill will reach the statute book.
      There is bound to be confusion in the labelling of low-alcohol beers. A recent press release from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on labelling controls on low-alcohol beers, stated:
      "This is a rapidly expanding sector of the drinks market. While my colleagues and I believe that existing labelling laws are broadly sufficient to ensure that lower alcohol drinks can easily be distinguished from normal strength products, we think it would be sensible to restrict the use of the term 'low alcohol' to those drinks not exceeding 1·2 per cent. alcohol by volume. Such drinks are unlikely to be intoxicating. It is important that the term 'low alcohol' should apply consistently to the whole range of alcoholic drinks if it is to be helpful to consumers."
      That is a very definite statement, and we need to know whether the Government's view has changed.

      Almost exactly a year ago—on 19 April 1989—a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food outlined a proposal to restrict the use of the description "low-alcohol" and similar terms. The second paragraph of the letter made it absolutely clear that the Ministry wished
      "to restrict the use of the description 'Low-alcohol' and similar terms to alcoholic drinks not exceeding 1·2 per cent. alcohol by volume."
      That is very different from the terminology that is used in the Bill. It is the burden of my amendment, and it is important that we should consider that.
      A press release from the Ministry of Agriculture dated 15 May 1989 referred to the strength marking of alcoholic drinks and to
      "New regulations giving consumers details about the alcoholic content of the drinks they buy".
      The release goes on:

      1711
      "The regulations, which were laid before Parliament today, will implement EC legislation making alcoholic strength marking compulsory for prepackaged drinks with an alcoholic strength of more than 1·2 per cent. alcohol by volume. The regulations also require strength marking indications to be given for a representative sample of dispensed drinks offered for sale in retail outlets such as public houses, wine bars and restaurants. The requirement for dispensed drinks is subject to a maximum sample size of six for Community-controlled wines and 30 for other alcoholic drinks and the information can be added to existing price boards or wine lists."
      The last bit is incomprehensible Eurospeak. However, the first part is clear: it shows that the Government have examined the issue carefully, and reached the conclusion that 1·2 per cent. is the right cut-off level.
      Let me complete my brief speech by congratulating—
      Mr. Sheerman: Brief?
      Mr. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have spoken for much less time than other hon. Members. I am sure that he does not wish to prolong my speech.
      On all these points, it is the Minister and the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, who will be able to clarify the different amendments and the effects that they will have. I have tried to put the case for my amendment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton both on his subject and on the skill with which he has steered the Bill towards its position today. I shall be supporting him. I shall not request a Division on my amendment.
      The House and the country owe my hon. Friend a debt for introducing a Bill which—subject to the points on which I seek clarification—will be of great benefit to society, especially in the two or three respects that I have identified.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I am privileged to follow the expert speeches of my hon. Friends. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that I do not propose to detain the House for longer than 10 minutes or so.
      I will start by declaring that—as stated in the Register of Members' Interests—I have an interest as consultant to the Brewers Society. In that position, I can confirm what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)—that the Bill is welcomed by the society and by the industry. There is a clear need for the definition that it introduces. It is also welcomed by Alcohol Concern and the Health Education Authority.
      Let me refer to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about what has happened in the marketplace. I shall refer specifically to a review in the Brewing Review of January 1990 of low-alcohol and alcohol-free beers. In view of the time, I will not go into the details of the review, but it is worth putting on the record its summary, which points out that, in two years, the market in the United Kingdom for low-alcohol and no-alcohol beers has been transformed. It is the fastest-growing sector of the drinks marketplace, and has accelerated more rapidly than any other drinks type in living memory. There has been a remarkable shift in consumer attitudes. The industry deserves credit for that, because the marketing has undoubtedly improved.
      Until 1987 or so, the sales of no-alcohol and low-alcohol beer suffered from a lack of credibility because of the poor perception that many drinkers had of product
      1712
      quality. However, today there is a new scenario. The most important fact is that regular beer drinkers now believe that no-alcohol and low-alcohol beers are a perfectly acceptable choice of drink—and not just when they are driving. That traditional perception has now changed, as is proved by the sales figures, which show year-on-year increases of more than 100 per cent. and more and more brands entering the market.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is to be warmly congratulated on bringing forward the Bill and on his expertise and, I hope, on seeing it complete its passage today. Hon. Members will be used to Scottish Members asking, "What about Scotland?" in tones varying from genuine inquiry to artificial outrage. I put myself on the side of the genuine inquirers.
      Mr. John Marshall: As always.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).
      However, I should not accuse my hon. Friends of overlooking Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) visited Scotland recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is renowned for the expertise that he demonstrated on the Standing Committee that considered the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, when he covered many aspects of the history of Scottish education. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) referred to his recent experience in Scotland.
      Unless I have completely misunderstood the position, all the amendments exclude Scotland. They relate only to clause 1. The House should think seriously before passing a Bill that would impose different percentages north and south of the border. Licensing legislation does not need to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. I imagine that that is because of the complexities of Northern Ireland legislation. The Bill would have been much longer if it applied to Northern Ireland. However, clause 2 applies to Scotland, and states:
      "from 'on analysis of to the words '1·2%' there shall be substituted the words 'is of a strength not exceeding 0·5%'."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton referred to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. My copy of that Act may be out of date and it does not contain that wording. It refers to degrees of proof and not to 1·2 per cent.
      Sir Peter Emery: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has a copy of the amendments to that Act, which was amended in 1971 and 1982 and which I took into account.
      Mr. Stewart: I am referring to a copy of the Act, which was reprinted in 1986. I may have misunderstood the position, but the meaning is the same although the wording may be a little different.
      With his customary expertise, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made an extremely well researched case. Technology is constantly improving. My hon. Friend referred to the Guinness product with 0·05 per cent. alcohol. We should not encourage people to drink to the limit if they are to drive. It is absurd to think that people can work out for themselves whether they are at a level of 78 per cent., 79 per cent. or 80 per cent. My

      1713
      hon. Friend the Member for Gedling put some technical points extremely well. In view of the time, I shall not repeat them.
      On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have spotted a misprint in Hansard. It says:
      "The general feeling is that a bear with an alcoholic content of 0·5 per cent."—[Official Report, 26 January 1990; Vol. 165 c. 1243.]
      That raises all sorts of visions. The obvious error is that the word should have been "beer".
      I make my final point to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes on amendment No. 4. The point behind my hon. Friend's amendment on point of sale is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will advise the House but I do not believe that in terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1987, the amendment is necessary.
      Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Gentleman had any information—this is a genuine inquiry—from the brewers about their view on the vexed and complex question of points of sale? Have they a view on that point?
      Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to points of sale in supermarkets?
      Mr. Dalyell: Yes.
      Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the brewers have a view on any legislation of that nature that comes before the House. That point is referred to in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is currently in another place and will be considered by this House later this Session.
      All the amendments would result in the Bill being different north and south of the border. That is undesirable. Therefore, I hope that the House agrees that it would be sensible for the excellent Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton to proceed to another place unamended.
      Mr. Sheerman: I shall not detain the House long on this Bill, which I broadly support. Indeed, the majority of Members of the House support it, although, as it is a Friday, they are not here in great numbers.
      I wish to make a general point before I mention the matters dealt with in the amendments. The Opposition believe and have believed for a long time that licensing laws are in something of a mess. The Bill will take a small step towards tidying up one corner of that mess. There should be a much broader inquiry into licensing laws and the problems caused by drinking in many communities.
      I agree with all the hon. Members who have spoken that under-age drinking is one of the most serious problems for crime prevention in Britain today. Any of us who live anywhere near even a small urban centre know that it is almost dangerous to go into town and city centres on a Friday or Saturday night if one is a"a respectable person" who hopes to keep out of any trouble. The extent of alcoholism and bad behaviour makes many towns and cities almost no-go areas. If the Bill makes a difference to that, we shall certainly support it.
      However, there are serious problems with the Bill. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)
      1714
      referred to some of them in his rather long speech. I am sorry that he is not here to hear my comments on his speech. He mentioned the problem of identifying young people when they buy alcohol to drink on the premises or from a shop. The Government must grasp that problem. We must require proof of identity to drink, and to buy alcohol to take away.
      We all know that the law on drinking under 18 is widely disregarded by the young and those who sell alcohol, whether in supermarkets, corner shops or public houses.
      Mr. Gale: I do not seek to delay the hon. Gentleman, but will he concede that that is perhaps a case for the voluntary identification cards for which many of us have pressed for a long time?
      Mr. Sheerman: Personally I am enamoured of such identification cards. If one wants to enforce the law on drinking under 18, it is logical that there must be some way of identifying who is 18. I have never pushed for the drinking laws that are in force in most of the states of the United States of America where one cannot drink legally until one is 21. I have always campaigned vigorously for implementing the law of drinking at 18 which has been widely disregarded. It is about time that we not only implemented it, but offered an alternative to young people. One problem is that there are few institutions, social occasions or social outlets where young people can drink anything other than alcohol. If the Bill provides a basis to ensure that our young people are not pressurised into drinking high concentrations of alcohol in large numbers, it will be welcome.
      The Brewers Society and the major brewers have taken a responsible attitude to informing Members about the Bill, but the Government should reconsider the advertising of alcoholic drinks and the way in which the consumption of alcohol is presented to young people. Much of the targeting of under-age drinkers—of 15-plus rather than 18-plus—is irresponsible.
      Again, we must present our young people with a choice and with socially congenial places in which they can mix with others of their own age where they do not feel that getting drunk is incumbent upon them. I am afraid that at the moment many young people believe that there is no alternative.
      I have already outlined one of the Opposition's worries about the Bill is an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) speaks, he will be able to put our minds at rest on the point about the evidence relating to the 0·5 per cent. and 0·05 per cent. alcohol by volume. We believe that the Government must reconsider that point and, having listened to the debate, it is clear that although the scientific evidence has come from only one side of the argument, there is cause for concern about the top-up problem. I am sure that that point can be met because I have always believed that if we can take a firm step in the right direction, it is better to take that step than not to take any steps at all.
      With that caveat, I reiterate that the debate has pinpointed some of the real problems of alcoholism and the consumption of alcohol and about what it can do to people's social and family life and to young people if they are encouraged to drink much too early in their lives, when they are not educated.

      1715
      I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), but she made an excellent point about the need for education about alcohol consumption. Education should teach people to drink sensibly and the lack of such education is all too often at the heart of our concerns about young people. I belong to a generation whose education on this was probably better carried out—and more abruptly. In those days, if someone tried to buy a drink when he was obviously under age, he got short shrift from the landlord who often knew him, his parents and the community as a whole. Unfortunately, that sort of thing does not happen today.
      I am glad that the Minister for Roads and Traffic has just come into the Chamber. I have been concerned for many years about drinking and driving. Over the past few years, the low-alcohol option has made a profound difference to drinking and driving. Although I should like other steps to be taken, such as random breath-testing, there is no doubt that the availability of low-alcohol or alcohol-free drinks has made a big difference to the problems for which we must make policy.
      We back the Bill warmly and wish it a fair wind. I just hope that the Minister will answer the few questions that have been put to him.
      1 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am encouraged by the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I agree with him that the Bill will help to deal with the problems that worry him. However, it would not be appropriate to discuss them fully at this stage, since we are dealing with amendment No. 8. It will be appropriate, nevertheless, to comment in turn on each of the interesting amendments that are grouped with amendment No. 8.
      Amendment No. 8, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), would restore in form, but with a different specification for both original gravity and alcohol by volume, the existing definition of intoxicating liquor in section 201(1) of the Licensing Act 1964. Even though the new specification in my hon. Friend's amendment is the same as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has included in his Bill, I am afraid that I cannot commend her amendment to the House. Nevertheless, I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend expressed that people may be confused about the level of alcohol in certain drinks. That, however, is a matter to be addressed by the labelling rules. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will give close attention to those rules if, as I hope, the Bill reaches the statute book.
      The problem created for the manufacturers and retailers of low-alcohol drinks by the existing definition of intoxicating liquor in the 1964 Act cannot, I am afraid, be overcome simply by tinkering with its references to a drink's original gravity and strength in terms of percentage of alcohol by volume, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone would do—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) so astutely observed in his first and shorter intervention. More fundamental change, of the kind provided for by clause 1 in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is essential if these problems are to be resolved satisfactorily.
      The present definition of intoxicating liquor in the 1964 Act needs to be changed because of the growing numbers
      1716
      of low and no-alcohol beers and wines now coming on to the market. Some of my hon. Friends referred to that problem. Broadly speaking, the Licensing Act 1964 prohibits the retail sale of intoxicating liquor in England and Wales without a justice's licence. It also makes it an offence for a licensee to sell intoxicating liquor to someone under 18 years of age. Intoxicating liquor is defined in the Act as spirits, wine, beer, cider and any other fermented, distilled, or spiritous liquor.
      However, the definition goes on to exclude from licensing controls any liquor which is found, on an analysis of a sample thereof, at any time to be of an original gravity not exceeding 1016 deg and of a strength not exceeding 1·2 per cent. alcohol by volume. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone would therefore leave the underlying problem as it is.
      The interpretation of the law is, of course, a matter for the courts, but in the absence of a ruling from them on the point we have taken the view that this definition brings within the scope of intoxicating liquor a considerable number of the low and no-alcohol drinks now on the market. This is because they are produced, in the main, from full strength brews from which some, or nearly all, of the alcohol is then taken out. Such drinks may, when they are sold, contain less than 1·2 per cent. alcohol.
      Some, like Kaliber and Barbican, may even qualify for the term "alcohol-free" because they have an alcoholic strength by volume at point of sale of less than 0·05 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes told us at some length this morning. Nevertheless, the inclusion in the present definition of intoxicating liquor of the reference to an original gravity not exceeding 1016 deg and the words "at any time" mean, we believe, that they must be regarded as intoxicating liquor for licensing purposes.
      The existing definition of intoxicating liquor was drawn up before low and no-alcohol drinks were produced and promoted, certainly on the scale that they are now. There must be considerable doubt that it was ever intended to have the effect it has in relation to low and no alcohol drinks.
      Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend will have heard the comments that clause 3 of the Bill means that it does not apply to Northern Ireland. He is an expert on the constitutional arrangements that affect Northern Ireland. Do the Government intend to move an Order in Council that would make the provisions of the Bill apply to Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Lloyd: The Northern Ireland Licensing Act 1971 is not amended by the Bill. It is a transferred matter that should be dealt with by Order in Council as has been the custom since direct rule. If the Bill reaches the statute book, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be considering sympathetically whether he should bring Northern Ireland legislation into line.
      There is, therefore, general agreement that the Bill my hon. Friend, the Member for Honiton, has introduced is a timely and sensible measure, although there were some questions about exactly how he should present it.
      One of the fundamental changes my hon. Friend is seeking to make to the definition of intoxicating liquor is to ensure that, in future, the test to be applied when considering whether a liquor licence is required before a

      1717
      particular product can be sold is its alcoholic strength at point of sale—not how strong it once was at some stage in the process of its manufacture.
      Such a change would end some of the anomalies to which the present law can give rise—for example, the situation in which some drinks containing between 0·05 per cent. and 1·2 per cent. alcohol at point of sale may be sold without a licence because in the course of their manufacture their original gravities did not exceed 1016 deg and their strengths 1·2 per cent. while others of comparable, or even weaker, strengths at point of sale may not, because when they were being produced, one or both of the limits specified by the law were exceeded.
      For that reason, clause 1 of my hon. Friend's Bill seeks in effect to delete from the present definition of intoxicating liquor the references to the original gravity of a drink and the words "at any time". I see my hon. Friend nodding in agreement.
      It is essential, if the purpose of clarifying this area of the law and ending the anomalies to which it can at present give rise is to be achieved, that those words no longer appear in that context. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and spoken to with her characteristic energy would, I regret, reintroduce the offending words into the definition of intoxicating liquor in the 1964 Act and thereby perpetuate the confusion and amomalies that she and the Bill are seeking to remove.
      I hope that my reply and the arguments to come of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will prove sufficient to persuade her to withdraw, if she is still here to do so.
      I now turn to the three amendments relating to alcoholic strength thresholds: amendment No. 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, amendment No. 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and amendment No. 10 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).
      In our consideration of the issue, we have been most concerned to look very closely at what, if the law were to be changed, should be the new threshold—that is the percentage alcohol by volume it would be safe to permit in drinks which could, in future, be sold without a licence. That concern was central to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. It would mean, for example, that such drinks could be retailed freely from unlicensed premises such as sweet shops, grocers and corner stores.
      Mr. Dalyell: I intervene to raise an issue that has been raised in the past by the Scottish Consumer Council which said:
      "Much has been made, in Parliament and elsewhere, of a recent study by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on under age drinking, which suggests that many young people do buy alcohol over the counter in various types of off-licenses. However, that study did not distinguish between small shops"—
      which the Minister mentioned—
      "and large supermarkets as a source of illegal sales. Amongst 17 year old boys in the survey, twice as many said they bought alcohol from off-licenses as from other types of shops, and evidence from other sources suggested that large national supermarkets were less likely to sell alcohol to minors than some small shops."
      It concludes:
      "Despite all that, the government decided earlier this year to back legislation which singled out the larger supermarkets and their customers for attention. That measure failed
      1718
      because of its impracticality. However it seems as though supermarkets and their customers are still in the government's sights."
      Will the Minister clarify whether supermarkets are still in the Government's sights?
      Mr. Lloyd: I confirm that the problems of under-age drinking are in the Government's sights. The problems are extremely complex, partly for the reasons implied by the hon. Gentleman, such as the variety of sources of drink. I shall not go down that path now, although I have registered the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
      The Bill aims to tackle the problems positively and makes available to youth clubs and other organisations where young people congregate the possibility of supplying a range of non-alcoholic or low-alcohol drinks, which they could not otherwise do, with the expectation and hope that at least some of the excessive under-age drinking can be diverted or diminished. It also aims to enable non-alcoholic or low-alcohol drinks to be freely sold in premises that already had justices' licences, such as public houses, hotels, off-licences and supermarkets. We have always recognised that this is a fairly complex question to which there is no simple answer. It seemed to us right that what might be termed the medical considerations should be paramount when deciding the right threshold to adopt.
      We therefore sought advice from the Department of Health on the issue. The advice that we received was that the most immediate concern is the short-term intoxicating effect of alcohol on young people. That is not to say that the possibility of long-term health consequences owing to chronic misuse of alcohol was not acknowledged, but rather that the short-term effects of consuming alcohol were considered more important for the purpose of this exercise.
      We were advised that the most important short-term physical effect of consuming any alcoholic drink is to produce a rise in blood-alcohol level. The higher the blood-alcohol level, the greater the risk of harm to the individual concerned. No alcoholic beverage can be said to be completely safe; even low-alcohol drinks will produce some rise in blood-alcohol level when consumed.
      The eventual level of blood-alcohol achieved will depend upon a variety of factors. First, the concentration of alcohol in the beverage; secondly, how much is drunk and how quickly; thirdly, the body weight of the drinker and whether the person concerned is male or female; fourthly, whether the drink is accompanied by food; fifthly, the extent to which the drinker is accustomed to alcohol; and, sixthly, individual differences in body chemistry.
      Setting aside the separate question of whether the consumption of a low-alcohol drink is likely to affect the attitude to alcohol in general of the young person concerned—that was the gist of part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone—and concentrating simply on the physical effects of consumption, we were advised that it was necessary to take certain steps to make a judgment about the maximum percentage of alcohol which should be permitted in drinks that were to be made freely available from unlicensed premises.
      It is first necessary to decide what is the maximum level of blood alcohol which would be regarded as acceptable in a young person. The advice that we were given was that 20

      1719
      mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood was an acceptable upper figure in this context. The legal limit for driving is 80 mg per 100 ml—four times as high.
      Secondly, sensible, arbitrary assumptions have to be made about the various factors that influence eventual levels of blood alcohol. I said earlier that those must be based on the likely pattern of the social use of low-alcohol beverages by young people. A minority of young people may consume such drinks to get drunk. If that is actually what they are intent on doing, it seems more likely that they will choose full-strength drinks from one or other sources from which they may obtain them.
      Mr. Dalyell: Forgive my curiosity and inquisitiveness, but where does that Home Office advice come from? I am sure that it is good, but I was asked from where it came.
      1.15 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: I had hoped that I had mentioned that. It comes from the Department of Health, the opinion of which will be the distillation of the medical advice it has received which, in turn, will be a distillation of the research and opinions of outside experts. The Home Office bases its advice on those contributions. We do not pretend to be experts on this matter. I would be surprised if there was any substantial expert on the subject whose opinions were not known to the Department and, therefore, had not influenced its opinion.
      There is a wide range of opinions on these matters. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes about Professor Li Wan Po. Research has also been undertaken by the university at Frankfurt and Charing Cross hospital that suggests that 0·5 per cent. alcohol beer—the upper limit in my hon. Friend's Bill—does not raise blood-alcohol level because the alcohol is metabolised by the body faster than it can be consumed. There is a wide range of opinion among the experts. I am providing a distillation of those opinions by the experts in the Department of Health, rather than representing any one, specific, expert view.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), having spoken for an unconscionable number of minutes, does not do his own Minister the courtesy of at least coming to hear the answer. Such behaviour does the House of Commons no credit.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman has referred to some of the courtesies of the House. As he knows, they are not matters for the Chair.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has been drawn from the Chamber for a few minutes by an important cause.
      I shall continue with the assumptions that have to be made when coming to a decision about what constitutes a reasonable threshold in law.
      It would be reasonable to assume that the majority of young people will seldom drink more than an average of two pints in one hour, six pints in three hours or eight pints in four hours. The percentage of alcohol by volume it would be safe to permit in drinks which are to be freed from licensing restrictions would then be a figure that would allow a typical young person to consume a reasonable quantity of such drink without exceeding a blood alcohol concentration of 20 mg per 100 ml of blood.
      1720
      Various methods exist to make such a calculation, all of which are approximate. The particular method on which the advice we were given was based uses as an example a young drinker who is a 15-year-old girl, 4ft 6in tall, weighs 5 stones and whose habitual consumption is one pint of 0·5 per cent. alcohol beer per week. That is probably not representative of any hon. Member, except my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone who, I am glad, is in her place.
      Drinking 1 per cent. beer, two pints in an hour without food would produce a blood alcohol level of 30 mg per 100 ml. That is above the limit regarded as acceptable and leads me to advise the House against accepting the amendment put down by my hon. Friend, the Member for Gedling, although he made his point persuasively and intelligently. As he said, his is a probing amendment, and I hope that my answer will satisfy him.
      Drinking 0·5 per cent. beer, the young girl in this example could consume up to six pints over three hours without any food and still remain within the acceptable blood alcohol level of 20 mg. Of course, the threshold for which my hon. Friend, the Member for Honiton has made provision in his Bill is that very one, of 0·5 per cent. Drinking 0·05 per cent. beer, the one recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, it would be virtually impossible for the young lady to exceed the acceptable limit of 20 mg. Even if she drank 32 pints in one hour, her blood alcohol concentration would still be only 15 mg.
      It is clear from all this that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes and Hendon, South deserve the most careful consideration by the House. However, on the basis of the medical evidence that we have received at the Home Office, the Government see no compelling reason why the threshold should be set as low as these amendments provide.
      Moreover, if the amendments were to be accepted, only a very few alcohol-free beers would be freed from licensing restrictions. Most low-alcohol beers and virtually all de-alcoholised wines would remain subject to the licensing regime. It seems to us, therefore, that in making provision in the Bill for a threshold of 0·5 per cent. alcohol by volume, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has got it about right. The Bill, as presently drafted, would free from the licensing requirement some 10 or so low-alcohol beers and all de-alcoholised wines. The latter, to qualify for that description under labelling law, must not exceed 0·5 per cent. alcohol by volume, which is the figure used in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 2, which has also been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, seeks to delete the words:
      "at the time of the sale or other conduct in question."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, the promotor of the Bill, has chosen to include the words
      "at the time of the sale or other conduct in question"
      in the revised definition of intoxicating liquor in section 201(1) of the Licensing Act 1964 for which the Bill provides. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to clear up once and for all the confusion to which the inclusion in the present definition of intoxicating liquor of the words "at any time" has given rise. Intoxicating liquor is there defined as
      "spirits, wine, beer … cider … and any other fermented, distilled or spiritous liquor".
      However, the definition goes on to exclude any liquor which is found, on an analysis of a sample thereof at any

      1721
      time, to be of an original gravity not exceeding 1016 deg and of a strength not exceeding 1·2 per cent. alcohol by volume.
      The interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. However, in the absence of a ruling from them on the point, we have taken the view that the inclusion of the present definition and the words "at any time" would serve to bring a considerable number of the low and no-alcohol drinks that would be released on to the market within the scope of that definition. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes seeks to do, although my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has advised the House that it would not be desirable to accept amendment No. 2. If we did accept it, I believe that it would probably make little difference to the effectiveness of the Bill.
      Amendment No. 4, also tabled by my indefatigable hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes seeks to bring the revised Scottish definition of alcoholic liquor into line with the equivalent English definition by adding the words:
      "at the time of the sale or other conduct in question."
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is not indefatigable enough to come to hear the Minister's answers. That is disreputable and I hope that the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, has his own thoughts on that.
      Mr. Lloyd: Amendment No. 4 would not be as helpful as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes intended it to be, as the additional words would seriously impair the proper operation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. To expand the Scottish definition in that way would render the point of sale or "other conduct in question" as the material time for determining the alcoholic strength of liquor. The amended definition would confuse interpretation and enforcement of Scottish licensing law which, at present, eschews all reference to material or other times. In particular, I am advised that the amendment would handicap the prosecution of various offences under the 1976 Act such as unlicensed trafficking in liquor or under-age consumption of liquor in a bar. I hope that my hon. Friend, if he returns to the Chamber in time, will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment, or at least not to push it to a vote, if that was his previous intention. I hope that I have managed to deal with all the major points in the debate. I hope that the House will accept the Bill as drafted.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary has made a carefully thought-out speech on a subject that is important to a great many people throughout Britain. An unconscionable amount of time was occupied by the hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), yet they did not even have the courtesy to be present to hear what the Minister had to say. I shall leave manners out of this because such behaviour goes beyond manners; it brings great discredit on the House of Commons. I shall write formally to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee to draw his attention to exactly what has happened today.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the normal courtesies of the House, and I am glad that he has done so but as I have already said, this is not a matter over which the Chair has authority.
      Mr. Lloyd: On a related point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) approached me courteously before he left to express his regret that he could not be here to hear my response to the debate.
      Mr. John Marshall: First, let me join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on his luck in the ballot and on his good sense in promoting the Bill.
      If brevity be the spice of wit, there has been little wit about our proceedings this morning. although we have had some wisdom, some academic learning and a great deal of concern about the impact of alcohol on society. The very fact that we are debating the Bill reflects strongly on social trends over the past 20 years. Twenty years ago, we might even have been laughed out of court because for someone to say then that he would not have a drink because he was driving was regarded as almost effete. Today, the folly of drinking and driving is recognised by virtually everyone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his work when he was Minister for Roads and Traffic and to the present incumbent of the post, who is in his place and happy to be listening to our debate today. We are pleased to have my hon. Friend here because he is the true representative of the red rose of England—unlike those politicians who have merely hijacked the red rose for their temporary electoral advantage.
      The problems of under-age drinking are of great concern. Several hon. Members have related under-age drinking to the problem of crime. It is a fact that people are most likely to commit crime at the age of 15 or 16. That may well reflect the tedium of the last year at school, but it also reflects the cost and folly of under-age drinking.
      The second problem to which I wish to refer briefly is that of drinking and driving. We have had much discussion of whether taking that extra draught of low-alcohol beer might push someone over the limit. It must be said that many people who are well below the breathalyser limit are a menace on the roads because the alcohol that they have consumed has made them less safe drivers than they would otherwise be. Those of us who speak in such terms, do not wish to be killjoys. We merely seek to get rid of unnecessary, unwanted accidents.
      As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, my hon. Friend the Minister made a moving and wise speech, and in an effort to help the House to make progress I should say that I propose not to press my amendment.
      Mr. Gale: I remind the House that I have a properly declared interest in Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. Also some years ago I had the good fortune to train as a counsellor in alcohol-related problems, and I hope that my credentials in the field are not questioned by the House. I have a particular understanding of the problems that alcohol misuse can cause and that understanding is certainly shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who spoke on behalf of the Brewers Society, and by members of that society collectively and individually.

      1723
      Brewers are in the business of providing pleasure and creating the environment in which their products can be enjoyed properly. They have no interest in sending people out of public houses roaring drunk to cause public affray or to climb into cars and cause accidents. That is the worst possible publicity. It is for precisely that reason that the Brewers Society has invested enormous sums of money in education programmes targeted at young people who are certainly at risk. That is also why it has invested many millions of pounds in the development of the products that we have been discussing all morning and that are referred to in the Bill.
      1.30 pm
      There has been and there remains a major problem with under-age drinking. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to that earlier in the debate. He criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for leaving the Chamber, but I see that he, too has now left the Chamber.
      Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend has left the Chamber on my behalf with a message and will be back directly.
      Mr. Gale: Perhaps sometimes one should look at the beam in one's own eye before criticising the mote in another's. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has equally pressing business in his constituency. We all understood and seek to observe the courtesies of the House, whether or not the cameras are upon us, and whether or not we wish that our Bills might have been reached.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to the difficulties that publicans face over identification. It is hard for a publican to differentiate in a crowd of people who are 15, 16, 17 or 18.
      I was pleased that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was able to acknowledge the proposal—which some hon. Members been putting forward for some time—that it would be enormously helpful to people running licensed houses, among others, to have available an officially recognised national but voluntary identity card scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will accept that. It would be better to have one organised, recognised, national scheme rather than a plethora of amateur schemes, but that is not the subject of this debate.
      The problems of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers have been fully discussed this morning. It is a fact that, as the law stands, until it is changed by the Bill there is an anomaly relating to the production of low-alcohol beers and to the reference in the Bill to "at any time" during the process. That has meant two things: first, that outlets supplying young people have been unable to supply those products; and, secondly, that the legislation has favoured imported products, in which the gravity at the point of sale is known but the alcohol content or gravity reached during production is not known. I can think of one German brand which has benefited—I shall not publicise it by naming it—whereas others produced to an excellent standard in this country have failed.
      Considerable technical problems exist in the reduction of alcohol to low and non-alcoholic levels. It is a fact that the flavour of products which contained alcohol during the production process but which are reduced to non-alcoholic standards suffer. For that reason and given the enormous growth in that market to which my hon. Friend the
      1724
      Member for Eastwood referred, the major slice of that growth has been in low-alcohol beers rather than in non-alcoholic beers. It would be a tremendous shame if the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in her excellent speech and amendment No. 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes were accepted and the level was reduced to the point that unpalatable products were offered to people who might want to buy low-alcohol beers. They might prefer a better taste and therefore purchase beers with a much higher alcohol level and in that respect I am thinking in particular of the young.
      I shall refer to an incident in my constituency, and I am sure that all hon. Members will have had similar experiences. Representatives of the Cabin youth club approached me a couple of years ago with the same problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is seeking to solve with his Bill today.
      Those representatives told me that, by implication, they had many young members under the age of 18 who liked to have a drink. They told me that those young people enjoyed low-alcohol beers and lagers and that Kent county council had told them that they could not supply those drinks because the youth club was not licensed. Because those beers and lagers reached a prohibited limit during their manufacture, although that limit did not apply now, the club could not sell them. I raised the matter with Kent county council and was informed, correctly, that the council was operating the law properly. I was told that my local youth club could not supply the young people with the product that they wanted. The result—something to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred earlier—was that the young people, who were quite happy to mix and meet in that largely non-alcoholic environment, went instead to local pubs because they wanted a pint of beer. The law had precisely the opposite effect to that which we all wanted.
      I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn or rejected because I would hate to see a counter-productive measure introduced into what is otherwise an excellent Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton on his Bill. I wish it God speed and I hope that it reaches the statute book very soon.
      Mr. Bill Walker: As a sponsor of the Bill, I must tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that my earlier absence from the Chamber—I was present at the beginning of the debate—occurred because I was carrying out duties that Scots frequently have to carry out on Fridays. I had to do my stint on television and radio and I am sure that the hon. Member for Linlithgow does his share of that. Inevitably that duty required me to leave the Chamber.
      As so many hon. Members have said, the Bill will go a long way towards dealing with the ghastly problem facing us today of the young who cannot find a place in which they can have refreshments without infringing the law. Reference was made to the possibility of an identity card system. When I was young, people under the age of 18 were not a problem. Those of us over 18 were usually in uniform and those who were not carried identity cards. There was no problem about access to premises. However, things change.
      When I was under 18 I participated in activities where there was no drink. However, the pattern of life has

      1725
      changed. If someone wants to run a disco he cannot do so without a licence if he wants to offer any light refreshment of the low-alcohol strength that the youngsters want.
      The problem has grown progressively worse over the years, because—sadly—more and more young people are infringing the law, simply because it has not accommodated the change in our society and the changing pattern of demand. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is to be congratulated on introducing a Bill to deal with this dreadful problem.
      In an earlier intervention I mentioned that we have a problem in Scotland with under-age drinking; it is a common problem throughout the United Kingdom, but I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards resolving it. I hope that my hon. Friend will reject the amendments, because the Bill as it stands is perfectly adequate, and will deal with what my hon. Friend set out to do. I congratulate him, and hope that the Bill has a swift passage.
      Sir Peter Emery: It is probably unusual for any hon. Member not to speak to his Bill until four hours and 10 minutes into the debate. Although, in another role, I suggested that speeches should be limited to 10 minutes, perhaps if I go over that limit by a minute or two I shall be forgiven.
      What does my Bill set out to do, and how do the amendments affect it? The Bill will establish a considerable limitation on alcohol consumption by under-age people, and that must be welcomed. It also stands an excellent chance of showing that social drinking is possible without people having to consume alcohol. Later I shall discuss the way in which that affects youth clubs and all that goes with them.
      A letter from Sir Donald Maitland, chairman of the Health Education Authority, will perhaps say more in support of my Bill than the kind remarks made by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members:
      "At a meeting this afternoon of representatives of the Health Education Authority, Alcohol Concern, the Brewers Society and the Wines and Spirits Association, we agreed to urge you"—
      that is the Minister—
      "to do all you can to ensure that Parliamentary time is made available to ensure the passage of Sir Peter Emery's Private Member's Bill on the Sale of Low and No Alcohol in Unlicensed Premises."
      People have asked who supports the Bill. As that letter shows, the answer is "everyone". That is most unusual—and necessary, if a Bill comes 16th in the ballot.
      When I examine the amendments, I feel that much of my job has been done. Sitting here, I felt slightly like a Secretary of State as the Under-Secretary did my job for me in answering so ably. I thank him for his support. Most of the questions were raised in the amendments, so I do not intend to go over many of the points.
      My hon Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) made a thoughtful and provoking speech, raising a number of matters. However, the weakness of her amendment—which does little to alter the intention of the Bill—is that it would limit the clarification in the Bill about the production levels and the way of production, so that the judgment made is of alcohol at the point of supply and sale, not of how it has been produced before it is supplied
      1726
      or sold. That is of great importance. I am certain that the producers of low-alcohol drinks feel that that is essential in meeting their ability to supply low-alcohol drinks.
      Much of the debate has been about that little extra amount of alcohol that could mean that a person would find himself over the limit and would commit an offence if he drove an automobile. I make it absolutely clear that the Bill has nothing to do with topping up. Hon. Members are trying to ensure a definition of low-alcohol beer. I do not wish to encourage people to drink so that they must question whether they should have another alcoholic drink, a non-alcoholic drink or something else. They should not be at that level and then get behind the wheel of a car.
      1.45 pm
      The topping-up argument has nothing to do with the Bill. We do not want people to think that because they had just one extra non-alcoholic drink having boozed themselves silly at an earlier time, they can drive a motor vehicle.
      I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind remarks in supporting my Bill. He asked me two questions, one of which was about my contact with the Scottish authorities. I have been in touch with the Scottish Office and certain representatives of the trade in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) are sponsors of the Bill. We tried to ensure that there was full and proper Scottish participation in the presentation of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow also asked me about the age problem. That question has been asked elsewhere. The Bill does nothing to solve the purchasing problem, but I hope that it will encourage many more youngsters to believe that there is no need to buy beers or wines. There will now be de-alcoholised beers and non-alcohol beers that will be quite adequate for them.
      The only way in which we shall overcome problems with retail outlets is by having identity cards. I support the introduction of national identity cards. We had them during the war and they were all right then. Nearly every other country in Europe has them. The only people who object to identity cards are those who break the law and do not wish to be found out. That subject is not part of the debate, so I shall take it no further.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) apologised for the fact that he could not be here because he had another parliamentary commitment. I thank him for his support, although I do not believe that I had to rely on Emperor Napoleon III. My hon. Friend posed an interesting question about specific gravity. We have simplified the matter. We do not need to refer to specific gravity because we do not need to refer to production structure; we need refer only to the percentage of alcohol in liquor at the time of sale. That is a helpful aspect.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) said that he would try to wait for my speech, but he had to leave. He asked whether I could answer his questions by letter if he was not here. That is the polite way of dealing with the matter, so of course I shall do so.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) provided evidence from Guinness Brewing GB. Much of the evidence that he quoted was on drinks

      1727
      with an alcohol content of 1 per cent., not 0·5 per cent. as the Bill sets out. The Minister's case, which was put much better than I could have done, made it clear why we have settled on 0·5 per cent. I wanted a level that was widely accepted throughout the industry. We must consider not only the brewers but the wine, cider and shandy producers. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes entirely forgot about those products in his argument.
      I am afraid that the matter raised by Guinness Brewing GB is a vested interest. If the amendment were carried, the company would be in almost a monopoly position. It alone would be able to provide low-alcohol and no-alcohol drinks and everything else would have to be licensed. That would do us no good in respect of youth clubs or letting the housewife know that children can go to the corner shop and buy any drink, and that it will not contain alcohol that could affect them. It would be wrong to put one brewer in that position, which would be the effect of my hon. Friend's amendment.
      The flavour of drinks and their ability to attract people to consume only those drinks would be massively reduced if the amendment were accepted. There would not be the variety of tastes. Certainly, wines and ciders could not be reduced to the level of alcohol in my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that that will find favour with hon. Members and that they will reject the possibility of proceeding to 0·05 per cent.
      Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I have had more than my fair share of time today. Will he reaffirm that, unamended, his Bill will allow a wide range of good British-made products to be made available to the public and in youth clubs?
      Sir Peter Emery: Yes, yes and yes again.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made some helpful and interesting remarks from the Opposition Front Bench. He made several genuine points. Further clarification of the licensing laws is something that we should all like. I have already dealt with under-age drinking. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support from the Front Bench.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) also supported the Bill. He raised a genuine point about the accuracy of some of its wording. I believe that we have got it right, but I shall look at it again to make certain that, before it goes to another place, it is right.
      In the hope that we shall not have many more speeches, I believe that the Bill will set a new era for youth clubs and make young people realise that it is not necessary to go to the pub and break the law in order to enjoy a social occasion. They can enjoy social drinking of low-alcohol drinks. Parents can encourage their children to participate in such occasions and Churches, youth club leaders and educationists can sponsor the social activities that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) mentioned. I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friends not to press any of the amendmets and that we can get on with the Bill.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 3

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 20 leave out from 'appoint' to end of line 22.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 21, leave out '30th June 1992' and insert '1st January 1994'.
      Miss Widdecombe: I shall not detain the House for long on amendment No. 7 because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) wishes to speak to his amendment, amendment No. 11, which is a halfway mark between what I wanted to do and what the Bill currently proposes. I am happy to leave the matter in his capable hands instead of pressing my amendment because I am aware that other hon. member wish to speak.
      I fully understand the frustrations of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about what has happened this morning. However, some of us have a solid record of speaking on licensing matters. I do so regularly and felt strongly in principle about the amendment that I moved earlier, although in practice it proved to be wrong. I apologised at the beginning of my speech for the fact that there would be times when I would be absent from the Chamber. I am now happy—
      Mr. Dalyell: I acknowledge straightaway that the hon. Lady has shown me absolute courtesy. What I object to is hon. Members making speeches as long as that made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr Brown) and then not being present to hear the Minister's reply.
      Miss Widdecombe: I do not wish to delay the House any longer by arguing the toss on that one. I am happy to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) can speak to his amendment, but if he wishes to pursue it, I shall ask him to move it formally later.
      Sir Peter Emery: I have been persuaded to give a longer period to Government before the essential introduction of the Bill and to extend the date from the middle of June 1992 to 31 December 1994.
      I am not willing to see the Bill pass through the House only to sit, like some private Members' legislation, on the shelf without being introduced simply because it requires a statutory instrument from the Government. I wanted to ensure that there was a date on which the provisions had to be implemented. I am happy for the Government to introduce the provisions earlier and we have given them the powers so to do through a statutory instrument.
      I have been persuaded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that because of the need to attempt to reach an agreement in the European Economic Community on labelling, and so that the industry would not have to implement two labelling alterations, implementation of the provisions might take longer than the period up to mid-1992. That being the case, it seemed reasonable to accede to the Ministry's request. I thought that another 18 months was long enough for the industry to get its finger out and to get on with the job. I hope that that is agreeable to the Government.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The original provisions allowed insufficient time for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to bring in the necessary labelling changes because they involved EEC regulations. The extra time will be extremely valuable to

      1729
      my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton that the Government not only want to see the legislation on the statute book, but want it brought into effect. There will be no delay on the Government's part and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his co-operation.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) wishes to withdraw amendment No. 7?
      Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 1, line 21, leave out `30th June 1992' and insert '1st January 1994'.—[Sir P. Emery.]
      Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
      1.58 pm
      Mr. Gary Waller: I shall detain the House for only a moment. While I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on the great progress that has been made today in bringing this Bill towards the statute book, I should like to comment on the role of the law in backing up the splendid efforts of not only my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic but his predecessor, in encouraging the brewers to produce and market effectively lower-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers and other beverages. Remarkable progress has been made during the past few years. This step, more than any other, has had an effect on drink driving.
      Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great virtue of the British system of Government is that this progress has been made voluntarily and by the action of independent interests rather than, as happens in so many countries, by means of statutory regulation?
      Mr. Waller: I agree with my hon. Friend. The effect of random breath testing would be minuscule compared with the work that has been done to encourage people to drink beverages that are unlikely to lead them to drive while under the influence of alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has backed up that approach by introducing sensible legislation which will work hand-in-hand with the voluntary efforts being made. I congratulate him on promoting the Bill and I look forward to it becoming law.
      2 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: May I address, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in two different capacities? First, he should be congratulated
      1730
      on promoting the Bill. However, there is a great lacuna in the House of Commons. We pass legislation, but there is no systematic monitoring of what we have achieved. In a year or so, therefore, it would be interesting if there could be an Adjournment debate on how the proposals have worked out in practice and whether they have led to the strides forward for which some of us hope.
      Secondly, the hon. Member is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that he will not just go away and forget what has happened today. There are lessons to be drawn from this debate. The Select Committee on Procedure should consider how we go about our business.
      2.1 pm
      Sir Peter Emery: I very much liked the first suggestion of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I hope that both he and I will be able to consider monitoring not just this Bill but other private Members' Bills to find out whether they have been brought into operation and whether they are achieving what it was hoped they would achieve. We need to follow up what we have passed to find out whether we have been successful. If one is trying to make profits, that is particularly important. There is just as much reason to do that for social and educational reasons. That applies especially to those who are concerned about the consumption of alcohol and drunkenness.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the second matter that he has drawn to my attention. If he does, it will, as he knows, be dealt with by the Select Committee on Procedure.
      I thank my hon. Friends and Opposition Members for their support; it has been excellent throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank, too, the Government for their support. I was praised for the drafting of the Bill. It would be unfair not to acknowledge that I had assistance from the Home Office to ensure that the drafting was correct. I should not want that fact to be unknown. I thank the Minister sincerely for his support.
      When the Bill becomes law, I hope that we shall send out a message to youth clubs, Church organisations and all those who are trying to deal with the problem of alcohol consumption by young people that this new structure will allow them to provide for the consumption of low-alcohol drinks in youth clubs and at other social gatherings. Parents will have the assurance that their children can go to those gatherings knowing that there will be no fear of drunkenness or alcoholism. If we have achieved that today we shall have gone a long way towards dealing with one of the social problems with which society has to deal.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  2.5 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I shall not be pressing any of the other amendments that have been selected by Mr. Speaker, but I feel particularly strongly about new clause 2 and wish to speak to it, even given the restrictions on time.
  The new clause seeks to put an absolute legal obligation on anyone who has horses available for riding without it having to be a commercial enterprise. The horses do not have to be available for riding for financial benefit or reward, they merely have to be available to be ridden by young persons. If I have any regret about the scope of the Bill, it is that it is limited to young riders and does not cover everyone. That said, it would be wrong for headgear to be made compulsory only in those establishments where young people could pay money to hire a horse and not if someone was lending a horse to the daughter of a neighbour, for example.
  Most of us who derive great pleasure from riding are aware of the necessary protection that headgear provides. But I am sad, because the design of riding headgear could have been tidied up, specified and made subject to statutory regulation within the scope of the Bill. I speak with some feeling, having been thrown from a horse when I was younger than 18 and wearing the necessary headgear. I was wearing the standard design which is favoured by many riders—a peaked hard hat. A bull bellowed over a gate like a trumpet at the last judgment, and my horse reared up and threw me on to a hard road. I was not hurt by the fall beyond a few scrapes and bruises, but the force of the fall drove the hat down across my nose. Although it did not break it, it did a substantial amount of damage and was the only real injury that I sustained from the fall. Another form of headgear that is gradually becoming more favoured by riding schools, but not so much by individual riders, resembles a motorcycle helmet. it does not have a peak which can be forced down by a fall, so it protects the head without the possibility of damage being caused by the hat itself.
  Any young person who rides his or her own horse or pony, a hired horse or a borrowed horse, in any place and in whatever conditions, should be made by law to wear protective headgear. It is very tempting to think, "I am only taking the horse down to the field. I am not out riding, so I do not need to put anything on my head and I do not want to have to go hack to the house and fetch a hat." Young people are particularly prone to such lazy thoughts. Even on a 10-yard journey, if the horse reacts unexpectedly, even an expert rider can be thrown and
  1732
  sustain severe head injuries. If we make headgear a legal requirement for motor cyclists, we should certainly make it obligatory for young people riding horses. I do not wish to develop that theme, but I shall press new clause 2 because the scope of the Bill is not wide enough and will leave many people vulnerable to injuries that can be sustained when riding.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall be brief. If my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) looks at clause 2(1)(b) she will see that the description of the protective headgear to be worn by children is carefully and firmly covered. It is important that that should be so and I take my hon. Friend's point.
  I was sorry to hear about my hon. Friend's nasty accident, but I hope that it will not colour her attitude to this important Bill.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. At 11 am, I raised a point of order, since when it has appeared on the tapes that the transcript of the conversations between the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and a third agency have, according to Downing street, come to light. Will the Government consider making a statement at 2.30 pm?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a matter for me, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been heard.
  Mr. Greenway: I have two reasons for asking my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone not to press new clause 2. First, owners of horses cannot possibly provide headgear for all the sizes of heads of children who will be required to wear it to ride horses. The safe, secure and firm fitting of headgear for riders is important. If headgear is not firm, safe and secure, it is valueless. One problem with the 80 per cent. of children under 14 who already wear protective headgear is that they may wear any protective headgear, but the Bill overcomes that and ensures that it is carefully and suitably fitted.
  My second reason is on health grounds. I run a riding scheme for deprived and disabled children in London. In the early days of the scheme, 26 years ago, we provided the riding establishments that children attended for instruction with a range of 30 protective hats. The parents of the children did not like them wearing them for health reasons, and we must accept that important point.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone will understand that I am not happy about new clause 2, but I accept the warm spirit in which she moved it.
  Mr. Gary Waller: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in resisting new clause 2, but I must say at the outset that I oppose the provisions of the Bill as a whole.
  One reason why the new clause is not appropriate is that many riding schools simply do not cater for or require children to ride on a road. Those schools may he located in fields some distance from a road. The new clause will make it necessary for all riding establishments to provide protective headgear whether or not they intend or envisage young people riding on roads.
  Miss Widdecombe: I do not follow the force of my hon. Friend's argument. It does not matter whether someone is riding on a field or road. If someone is going full gallop

  1733
  across a field, he could damage himself quite horribly by falling off. Surely the Bill's purpose is to protect people wherever they are.
  Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend is right, but the fact remains that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has brought before the House a Bill relating to riding horses on public roads. As it stands, the Bill includes bridleways, although I have an amendment seeking to exclude bridleways from the Bill.
  2.15 pm
  The Bill is essentially related to road traffic, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is present. It is not within the Bill's ambit to cater for the riding of horses in fields, although I fully accept that many accidents take place in fields. A study carried out in the midlands demonstrated that many more than half all accidents leading to medical treatment happen in fields or stables. However, the Bill is not about fields or anything other than roads. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with the Bill's objectives to include a requirement that would be unreasonable for many riding establishments in this country.
  I shall continue to relate my comments to the new clause, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me a little latitude because the Bill had no debate on Second Reading, but went through on the nod. Therefore, hon. Members have not had any opportunity to discuss the Bill's objectives, whether or not they include the provisions of the new clause put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).
  Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that because the Bill received Second Reading on the nod, there has been no discussion in the House about whether such legislation, imposing a particular form of safety protection, is necessary? I speak not as a rider, but as a former rock climber. The belief 10 years ago that helmets, or some form of protective headgear, were essential at all levels of climbing, is very much out of fashion now. More and more of the country's leading rock climbers eschew headgear because they regard it as dangerous.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill has received Second Reading, albeit on the nod, so it would be inappropriate to jog back to that stage now. We must stick to the new clause.
  Mr Waller: I take note of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).
  The Department of Transport has said that resources have to be directed at major road safety problems. I heartily endorse that. Fortunately, there are few accidents involving horse riders compared with the number of accidents involving pedal cyclists. Bearing in mind the little discussion there has been in the House—even in Committee only two hon. Members apart from the Bill's promoter and the Minister, spoke—and that only two of the Bill's sponsors are here to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, it is important that the many amendments down for discussion should at least be considered.
  1734
  The fact that a defence, included in the Bill that my hon. Friend originally brought before the House, has been removed from the Bill without debate is a good reason for debating those matters now. I do not doubt my hon. Friend's sincerity, and I recognise that he feels strongly about the matter. However, I hope that he will recognise that others feel that while the law has a part to play in many areas of life, we should be cautious and require good reasons before extending it into an area where many people still believe that personal responsibility, including that of parents and guardians, is important.
  Mr. Stern: I intend to speak briefly on the new clause. I find a number of aspects of the new clause troubling and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) will have time to deal with my doubts. I have two main doubts, First, the new clause refers to "young people under the age of 18".
  I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that we are dealing with young people who are at different stages of physical development. As the hobby, habit and skill of riding become more popular and as riding becomes more frequently available in schools, I have no doubt that more and more young people of many different ages will take it up. Will my hon. Friend comment on the practicality of the universal obligation she proposes, which would have the effect that any provider of horses that are available to be ridden by young people must carry a range of protective headgear wide enough to protect children from the age of about four?
  Miss Widdecombe: There is nothing in the new clause to prevent the young people in question from coming along with their own headgear. The new clause would insist that headgear should be made available. It would be in order for there to be an agreement between the owner of the horse and the person riding the horse that the latter would bring his own headgear. The new clause seeks only to stop young people borrowing a horse and riding it without headgear.
  Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend misses the point. A young person and his parent or guardian may come to try out riding for the first time without such headgear—and given the cost of equipment for most sports, it is highly likely that a child trying riding for the first time will come along without such headgear. The hon. Lady would place an onerous duty on the provider of the horse. Under the new clause, it would be necessary to provide a range of headgear for young people from the ages of four to 18.
  My hon. Friend has a detailed knowledge of health and social security matters. I am sure that she is aware of the increasing science involved in the study of head injuries and the necessity to provide different types of headgear for different bone structures. I am worried that the duty she seeks to impose is unduly onerous, especially for small riding establishments.
  Secondly, who is to enforce that duty? Are we saying that under the law, it will be necessary for an enforcement body to check periodically whether a riding establishment provides a range of headgear to cover every potential customer? Where are the resources to come from to provide what would effectively be an inspectorate for riding establishments? Where is the register of riding establishments necessary for that inspection to work?
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I must explain that all riding establishments have to be licensed and that they are

  1735
  inspected before being licensed. Part of that inspection could easily include examining the headgear that should be available. However, I have two objections to the new clause, including an objection on the ground of hygiene.
  Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend is quite right, but under any sensible inspection regime, a once-and-for-all inspection is wholly inadequate. An additonal duty will therefore be placed on the inspectorate to ensure that an adequate range of headgear is made available for the purposes of the Bill. I am happy for such a duty to be laid on the inspectorate if the Bill is passed, but I question what resources would be necessary and whether we should place such a duty on every single riding establishment.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Bill. My view on the new clause is that I do not think that we should complicate the Bill too much. I declare an interest because I was brought up on a pony and during an undistinguished career as an amateur steeplechase jockey I had the chance to ride in about 50 races. I owe my life to the fact that I was wearing a crash hat when I had a number of bad falls. We should do all what we can to get the details of the Bill right. I tabled several amendments to the Bill, but unfortunately they were not selected. I had the idea of adding after the word "horses" the words "cows and other large quadrupeds".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to amendments that may or may not be discussed later. He must stick to the new clause.
  Mr. Bellingham: In an ideal world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill would also refer to cows and other large quadrupeds. We say that we are concerned about children riding horses and ponies but I have seen children riding bulls, elephants and camels. They could well ride such large quadrupeds without the proper headgear. However slim or remote the evenutality may seem, we should be aware that that could happen and I trust that the Minister will refer to it in his remarks.
  We should be careful about complicating the Bill by adding the new clause. The Bill is excellent and I have always supported it. I particularly welcome the growing trend in riding circles for children and riders of all ages to wear proper approved crash hats rather than hunting caps, bowler hats or other forms of headgear. More and more responsible riding establishments, parents and horse owners will not let a horse out of the yard unless the rider is wearing a proper crash hat. We all know that, as a result of the move towards better safety standards, many lives
  1736
  have been saved. In the past, a large number of jockeys and stable lads at racing stables were seriously injured because they were not wearing proper headgear when they fell off a horse on the flat. Ten years ago, before the Jockey Club introduced rules whereby all riding stables had to insist on everyone wearing a proper crash hat, many accidents occurred that could have been avoided. That was probably the start of riding circles' increased efforts to insist that children in particular wore crash hats.
  The Bill is a move in the right direction. I should have preferred it to be wider but, bearing in mind the objections expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am prepared to accept it as drafted. It would be a mistake to complicate the Bill by an unnecessary new clause and it might prevent this excellent Bill from proceeding.
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I have only a few moments and I do not intend to be on my feet at the close of play. Let me record first of all the Govenment's support for the Bill in general terms but our worries about the new clause, which would require persons who own, control or possess horses available to he ridden by young people under the age of 18 to have a supply of headgear that satisfies the regulations. A similar clause was moved in the Standing Committee, of which I was not a member. The clause is tangential to the purpose of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that children riding horses on the road should have to wear helmets. Irrespective of the place from which they set out and in what circumstances, an offence will prima facie have been committed if a child is discovered riding on the road without a helmet.
  The problem about new clause 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), is that a riding establishment may allow horses to be ridden only in the field, which is not within the scope of the Bill. It would be inconsistent to impose an obligation to hold helmets at a riding school whose horses are ridden only in fields, so we cannot support the clause.
  Miss Widdecombe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.
  Mr. Waller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for me to speak on amendment No. 16—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  It being half-past Two o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 April.

  Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
    New Clause 2

      PROVISION OF HEADGEAR
      `Any person who owns, controls or possesses horses which are or may be available to be ridden by young people under the age of 18 (whether or not for hire or reward) shall be under a duty to make available a supply of headgear which satisfies the provisions of regulations issued under Section 2(b) of this Act.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.

  Private Members' Bills
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were in the Chair at 2.10 pm when I raised, on a point of order, the statement by No. 10 Downing street to the effect that the transcript of conversations between the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and a third agency had now come to light. I ask that a Minister should come to the House to explain exactly what had happened and why it was that when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry offered a statement on that subject on Wednesday, the transcript at that time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks more to the Government than to me. What is the point of order?
  Mr. Dalyell: My point of order is on whether you have had any approach from any Minister. I warned Mr. Derek Kerr, one of the Private Secretaries in Downing street, that I would raise the matter. Have you had any requests from any Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence or a representative of the third agency—which is the responsibility of the Prime Minister—to come to the House to explain precisely what has happened, when those transcripts came to light, when they were brought to the knowledge of Ministers and when the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), first knew that there was a problem about the export orders to Iraq, which is the question that I and other hon. Members have been asking since last Wednesday?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can deal with the hon. Member's point. I have had no such request, but I am sure that the issues he has raised have been noted.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not generally accepted that even on a Friday, when a lot of hon. Members leave the building, Ministers should always be available? That even applies during the long recess. It appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave due notice at 11 am today about the purpose of his remarks and the fact that there is a cover-up involving No. 10 Downing street, and various other Departments, including the Department of Trade and Industry, over the Iraqi gun fiasco. We are reaching a sorry state when we have a Government who supposedly believe in defence but do not know the difference between a gun barrel and a pipeline. My hon. Friend is trying to get to the root of the matter. Parliament should deal with it. The Chair is being placed in an invidious position because Ministers are not available to answer such important questions. Every day that passes, Ministers are failing in their duty.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has openly declared his desire to see his Ministry abolished. Is there any wonder that the Iraqis are able to buy guns and God knows what else when a Minister says, "I want to get rid of my Department." That really is a scandal.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can merely reiterate that I have had no request in respect of a statement.

  Private Members' Bills

    SECURITY SERVICE ACT 1989 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must pursue the remaining Orders of the Day.

    HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS CLAUSES ACT 1847 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 May.

    POLITICAL PARTIES (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mr. Skinner: Friday next.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member have the authority of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill?
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, Friday next.

    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITALS (OPTING OUT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Skinner: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

    MEDICAL SERVICES FOR WOMEN BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    LOCAL AUTHORITY PLAYING FIELDS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    RAOUL WALLENBERG (MEMORIAL) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 May.

    ADOPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 May.

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Skinner: On behalf of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

    MOTOR TRADE (CONSUMER PROTECTION) (NO. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Skinner: On behalf of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill Friday next.

    TAX RELIEF FOR HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYERS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    EDUCATION (SCHOOL GOVERNING BODIES) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.

    GREYHOUND BETTING LEVY BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [16 February].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed. What day?
    Mr. Skinner: With the authority of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

    FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Skinner: With the agreement of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

    BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Skinner: On behalf of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

    TERM AND QUARTER DAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Roger Moate: With the agreement of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

    MARRIAGE (REGISTRATION OF BUILDINGS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    RIGHTS OF WAY (AGRICULTURAL LAND) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Rights of Way (Agricultural Land) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Hospital Facilities (Isle of Sheppey)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  2.38 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I welcome this opportunity to raise in the House the closure of acute hospital services on the Isle of Sheppey and the urgent need for new hospitals on Sheppey and in Sittingbourne. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is here to reply to this important debate.
  To many, an Adjournment debate in the House may seem to be a modest affair. However, I assure the House that it is of the utmost importance to my constituents that Parliament and the Government understand that there is a sense of crisis prevailing on the Isle of Sheppey.
  Three months from now we face the closure of acute medical and geriatric services on Sheppey. Three years ago we saw the closure of surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology on Sheppey—a modern maternity unit. Before that, some years ago, the full casualty service, children's wards and the paediatric service were also closed.
  The Isle of Sheppey is in the prosperous south of England, and has a population of 35,000 that more than doubles in the summer months. It is an important industrial area, containing one of Britain's successful ports, one of its most successful steel mills and much more. Its only link with the mainland is a lifting bridge and an inadequate road system. Now it has no acute hospital facilities. Is it any wonder that its residents are angry, and that many consider the problem to be literally a matter of life and death?
  All this follows years of progressive rundown. It is almost exactly 20 years since, in a maiden speech, I spoke of the need to defend our local hospitals, and I have done so again many times since while presenting petitions and in Adjournment debates. Often dedicated local action groups such as the Sheppey watch committee have sent deputations to Ministers—Conservative and Labour—and have received kind and helpful assurances; nevertheless, the rundown has continued. We now feel that we have come to the end of the road.
  My constituents and I want real, tangible help, and I intend to continue to press for that help from the Minister and the Secretary of State. We want new hospital facilities—not in the 21st century, but soon. We are not crying for the moon; we are merely asking for the implementation of sensible, practical proposals that already form part of a proper district and regional strategy. Our plea is for the minimum level of hospital services that the people of Swale are entitled to expect in the 21st century. It is also a plea for extra resources, and Ministers can exert their influence directly in that regard.
  We want a fairer share of those resources for the Medway health district, to enable it to build new hospitals and to finance it from year to year. For years local Members of Parliament, among others, have argued that Medway is a deprived district in an otherwise prosperous region. In 1985, under the old resource allocation working party formula, Medway had reached only 77 per cent. of its target. To correct the shortfall, we were entirely dependent on the rate at which other districts in the theoretically over-provided south-east could reduce their expenditure—and that was a pretty forlorn prospect.
  1742
  Surely it is self-evident nonsense that the largest, most concentrated population centre in Kent—which is certainly not the wealthiest part of the region—should receive the poorest hospital provision. When it was decided to end the RAWP system, many of us thought that Medway would at last receive proper funding from the region or from central Government; sadly, we now learn that that is not to be. Under the new resident capitation rules—I am not sure whether they have been finalised—Medway will remain much poorer than most other parts of the region. It will be £13 worse off per resident than the next worst-funded district in South East Thames. Medway will receive £173 a head, and Brighton some £212. The teaching district of Lambeth will receive about £400 a head and Greenwich about £268 a head, although I accept that different considerations apply there.
  It has always been suggested that a safety net figure of about £200 a head should be built into capitation. Such a fair system would give Medway about £9 million a year, and Brighton about £13 million. That would enable us to fund our much-needed hospital programme, which has already been largely agreed in principle by all concerned.
  As I understand it, the reason for the under-provision proposed in the new arrangements lies in the fact that the region has a number of districts with a higher proportion of elderly people. But in those districts there are almost twice the number of private hospitals and private nursing homes per 1,000 population over 65 than we have in Medway. Does it make sense to give more money to relatively prosperous retirement areas and less money to poorer or relatively poorer, more concentrated industrial areas? The logic of that does not bear too much analysis. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at that matter closely, urgently and sympathetically. If we can get this matter right, other things will follow.
  The first thing that we need is a fair allocation of extra revenue—for example, the missing £9 million plus for Medway. The rules are not being changed, and this is the moment for the Minister to help us. The next thing that we need is approval for the Medway hospital phase 3C project which was taken out of the programme this year—that was a tremendous shock in Medway, which has a history of a sense of deprivation—just when the project had reached tender stage. It was another major setback for us. At the same time we need my hon. Friend's help to secure immediate funding for our primary care hospitals on Sheppey and in Sittingbourne.
  I shall not rehearse the arguments for and against the concept of primary care hospitals. However, for many years many of us have campaigned for what was the declared policy objective—a second district general hospital in Swale or the so-called bi-polar strategy. That district general hospital, which would have been at Sittingbourne and would have replaced Sheppey general hospital and other facilities, obviously would not have satisfied the aspirations of the people of the Isle of Sheppey to have their own district hospital. The concept of a second district general hospital has been so reduced and undermined as to have lost credibility and support. Of course, there are those who urge that Sheppey general hospital should be restored to its full general hospital status—120 beds, a full range of services, casualty, surgery, medicine, maternity and so on. I should like nothing better than that.
  In practice, we are faced with the overpowering logic not of politics or resources—not in any meaningful sense,

  1743
  anyway—but of the changing medical technology and more stringent standards that are imposed on us by the royal colleges. We understand also that a new district general hospital with a full range of consultant cover is designed to serve a much greater population than the population of the Isle of Sheppey. That is the argument for or against a new hospital. As much as we should like it, we recognise that there is little prospect of it ever happening. Our view and that of most people on the island and of Medway health authority has always been that we should retain the widest range of acute services until we can get new provision for hospitals in Swale. That consensus has been underminded by the royal colleges.
  I must now record my resentment and anger at the behaviour of the royal colleges. I have said elsewhere that their attitude makes them appear not as protectors of the public, which is how I presume they would see themselves, but as predators. That is a harsh thing to say, and they will understand why. They always seem concerned that their senior house officers might suffer from remoteness and not get the necessary training and experience from hospitals such as Sheppey general hospital, but apparently they do not care that that very remoteness endangers the lives and well-being of the patients whom they are supposed to serve. It was only two years ago that the Royal College of Physicians accepted the present arrangements at Sheppey, but now it gives us just a few months' notice that, in effect, acute medicine and acute geriatric services must be withdrawn from Sheppey.
  We now come to primary care hospitals. Let me make it clear that this is no cheap-jack solution. It is estimated that the four primary care hospitals planned for Medway would cost as much as a district general hospital. I believe it to be a good concept, but it is certainly not cheap. The concept has been approved by Medway district health authority and by most local bodies, including the community health council. The region has accepted that a case of need exists, and it goes along with the concept.
  Each primary care hospital is expected to be based on between 30 and 72 in-patient beds, sites between three and six acres, entrance and reception areas, day hospital areas, out-patient clinics, treatment rooms for minor casualties, minor elective surgery, X-ray facilities and some pathology facilities. The primary care philosophy would depend for its success on a major contribution from general practitioners. That must be funded if only because it will mean extra GPs. It would depend on greater reliance on senior nursing skills, which would be welcome, extensive out-patient clinics, which would involve all consultants, and limited casual facilities. Such hospitals could obtain the confidence and involvement of the local communities and be seen as a logical complement to the high-tech district general hospitals.
  Primary care hospitals must be purpose-built, modern and well-funded. There is talk of using existing buildings as an interim measure, given the present emergency. That is not a good solution, but it might be the only one available. None the less, we should not lose sight of the urgency and importance of obtaining funding for the new primary care hospitals.
  How can we obtain approval and the resources for the new hospitals at the earliest opportunity? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that if we come forward with proposals for what I might call unconventional funding we shall have her support in securing approval from her Department and the Treasury. If we simply ask
  1744
  for conventional funding I hope that she will do her utmost to persuade the regional health authority of the necessity of giving Medway district health authority its fair share of support as a matter of extreme urgency. My hon. Friend could do a tremendous amount to help us on the Isle of Sheppey in those important matters.
  I shall make two more brief points. Although I could spend much more time on the subject, that time is not available. Last year the Secretary of State insisted that a transportation study should be undertaken to examine the problems that arise from the remoteness of many people on the Isle of Sheppey, in Sittingbourne and elsewhere, and their difficulty in gaining access to centralised hospital facilities following the closure of local facilities. What has happened to that report? Has it yet been received and when can we expect results from it?
  My last point is important, but I do not have time to deal with it at any length. It is what I call the "life and death" question for people living in remote areas. They have seen acute emergency local hospital services progressively run down. That might be an inevitable consequence of changing technology and centralisation but none the less people are entitled to the assurance that they will receive the same, or better, immediate life-saving and emergency treatment as in the past. Presumably, that depends on increased paramedic ambulance services, and on the provision of a range of life-saving equipment at local and community hospitals and at doctors' surgeries.
  People on the Isle of Sheppey will want to know how the hospital service in its broadest sense will give them and their families the assurances to which they are entitled. On that matter and the general question of our inadequate hospital services in Swale, I hope that my hon. Friend can help us.
  2.53 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on so persistently, carefully and thoughtfully setting out the understandable anxieties of his constituents about the development of health services in his area. He forcefully made it clear that in the prosperous south-east the Isle of Sheppey has special circumstances and needs. I know the area moderately well because in a previous role I visited the Isle of Sheppey to look, not at health services but at birds. I am therefore well aware of some of the geographical features, and especially of the fact that the Isle of Sheppey is bound to the mainland by one bridge. I am also aware of the understandable effect of those geographical conditions on the provision of health services.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham said,, he has raised the concerns of his constituents on several occasions in the House and I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate to rehearse these precise points once again. Before responding to his case, I wish to point out—as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware—that it is the Government's policy to delegate responsibility for the provision and organisation of local health services to local management. The Government provide a framework for those services by setting priorities and guidelines and by providing resources to the regional health authorities to allocate in turn to the district health authorities.
  I shall be taking up a number of points that my hon. Friend has raised in more detail with the chairman of the

  1745
  regional health authority to see what further room there may be for manoeuvre and clarification and to ensure that my hon. Friend's constituents receive the improving quality of patient care that we wish to see throughout the country.
  I understand my hon. Friend's concern about Medway health authority's recent announcement that further acute in-patient facilities will be removed from the island to hospitals in the Medway towns on the mainland. As he said, the circumstances are similar to those which led to the transfer of obstetric and gynaecological services from Sheppey general hospital to the mainland initially on a temporary basis in 1987. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State approved proposals to make the changes permanent in May 1989 and, in making his decision took account of the higher standard of care—in the form of the comprehensive back-up facilities and expensive medical technology—that would be offered by centralising acute in-patient services.
  My hon. Friend thoughtfully spelt out some of the considerations that arise from the changing technology of medical care. Whereas in the past it was possible to have several district general hospitals, offering roughly equivalent standards of care, increasingly with the techniques that are becoming available and the methods of resuscitation, intensive care and the number of facilities that are normally expected, health authorities have to think again about the way in which their resources are deployed.
  My hon. Friend expressed something stronger than disappointment about the announcement by the Royal College of Physicians that from 31 July 1990 it is planning to withdraw accreditation for junior doctor training at Sheppey general hospital. The facilities offered for training there are, indeed, limited. There is no coronary care unit, no on-site surgery; a limited range of radiology and pathology facilities; library facilities are poor and there is no accommodation for any postgraduate activity. The withdrawal of its accreditation for training means that it would be difficult to staff the hospital in its current role. I well understand my hon. Friend's reaction to that announcement. I am sure that he will understand that as I also have responsibility for junior hospital doctors, I have perhaps more understandings of their position on this matter. Nevertheless, I am well aware of my hon. Friend's reaction to the implications for his constituents.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, the health authority's long-term strategy was to offer acute services from a centralised site at Medway district general hospital in Gillingham and to suport them by local primary care hospitals, one of which would be Sheppey general. Again, my hon. Friend spelt out in some detail the important contribution that primary care hospitals can make. However, the royal college's decision means that the health authority finds it necessary to proceed with long-term plans for Sheppey earlier than intended. I should emphasise, however, that the health authority will be considering carefully the consultation required, given that it believes that it is necessary that the changed pattern in service should be in place by August, but certainly the community health council's views will be taken into account.
  1746
  Similarly, I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about transport. We have already described the geographical location of Sheppey. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health recognised those problems in May 1989 when he approved Medway health authority's plans involving the permanent closure of obstetric and surgical in-patient services at Sheppey general hospital and requested that a report on transport services for Sheppey residents should be made. As my hon. Friend is aware, Medway health authority officials will shortly be meeting Kent county council officials to review transport services. Following that, I hope that it will be possible to give further information to my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend will also be aware, no doubt, that since the transport survey was undertaken, the excellent south-east air ambulance is now operational. The primary role of that service is to provide speedy transport to the hospital services required, especially for patients who are ill or injured in isolated rural areas such as Sheppey, where access may be difficult.
  I am aware that in particular the lifting bridge, giving the only road access, has been a source of serious concern. The helicopter service carries a team of specially trained paramedics who can provide on-the-spot emergency treatment and stabilise patients before transporting them to hospital services. It is based at Rochester airport and became operational in December. Since then, it has proved its worth in speeding accident victims to hospital and transferring patients to units that provide the specialist care that they require for their recovery. From the date that it was put into service until April of this year, it has already responded to seven calls from the Isle of Sheppey, four of which resulted in the patient being speedily removed to hospital on the mainland.
  To take up my hon. Friend's point about the importance of recognised paramedic qualifications, after the disappointment that surrounded the dispute this winter there has been widespread recognition of the importance of paramedic training for real accident and emergency cases. That issue is being considered by the Department of Health, throughout the Health Service and in the regions. I shall certainly incorporate my hon. Friend's comments in our thinking on the matter.
  My hon. Friend also raised questions about the finances of Medway health authority. He will be aware that the allocation of resources to the health authority is a matter for South East Thames regional health authority. Last year, the health authority received an allocation of just over £66 million. That has risen to just over £73 million for this year.
  The region as a whole will benefit from the new weighted capitation system of funding, to which my hon. Friend referred. The region's interim proposals for the pace of change for districts from the resource allocation working party system of funding to a weighted capitation system of funding mean that Medway will receive the same growth money as that previously planned under RAWP—a sum of £870,000 for the current financial year.
  My hon. Friend referred in detail to the nature of his constituency and to social deprivation. The formula used by the Department to allocate funds to the regions takes account of the size, age and health of a region's population, with an additional allowance for the higher cost of providing services within London. To some extent, deprivation is recognised in that formula, as in taking account of the pattern of ill health the Department uses

  1747
  information related to premature death rates, which are known to be closely correlated with measures of deprivation.
  Regions will allocate money to districts using a weighted capitation formula, but they also have discretion to include weightings in addition to those used in the national formula in order that funding may be sensitive to local circumstances. The Department has encouraged regions to consider factors such as social deprivation, if that is appropriate and significant locally.
  The question of social deprivation is one which South East Thames regional health authority is currently considering. Discussions are in progress as to whether that factor might be taken into account and, if so, on what basis. I cannot say, as yet, what the outcome might be for Medway health authority. However, I urge my hon. Friend to take up his views on social deprivation in Medway with the chairman of South East Thames regional health authority. I am sure that he would welcome the opportunity to consider that aspect, in view of the regional health authority's continuing discussions on that matter.
  We should not lose sight of the fact that when the weighted capitation system of funding comes fully into play, the role of the districts will have changed. They will be not the providers but the purchasers of health services for their resident population. That important but subtle distinction, which is part of our proposals for reforming and improving the Health Service, means that the district health authorities, along with the family practitioner committees—to be known as the family health service authorities—will have a special role of examining the health needs of their local population and deciding how best to meet those needs within the available resources.
  My hon. Friend also expressed his concern about the delay in starting the next phase of Medway district general hospital. He will know that a £35 million capital programme is being undertaken. He will appreciate that, along with a number of other capital programmes in the region, the time scale for it has had to be reviewed because of falling land prices. It is a matter that will require further consideration and I shall certainly take into account the important points that my hon. Friend made, particularly in the light of the new circumstances surrounding the royal
  1748
  college's decision. However, I should not wish that setback to detract from the recent achievements in the health authority's capital programme. I understand that there has been a 1·8 million development at Keycol hospital, which will provide day care and in-patient facilities for the elderly mentally ill. That facility has recently become operational. It serves a group who, frankly, in the past, were not given the priority that they deserve. It will serve the Isle of Sheppey and Sittingbourne.
  Earlier this year, another major stage of Medway district general hospital started taking its first patients. It was a £13·8 million development taking patients for psychiatric, psycho-geriatric and geriatric treatment. I am delighted to have accepted an invitation formally to open that development and very much look forward to seeing at first hand some of the new, modern facilities at Medway district general hospital that can provide improved care.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the role of primary care hospitals and the way in which they can be funded and further progress made. When specific proposals are brought forward, I and my ministerial colleagues will consider them carefully and have urgent discussions with the regional health authority about the best way in which progress can be made.
  In referring to the enhanced role of the family practitioner service, my hon. Friend hit upon one of the fundamental directions in which we wish our Health Service to move. There has been a substantial increase in spending, in numbers and in the care that general practitioners provide to their patients. Our recent proposals, including the contract and the opportunities provided in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, are a vote of confidence in general practitioners and will ensure that the family practitioner service works closely with the community services. The acute services will be fundamental to providing the quality and standard of health care that I know my hon. Friend seeks. He represents a constituency—
  The Question having been proposed after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House Without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eight minutes past Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Children
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will attend the summit meeting of world leaders to be held by the United Nations on 29 to 30 September to address the urgent needs of children in the 1990s; and if she will make a statement about the role of Her Majesty's Government in planning the agenda for the meeting.

  The Prime Minister
  I cannot yet say whether it will be possible for me to attend this summit. The United Kingdom is, however, contributing actively to its preparation. We are a member of the planning committee set up by the six original sponsors, and are also playing a full part in the working groups set up to prepare particular aspects.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers (Criminal Proceedings)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish for each of the last five years for each local education authority the number of teachers who lost their posts following a successful prosecution in the criminal courts.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not available. A teacher's employment may be terminated as a result of misconduct (whether evidenced by criminal conviction or otherwise) either following a decision by my right hon. Friend to exclude him or restrict his employment, or as a result of internal disciplinary proceedings by his employer. The available information relates only to decisions taken by my right hon. Friend and is not categorised by local education authority area.

  Asbestos (Schools)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have asbestos in them; and where they are located.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department does not keep records of how many individual schools contain asbestos.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Vagrancy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people of no fixed abode were arrested in the years 1988 and 1989 in(a) the Metropolitan police district and (b) England and Wales.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information requested is not available.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total sums airlines have been fined under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act for each year since its introduction; and what are the figures for each airline.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of demands for payment of the currently set penalty of £1,000 issued to all carriers (that is, airlines and sea operators) in each year since the introduction of the Act in March 1987 was as follows:

  Number

  1987

  3,921

  1988

  4,211

  1989

  6,337

  Information on demands issued to individual airlines is not readily available.

  Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has responsibility for instigating disciplinary procedures against justices' clerks.

  Mr. John Patten
  This is a matter for the magistrates courts committee concerned.

ENVIRONMENT

  European Environment Commissioner
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the European Environment Commissioner; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend met Commissioner Ripa di Meana at the meeting of the Environment Council on 22 March. The outcome of these discussions was reported in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 March.

  Wargaming
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of wargaming upon the environment; and whether he plans to take any protective measures.

  Mr. Trippier
  Sensitive environments are protected in appropriate cases by regulations and byelaws against damage from recreational activities. Local authorities and local residents have powers to take action against excessive noise or other forms of nuisance. The need for additional protective measures is kept under constant review.

  London Demonstration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the organisers of the anti-poll tax march and rally held in London on 31 March asked to transfer the rally venue to Hyde park; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on 19 April.

  Charge Capping
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the precise criteria used to decide the extent of the budget reduction required for each local authority designated for charge capping in 1990–91.

  Mr. Hunt
  The cap which my right hon. Friend has proposed for each designated authority reflects his view, on the basis of all the information available to him, of a reasonable and appropriate level of budget reduction for that authority in all its circumstances.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which would have been subject to the capping of the community charge had his selection of expenditure levels not been included as a qualification.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: It would not be right for me to speculate about the consequences of adopting some selection principles different from those which my right hon. Friend has determined and which he is satisfied are reasonable, appropriate and in accordance with the statute.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many district councils will be affected by his statement on capping which was given to the House on 3 April; what is the number of adults liable for the poll tax in each district council area and what is the total; what is the number of people eligible for rebates or transitional relief in each district council area and what is the total; and if he has any estimate of the likely costs of rebilling and recalculating for the total number of people affected.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: My right hon. Friend designated 10 district councils for capping on 3 April 1990. Another 14 district councils (excluding Bristol which itself was designated) will be affected by capping by virtue of the designation of Avon and Derbyshire county councils. Following is a list of the district councils concerned together with the relevant population of each and the total. The Department does not have information about the numbers of people eligible for community charge benefit or transitional relief in each area.

  (i) District Councils designated for capping

  Council

  Relevant Population

  Barnsley

  167,712

  Basildon

  119,185

  Bristol

  290,725

  Calderdale

  143,540

  Doncaster

  218,650

  North Tyneside

  151,181

  Rochdale

  158,227

  Rotherham

  201,284

  St. Helens

  136,039

  Wigan

  231,410

  Total

  1,817,953

  (ii) Other District Councils affected by capping

  Council

  Relevant Population

  Bath

  57,700

  Kingswood

  67,953

  Northavon

  94,745

  Wansdyke

  60,311

  Woodspring

  140,098

  Amber Valley

  86,949

  1028

  Council

  Relevant Population

  Bolsolver

  54,433

  Chesterfield

  77,412

  Derby

  164,676

  Erewash

  83,899

  High Peak

  63,382

  North East Derbyshire

  75,126

  South Derbyshire

  54,510

  Derbyshire Dales

  53,569

  Total

  1,134,763

  Grand Total

  2,952,716

  The Department estimates that the cost of issuing new charge bills, including recalculating community charge benefit and transitional relief as appropriate, would on average be about £200,000 per charging authority.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of debt incurred by each English shire county for the latest year for which figures are available.

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

  Total debt outstanding at 31 March 1989

  £ million

  Avon

  155

  Bedfordshire

  178

  Berkshire

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  123

  Cambridgeshire

  105

  Cheshire

  193

  Cleveland

  282

  Cornwall

  91

  Cumbria

  105

  Derbyshire

  203

  Devon

  211

  Dorset

  138

  Durham

  53

  East Sussex

  128

  Essex

  n/a

  Gloucestershire

  92

  Hampshire

  156

  Hereford and Worcester

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  128

  Humberside

  157

  Isle of Wight

  35

  Kent

  221

  Lancashire

  360

  Leicestershire

  181

  Lincolnshire

  104

  Norfolk

  53

  Northamptonshire

  147

  Northumberland

  48

  North Yorkshire

  99

  Nottinghamshire

  208

  Oxfordshire

  82

  Shropshire

  68

  Somerset

  72

  Staffordshire

  245

  Suffolk

  108

  Surrey

  249

  Warwickshire

  92

  West Sussex

  32

  Wiltshire

  47

  n/a = Berkshire, Essex and Hereford and Worcester have not yet submitted returns.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the United Kingdom has made towards meeting its target reduction of nitrous, nitric and sulphuric oxides emissions by 1993.

  Mr. Trippier
  Using 1980 as a baseline, the UK is committed to reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide (S02) by 20 per cent. and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 15 per cent. from existing large combustion plants by 1993 as the first stage of directive 88/609/EEC. The current "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" (a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library) shows that in 1988 relevant emissions of SO2 and NOx were 21 per cent. and 10 per cent. lower, respectively, than in 1980.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to respond to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on the future of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 April to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthrope (Mr. Morley) at column 784.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has to collect information from local authorities about the level of their standard community charge;

  (2) when he expects to know which local authorities are levying a standard community charge at less than twice the personal community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  We are collecting information about standard charge multipliers for 1990–91 in a return which authorities have been asked to make to the Department in May.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list for each district authority in England(a) the amount of Government grant per authority, (b) the amount of UBR income per authority, (c) the taxable income per authority and (d) the revenue from taxable income per authority assumed in the 1990–91 "Illustrative Capital Value Rates and Local Income Tax" published by his Department on 4 April;

  (2) if he will set out the formula for taxable income used to produce the 1990–91 "Illustrative Capital Value Rates and Local Income Tax" published by his Department on 4 April;

  (3) if he will set out the grant formula used to produce the 1990–91 "Illustrative Capital Value Rates and Local Income Tax" published by his Department on 4 April.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The illustrative capital value rates and local income tax figures published on 4 April assume that Government funds and business rates are distributed to achieve full equalisation of local income tax rates. This means that in every area the same local income tax rate could apply if all local authorities were spending at the level needed to provide a standard level of services. The level of grant entitlement
  1030
  would vary if expenditure were at a different level in order to ensure that each £1 per head of additional spending in any area would lead to exactly the same change in the local income tax rate. Areas with high average taxable incomes would receive less grant with higher spending, while areas with low taxable resources would receive more grant with higher spending. No reliable estimate of the taxable income of residents in each local authority area is available and hence no estimate of grant and business rate payments to each authority was made when producing the illustrative figures.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of those bathing beaches sampled by the water research centre in its project on rotaviruses in sewage discharges.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the centre's research for the Department, samples were taken from the north and south beaches and bathing water at Tenby; bathing water and sediment at Watchouse bay, near Barry; bathing water at Barmouth and, in Dyfed, Pendine East and Pembrey, Cefn Sidan.

  Demolition (Planning Control)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue a consultation pa per inviting views on whether planning controls should he extended to the demolition of dwelling houses.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have today issued a consultation paper. It describes the issue, invites views on the scale of the problem, and seeks comments on various options for extending planning controls to the demolition of dwelling houses.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the special financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme to be given to those local authorities whose coasts suffered damage as a result of the severe storms during 25 and 26 February.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Radioactive Gas Emissions, Sellafield
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the extent to which emissions of radioactive gas from Pond 5 fuel handling plant at Sellafield arising from works carried out and chemical reactions in the pond itself, comply with statutory requirements.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The emissions of radioactive gas from this plant are continuously sampled and monitored by BNFL. The measurements demonstrate that these discharges comply with statutory requirements.

DEFENCE

  Submarines
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of Z-berth locations for submarines in the United Kingdom and those sites which he is planning to use.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 5 May 1989 at column 276. We have, since this date, decided to establish Swansea as a Z-berth. The Royal Navy's requirements for port visits by nuclear-powered submarines are continually under review. When a port appears suitable and practical, the safety considerations are discussed with local civil authorities.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the development of Milford Haven as an operational base for submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

ENERGY

  British Coal (Notification Procedures)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive the results of the attitude survey carried out to assess public satisfaction with British Coal's notification procedures.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have now received this report and the accompanying data and have placed copies in the Library of both Houses. It clearly shows that there is a strong wish for individual notification of households and we are discussing with British Coal how best this can be implemented.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he will take to ensure that the timetable for reviewing the proposals for renewable energy projects does not preclude a full environmental assessment.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  All renewable energy projects will have to comply with normal planning procedures.

  My Department's research programme on renewable energy includes extensive work on environmental assessment to help provide information on which the environmental acceptability of renewable energy technologies could be judged.

  Mains Supply (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what forms of grant aid or subsidy will be available after privatisation to electricity distribution companies seeking to connect rural areas to the mains supply.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I do not believe that the post-privatisation arrangements for rural supplies require financial assistance by the Government.

  Fuel Exports and Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will give for each month from January 1989 the total export and import of(a) oil, (b) gas and (c) coal in tonnes and in value on the same basis as his answer of 9 November 1989, Official Report, columns 767-68;

  (2) if he will give for each month from January 1989 the total export and import of (a) oil, (b) gas and (c) coal in coal-equivalent tonnes for both gas and oil.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The equivalent information for exports and imports of oil, gas and coal for each month from January 1989, set out on the same basis as my earlier answer of 9 November 1989, Official Report, columns 767-68, are shown in tables 1 and 3. I have also set out figures in tonnes of coal equivalent, for both gas and oil, in table 2.

  Table 1

  Thousand tonnes

  1989

  Exports (f.o.b)

  Imports (c.i.f)

  Coal

  Oil1

  Coal

  Gas2

  Oil

  January

  167

  6,519

  940

  1,456

  5,332

  February

  126

  4,346

  930

  1,566

  4,820

  March

  175

  6,298

  1,214

  1,474

  4,506

  April

  119

  5,320

  1,100

  1,586

  4,693

  May

  126

  4,379

  1,034

  1,526

  4,610

  June

  170

  5,681

  999

  1,176

  4,824

  July

  179

  5,688

  653

  962

  4,756

  August

  175

  5,286

  771

  906

  4,195

  September

  175

  5,883

  902

  854

  5,450

  October

  260

  7,184

  1,005

  906

  5,511

  November

  218

  6,876

  1,638

  1,316

  4,944

  December

  182

  5,849

  949

  1,356

  4,443

  1990

  January

  269

  7,552

  1,194

  1,462

  6,523

  February

  181

  6,209

  893

  1,433

  5,292

  Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics (The oil exports figures include adjustments to the Overseas Trade Statistics data for the under-recording of direct exports of crude oil).

  1 Contains a small amount of natural gas exports.

  2 Coal equivalent.

  Table 2

  Thousand tonnes of coal equivalent

  1989

  Exports (f.o.b)

  Imports (c.i.f)

  Gas

  Oil

  Gas

  Oil

  January

  —

  11,142

  1,456

  9,094

  February

  —

  7,434

  1,566

  8,216

  March

  —

  10,774

  1,474

  7,687

  April

  —

  9,105

  1,586

  7,993

  May

  —

  7,476

  1,526

  7,871

  June

  2

  9,687

  1,176

  8,230

  July

  —

  9,727

  962

  8,103

  August

  4

  9,017

  906

  7,152

  September

  2

  10,052

  854

  9,296

  October

  —

  12,249

  906

  9,394

  November

  —

  11,730

  1,316

  8,447

  December

  —

  9,991

  1,356

  7,587

  1990

  January

  —

  12,901

  1,462

  11,122

  February

  6

  10,597

  1,433

  9,023

  Table 3

  £ million at 1985 prices1

  1989

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Imports (c.i.f.)

  Coal

  Oil2

  Coal

  Gas

  Oil

  January

  6

  1,124

  50

  109

  860

  February

  5

  751

  50

  118

  777

  March

  7

  1,069

  65

  111

  727

  April

  5

  912

  59

  119

  757

  1033

  1989

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Imports (c.i.f.)

  Coal

  Oil2

  Coal

  Gas

  Oil

  May

  5

  749

  55

  115

  743

  June

  7

  971

  53

  88

  778

  July

  7

  972

  35

  72

  767

  August

  7

  900

  41

  68

  677

  September

  7

  1,012

  48

  64

  879

  October

  10

  1,222

  54

  68

  889

  November

  8

  1,165

  88

  99

  797

  December

  7

  993

  51

  102

  716

  1990

  January

  10

  1,287

  64

  110

  1,052

  February

  7

  1,066

  48

  108

  853

  1 Figures at 1985 constant prices have been derived by applying the unit value for exports in 1985 to the relevant volumes in 1989 and 1990.

  2 Contains a small amount of natural gas exports.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the accountancy firms which are being used for the electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 5 February 1990 at columns 454-58.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disablement Benefits
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has received to "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" from the Spastics Society; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Spastics Society was represented at a meeting I held on 5 April with the Disability Benefits Consortium to discuss "The Way Ahead". We shall give careful consideration to all the society's comments in carrying forward the detailed work on our proposals.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate projected expenditure in the current year and the next five years on(a) private residential homes, (b) private nursing homes and (c) Department of Social Security payments to local authorities for community care; and if he will indicate the expected number of elderly persons who in each case will benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At August 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, total income support expenditure on an annualised basis for people in independent residential care homes and nursing homes was estimated to be £1,073 million to 173,000 claimants. Of that total £639 million is for those receiving residential care, £434 million for nursing care. All figures are rounded. Information about expected numbers of income support claimants and expenditure for future years is published in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1014). It has never been the practice to publish separate forecasts about expenditure specifically on people in residential care and nursing homes.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many poll tax payers in Scotland who are in receipt of benefit have been subject to deduction of benefit; and if he will classify benefit recipients by size of income and on that basis, indicate for each category, how many persons have been subject to deduction of benefit of(a) less than 20p a week, (b) 20p to 49p a week, (c) 50p to 99p a week, (d) £1 to £1·99 a week, (e) £2 to £4·99 a week, (f) £5 to £9·99 a week and (g) over £10 a week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways (Speed Restrictions)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish for motorways in England a list of any sections where speed restrictions up to 50 mph have been in existence for periods of (i) up to one year, (ii) one to three years, (iii) three to five years and (iv) over live years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Mandatory speed restrictions for some motorway maintenance schemes were introduced in August 1988 for reasons of safety. Since then the following sections have been subject to speed restrictions for major (over £0·5 million) maintenance schemes. All had durations of less than one year.

  1988–89

  Section

  A1(M)

  Barton—Burtree

  M1

  J4-5

  M1

  J14

  M1

  J40-41

  M2

  J5

  M2

  J5-6

  M3

  j5-6

  M4

  J12-11

  M4

  J16-18

  M5

  J9-11

  M5

  J24-25

  M6

  J6-7 (Thornbridge Viaduct)

  M6

  J16-17

  M6

  J29-31

  M6

  J34-35

  M11

  South of J7

  M25

  J24

  M27

  J2-3

  M40

  J5-7

  M62

  J37—Ouse Bridge

  1989–90

  Section

  A1(M)

  Sprotborough—Alverley

  A1(M)

  Warmsworth—Marr

  Al(M)

  Aycliffe—Bradbury Interchange

  M1

  J9

  M1

  JI2-13

  M1

  J15-16

  M1

  J25—R. Trent

  M1

  J29-30

  M1

  J34 (Tinsley Viaduct)

  M1

  J37-38

  M2

  Park Pale—Thong Lane

  M2

  J4-5

  M2

  J5 Slip Roads

  M2

  J5-6 (2 Schemes)

  1035

  1989–90

  Section

  M4

  JI6-17

  M5

  JI-M6 (stages 1 and 2)

  M5

  JI6-17

  M5

  J20

  M5

  J25-26

  M6

  J16-17

  M6

  J34—County Boundary

  M6

  J41-42

  M11

  North and South of J5

  M11

  J12

  M25

  J18-20

  M27

  J8-10

  M40

  J5-7

  M42

  J4-5

  M42

  J6-7

  M53

  J1-4

  M56

  J6-7

  M61

  J1-3

  M61

  J6-8

  M61

  J8-M6

  M62

  J7-9

  M62

  J23-Scammonden

  M62

  J34-35

  M62/M18

  Langham Interchange

  M180

  J1-M18 (J5)

  M180

  West of R. Trent

  M606

  Bradford

  In addition a relatively small number of motorway non-major maintenance schemes will have been subject to mandatory speed restrictions for the same reason. These schemes would be of short duration, considerably less than one year.

  There have also been the following recent motorway improvement schemes where mandatory speed restrictions were in force:

  Section

  Less than one year

  M25

  J10-13

  M42

  J3A

  M56

  J3-5

  M61

  J2-4

  M62

  J12-19

  M62

  J21-22

  M63

  J8-10

  M63

  J11-12

  M67

  J1-2

  M602

  J1-2

  Less than one year to date, but ongoing

  M1

  J23A

  M20

  J8

  M40

  J7

  One to three years

  M5

  J4-4A

  M5

  J4A-5

  M5

  J5-6

  M20

  J11-12

  M42

  J1-M5

  M63

  J3-5

  There have not been any such restrictions lasting more than three Years.

  There are payments speed restrictions on the following sections of motorway:

  Section

  M1

  J43-47 (50 mph)

  M4 (London)

  Elevated Section (50 mph)

  M41

  Severn Bridge (40 mph)

  1036

  Section

  M6/M62

  Croft Interchange (40 mph)

  M621

  J1-3 (50 mph)

  1 Mandatory speed limit imposed in 1986 during bridge strengthening and resurfacing work. This will remain in force until about the end of this year.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to extend mandatory speed limits where roadworking is in operation to those roads for which local authorities are the highways authority.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local highway authorities already have the power to introduce mandatory speed limits at roadworks where they consider it appropriate.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures, other than mandatory speed limits, are in force to ensure the safety of roadworkers and motorists where road repairs and maintenance are being carried out.

  Mr. Atkins
  In addition to any speed limit, measures to ensure safety at roadworks, both for road users and workers, comprise provision of proper signing and traffic management together with maintenance of an appropriate safety zone between moving traffic and the works. Advice on the signing of roadworks is given in chapter 8 of the traffic signs manual. A report prepared jointly by the Department of Transport, the County Surveyors Society and the Health and Safety Executive provides guidance for ensuring the safety of personnel undertaking works.

  Substandard Shipping
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the number of defective merchant vessels that have been detained at British ports for each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of merchant ships which have been detained in United Kingdom ports as a result of defects indentified by Department of Transport marine surveyors in the course of general or port state control inspections in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  33

  1986

  33

  1987

  26

  1988

  48

  1989

  47

  11990

  23

  1 January—March

  Compulsory Head-guards
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to make it compulsory for cyclists to wear protective head-guards.

  Mr. Atkins
  If everbody wore cycle helmets, a great many injuries and deaths would be prevented, particularly among children. While I have no present plans for making it compulsory, I urge cyclists to wear them, and parents to encourage their children to do so.

  Maritime Safety
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what current statutory regulations exist concerning the seaworthiness of vessels and the number of shipmen relative to size that should be sailing a ship.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Statutory regulations issued under the various Merchant Shipping Acts are promulgated by way of a merchant shipping notice. There are many such regulations in force covering, inter alia, crew matters, dangerous goods, fire, life-saving, marine pollution, navigation, ship construction and equipment, and health and safety. Each year the list is revised, and I have placed a copy of the latest notice in the Library. (Merchant Shipping Notice No. M.1407, Principal Acts and Regulations on Merchant Shipping, published by the Department of Transport in February 1990.)

  Apart from the statutory requirements for certificated officers, the minimum safe complement of other seafarers depends on other factors as well as size—the ship's equipment, trading areas and the nature of cargo all have to be taken into account when assessing a safer manning level. Passenger ships must have an adequate crew to muster and assist the passengers in an emergency.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what weapons private security firms are empowered to employ in dockyards and ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Private security firms are not empowered to carry firearms in dockyards and ports unless they have a firearms certificate from the chief officer of police under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968.

  Southend (Official Visit)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an official visit to Southend-on-Sea by train.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend or I will be happy to do so when a suitable opportunity arises.

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress has been made on the British Library; when he expects work on it to be completed and at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Construction on the first phase of the building is proceeding within its budget of £300 million and a schedule which will enable the British Library to start moving books into St. Pancras by mid-1991. The first phase is planned to be fully operational by mid-1993.

  The completion phase upon which I will shortly be making a separate announcement is scheduled to be opened to the public in 1996.

  Bathgate Fossil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with Dr. Robert Anderson and Dr. Ian Rolfe of the Scottish Museum on the issue of the 340-million-year old reptile found in the constituency of the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
  1038
  Mr. Luce
  I have had no discussions with either Dr. Robert Anderson or Dr. Ian Rolfe of the National museum for Scotland, on the issue of the Bathgate fossil, but as the hon. Gentleman knows the question of bringing natural heritage items under existing controls has been referred by me to the reviewing committee on the export of works of art for advice.

  Lieu of Tax
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since he last made an announcement on the subject to the House.

  Mr. Luce
  Since my announcement on 29 March,Official Report, col 264, I am very pleased to announce the acceptance of three further offers in lieu of tax: a portrait of the children of Henry Herbert, first Lord Porchester, by William Beechey in lieu of £151,489 tax; a painting by Lucas de Heere, entitled "The Family of Henry VIII: An Allegory of the Tudor Succession", in satisfaction of £527,898 tax, and a group of four paintings in satisfaction of £6,650,000 tax; two portraits by Thomas Gainsborough, a portrait of Peirre Pecquis by Sir Peter Paul Rubens and "View of -Wageningen" by Hercules Seghers. The acceptance of the Lucas de Heere and the group of four paintings was made possible by the arrangements for a call on the Reserve first announced by Lord Gowrie in 1985 and brings the total call on the Reserve for 1989–90 to £9,977,898 and total expenditure on the acceptance in lieu scheme for that year to over £11·5 million. This is a record amount for a single financial year and demonstrates beyond doubt the investment and vital role of the scheme, and its benefits to individual estates.

  In accordance with the conditions on which they were offered, the Beechey and de Heere paintings will remain in situ at Highclere castle, Berkshire, and Sudeley castle, Gloucestershire, respectively while the group of four paintings from the estate of the late Mrs. Eva Borthwick-Norton will be allocated in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in a manner consonant with the testator's wishes as expressed in her will. The Secretary of State for Scotland will make an announcement about this in due course.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Health Hazards
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken for all workplaces used by civil servants within the civil service.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The civil service is a multi-departmental organisation and in common with other major employers assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations are the responsibility of individual Departments. There is no requirement to record these assessments centrally and it is not possible to confirm that all assessments have been carried out.

  In the period leading to enactment of the regulations representatives of many Departments attended training and information courses within the civil service and externally.
  1039
  In October 1988 representatives of the civil service occupational health service (CSOHS) discussed the requirements of the regulations with departmental establishment officers. The CSOHS issued a detailed briefing note in January 1989 to assist Departments in meeting their statutory obligations. CSOHS health advisers and hygienists have provided information and advice on the regulations during routine visits and on request.

  Departments which require professional support on assessments can obtain those on request from CSOHS who continue to provide advice, guidance and specialist input as required.

SCOTLAND

  Vacant Accommodation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those local authorities known to him which have allowed in 1989–90 an extension of beyond three months to the period when a poll tax is not payable in respect of empty and unfurnished accommodation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that in 1989–90, all levying authorities made use of the powers given to them under section 10(8) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to determine different periods from the statutory minimum of three months during which the standard community charge is not payable in respect of unoccupied and unfurnished premises. Some authorities determined a longer period in respect of all unoccupied and unfurnished premises in their area, while others restricted the use of their discretionary power to certain classes of premises.

  Tourism
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the provision of accommodation within the tourist industry following the implementation of the poll tax.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As a consequence of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, property which was previously valued as a dwellinghouse will have been removed from rating as from 1 April 1989, but if the assessor considers that the degree to which a particular property is used for commercial purposes is such that it should fall within the non-domestic sector, he will enter it in the valuation roll. There remains a valuation judgment for the assessor to make.

  However, to ensure a consistent approach throughout Scotland, my right hon. and learned Friend recently decided to clarify the boundary between the domestic and non-domestic sectors for self-catering properties and bed-and-breakfast establishments. The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 accordingly provide that dwellinghouses made available for letting, commercially, as self-catering accommodation for short periods amounting to at least 140 days per year are to be treated from 1 April 1990 as non-domestic, thus rendering them liable to non-domestic rates.

  In the case of bed-and-breakfast establishments, we have been consulting interested parties on a proposal to include within the statutory definition of domestic subjects
  1040
  any dwellinghouse which is made available for the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for at least 100 days per year or which provides such accommodation for no more than six guests. My right hon. and learned Friend is likely to bring forward appropriate regulations on this before long.

  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers of engineering apprenticeships available in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in (i) 1979, (ii) 1984 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  Statistics are not collected about the number of available engineering apprentices. However, the engineering industry training board compiles a register of those completing the first stage of engineering craft training. For the Strathclyde area the figures are 1,071 in 1978–79, 418 in 1983–84 and 360 in 1988–89. For Scotland the figures are 1,694 for 1978–79, 686 for 1983–84 and 769 for 1988–89. No separate figures are available for the Greenock and Port Glasgow area.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the managerial relationship between the newly appointed director of public health in the Eastern health and social services board and(a) environmental health officers and (b) the area board chief medical officer.

  Mr. Needham
  The title of chief administrative medical officer (that is, the area board's chief medical officer) changed to director of public health on 1 September 1989. Environmental health officers are employed by local councils and have no managerial relationship with the Eastern health and social services board.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list accountancy firms used by his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  During 1989–90 the information requested is as follows:

  Binder Hamlyn

  Capita Muir and Addy

  John Compton Associates

  Coopers and Lybrand

  CSL Group Ltd—formerly known as CIPFA Services Ltd

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  F.M. Donaghy and Company

  Ernst and Young

  Hanna Thompson

  KPMG Peat, Marwick, McClintock

  D. J. MacRitchie

  B. R. McGuire and Company

  John McVeigh and Company

  Muir and Addy

  Price Waterhouse

  Brendan Quinn and Company

  Stoy Hayward

  Touche Ross and Company

  Witt Thornton

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of types of employment in each church-based society or organisation in Northern Ireland for which the Fair Employment Agency and/or Commission has advised that the successful applicant must belong to the same religious denomination as the church-based society or organisation which is inviting applications to fill vacancies.

  Mr. Needham
  Neither the Fair Employment Agency nor the Fair Employment Commission has ever advised any organisation that a successful applicant for employment must belong to a particular religious denomination. The agency/commission has, however, taken the view that in the case of staff of organisations with a religious basis who had to act in a "in loco parentis" role, the organisations could take religion into account when making such appointments.

  An individual has the right to challenge the organisation's view of the nature of a particular job and the onus is on the organisation to show that the "essential nature of the job" requires it to be done by a person holding, or not holding, a particular religious belief or political opinion as permitted under section 37 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.

  The Sunday Times
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requests were received from The Sunday Times for assistance in defence of the libel action brought by Mr. T. Murphy and Mr. P. Murphy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The Government received a number of requests from members of the staff and representatives of The Sunday Times for assistance in defence of the libel action brought against the newspaper in the Irish High Court by Thomas and Patrick Murphy. After careful consideration it was decided that there was no direct help which the Government could usefully or properly provide in the Irish courts.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cotton Goods
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current output of cotton goods in north-east Lancashire.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: Sectoral output statistics are not readily available at sub-regional level. However, in the north-west standard region (Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire) latest figures (1988) show that the net output from the cotton and silk industries amounted to £263·1 million (or 54·7 per cent. of United Kingdom net output).(Source: Central Statistical Office).

  Paper Production
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on progress within the paper and pulp industry for the increased use of straw as a resource.
  1042
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: I am aware of a commercial venture which Berisford Bristar is investigating for the production of pulp from straw on a site near Immingham. In addition I am aware of an application for support of collaborative research and development on the use of United Kingdom-grown crops for industrial use under the LINK initiative. This programme, which is receiving consideration, will be able to cover the necessary research to enhance the potential use of straw.

HEALTH

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) of 2 April,Official Report, columns 430-34, he will list the other studies currently under way on leukaemia clusters referred to in column 430 and state who is funding them; if he will list the other studies of workers receiving high radiation doses referred to in column 431 and state who is funding them; which Government Departments are involved in the co-ordination of research and what arrangements have been made; and if he will list the related research proposals into the offspring of radiation workers referred to in column 431.

  Mr. Freeman
  In respect of the studies currently under way on leukaemia clusters, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 15 February at columns 397-98. The studies are being funded by the Scottish Office (Dounreay studies) and the Department of Health.

  The studies referred to in my earlier reply comprise those referred to previously and, in addition, a number of proposals for research submitted to the Department and to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as well as research commissioned independently of Government. The HSE has drawn up a protocol investigation at Sellafield. This investigation will be in two parts: the first will consist of an epidemiological case-control study comparing the occupational records of the case fathers with those of matched controls; the second is a case-only study into the particular operational histories of the fathers of the leukaemic children.

  The lead Government Department involved in co-ordination of research is the Department of Health, in collaboration with HSE, and a co-ordination group has been established for the purpose of expediting progress on existing and proposed research. Other Government Departments and the Medical Research Council will provide representation as appropriate.

  In relation to the proposed studies of the health of the offspring of radiation workers, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 7 March at columns 646-47.

  Scanner Unit (North Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the need for a scanner unit within the North Devon health authority area.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received one representation, from the mayor of Barnstaple.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the pay and conditions of hospital doctors in the National Health Service since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Between April 1979 and April 1990 the pay of hospital doctors in the National Health Service has increased in real terms by 37·2 per cent. From April 1990 they will receive a further 7 per cent. rise in their pay and subsequently a further 2·5 per cent. from 1 January 1991.

  The terms and conditions of service for hospital doctors are frequently amended following negotiations between the Health Departments and the medical and dental professions. Copies of the current version of the handbook of terms and conditions of service for medical and dental staff have been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library details of all hospital incinerators in England, by health authority area, specifying for each incinerator(a) the date commissioned, (b) the name of the manufacturer, (c) the temperature in the main chamber, (d) the temperature in the after-burner, (e) the type of temperature control used and (f) the monitoring regime for air pollution.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Constituencies
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the constituencies of(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in order of size based on the 1990 register, indicating in each case the extent to which the electorate is above or below the electoral quota.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information about the 1990 electoral registers has now been collected by OPCS from electoral registration officers. The number of electors in each local authority area will be published in "OPCS Monitor EL 90/1" on 26 April, before the local elections. The figures are still being reassembled by parliamentary constituency. They will be published in the latter form in "Electoral Statistics 1990 (Series EL No. 17)" in July.

  Human Spermatozoa
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the reply to the question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 2 April,Official Report, column 982, if he will make a statement on the use of the hamster test in the study of chromosomal abnormalities of human spermatozoa.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To achieve penetration by a human sperm the hamster egg must first have had its zona pellucida removed by a chemical. The normality of chromosomes derived from the human sperm can be assessed by examining them within the product of fusion of a human sperm and a hamster egg. The test is completed about 24 hours after fusion begins and at that point the 1044
  material is destroyed. Normally it will not have divided into two cells. Schedule 2 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill would require that if two cells did appear they must be destroyed.

  Microbiology
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the centre for applied microbiology and research.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 April.

  Nurses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the current levels of nurse staffing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 18 April at column 875.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest estimate of the reduction in the number of eye tests since the introduction of charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have commissioned an independent survey into the number of sight tests carried out during the first quarter of 1990. The figures collected will be compared with earlier periods; results should be available by the early summer.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether figures are collected nationally to show whether the detection of illnesses such as diabetes has been influenced by the introduction of charges for eye tests on 1 April 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of patients referred by their optometrist or ophthalmic medical practitioner to a doctor for further medical investigation and diagnosis following a sight test. The number of cases seen by the hospital eye departments since April 1989 is unlikely to be available before the end of the year.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what modification he is proposing for screening targets in the new contract for general medical practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A modification to the operation of screening targets was announced on 10 April. This change means that entitlement to target payments will be based on partnership lists rather than individual practitioner's lists. No further modifications are planned.

  Indicative Drug Budgets
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to issue guidelines on the operation of indicative drug budgets; and whether he has any modifications to propose to the proposals originally outlined in the White Paper.
  1045
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We intend to publish in May a further working paper on the operation of indicative prescribing budgets. The working paper will set out details of the development of our proposals since the White Paper was published.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update information given in the answer to the hon. Member for Dagenham on 20 March 1987,Official Report, column 669.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 April 1990, c. 650-52.]: I regret that due to a typing error there was an omission in the answer given. Table 2 should have ended after the sixth entry and been followed by a third table. The correct information is contained in the following tables.

  Table 2

  Mental illness hospitals closed between 1987 and 1989.

  Yorkshire

  Naburn Hospital, Near York

  Trent

  Saxondale Hospital

  St. John's Hospital, Lincolnshire

  South Western

  Horton Road Hospital

  Digby Hospital, Exeter

  West Midlands

  Powick Hopsital Worecester

  Table 3

  Mental Illness Hospitals which have, or have had, over 200 beds, which Regional Health Authorities have indicated they plan to close, subject to consultation and to suitable alternative provision being made, by about 1995.

  Latest numbers of inpatients

  Yorkshire

  Storthes Hall Hospital, Near Huddersfield

  389

  Trent

  Rauceby Hospital, South Lincs.

  304

  Pastures Hospital, Southern Derbyshire

  454

  Carlton Hayes Hospital, Leicestershire

  470

  Mapperley Hospital, Nottingham

  305

  Middlewood Hospital, Sheffield

  606

  Towers Hospital, Leicestershire

  394

  Kingsway Hospital, Southern Derbyshire

  363

  East Anglian

  St. Audry's Hospital, Woodbridge

  372

  St. Nicholas' Hospital, Great Yarmouth and Waverney

  131

  St. Andrews, Norwich

  335

  North East Thames

  Friern Hospital1

  673

  Claybury Hospital

  722

  South East Thames

  Cane Hill Hospital

  343

  Tooting Bec Hospital

  420

  Hellingly Hospital

  154

  St. Augustines Hospital

  235

  South West Thames

  Long Grove Hospital, Epsom

  404

  Brookwood Hospital

  489

  Wessex

  Whitecroft Hospital

  75

  1046

  Latest numbers of inpatients

  Herrison Hospital, Dorchester

  263

  Old Manor Hospital1

  216

  Oxford

  St. John's Hospital, Aylesbury

  282

  St. Crispin's Hospital, Northampton

  263

  Littlemore Hospital, Oxford

  226

  West Midlands

  Barnsley Hall Hospital, Bromsgrove and Redditch

  169

  Rubery Hill Hospital, South Birmingham

  211

  Central Hospital, South Warwickshire

  298

  Hollymoor Hospital, Solihull

  279

  Mersey

  Rainhill Hospital

  487

  Parkside Hospital

  485

  Winwick Hospital

  815

  North Western

  North Manchester (Springfield) Hospital1

  145

  Northern

  St. Mary's, Stannington

  495

  South Western

  Mendip Hospital

  96

  Moorhaven Hospital

  157

  1 With some facilities remaining on site.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Union
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Soviet authorities about Mr. Adolf Borisovich Gorvitz.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made numerous representations to the Soviet authorities about this case—most recently during my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' visit to the USSR from 9 to 12 April. We shall continue to raise it until there is a satisfactory outcome.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many seizures of illegally imported endangered species were made by the Hong Kong authorities in the second six months of 1989; how many seizures were made of similar categories intended for export; and if he will make a statement giving details of all seizures made, including country of origin.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: The Hong Kong authorities made 60 seizures of illegally imported endangered species during the period July to December 1989:

  The following illegal imports were seized:

  Species

  Number

  Gibbon

  2

  Slow Loris

  1

  Pangolin

  3 live, 2 carcasses, 25·45 kg meat, 20 pieces of scale and l·5 kg of scale

  1047

  Species

  Number

  Rhino (horn)

  17 pieces

  Whale (bone)

  1 piece

  Bear (paw)

  4 pieces

  Otter (skin)

  2 pieces

  Wild cat

  82 skins and 1 stuffed specimen

  Monitor Lizard (skin)

  16,342 pieces

  Alligator/crocodile

  1,498 pieces (skin), 56 kg (meat) and 1 stuffed specimen

  Python (skin)

  86 pieces

  Turtle/tortoise (live)

  8

  Sea turtle

  34 stuffed specimens and 119 eggs

  Giant salamander (carcass)

  1

  Parrot (live)

  15

  Bird of prey plus owl

  11 live, 4 carcasses and 2 stuffed specimens

  Asiatic bony tongue fish (live)

  29 tails

  Black coral (skeleton)

  4

  Giant clam (live)

  4

  Orchid

  1

  Ivory

  2·39 tonnes

  Countries of export included China, United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Federal Republic of Germany, Spain, France, Indonesia, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, United States of America, Venezuela, South Africa.

  Only one seizure was made of endangered species intended for export: a live parrot destined for Switzerland.

  European Investment Bank
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects in the United Kingdom have received support, in each year since 1979, from the European investment bank; and if he will set out in each case the level of financial support received.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  The projects supported by the European investment bank and the levels of financial support in 1987, 1988 and 1989 are given in the table. To go back to earlier years would involve disproportionate cost.

  Amount of loan £ million

  1987

  PROJECT

  Construction of units at Torness Nuclear Power Station

  19

  Construction of storage facilities for nuclear waste. Sellafield

  16+34

  Nuclear Fuel reprocessing facilities Sellafield

  60

  Conversion of Kilroot Power Station to duel coal/oil firing system

  30+33

  1048

  Amount of loan £ million

  Development of Arborathoil field

  50

  Construction of municipal waste recycling plant at Hastings

  0·700

  Reduction of traffic congestion in Plymouth

  8

  Construction of approach road to Ramsgate Harbour and inner Chatham ring road

  3

  Construction of A120 by pass

  4

  Upgrading of five roads in Powys

  1·2

  Improvement of traffic conditions on three of main Swansea approach roads

  2·5

  Improvement to approach and landing systems at several airports

  5

  Construction of second terminal at Gatwick

  150

  Construction of airport in London Docklands

  4

  Construction of new passenger terminal at Norwich airport

  2·6

  Improvement to water supply and sewerage schemes in Edinburgh area

  8

  Sewerage schemes in Mersey area

  20+18

  Improvements to drinking water supply network and reduction of river and coastal pollution in Wales

  8

  Construction of Roadford Storage reservoir in Devon

  10

  Land drainage and sewerage system in Birmingham area, River Tame flood protection

  20

  Water supply and sewerage schemes in Humberside, East Anglia, East Midlands and South East England

  45+20

  Water supply and sewerage schemes in York, Bradford and Sheffield areas

  10+20+20

  Improvements to sewerage works in East Lothian

  5

  Sewerage works in coastal areas of North East England

  10·5

  Sewerage works in coastal areas in South West England

  11

  South Cardiff: construction of access road to city centre development of industrial estate

  6+5+6·5

  Industrial development schemes in Lancashire

  1

  Road schemes, water supply networks and sewerage facilities in Tayside

  5

  Development of three industrial areas, construction of tourism and exhibition centre, development of marina and runway at airport near Plymouth

  6·3

  Road, water supply, sewerage, drainage schemes and improvements to an agricultural college in Dumfries and Galloway

  4

  Development of six industrial estates, improvements to Coventry Technical College, Museum of Transport and road schemes to reduce traffic congestion

  5

  Road, water supply, sewerage schemes in Dunfermline and Kirkaldy

  5

  Road, water supply and sewerage schemes in Strathclyde

  13

  Improvements to roads and sewerage plant in Durham

  3·3

  Expansion of industrial estate in Rossendale, North West England

  0·100

  Road schemes, new ferries, improvements to industrial sites and water supply and sewerage schemes in the Shetlands

  10

  Infrastructure work in Newcastle

  11·5

  Construction of Bridge over Loughor River and of western approach road, new building's at Haverford West Technical College

  2·5

  Development of road network, industrial and business infrastructure/waste disposal sites in North Cheshire

  10

  Expansion of industrial estate in County Durham Road schemes, enlargement of Technical College, energy conservation schemes in Staffordshire

  2

  Construction of relief road, factory buildings, enlargement of Polytechnic and removal of asbestos from public buildings in Manchester

  5

  Road schemes, industrial estates and coastal protection works in Lancashire

  2

  1049

  Amount of loan £ million

  Construction of M65 Calder Valley motorway section, science park, college buildings; and conversation of quarry

  3

  Improvement of industrial sites, construction and improvement of factory buildings in oldham

  4

  Motorway and road development, pedestrianisation schemes, Manchester

  5

  Modernisation of alumium plants in North West England, the Midlands and Wales

  20

  Installation of new computerised management system in retail chain

  1·4

  Improvements to paperpulp recycling plant and construction of clinical Waste incinerator in Manchester

  1

  Electrification of Glasgow/Ayr railway line and purchase of rolling stock

  10

  Total of loans signed in the United Kingdom in 1987

  £801·3

  1988

  PROJECT

  Nuclear fuel processing facilities, Sellafield

  190

  Municipal waste recycling plant in Hastings

  1

  Construction of Channel tunnel

  70

  Improvements to port installations, Plymouth, Southampton, Hull, Immingham, Grimsby, Barry and Ayr

  16

  Approach and landing systems at several airports

  18

  Second passenger terminal at Stansted airport

  100

  Development of telecommunications, Scotland

  200

  Water supply, sewerage, road schemes in the Grampians

  10

  Modernisation of production facilities and factory, Gateshead

  3·3

  Modernisation and extension of aircraft engine overhaul facilities at Nantgarw

  7·3

  Design and construction of wings for Airbus A-320 at various plants in England

  50

  Facilities for overhaul of jet engines and components in Prestwick

  11

  Construction of textile mill in Bradford and modernisation of dyeing and finishing plant in Huddersfield

  2

  Polysterene production plant in Manchester

  3

  Construction of hotel in Birmingham

  17

  Trusthouse Forte: Construction of metals

  5

  Construction of new computer centre, Manchester

  1·5

  Global loans. Barclays Bank Investors in Industry Group plc

  10

  (to on lend to small and medium sized enterprises in the UK)

  10

  Lending under the New Community Instrument to small and medium sized enterprises

  Intermediary

  Barclays Bank plc

  30

  Investors in Industry Group

  35

  Total of loans signed in the United Kingdom in 1988

  £790·1

  1989

  PROJECT

  British Aerospace A320B

  100

  Stag Furniture Factory

  1·85

  Fownes Hotel Solihull

  5

  Ravenspurn North Gas Field A

  15

  Ravenspurn North Gas Field B

  50

  Ravenspurn North Gas Field C

  30

  Trade Centre Cardiff

  12

  Trusthouse Forte Motels

  7

  East Sussex Fuel Plant

  0·50

  Trusthouse Forte II

  3·80

  Hurtsman Chemicals Manchester

  2

  National Computing Centre

  0·70

  Hall UK Projects

  5·7

  Irvine PaperMill

  50

  Slaley Hall Hexham

  3

  Eurotunnel

  25+50

  BAA Stansted

  100

  1050

  Amount of loan £ million

  Lancashire Industrial Estates

  5

  ISE Chairs Cardiff

  0·75

  Pall Newquay

  0·50+5·97

  Shotton Paper

  20

  Port of Felixstowe

  25

  Cerestar UK Glucose

  2·70+2·00

  Wytch Farm Oilfield

  33·60

  Cadbury Schweppes

  50

  Stadco

  2·95

  Pilkington Glass

  40

  Burrendale Hotel, Northern Ireland

  1

  Slough Heat and Power

  15

  United Biscuits

  10

  Yorkshire Water Authority

  21+20

  Wessex Water

  25

  Severn Trent Water

  100

  Thames Water

  75

  Anglian Water

  15

  WWA Wessex Environment

  38

  Safeway Bellshill Scotland

  25

  Slumberland Lancashire

  3·50

  Barclays Bank Global Loan1

  40

  31 Global Loan VB1

  15

  Barclays Bank Global Loan III1

  30

  Total of loans signed in the United Kingdom in 1989

  1,084·1

  1 For on lending to small and medium sized enterprises.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the discussions at the Council of Ministers on the issue of monetary union on 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made to the House on 3 April,Official Report, col 523.

  Purchasing Costs
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department achieved the target of 5 per cent. saving in purchasing costs in 1988–89, set by the Paymaster-General, through use of the central unit on purchasing.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am pleased to report that the Treasury (excluding CISCO) achieved an 8·5 per cent. saving in overall purchasing costs in 1988–89.

EMPLOYMENT

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has commissioned any research into the provision of bed-and-breakfast acommodation within the British tourist industry after the introduction of poll tax.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Wages Council Inspectors
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the numbers of wages council inspectors.
  1051
  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) of 18 January,Official Report, column 401, and Stoke-on-Trent, South of 14 March, Official Report, column 252, if he will give the most recent figures for the percentage of (a) firms and (b) public sector employers satisfying their quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944;

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: In June 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, 23·3 per cent. of private sector employers subject to the obligations of the quota scheme employed 3 per cent. or more registered people with disabilities. At the same date 4·7 per cent. of the public sector employers who are subject to the obligations of the quota scheme employed 3 per cent. or more registered people with disabilities.

  In both the public and private sectors 0·9 per cent. of employees of employers subject to the obligations of the quota scheme are registered as disabled.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether a training credit pilot scheme will operate in Scotland.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The prospectus which I have issued on training credits for young people invites training and enterprise councils, and local enterprise companies in Scotland, to bid to run local training credit pilots. There is to be a geographical spread of pilots throughout Great Britain. The actual range will depend on the bids received.

WALES

  M4
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve the M4 east of the Baglan roundabout.

  Mr. Roberts
  Currently the only work planned for this part of the M4 is renewal work on the Groes-Pentyla section which is expected to start this summer. The whole of the M4 is included in the south Wales traffic study which will identify sections of the trunk road network where traffic is likely to exceed recommended traffic flow levels, and consider solutions.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of hedgerows have been removed, and how many miles planted(a) since 1 January 1960 and (b) since 1979.

  Mr. Roberts
  Although various estimates have been made for past periods none covers precisely the periods referred to.

  A survey of landscape change in England and Wales carried out for the Department of the Environment and the Countryside Commission by Huntings Survey and
  1052
  Consultants Ltd. showed annual hedgerows losses in Wales of some 250 miles (out of a total of 2,600 miles for England and Wales) between 1947 and 1969, 400 miles (England and Wales total 2,900 miles) between 1969 and 1980, and 500 miles (England and Wales total 4,000 miles) between 1980 and 1985. A postal survey of environmental topics on farms carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, however, showed annual losses of 500 miles for England and Wales between 1980 and 1985 with losses in Wales accounting for just over 100 miles of the total. The two surveys used different methodologies and neither can be regarded as definitive.

  Since 1973 grants have been offered to farmers for planting of new hedgerows and for hedgerow laying. In Wales in the two years 1987 and 1988, grant was paid for the equivalent of almost 500 miles of new hedge planting.

  Work is continuing to improve information on the rate of removal and on the extent of new planting.

  Ford Plant, Bridgend
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has plans to visit the Ford plant at Bridgend.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Burns Unit, St. Laurence Hospital
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will specify the date when the plastic and burns unit will be transferred from the St. Laurence hospital, Chepstow to Morriston hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand that the managing health authority, West Glamorgan health authority, and the Welsh health common services authority expect that the new burns, plastic and maxillo-facial surgery unit being developed at Morriston hospital, Swansea, should be completed in mid-1994, after which the service can be transferred from St. Laurence hospital, Chepstow.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners and general practitioner practices in Wales have indicated an interest in becoming budget-holding practices.

  Mr. Grist
  To date, 42 practices comprising some 217 general practitioners have expressed an interest in becoming fund-holding practices.

  Meat Processing Plant
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what grounds he turned down the Development Board for Rural Wales proposals to assist the financing of the proposed integrated meat processing plant at Three Cocks, near Brecon.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since the Development Board for Rural Wales withdrew its application in respect of these proposals, my Department has taken no formal view of this particular scheme.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that an integrated meat processing plant is established in south Powys, pursuant to the requirements of the single European market.
  1053
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The question of the establishment of a meat processing plant in any particular location is entitely a matter for the commercial judgment of the company concerned.

  Special Needs Housing
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to make changes to the funding arrangements for special needs projects undertaken by housing associations in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Special needs housing projects financed by Housing for Wales will be subject to new funding arrangements introduced from 1 April 1990.

  The capital element of these projects will be funded by a mixture of housing association grant from Housing for Wales and private finance, as is already the case with the general needs housing. The level of grant will take into account the higher costs of providing special needs housing. This means that from 1 April 1990 all new allocations for housing association schemes funded by Housing for Wales will be on a mixed funding basis.
  1054
  A new revenue allowance, to be known as special needs management allowance, will cover the additional housing management costs incurred for special needs housing; it will replace hostel deficit grant. Care costs will continue to be met from other topping-up sources.

  These new arrangements will lead to the more effective and efficient use of public money in the funding of special needs schemes and improvements in estimating future expenditure demands.

  Initially, the level of the new allowance will average £2,800 per bed space for existing schemes and £3,600 per bed space for all new schemes coming into occupation in 1990–91. Existing schemes will continue to claim hostel deficit grant until 1991–92 when they, too, will be eligible for the new allowance.

  To allow payments of the allowance to be paid from the start of the financial year, parliamentary approval of the revised estimate (class XVI vote 6 1990–91) is being sought for expenditure estimated at £168,000 to be met from repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Sizewell B Power Station: Costs
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the evidence of costs presented to the inquiry into the Sizewell B power station, which led to approval being given for its construction, was accurate.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the evidence given by the CEGB to the Sizewell inquiry included the best cost estimates for the station then available.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I must ask the noble Viscount to reconsider that Answer in view of the evidence which has been produced since that inquiry. I refer particularly to the Greenpeace report written by Alex Henney who was chairman of the Central Policy Working Committee set up by the Prime Minister.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount two questions. First, is it the case that the original estimate for the construction of Sizewell was £ 1·2 billion and that that has now escalated to £4 billion? That will add a minimum of £75 million a year for 30 years to our electricity bills. Secondly, is it the case that at the Sizewell inquiry Sir Frank Layfield accepted the CEGB estimate of £2 million per year for cortinuing research and development into PWRs whereas at that time the true figure was around £30 million?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the original cost as given to the Layfield committee was £1·2 billion. The noble Lord is correct in that regard. I have no idea where the noble Lord obtained his figure of £4 billion The latest estimate that I have given the House is £1·87 billion for the completion of Sizewell.
The Government recognise that the relative economics of nuclear have changed since the Sizewell inquiry. Oil prices have fallen; interest rates have risen. The CEGB has revised its cost estimates and the provision for back-end costs. The additional costs of nuclear power in the short to medium term are reflected in the fossil fuel levy. We believe that this nuclear premium is justified because of nuclear's contritiution to diversity and security of supply and to the reduction of fossil fuel emissions. The levy will be set initially at 10·6 per cent. but we expect it to decline over an eight-year period as nuclear plant performance improves.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount answer my second question regarding the estimates for research and development given by the CEGB as £2 million per year, although at that time the true figure was about £30 million.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that I have answered the noble Lord. I said that the relative economics have changed. I cannot confirm the figures that the noble Lord has given. However the Secretary of State was fully appraised of all the figures given to him by Layfield when he reported and he took the decision on the best available advice.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not a fact that when the Layfield Report was debated in this House on 2nd March 1987, there was already evidence in the light of the substantial fall in fossil fuel prices that even the estimates contained in the report were likely to be optimistic? Is it not correct that the costs of nuclear generation based on those figures were already likely to be higher than those for fossil fuel generation? As the noble Viscount has already said, the gap has widened since then. Can he give us an indication of when the Government feel the gap will start to narrow?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in the longer term no one can predict what will happen to fossil prices. Environmental considerations may well strengthen the economic case for nuclear power. Unlike other fuels —particularly fossil fuels —nuclear power bears the environmental costs of the fuel cycle. The relative economics of nuclear might improve if a comparable basis were used for fossil fuels.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is never a mean point of equilibrium in energy prices? They move up and down like the moving stairways on the Underground.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am tempted to comment on that but shall not. My noble friend is correct: over the past 15 to 20 years we have seen quite a see-saw in oil prices. I know that even some noble Lords opposite would not consider that oil prices would remain at their low level for the next 10 or 15 years.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that his estimate of £1·87 billion for the cost of Sizewell B is already way out of date? Will he give the House his latest estimate of that cost? Secondly, does he accept that even at the initial stage the technology of the Sizewell PWR was miles behind the technology of the equivalent French reactors? We have already started and are continuing to build something which is technologically out of date.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. The costs of building Sizewell are being reviewed at the present time. That is an ongoing review. The review is likely to be completed by the end of this month. However, it would be reasonable to give Nuclear Electric time to review the CEGB figures. Nuclear Electric is a new company and it needs time to review the figures. Therefore, that review may be delayed by a month or so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Viscount, but will he answer the second part of my question?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as regards the technology I feel that the Secretary of State was confronted with the report of the Layfield Committee. The inspector had in front of him all the available evidence on which to base his judgment. He came to the conclusion that the building of Sizewell B was the right thing to do at the time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, leaving aside the prejudices of certain noble Lords against nuclear energy, it is the common experience of all major capital projects today that the original estimates prove to be quite inadequate? Will my noble friend contemplate, for example, the case of the Channel Tunnel?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is correct. I should point out to the House that Sizewell is also a major infrastructure project in its own right. It employs some 2,700 people on site and provides prestige work for British contractors all over the country. The project will give UK manufacturers and plant suppliers the experience and capability to compete for similar work in export markets. Well over 90 per cent. of the contracts placed for the construction of the project have gone to UK firms.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the quite considerable discrepancies in figures that have been referred to by noble Lords on this side of the House and which the noble Viscount has found unacceptable, and bearing in mind the statement that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would it not be reasonable for the noble Viscount to ask his right honourable friend to issue a statement so that the House can have some idea of the real position? At this moment in time we do not know what the position is, and I believe the House is entitled to know that.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe I have given a commitment to the House that Nuclear Electric, the successor company to the CEGB, is at present reviewing the cost of building Sizewell. That review is not yet complete. The figures will be presented to the Secretary of State and obviously he will want to consider them before any decision is made as to whether they should be made public and in what form.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with the greatest respect, the noble Viscount has not answered my Question yet. The matter has nothing to do with prices going up and down. If the noble Viscount looks at the Order Paper, he will see that I asked whether Her Majesty's Government were satisfied with the evidence of costs. I have already given the noble Viscount the figure that was submitted by the CEGB for research and development to the Layfield review. The figure that was submitted was £2 million whereas at that time the figure was around £30 million. That has nothing to do with prices going up or down. Will the noble Viscount reply to that question? Is it not self-evident that this country would save a vast amount of money and would save on the increasing costs of electricity if Sizewell B were to be cancelled now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have answered the noble Lord's Question. The evidence was available to Layfield when he reported. He reported on the evidence that was available to him. The noble Lord suggests that it would save money if Sizewell B were cancelled, but it would not. Some £1·5 billion of contracts have been placed. If we were to cancel the project now—the Government do not intend to do that—we would be involved in termination negotiations on those contracts. As a result more money would be expended and I daresay that the site would have to be returned to its original state. Some 150,000 cubic metres of concrete have been used on the site and the removal of that would be considered to be rather a waste of money.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount not admit that the evidence given by the CEGB to the Layfield Committee was inaccurate?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to my original Answer.

European Central Bank Proposal
11.18 a.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude towards the creation of a European central bank.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we believe that it is premature to make detailed plans for further stages of economic and monetary union before Stage One has even begun. We have expressed our reserve on the monetary aspects of EMU beyond Stage One, including the proposed European system of central banks.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Earl comment on the widespread press reporting after the recent meeting of European Community finance ministers at Ashford Castle in Ireland to the effect that there was a noticeable softening of the British attitude towards the possibility of moving ahead with monetary union and particularly with the creation of a European central bank? Will he furthermore reassure the House that, in any discussions on a European level of these matters affecting future monetary and financial arrangements, the Government will bear carefully in mind the need to safeguard the position of the City of London as the financial centre of Western Europe and will not jeopardise that by appearing to be standing aside from the mainstream of development?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, regarding the noble Lord's first question, I hope that he was not beguiled by the press reports but read the statement that was issued by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer afterwards which made it perfectly clear that the British position had not changed. Regarding the second question and the position of the City of London, of course we are keen to see the City of London retain its pre-eminent position.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I recognise and agree with the Minister that without knowing much more about a European central bank it is impossible at this stage to decide whether or not one wants to join it. However, can he say whether the Government are in favour in principle of joining a European central bank?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was made perfectly clear in the debates in another place and in this House that the mood of Parliament was that we should not go to Stage Three, including a European central bank.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government recognise that it is possible that a European central bank could be created without the participation of this country? What likelihood do they place on such an institution being located in London? What relationship do the Government see between a European central bank—whether or not it includes Britain—and the proposed East European development bank? Would it not be a pity if Britain were excluded from a European central bank in view of the likely preponderant role of that bank in setting up, financing and collaborating with the East European development bank?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. The noble Lord has also asked me a number of hypothetical questions.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain a little further the answer that he gave to the question before the last one when he said that we should not go to Stage Three? Does he mean that we should never go to Stage Three or does he mean that we should go when the time is right?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government have spelt out clearly on a number of occasions their attitude towards Stage Three. I said that the gist of the Government's position was supported by both Houses in the debate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is a fallacy to imagine that central banks can ever be wholly immune from political pressures, generally in favour of inflationary policies, particularly when countries such as Greece are involved? Does he also agree that the supposedly Olympian Bundesbank has been leant on heavily by the West German Government to hold down interest rates pending the unification of the two Germanics even though on the basis of purely economic considerations a rise in interest rates would have been justified?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the position of any bank depends on its terms of reference. The extent to which a bank is genuinely independent varies from country to country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the Governor of the Bank of England's interesting admission that bankers can sometimes make major
234
policy mistakes, and in view of the conduct, which some have called irresponsible, of a very large number of banks towards Third World indebtedness, will the noble Earl give the House an unequivocal undertaking that his Government will not under any circumstances take steps that would affect the right of the British Parliament to determine fiscal, economic and financial policy within the United Kingdom and that that will remain exactly as it is now?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very clear statement of his position on the matter. The Government have made a very clear statement of their position. As the noble Lord will know, the inter-governmental conference is due to start later this year, in which we shall play a very active part.

Social Security Bill
11.24 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
In another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said at Second Reading that there had been a Social Security Bill before the House every year since this Government took office. This year's Bill is not a major piece of social security legislation but its scope is substantial. As with most social security Bills it has some necessary fine tuning and some substantial measures to implement new policy.
The Bill as it now stands has broadly three main themes. It makes changes to disability benefits—part of the comprehensive strategy set out in The Way Ahead. It provides greater protection for the members of occupational pension schemes —particularly with the changes introduced at Report stage in another place by my right honourable friend. In addition, the Bill now contains a package of interim measures to help obtain maintenance for lone parent families. The Bill makes a number of minor changes to the law relating to income support and the social fund, to the law relating to various other benefits, to national insurance contributions, and makes a change to the scope of the National Insurance Fund. The Bill also gives new powers to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy to introduce a new scheme of grants towards the cost of insulation measures in low income households.
In the course of my speech I intend to dwell on the important themes in rather more detail. I am sure that the whole Bill —including the minutiae —will be of interest to the House. I am equally sure, however, that the House will think it right that I should not detain it over long in attempting to be too comprehensive. I do, however, want the House to bear in mind at the outset that the changes in this Bill represent only one chapter in our continuing development of the social security system.

235
We are now spending over £1 billion each week on social security. The total of £56 billion is over a third higher in real terms than expenditure in 1979. We have to make sure that those enormous sums are spent efficiently, wisely and fairly and that we respond quickly to changing demands. Together with the many other changes we are carrying forward separately —for example, in the uprating of benefits that has just taken place—the Bill is designed to help prepare both the social security system and the arrangements for occupational pensions to meet the needs of the next 10 years.
The first part of the Bill concerns benefits for the disabled. The House will know that we came forward last January with major proposals for improving the balance and structure of social security benefits for people who are disabled. Those are contained in The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People. Those proposals include the introduction of a disability allowance and a disability employment credit, both of which we aim to have in place by April 1992. Much detailed work is still required in developing our proposals for those new benefits. In carrying out that work we shall, of course, take account of comments made by disabled people and those who represent them.
Other proposals are reflected in some of the measures which are in the Bill before the House today. They are intended to enhance the benefits of severely disabled people who were never able to work or who were disabled early in life. At the same time we are ensuring that there is a better overall structure of income replacement benefits, taking account of the encouraging growth of occupational provision in this field.
It gives me particular pleasure to introduce Clause 1 of the Bill. It follows directly from debates during the passage of last year's Social Security Bill concerning the problems faced by people who satisfy the criteria for attendance allowance but who, sadly, die before they become eligible for payment. The House will recall in particular the close interest taken in this matter by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. This clause will bring into effect the commitment made then by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale to tackle this problem. It will ensure that people who suffer from a progressive disease and for whom death in consequence can reasonably be expected within six months will be able to qualify for attendance allowance without having to satisfy the normal six-month qualifying period. They will be awarded the higher rate allowance —that is £37·55 a week—and if they are on income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit they will also benefit from the disability premiums. Their carers will be eligible for invalid care allowance and, for those on income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit, the new carers premium.
About 58,000 people each year will benefit. By the year 1992-93 the total extra benefit for terminally ill people, their families and carers will add up to some £35 million. When added to the extra help that we have already provided for disabled people and their carers this year—for example, by removing the lower age limit on attendance allowance to allow people to claim it for severely disabled babies, by
236
increasing the invalid care allowance earnings limit from £ 12 to £20 and by the extra £ 10 carers premium in the income-related benefits—I hope that the House will agree that this package represents a large improvement in the balance and structure of the benefits provided for disabled people.
Clause 2 introduces age-related additions to severe disablement allowance, which is a benefit available to people who have not paid the necessary national insurance contributions to qualify for invalidity benefit. There will be three rates of addition, with the highest payable to people who become incapable of work before reaching the age of 40. This will increase their benefit by £10 a week to £38·20.
Clause 3 deals primarily with the abolition of reduced earnings allowance for new claimants. Reduced earnings allowance is payable where a person loses earnings as a result of an industrial accident or prescribed industrial disease. In bringing legislation before the House, we have uppermost in our minds the needs of the disabled population as a whole and the needs of those among them who suffer the most disabling of incapacities. The abolition of the allowance is part of the consideration of the balance of provision among disabled people generally and should be seen particularly in the context of the two new benefits.
The abolition of reduced earnings allowance will remove a clear overlap between benefit provisions for the majority of the recipients of the allowance who are not working. Those people in the main also receive the normal long-term national insurance benefit—invalidity benefit—which is available for those who are unable to work as a result of sickness or disability.
I should stress, however, that present beneficiaries and new entitlements established before the Bill becomes law will be fully protected. They will continue to receive reduced earnings allowance so long as they fulfil the qualifying conditions and of course the benefit will continue to be uprated on the same basis as of now. In addition, claimants with occupational disabilities assessed at 14 per cent. or more which occur after the Bill comes into force will continue to be eligible to receive disablement benefit.
The final disability measure relates to invalidity benefit. That benefit consists of three elements. First and most significantly, there is the basic invalidity pension payable at the same rates as retirement pension. Secondly, there is the age-related invalidity allowance and, thirdly, the earnings-related additional pension. Clause 4 is concerned only with the additional pension.
The average payment of additional pension with invalidity benefit at present is about £9 a week, with a maximum payment of £41 a week. That currently costs some £450 million a year, but by 1998 those amounts will, if unchecked, have risen to an average payment of £21 a week, a maximum payment of £84 and an annual cost of some £1·6 billion. Growth on that scale would not only inhibit the welcome expansion in occupational sick pay coverage for the long-term sick, which has trebled to something approaching 60 per cent. in the last 15 years, but would further widen the gap between those who have been able to work and those who have not.

237
That would be contrary to the Government's objectives in The Way Ahead to which I have already referred. We want to ensure that both now and in the future we can give proper emphasis to the needs of the most vulnerable among the disabled who are least able to make financial provision for themselves. That is why we are concentrating the available resources on those people who have unfortunately been disabled from birth or from very early in their working lives.
Clause 4 therefore provides that no new—and I stress the word "new"—entitlement to additional pension with invalidity benefit will arise after the 1990-91 tax year. However, I should make it clear to the House that all rights built up in the year up to and including 1990-91 will be preserved. That will apply to both existing claims and to those made in the future.
The complete package of measures for the disabled outlined in The Way Ahead will give extra help to an estimated 850,000 people. The total net effect by 1993-94, even allowing for the savings, will be to add some £300 million to the total costs of the benefits that we pay to the disabled and their carers. That is over and above the money that we shall pay on account of inflation and over and above the money paid on account of increased demand. That amply demonstrates the substantial extent of our commitment.
Clause 8 contains a package of interim measures to help obtain maintenance for lone parent families. The number of families in Britain headed by a lone aprent has risen substantially in recent years, as has the proportion of those families on benefit. However, the proportion for whom maintenance is paid has fallen. We must ensure that there is a framework which will ensure that absent parents do more to meet their responsibilities. The Government have already announced that they are reviewing the whole system of maintenance and we have commissioned a survey to give us a proper basis on which to assess possibly radical changes to the system. The Bill makes three changes that we can introduce on a faster track. It will ensure that, where the absent parent has the means to pay, realistic account is taken of the benefit cost of the lone parent because of her responsibility for caring for the children. That is consistent with powers available to the court under family law.
The Bill will enable the Department of Social Security to transfer a maintenance order that it has itself taken out under social security legislation to the lone parent when she leaves benefit. The lone parent need not therefore go to the trouble of taking out her own order in those circumstances. Finally, the Bill will enable the department to take action to enforce payment of existing private maintenance orders taken out by lone parents on benefit. At present the lone parent has to approach the courts herself. I hope that the House will welcome all these steps. They address issues which are of particular concern to lone parents and all will benefit, both the mothers and their children.
238
The House will expect me to say a little about Clause 9. Clause 9 was introduced by my right honourable friend at Report stage in another place in response to concerns expressed about the way income support is paid to residents of residential care and nursing homes. The Secretary of State will take account of the charges negotiated by local authorities with homes as part of the new community care arrangements when setting the limits for people in homes after April 1991 under the preserved income support arrangements.
That power is designed to assist in setting up a system of local limits; namely, a move to some system of geographical variation specified for districts or areas of Great Britain. At present, as noble Lords will know, the limits are set nationally across the country with only a limited variation in the case of London.
The House will recall that at the same time as announcing that new power my right honourable friend announced further action ahead of 1991. There will be a second stage to the increase in the current limits in 1990-91. In addition to the changes already effective from this month, from 13th August further targeted increases to all the income support limits will be made to help maintain their value during the coming year. In all, we estimate that more than 200,000 people will benefit from these additional increases.
I turn now to occupational pensions, an area in which we have introduced some important measures in recent years. In Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this Bill we are building on that platform. That platform has encouraged individuals to make proper financial plans for their retirement and has given them greater choice in deciding what is best for them in their particular circumstances. There has of course been a tremendous response and the numbers of people taking out personal pensions is just one indicator of that.
Our measures have been designed to create a more stable and sustainable pensions structure, in which a larger part of provision over and above the basic state retirement pension will be as a result of people's own savings while in work.
There are significant measures in the Bill designed to give greater protection to members of schemes. Most of the measures stem from the recommendations of the Occupational Pensions Board, whose report was entitled Protecting Pensions. I must acknowledge the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who has been a member of that board for a number of years. I know that our debates on these matters at later stages of the Bill will be all the more informed for the contribution that she will make to them. As the House will be aware, the Government have accepted the vast majority of the OPB's recommendations, and our proposals have been widely welcomed. The main theme is to improve benefit security and give greater assistance to scheme members.
We are therefore introducing a number of proposals. First, revaluation is to be applied to the whole of the preserved pension rights of future early leavers, not just that fraction accumulating after

239
1985. This will help a large number of people in this country, and especially those who change jobs. The value of the pension rights above the guaranteed minimum pension level will be revalued until they come into payment in line with price increases, or by 5 per cent. if that is less.
Secondly, schemes will have to pay annual increases to members for pension rights for future service. For these rights members should be guaranteed increases in line with the RPI up to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year. We are also requiring schemes to use their surpluses to pay increases to members for pension rights which they have already built up. This will improve very substantially the attractiveness of schemes to their members and will turn what are at present often only discretionary increases into guaranteed entitlements.
Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill are concerned with providing a better service for individual members of schemes. We believe that the introduction of a pensions ombudsman is a major step forward. Although assistance is already available from various sources, such as the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service—and again I acknowledge the valuable support which the noble Baroness has given to this body since its inception —there is a clear need for a straightforward method of redress for consumers' problems. Individuals will be able to approach the ombudsman and schemes will have to abide by the decisions given.
A tracing service should also assist many people to track down where past pension rights may be held. A levy will be charged on occupational and personal pension schemes to help pay for those new services.
The final item that I wish to mention at this stage is Clause 15. This gives power to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy to introduce a new scheme of grants towards the cost of household insulation measures. I hope that this will be welcomed by the House. The new scheme of grants will build on the success of the community insulation projects and the home insulation scheme.
The clause does no more than give an enabling power to my right honourable friend to make regulations governing the new scheme. Those regulations will set the detailed framework for the new arrangements. I know that my right honourable friend is consulting widely on the details of the scheme at present.
As I said at the beginning, I shall not trouble the House with all the various provisions. They cover much of the social security field and are, I hope, clear from the face of the Bill. We are all primed and ready to debate everything in detail at Committee and during the later stages.
The main purpose of the Bill is to begin the process that we have embarked upon to give a better balanced system of disability benefits. It also makes major and necessary changes to the maintenance arrangements for lone parents, and to the operation of occupational pension schemes. As an important element of this Government's measured and deliberate strategy across the field of social security I commend it to the House.
240
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —[Lord Henley.)
11.44 a.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for his lucid exposition of what he correctly said is not a big Bill. But it is a very important Bill, even though we are discussing it at what I can only describe as the connoisseur's hour of 11.30 a.m. on Friday. As the Minister said, we are used to having a social security Bill every Session, and like all such previous Bills from this Government it contains a number of measures which are welcome and a number which we regard as a step backwards, but the Bill also omits a whole range of important provisions which I shall mention.
As the Minister said, the Bill has two broad divisions: benefits and occupational pensions. I propose to concentrate on the benefits provisions and, like the Minister, I shall not attempt to deal with every clause. My noble friend Lady Turner has great expertise in pension matters and will deal with the pension provisions.
With regard to benefits and Clause 15 we welcome the removal of the six months' waiting time for attendance allowance for the terminally ill, particularly as this change was the subject of an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in the 1988 Bill when the Government undertook to deal with the matter in this year's Bill. The Government have kept their word. They have tried hard to obtain an acceptable definition. I congratulate them on their effort. As the clause states, it is where death,
"can reasonably be expected within 6 months".
However, as I understand it, there is still considerable concern in a number of quarters regarding the wording and operation of the clause. We shall investigate that in the later stages of the Bill. For example, there are the terminally ill whose life expectancy is greater than six months—for instance, those who suffer from AIDS. There are also the proposals to merge attendance allowance and mobility allowance (which are not dealt with in this Bill) to have a common qualifying period of three months. On the face of it that would appear to have a direct and contradictory bearing on Clause 1 of the Bill. There is a strong argument that all those whose illness, while not terminal, is permanent should qualify for attendance allowance with no waiting period. We shall wish to explore that possibility further in the later stages of the Bill.
The proposals in Clause 2 for age-related additions to the severe disablement allowance are not at all what they seem. That is because SDA claimants in receipt of income support or housing benefit will not receive the addition because it will be deducted from their means-tested benefits. I believe that this will affect well over half of those in receipt of SDA. There are no proposals in the Bill to abolish or amend the harsh qualifying conditions for SDA.
The proposals in Clause 4 to end the new rights to earnings-related additions to invalidity benefit after April next year are quite simply a cut in benefits but with no commensurate reduction in

241
contributions. This is just another in the series of cuts in invalidity benefit which started in 1985. The effect of the change can be gauged from the fact that that resultant savings in expenditure from this measure are estimated to amount to £350 million by 1999.
As the Minister said, Clause 9 deals with the very important question of income support from those in residential or nursing homes. It is fair to say that this is a matter on which the Government got into a fair muddle in another place. Clause 9 has now been drafted but I am not at all sure that the provisions in fact deal properly with the problem.
There are two aspects to the matter. First, there are the people who are on income support now who cannot meet the full cost of their residential or nursing care. As the Minister said, the Government have come forward with an interim rise of £5 to £15 per week, which will be payable from August, depending on the type of care. That is to cover a gap which ranges from £30 to £60 a week at the highest. As a result there are now many frail and frightened old people who are fearful of eviction from their residential or nursing homes. I must ask the Minister what the Government propose should be done for those people now. Who is supposed to foot the bill now for any shortfall?
The second aspect concerns the question of what happen:; after April 1991 when community care becomes the responsibility of the local authorities. I have read extremely carefully what the Secretary of State, Mr. Newton, said in another place at col. 590 on 28th March. He stated:
"The power that I am taking in the new clause is designed to set up a system of local limits … In fairness to my hon. Friends, whose concern I understand and respect, I am not saying that it would necessarily be possible to make use of those powers at the absolute starting point in April 1991.
It is clear that we shall need to gain experience of what local authorities are negotiating. For a long time, there may be many homes in which local authorities have not negotiated and have not placed people. It would be foolish of me to suggest that we can suddenly produce a wholesale change in the system … However, once we have adequate information on the scale required, the new clause will give me the power to respond",
and so on. I have a simple question for the Minister. How long is a long time? When will the Government have the information they need to ensure that there is not a continuing shortfall between income support and the cost of nursing and residential care after April next year with all that that will mean to elderly infirm people and their families?
I must also say a word about Clause 10 which relates to the social fund. The relevant words in the Bill are worth studying. They are stated on page 15 in subsection (10ZA):
"The Secretary of State may issue directions… for the purpose of securing that a social fund officer … shall not in any specified period make awards of any specified description which in the aggregate exceed the amount, or a specified portion of the amount, allocated to that oficer".
So much, my Lords, for flexibility; so much for discretion; so much for a fund that we were assured in this House would not be cash limited. Clause 10 does nothing to remove the fundamental flaw in the social fund. One cannot have a flexible, discretionary
242
fund which is cash limited. The proposed changes are bound to lead to an increase in the number of applicants who are refused help because local funds are inadequate, regardless of the level of the applicant's need.
I should like to quote two examples out of many supplied by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. A CAB in Dorset reported an elderly client with a heart condition refused money for removal expenses because there was no money available. A CAB in Yorkshire reported a family with two young children rehoused by a housing association. The social fund officer was upset but said that there was no money available to help them start up home even if there were a danger of the children being taken into care.
The concept of the social fund is deeply flawed. There is nothing in the Bill to put right. The Government have simply been forced to spell out on the face of the Bill what they tried to slip in through the back door in the so-called "guidance" to social fund officers—a guidance which was found to be illegal.
Noble Lords may have seen in the press this morning the extraordinary story of the homeless family who were offered a loan from the social fund to buy a tent. Obviously there was something seriously wrong between the social fund office and the local authority. However, I thought that the story was curiously symbolic of the social fund with its mixture of maladministration and insensitivity.
I referred at the beginning of my speech to omissions in the Bill. I should like to refer first to disability benefits. What I say is not the ritual Opposition denunciation of a government measure. The Government must know that there is a deep sense of anger and frustration among people with disabilities at what they regard frankly as deception by the Government. To their credit, the Government set up the OPCS surveys in 1984 and we congratulate them for that. For five years until the last OPCS report was published in July 1989, the Government promised that there would be a comprehensive review of disability benefits to follow the OPCS surveys. At one stage there was even talk of an independent review. What happened after five years of surveying and the promise of full consultation and a comprehensive review of disability benefits? The Government allowed one day between the publication of the White Paper, The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People, and the publication of the Bill. I cannot help feeling that the Government would save much parliamentary time if they just gave us the Acts of Parliament and obtained the Royal Assent before they gave us the Bills.
The package of government proposals in the so-called comprehensive review will help 850,000 people. That is 13 per cent. of the 6·5 million disabled people who were identified in the OPC surveys.
In a speech to the Industrial Society on 3rd April, the Secretary of State, Mr Newton, said:
"Disabled people are another group whose needs have become more apparent against the background of social change and economic growth. The numbers of disabled people and the nature

243
of their disabilities have changed. The growing elderly population leads to an increase in the disabilities associated with old age. Medical advances have also prolonged the lives of many people with chronic conditions."
The Secretary of State is absolutely right. The OPCS survey showed that the largest single group of disabled people are those over pension age. Those are 4·2 million out of 6·5 million—two thirds of the total. There is virtually nothing in the Government package to help that very large and needy group. I suspect that the paucity of the government proposals was the cause of the total absence of consultation and the simultaneous publication of the White Paper and the Bill.
We are committed on this side of the House to a comprehensive disability income and a disability cost allowance. They will take time to achieve, but achieve them we shall.
There are a number of other matters which are not in the Bill but to which we shall certainly wish to address ourselves as the Bill proceeds through the House. Those are the issues regarding child benefit, the extension of the mobility allowance to the severely mentally handicapped, the compensation for nuclear test victims and the situation of students and social security.
Once again there are no proposals to uprate child benefit. The arguments are well known to noble Lords but they are none the weaker for that. We shall certainly wish to put down amendments to restore the sums that the Government have filched from child benefit.
In the 1988 Bill this House accepted an amendment moved by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, to extend the mobility allowance to a carefully defined group of severely mentally handicapped. The Government rejected the amendment in another place, so robbing about 10,000 people of £26 a week. We shall try again to put that right in the Bill.
An amendment was put down by Mr. Bob Clay and defeated in another place. It attempted to deal with compensation for servicemen who were victims of nuclear testing in Australia in the 1950s. I believe that some 28,000 people are involved at a total cost of about £4 million. The numbers, for obvious reasons, sadly, are reducing all the time. America now has legislation which allows for compensation. It is high time that similar legislation was introduced in this country. We shall be putting down amendments to that effect.
Another area to which we shall pay attention is the decision to deprive students of unemployment benefits, income support and housing benefit. I understand that there may be procedural difficulties in dealing with that as a result of the passage of the student loans Bill, but if we can deal with the issue in this Bill we shall certainly attempt to do so.
However, the biggest omission in the Bill is the failure to deal with the increasing gap between the rich and the poor in our country—a gap which the social security system should be closing and not widening. We now learn that the figures regarding poverty that have been quoted for the past two years by Ministers, in particular the Prime Minister, were
244
badly wrong, Ministers have been saying that the income of the poorest 10 per cent. of the population has risen faster than the average. In fact we now know that it rose only half as fast as the average. The reason for the discrepancy was an error in the calculation of housing costs.
Lord Ennals: And repeated time and again.
Lord Carter: It was repeated time and again, as my noble friend says. The increase for the poorest group was in fact 2·6 per cent. against an average increase of 5·4 per cent. Those figures show that the poor have become relatively poorer, as many of us have been arguing for some time. The income divide between the top 20 per cent. and the bottom 20 per cent. of men in work is now wider than it was 100 years ago. The relative pay of the lower paid is now the lowest on record. Seventeen per cent. of the population is receiving income support, which is a 50 per cent. increase since 1979. There has been an increase in poverty and homelessness, a reduction in the real value of social security benefits, a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor and the creation of the so-called underclass. It is sad to say that, while in the traditions of this House we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill, it does nothing to deal with the situation that I have described.
12 noon
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish first to take up my noble kinsman's remarks about the size of the social security budget. I hope that by raising the matter now I shall save myself the need to run through the argument 10 or 20 times in Committee, which may bore your Lordships.
My noble kinsman gave a figure of £56 billion, which is a considerable sum of money. He spoke of "enormous sums" and it is not fanciful to imagine the voice of the Treasury repeating those words in a slightly different tone. I have a suspicion that the department is under a certain amount of pressure. If so, I hope that the Secretary of State will give the robust reply that the difficulties in his budget are a result of the failure of the policies of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A great deal of the social security budget is the result of unemployment. I did not say "registered unemployment" because one area in which the difference between unemployment and registered unemployment shows up most clearly is the cost of income support.
Another area in which costs are falling on the Department of Social Security in its usual position as long stop is the results of the part-time revolution. Far too many people in part-time work are not receiving a living wage or a proper occupational pension and have to fall back on the department to top up inadequate wages. In talking about the size of the budget we are not talking about the profligacy of the department—it is not the department's fault —but about the policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment. I hope that the argument will not be unduly deployed in order to block actions which need to be taken.

245
In considering the Bill we should to a large extent regard this House as being the initiating House. At the Report stage of the Bill in another place three new government clauses were introduced, two of which will detain us the longest time. It is not for Members of this House to criticise the way in which another place chooses to manage its business. However, the Guillotine then used had the result that some of the clauses now come to us almost undebated and in at least one case almost entirely unexplained. It will take a little of the time of this House to pursue those matters. Before the provisions become law they should receive parliamentary scrutiny in at least one House, and that cannot be done without spending a little time.
This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill and, as with any such Bill, some of the provisions are better than others. Clause 1, dealing with the attendance allowance, represents a concession from last year's Social Security Bill in response to pressure from the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Baroness Lady Faithful!, and my noble friend Lady Seear. It represents a government undertaking honourably discharged, which I warmly welcome. However it is the function of this House to look gift horses in the mouth and I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I raise one or two questions. I gave my noble kinsman notice of my question about the uprating order.
The first question is whether the phrase "progressive disease" is correct when applied to AIDS or whether the progressive disease is the AIDS or the pneumonia or cancer which is consequential on it. If one matter became clear in the debates on the clause: it was that the whole House, including the Government, intended the phrase to apply to AIDS. Perhaps before the Committee stage my noble kinsman can discover whether that intention was achieved.
Another matter to which we should pay attention, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is the phrase,
"reasonably expected to die within six months".
Having regard to the kind of spirit in which social security is sometimes administered, I should not wish to find people being told that they are not entitled to the allowance because they might live for seven months instead of six. That would create a great deal of unfavourable publicity and we should check to ensure that we have not inadvertently achieved that effect.
I agree with practically everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The OPCS reports are cases of the mountain labouring and bringing forth a mouse. I know that we are told that there is yet a further stage in prospect. I hope that it will be larger than anything we have had so far. I shall not soon forget the noble Lord, Lord Carter, saying in July last year that he expected the Minister to rise, say "OPCS" and then sit down again. We have not yet gone beyond that stage. The Government should consider that it is a grave political failing, and one usually severely punished, to raise massive expectations which one then fails to satisfy.
246
I give a warm welcome in principle to Clause 15 providing for energy insulation. Anyone familiar with old houses in London will know that a vast amount of money is being wasted through the cracks in those houses. That is of considerable cost to the country as a whole. However, I have one or two misgivings about the provision. Twelve million pounds is not much money, and I hope that after the initial experiments the scheme will be implemented on a more generous scale than is now envisaged. Perhaps if it were it might in the end save the country money. I have misgivings about the use of agencies to implement the scheme. I am not clear about the precise objectives of the agencies and how far they will genuinely involve a true concept of public service.
I also have misgivings about Clause 5. It reverses a court judgment and has a retrospective effect, both of which we should view with misgivings. Indeed, I wonder whether the Government's attitude to the courts is becoming a little like their attitude to this House. Another reason why we should look carefully at Clause 5 is that in another place it received no more than two-and-a-half minutes in debate. The Minister was unable to finish her speech explaining the clause; indeed, she was unable to finish her sentence. At some stage Parliament must be told what the clause is about. I shall facilitate that by tabling a Motion in Committee opposing the Question that the clause stand part. I do not necessarily have the objective of removing it—I reserve judgment about that—but I simply wish to discover what it is about.
The issue of single parents will detain the House for some time. As my noble kinsman said, it is one of interim changes which I provisionally welcome, as did my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood. The aim of requiring fathers to take financial responsibility for their offspring is a rule of civilisation and it is not one which will be opposed from these Benches. On the other hand, we should bear in mind that it is an aim which has been pursued by Parliament in various forms for more than 400 years. Success in that area has been distinctly limited. As has been said, it is difficult to get blood out of a stone, especially if it is a rolling stone.
I was very glad to see that the Secretary of State in another place said that there was sometimes good reason for mothers not naming fathers. Even if there were no good reasons, that has sometimes proved impossible. This Government are not the first to have considered the possibility of forcing mothers to name fathers. The very earliest attempt in that direction was made in the reign of Elizabeth I by the justices of the peace in Wiltshire. The effect of that was that the mothers named not the fathers but men who had subjected them to sexual harrassment and who found it difficult to clear their names. Therefore, I hope during the further review that the Government will bear in mind that the success of measures of that type is limited.
It has never been possible to get all fathers to accept their liabilities. There has always been a problem of fathers not feeling that they can pay as much as they are assessed to pay. While one may not necessarily have any moral sympathy with that

247
claim, an attempt to get too much sometimes results in getting nothing at all which could defeat the object of the exercise.
The other matter which I hope will be borne in mind in the review is that in the whole history of legislation on this subject many times people have thought that legislation could deter people from becoming single parents. That hope has been invariably disappointed and I hope that the Secretary of State does not entertain it.
As regards the present Bill, I welcome the use of the Secretary of State's power in obtaining maintenance orders but I rather share the regrets expressed by Mr. Frank Field in another place that he has not taken that rather further and carried on with the power of enforcing maintenance orders even if the person concerned is off benefit. There is a rather general problem which stretches well beyond maintenance; namely, that it is not very clear that among those who are extremely short of money the right to initiate a civil action is a very valuable protection especially in the light of the current difficulties with the legal aid system. If there is to be any really adequate protection and any regular recourse to the law to obtain maintenance orders, then there must be a machinery of public enforcement. Otherwise, I do not believe that that will happen.
We shall also have to spend considerable time on the Social Fund. On that, I agree with practically everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Lord Justice Woolf's judgment is worth a good deal of study. Lord Justice Woolf expressed surprise that Parliament should have authorised the Secretary of State to give directions having the force of law without even recourse to Parliament. However, he said that although he was surprised that Parliament should have intended any such thing, he had come to the conclusion nevertheless that Parliament had done so.
What is remarkable and what gave rise to that judgment is that although the Secretary of State had power to issue directions he chose to conceal his cash limiting instructions under the guise of less mandatory guidance. That is an interesting decision. I can only say that the use of guidance instead of directions appears to me to be—and I choose my words carefully —a homage which cash limit pays to entitlement.
I shall not develop further the examples from the NACAB report to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. I have a number of examples here but I am running out of time. We need to think very hard about the notion of flexibility and cash limiting. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that they were incompatible. I think that depends on what is meant by flexibility and I fear that what the Government mean by flexibility is that whether a need will be met depends on how many people have that need. The more people who have it, the less likely it is to be met.
Again, that is something which has been tried before. In the early centuries of the history of this system attempts were made to limit relief to the amount which could be raised from a local rate in
248
one area; that is the same idea as a local cash limit which is now being tried. Inevitably, need did not follow predictable levels. For example, there was a famous situation in Sheffield some 350 years ago when the number of people paying for poor relief was a good deal smaller than the number receiving it. There is always a severe problem where there is a collapse of local industry, a severe local epidemic or perhaps a town where there are more broken marriages than usual. Need does not not follow planned guidelines. Therefore, if there is to be cash limiting there will be a failure to meet need.
I shall touch very briefly—and it can only be briefly —on the problem of residential homes. That is a concession as a result of a government defeat in another place. It is entirely a good thing that we should be reminded that we are not the only people who defeat the Government. I welcome the concession. I think that the Secretary of State has done his best. He has bought himself time but I do not think he has done much more than that. He must look closely at the system of income support and residential homes which seems to me to combine all the disadvantages of both the free and controlled markets.
We have something which is rather like the system of contract funding designed for universities on which the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Swann, spoke very eloquently a few years ago. We have a near monopoly provider of money trying to buy services for a number of people who do not really have the ability to shop around at a rate to be fixed by the Government. I cannot think of any case in which the Government have fixed a financial limit where they have got it right. This is no exception.
Therefore, there is still a gap between the amount of income support provided and the actual cost of residential homes. I do not see any way in which that gap can be closed. The Government will have to consider taking over the homes themselves, in which case they can control both costs and the amount of funding, or completely free the market and meet whatever that costs. I do not see any way out of that other than continuing with the same problems which we now have. I shall not pursue that matter further but there is a good deal in this Bill which we can take up in Committee.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the Minister said, a Bill of this kind is now an annual event. In itself that is an interesting indication of the way in which our social security system has developed and is partly a by-product of the sheer complexity of the system. Many years ago when I had responsibility for it, the system was comparatively simple. It has now developed into a system of such complexity that, as one sees in your Lordships' House this afternoon, only a limited number of your Lordships feel able to be present in order to deal with further developments.
On the other hand, it is important that there should be these annual reviews of the system, not least from the point of view of what is rather crudely called targeting. That is not a phrase which I particularly like but I think it is intended as an

249
indication of something very important. The importance is that there are innumerable good cases to be made—and we have heard some this morning—for various increases, improvements and benefits for further help to all sorts of people with misfortunes. However, there is and must be on the Government a responsibility for deciding which of those particular matters should be given priority. Given the immense expenditure to which my noble friend referred in moving the Motion and given the very large effort made in respect of social security throughout the country, it is obvious that there must be a degree of selectivity in picking out not merely good cases but the cases with a justification for priority.
Noble Lords opposite may recall that the late Mr. Ane jrin Bevan once said that the language of socialism is the language of priorities. In fact it goes a good deal further than that; the language of social security is the language of priorities. Few people with practical experience of social security administration fail to appreciate that there are many admirable things which one would like to do but which it is not possible to do. Ministers therefore have the difficult responsibility of choosing the directions in which it is possible to make improvements. That is true of Ministers in any government. It has certainly been true of Ministers in the past. I am not saying particularly Ministers in the past; they may be wrong on occasions. All humanity is subject to error. Nonetheless, Ministers have always seriously and earnestly tried to distinguish which particular claim is the strongest.
That is the reason why I have sometimes ventured to comment in your Lordships' House when a particular issue has been raised and people feel strongly about the merits of particular claims that it is not quite fair on the Government or the House simply to take one issue and point out its merits unless one is in a position to weigh it against other competing ones. That is the advantage of this annual Bill. It gives the Government the opportunity to choose their priorities, to say which items have a claim on resources in priority over other admirable claims and then for your Lordships' House to decide whether the Government are right. That is the object of the Bill and the debates, rather than, if I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, general consideration of the economic policies of the Government. Our time in Committee, but also on Second Reading, will be spent more profitably if we look at the individual items and try to come to a conclusion as to which are entitled to priority in the circumstances of today.
One of the reasons for an annual Bill is that the priorities vary over the years. The needs of the situation today are not the same as they were a few years ago, It is therefore up to the Government to suggest remedies for what are at the moment the most difficult problems. The Bill is evidence of some success in that direction.
I was delighted to see Clause 1, which deals with the attendance allowance particularly in the case of the terminally ill. As your Lordships were reminded, this has been discussed in your Lordships' House
250
before and the Government's response to the discussion is extremely welcome. I particularly welcome one aspect of Clause 1 which has not so far been mentioned. At the top of page 2 of the Bill, subparagraph (b) states:
"where a person purports to make a claim for an attendance allowance by virtue of that subsection on behalf of another, that other shall be regarded as making the claim, notwithstanding that it is made without his knowledge or authority".
In the case of people who are terminally ill it is vital that somebody else should be entitled to make the claim without involving them. I speak with some feeling on the matter because in my family I have experienced a somewhat similar situation. A person was known to be terminally ill, for it was around six months that life was forecast, and it proved possible not to disclose to her what her condition was. The advantage of the provision which I read out is that one does not need to frighten or embarrass the person concerned in order to apply for the allowance. An independent person, without consulting the person who is ill, can apply for the allowance. That is a very humane and extremely sensible and sensitive provision in the Bill.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for very long this afternoon because we shall be discussing the individual clauses no doubt at length. However, I should like to welcome the provisions of Clause 2 in respect of severe disablement allowances. There are adjustments to be made when disability comes on, shall we say, in the mid-30s and early 40s. Again this is a sensible attempt to deal with a very real situation.
I have two questions to ask my noble friend to consider when he replies where I have not been able to follow what is proposed. Clause 16 concerns industrial injuries and the transfer of part of the charge from the National Insurance Fund to the Consolidated Fund. Perhaps my noble friend will explain that provision. I should also be grateful if he could tell me who "an authorised complainant" is as referred to in Clause 12 and Schedule 3. How does one become an authorised complainant and what sort of people might be complainants but not authorised? I foresee certain difficulties in that direction, but it may be that there is a perfectly simple answer.
Finally, I welcome the appointment of the pensions ombudsman. It is curious how we have adopted into the English language that foreign expression, and how the sex discrimination enthusiasts have not insisted on "ombudsperson" or "ombudswoman". Apparently it is felt that in this vital area it is a man's job. I welcome the appointment in the Bill and do not suggest any proposed amendment. Given the complexity of these matters and, as has been emphasised, the importance of them to a great number of the least fortunate of our fellow citizens, it is very useful to have an independent person who can help with guidance, advice and the taking up of cases.
I am not necessarily an enthusiast for every provision in the Bill, but on the whole it is a good Bill. It is moving in several of the right directions and I hope that when it emerges from your Lordships' House it will be not only a good Bill but a splendid one.
12.29 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with almost everything that the previous speaker said. I seldom agree with him, but I agree with most of what he said this afternoon. I well recall his stint when he was Minister for Pensions and his contribution in that field.
The only point on which I might take issue with him is his description of the Bill as an "annual" Bill. It is not annual. We have had 12 Bills in 10 years, so it is a little more than annual. It is the twelfth Bill in just over 10 years under this unfortunate Government.
The noble Lord said that the annual Bill gives the Government an opportunity to rearrange their priorities. That may be true, but I do not happen to agree with their priorities. Does it not also in many cases make the complexity of the situation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, more complex? Each and every Bill that comes forward makes the position more and more complex and impossible for staff to keep up with training on new regulations and so on. The situation becomes totally impossible for the people who are on benefit—the claimants, or the targets, as the noble Lord said. The regulations are a jungle. By and large, people probably do not even understand the first Bill and we are now on Bill No. 12. The position becomes worse and worse, like some awful snowball that trundles on.
Having made those few remarks about the noble Lord's contribution I come to my own comments. I am a little less enthusiastic about the Bill than some, though there are measures contained in it that we all welcome and I shall come to those in a moment. I am less enthusiastic because I was frightened when I heard the Minister say that the Bill forms part of a continuing policy in the Government's social security programme. That frightens the life out of me because government policy so far has been disastrous in my view and in the view of millions of ordinary working people. Those people cannot say that, considering the facts, they are pleased with progress so far, and I share their apprehension about continuing progress if it is in the same direction.
All 12 Bills so far introduced have something in common. They were all designed to reduce public expenditure. They were designed to take pressure from the Treasury and in particular to reduce spending on the social services, which was said to be getting out of hand; that much could be privatised, much abolished and so on. The aim—the target, as the noble Lord said —has been to cut down on public expenditure and the obvious place is the biggest spending department—social services. That is also a worrying aspect of this policy.
Second Reading of this Bill provides an opportunity, and after 10 years an additional excuse, to look briefly at some of the previous Bills. I start with the 1980 Bill. Together with many noble Lords I have served in some capacity on all these Bills and we have memories of some and nightmares of others. However, the 1980 Bill broke the link between pensions and other benefits and wages or the cost of living index, whichever was the higher. The
252
cumulative effect is that pensions are now worth only four-fifths of what they would have been worth had the link remained. The single pension is now £12·65 less, and the married pension £20 less than they would have been had they been linked with wages.
That does not take into account the fact that pensioners almost always —in fact I go so far as to say always—lose out in relation to the rate of inflation. When the pension was introduced in 1948-49—I believe the Bill was introduced in 1948 and implemented in 1949—a year had already passed and the figures were based on 1948, so pensions were already one year behind the rate of inflation or cost of living index, whatever was the term used at that time. Pensions have never caught up since then. Last year, when we knew inflation was running at over 7 per cent. the pension was increased by 5·9 per cent. This year, with a magnanimous gesture and because the increase was so low the previous year, the increase is 7·6 per cent. but inflation is running at over 8 per cent. and rising. We also know that no compensation was made for the increase in inflation between last April/May and the time of the announcement of this year's increase. Therefore, pensions have never caught up with inflation.
I have not yet been able to calculate the figures on how much that has cost pensioners but it must be a fair amount. We hear of huge sums—billions of pounds— trotted out by Secretaries of State and other Ministries that the Government are spending on this, that and the other; and they always say that the figures are in real terms. However, the Government never say how much has been saved arising from all these measures. In other words, they never say where the money is coming from. It is usually being taken from one pocket to put in another pocket. There is very little new money in these transactions; it is always robbing Peter to pay Paul and we happen to be the Peters that are always robbed. Therefore, I have some apprehension when looking back at these Bills.
The No. 2 Bill in 1980, for example, cut benefits to strikers and their families as the general attack on the trade union movement was mounted. Earnings related benefits were abolished in that Bill. Again, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds being saved. Unemployment, sickness, maternity and industrial injuries benefits were all cut by 5 per cent. We do not need to be mathematicians to obtain a mental picture of the huge sums of money involved in those cuts and the savings made by the abolition or cutting of various benefits. We are therefore able to obtain a rough picture of the savings made by these Bills. In 1982-83 the saving was £1·5 billion and by 1985 the total cuts amounted to £8 billion. By 1987 the saving from breaking the link between pensions and inflation was £12 billion and rising. It is now £18 billion.
That £18 billion is a lot of money, but it has not been put back into the social security services. On the contrary, between 1980 and 1983 sickness benefits were privatised, again, to save money. The industrial injuries benefit was abolished. I referred to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he was at the Ministry of

253
Pensions. I remember one or two discussions because I was a shop steward at that time. We were very much involved in the old Workmen's Compensation Act and the switch to the ensuing Acts. In the same period dousing benefit was substituted for rent and rate rebates, and we all know of the disastrous effects of that change, which are continuing. There are local authorities and departments which have still not caught up with that legislation, yet we have piled more and more legislation on top of it. They will never catch up. The only hope is that the legislation will be abolished before they have to catch up with it. That seems to be part of the ongoing policy —when legislation becomes too complicated abolish it, call it something else and start again.
This year's Bill—annual, biannual or whatever one calls it —should have dealt with some of those problems. In my view they are priorities. Some of the difficulties arising from previous legislation could have been dealt with. There has been no attempt in this Bill to alleviate the hardships caused to millions of people by those policies.
Occupational pensions have been mentioned. My noble friend Lady Turner is an accredited expert on the subject. I fully agree with the Minister on that. I may he hiding behind the noble Baroness but that certainly saves us from having to do too much homework in regard to occupational pensions. It is true that membership of occupational pension schemes is increasing. No doubt it is also true that the pro portion of pensioners' incomes derived from occupational pensions has also increased. It has increased from 15 per cent. in 1974 to 20 per cent. in 1986. There is no doubt about that. However, we must remember that only a small proportion of people receive a substantial occupational pension. The figures are average. Some people will always remain dependent on the state pension. Many people still do not receive an occupational pension and never will.
The figures are interesting. Apparently the people of this country are divided into quintiles, quartiles and percentages, but I think for this purpose quartiles are used. Single men of 65 and over in the first quartile have an average occupational pension of £3·50. The top quarter for men of 65 and over have an average occupational pension of £87·20. If those figures are put together one gets a fairly big average and it is. possible to say that pensioner incomes have increased. That is true if figures are added together in that way and the average is worked out. However, I am still concerned about the fellow who is receiving only £3 50 on top of his meagre and much knocked about retirement pension. He is struggling. I say nothing about the 20 per cent. poll tax that he will now have to pay. I certainly look forward to hearing my noble friend's contribution on occupational pensions.
There are no measures included in the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, to improve the financial position of the 4·2 million pensioners in the United Kingdom. As far as I can see, there has been very little consultation about some of the other measures in the Bill, welcome though some of them are. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord
254
Boyd-Carpenter, has said about the attendance allowance. The new measures are long overdue but nonetheless welcome.
The increase in the severe disablement allowance is also welcome. However, it will not be of much use if the allowance is not excluded from the calculations for means tested benefits. Of the 263,000 people receiving the severe disablement allowance, 140,000 also receive income support. Many thousands of others receive housing benefit. Those two benefits will be cut in line with the amount that is received from the increase in the severe disablement allowance. So, as always, the recipient will get it with one hand and have it taken away with the other. Therefore, that measure will not achieve what the Minister said it would. I should like to see the severe disablement allowance raised to the level of the retirement pension.
I wanted also to mention the reduced earnings allowance, but I know that my noble friend Lady Turner is an expert on the subject. I can only claim a slight knowledge of it from my personal experience and of the effect that it will have. I do not have the time to go into the matter in detail.
I also welcome the appointment of the ombudsman. There have been some reservations expressed, mainly by the Consumers' Association. I can do no better than quote its reservations while welcoming the decision to appoint the ombudsman. The association states:
"We welcome the proposal that the Ombudsman's decision should be binding on the trustees, managers and persons claiming under them, except on appeal on point of law … Experience has shown that where an Ombudsman's decision is not binding, some companies are prepared to ignore the decision. A decision against the Cheshunt Building Society by the Building Societies Ombudsman was ignored, and since the inception of the scheme, 89 local authorities have ignored the decision of the Commissioner for local Administration.
However, we are extremely concerned that the consumer should have to give up his right to take a case to court, except on a point of law. Unlike trustees and managers, many consumers will be acting without legal representation. They may not be in a position to put their case to the Ombudsman effectively; even if he is correct on a point of law, the Ombudsman may misdirect himself on the face of the record, or fail to take vital evidence into account".
For those reasons the Consumers' Association hopes that the decision of the pensions ombudsman will similarly not be binding on the complainant. That is a fair point to make.
I could have spoken at much greater length on the question of pensions but there is one other subject that I wish to deal with before I sit down. Young people represent another area of interest for me. I do not believe they are mentioned in the Bill to any great extent. No one can say that young people are not a priority. We have often discussed homelessness. It is mentioned every day; therefore it must be a priority subject. But this Social Security Bill which has been brought forward does not deal with the points that have been raised; it deals with other points that were raised in two other Bills introduced some time ago, particularly as regards hostels.
There are immediate and urgent problems which have to be looked into. We talk about the complexity of Bills. In Parliamentary Answers given in another

255
place I have counted 66 changes which have been made since 1980 in the social security benefits specifically affecting the entitlement of young people and their parents. That is a great number of changes for young people and their parents to consider and understand. Young people have been very seriously affected by these measures.
Recently the Salvation Army made a rough survey and it counted 75,000 people sleeping rough. The London Research Centre adds to that the number of people who are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and under awful conditions. It makes the total 300,000.
I am involved with another issue. It is estimated that there are 3,000 convictions each year under the Vagrancy Act 1824. More people are now being convicted because they are homeless and that is now a crime. Certainly in London more people are being convicted for that than for burglary. That is a matter which this Bill could have dealt with.
The Government could have considered the Vagrancy Act and asked themselves how it is acting against youngsters in the present situation. They should have asked themselves whether they should be doing something about the situation instead of allowing young people to be arrested and convicted under the 1824 Act. The Act is not a deterrent and it is not proving anything. It makes a bad situation that much worse. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something on that subject.
At the same time, while these millions of pounds are being saved, the 1988 Budget and others handed out thousands of pounds. I believe that in the 1988 Budget £2,000 million was given to 750,000 of the richest taxpayers. Most of that money came from social security beneficiaries and claimants who did not get their payments. There is no argument about that. Noble Lords can shake their heads, but the facts and the statistics are there. Just up the road from here the people themselves are there to prove it. They are the people who are being deprived. It is almost a unique situation, certainly in Europe, where a government are redistributing from the poor to the rich. I read somewhere that to be old, disabled, unemployed or poor is to be regarded in Britain as a burdensome dependant on the enterprising taxpayers. That about sums up the situation.
The Bill does very little; it certainly does not do anything like what it could and should have done in order to alleviate some of the problems and hardships I have mentioned. We shall try to amend and make something decent out of this year's social security chapter.
12.47 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, in that I run an investment management company. Depending on which expert you wish to listen to, the proposals on the pension scheme amendments will either benefit those involved or not. I welcome the bulk of the clauses which are proposed to deal with pension schemes. However, I have some reservations. I wish to speak solely to Clause 11.
256
I congratulate the Government because I believe they have adopted almost all the proposals made by the Occupational Pensions Board. Reference has already been made to the role of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in that organisation. I also congratulate the Government on springing a small surprise on us, because not only did they take up the recommendations but they have gone further. It is on the going further aspects that I wish to dwell.
The real question I have is whether the Government have really thought through all the full implications. There are many good parts to the Bill and I can understand why they have introduced these measures. Nonetheless, there are implications that I wish to explore and see what replies I receive. As regards indexation, I am not terribly pleased to find yet another set of initials, LPI, introduced into our business. I am led to believe that the costs of final salary schemes are likely to increase. Experts will differ between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent.
A very good matrix has been produced by Bacon and Woodrow, a firm of consulting actuaries, in one of its analysis documents. I am happy to pass it on to my noble friend the Minister. The matrix sets out what are likely to be the increasing costs resulting from these proposals. I find it slightly worrying that long-established schemes may find themselves facing additional costs. If there is an increase in costs of employers—whether or not they split that increase between themselves and employees is a matter for employers to decide, but generally they do not —have the Government worked out what the impact of the additional costs will be? We are already in an inflationary era and we have to compete in world markets which perhaps do not have the level of occupational schemes that we have in this country.
Secondly, if we are to see an increase in costs there could be a move by employers to cut back on future service benefits. A typical example would be to move from a one-sixtieth scheme to a one-eightieth scheme. I am told that roughly that is a balancing phenomenon or balancing cost in the actual equation. I have worked out on my tables that it would take roughly six years even to get above a benefit which is based on sixtieths if it were moved down to eightieths.
I am also concerned that we seem consistently to be adding to the legislative requirements on pension schemes. If we do not find legislation coming out of the DSS we find it coming out of the Treasury. Employers may be disinclined to start new schemes, particularly final salary schemes. I am concerned that many employees in this country are not covered by pension schemes. I find myself in a slight quandary here because no matter how well intentioned the proposals are they may have a completely opposite effect on encouraging employers to start new pension schemes. Even if they do, they are most likely to go into money purchase arrangements.
The Occupational Pensions Board tried to look at the relationship between a money purchase scheme or a personal pension arrangement and a final salary scheme. It proposed that the impending pensioner should have a choice at retirement between either a reduced benefit with a higher rate of inflation

257
protection or a higher level benefit. That is my understanding of what the Occupational Pensions Board recommended. From the way I read the Government's proposals they have moved considerably beyond that level. There is a cost factor involved. I should like that to be considered by my noble friend.
The concept of surplus is commendable but I am not entirely sure at whom it is aimed. Is it aimed at the pen dons asset stripper who takes over a company with a pension fund in surplus? Is it geared towards preventing employers taking contribution holidays? Is it geared towards giving the whole membership of a pension scheme a larger rate of increase on their pensiors? While the intention here is good I am not entirely sure that the Government fully understand what they are doing in this area. Furthermore, I feel somewhat concerned that we shall introduce yet another definition of "surplus". It is already defined under the accountancy rules. We have a surplus determined by the independent actuary in consultation with employers, and whoever his principal may be. Yet, as far as I can understand it, there now seems to be a possibility of a further definition.
There is a thought —my noble friend can confirm this —that the DSS does not like the current methods of defining surplus and will want to go for a more favourable or a less conservative basis. In this area I should like to remind the House that surpluses are a feature of the 1980s. In the 1970s deficits were more in the mind of employing companies. As we start off in 1990 with horrendous markets I am not entirely sure how we view the 1990s at the moment. There is a considerable debate about what types of markets, we are in.
The surplus will increase the pension cost liabilities of companies which have to be reflected through the balance sheet, particularly under SSAP 24. Company profitability will be adversely affected. The funding assumptions which the independent actuary is likely to recommend on a long-term basis for these funds will be weakened. Companies will seek the lowest costs on a long-term basis, which may well be in conflict with the definitions that will be used for the calculation of surpluses. More importantly, although there are within the Bill strengthening proposals on the wind-up provisions, if one goes for a weaker long-term basis calculated by actuaries one will weaken the security of members' rights. They are linked to the assets within the scheme
The spreading of the surplus over a large number of employees could lead to minuscule benefits being distributed over the membership of the scheme. Membership of schemes can range from 100 to several thousands, whatever are the numbers in the employing company. There are other ways of protecting the rights of pensioners than by using what is the fairly sledgehammer approach of dealing with surpluses, which, as I have said before, have other intentions. One can divide up quite properly within the fund the assets that are linked to pensioners or deferred pensioners. One can then say that those people will have x amount of assets
258
allocated to them and they will participate in the rate of return that those assets earn on their benefits. There are other ways to do it.
We know that in this country we are looking at equal retirement ages for men and women. I am curious to know whether the DSS is considering what impact the proposals of the Bill will have on equality of pension ages. That is also likely to be an additional cost factor, depending which way the department goes.
I find pensions a stimulating and interesting topic for discussion. It is not always a shared interest. But it is a highly technical area and gives rise to much misunderstanding. It is possibly why we need an ombudsman or someone to come along to help individual menbers sort out their pension problems. I have already said that I believe that the Government's proposals are well intentioned but I fear that they have not fully explored—and, if I am not being impertintent, I do not think they fully understand—the implications of the actions they propose. What may well happen is the total opposite of what they intend. One may find a lower coverage of pensioners or a lower coverage of new employers starting pension schemes. We may see a lower level of benefits coming through in the future. We may see a lower level of security of funding. All these factors may well fall within what the Government want. I doubt it, but they may well do if one takes a Treasury view of life. The problems I have mentioned could result from these well-intentioned proposals.
Another area we need to have some regard to is to keep our units costs of labour under control. I believe that in some way there is a degree of interference in the benefits that are agreed between an employer and an employee within these proposals. That is something which is slightly worrying to me personally.
1 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Social Security Bill which is before the House this afternoon is, as other noble Lords have said, a mixture of provisions dealing with social security benefits and occupational pensions. I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he has presented the Bill, which is quite complicated. I should also like to thank him for his very kind references to me. Incidentally, I am a member of the Occupational Pensions Board, but I am one of the lay members and would not claim to have any great area of professional expertise, unlike the noble Earl who has just spoken.
My noble friend Lord Carter has dealt with the provisions relating to the disabled, and I propose in the time available to me to refer specially to occupational pensions, with two exceptions to which I shall make reference now. In the last Social Security Bill there was a highly controversial provision to the effect that benefits paid out under social security provisions could be clawed back from common law compensation payments. The net result of this could be that an individual receiving an industrial injury benefit could well end up with no compensation at all for pain and suffering, despite the fact that his

259
injury might have been caused by employer negligence. A number of noble Lords at the time opposed that concept, but unfortunately we were not successful.
In this Bill, buried in Schedule 1, we have a carry-over of this idea to motor accidents and, in particular, to accidents where compensation is paid by the Motor Insurer's Bureau under the MIB scheme: for example, payments made to people who are injured in an accident caused by a hit-and-run driver. As I said on the last occasion, I entirely disagree with the concept of clawing back social security benefits in such a case. That is very unfair. I understand that in this instance the Motor Insurer's Bureau pleaded that its scheme could be treated on the same basis as the Criminial Injuries Board scheme. Unfortunately, that plea has not been successful and I think that is something we shall have to explore further in Committee.
The second issue—which is not a pensions issue—to which I wish to draw attention also relates to the Industrial Injuries Scheme. It seems fairly clear to me that the Government do not particularly like this scheme and there have been repeated provisions in previous legislation which are designed to undermine it. Yet it is the only "no-fault" system of compensation that we have in this country. I say again, as I have said before, that there are working environments which are inherently dangerous, no matter what steps are taken to improve them. That is why we need an industrial injuries scheme. Under this Bill the reduced earnings allowance, which is currently payable when an industrial injury has resulted in an inability to maintain pre-accident earnings, is to disappear altogether. The savings are very small: according to the Bill they will be something like £10 million. I see it as yet another attack by the Government on a scheme they do not like. Of course it will be said that other benefits, such as invalidity benefit, for example, are available but that is hardly the point. The special nature of the Industrial Injuries Scheme is that it is meant to provide some form of additional compensation for earnings loss and personal injury to persons who are injured in a working environment. We shall of course need to return to this in Committee.
In turning to the provisions relating to occupational pensions, I must say that many of the proposals are a considerable improvement and are to be welcomed. As has already been said, many of them are based on recommendations made by the Occupational Pensions Board. I do not really think that some of these proposals go far enough and I will say precisely why that is so in a moment. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has taken on board many of the OPB's recommendations, particularly since the Government's record in the whole area of pension provision is scarcely one that can be commended. My noble friend Lord Stallard has already pointed out that flat-rate state pensions still account for a very large number of pensioners' incomes: I believe that about 60 per cent. of present pensioners are dependent mainly on the basic state pension. However, these have not been increased in line with the wages index, as was originally intended, but
260
only with the retail prices index, thus resulting in substantially lower increases.
There has been the encouragement given by the Government to money-purchase schemes and to personal private pensions, utilising money from the National Insurance Fund to bribe people into taking out private personal pensions and risking a deficit to that fund. In the background, of course, has been the attitude to SERPS-the state earnings-related scheme—which for the first time held out the prospect to low earners and to people with a chequered work pattern, including of course many women, of a reasonable earnings-related pension in retirement.
I do not believe the argument that we could not afford the full SERFS, because we have to meet the costs of supporting the elderly in one way or another: how much better to do it with the dignity of a pension for which contributions have been made rather than through means-tested social security benefits. I have to say unequivocally this morning that our party is committed to restoring SERFS to its full value.
Turning to the proposals on occupational pension schemes, some of these were added at a very late stage in the Bill's progress through the other place. Even though I think the proposal that occupational schemes must in future uprate pensions in payment by up to 5 per cent. per annum or the level of the RPI, whichever is the lower, is very much to be welcomed, it is the view on this side of the House that the proposal does not go far enough and we have already stated that we believe there should be full indexation. I think that perhaps in 20 or more year' time it will seem fantastic to those who are then politically active that we could ever have considered making pension provision that was not fully inflation-proofed. Even so, pensioners are likely not to be so well off as those in work, since for the greater part of the 20th century the earnings index has outstripped the RPI; and that tendency looks as though it will continue.
Furthermore, I welcome what the Secretary of State is proposing about pension fund surpluses. Nothing has given rise to so much controversy among trade unionists and those concerned with pensions negotiations as the questions: "Who owns the surplus?" and "Has the employer a right to take a contribution holiday because after all it's our money?" I have heard such remarks time and time again. The Secretary of State has now virtually settled the argument at least to some degree, by saying in this Bill that the employer cannot simply dip into the surplus or give himself a contribution holiday without increasing pensions in payment up to the 5 per cent. limit. Again, the issue of that limit raises itself, but it is in any event a considerable improvement and very much to be welcomed. However, I understand that all this will only come about as from the "appointed day". There is also a case for ensuring that past social security benefits accruing before the appointed day should be increased, so far as surpluses permit.
I am aware, of course, that it will be said that employers may be frightened off providing pension schemes because of the cost of provisions enabling

261
pensions to be increased on a regular basis in line with inflation or with the provisions in the Bill. However, good schemes already do this and, as has already been indicated, many schemes are now in substantial surplus and could afford to make these payments. Also it is in the interests of employers, particularly those who want to retain skilled labour, to offer a good and reasonable pension scheme. People now live a great deal longer—perhaps 20 years longer on average than they did at the beginning of this century—and provision has to be made for them. In very many cases the money is already available. I support the proposition that, on wind-up, statutory revaluation should apply and any deficiency in a scheme's assets would become a deficit on the employer—although here too I should like to see the revaluation done on an RPI basis.
The OPB report was much concerned with the threat to pensions through mergers and takeovers. There had long been a fear that over-large pension fund surpluses acted as a bait to tempt predators. A number of the board's recommendations clearly had in mind preventing this so far as possible. Hence the recommendation that in company takeovers, bulk transfers should be permitted only if rights and expectations of members were guaranteed as the result of an actuarial certificate.
This is important because in a number of cases considered by the board it appeared that following a merger there had been instances in which discretionary increases which had formerly been paid to pensioners and which they had come to expect had been discontinued. The expectations referred to would be protected by the Bill and it is right and proper that that should be so. That will also be a further deterrent to predators.
The Secretary of State has recognised, as has the board, that there is a need for a speedier and cheaper way of resolving pensions problems than by reference to the courts, although that option should still remain. The board proposed the establishment of a pensions tribunal with a legally qualified chair, supported by two sides-persons with specialist knowledge. The Government instead propose an ombudsman. This is of course an improvement on the present situation and is to be welcomed in that context. However, I should have preferred a tribunal. Many of the issues about pensions are directly linked to employment. A tripartite body would be the best way of resolving such issues as industrial tribunals are now for resolving general employment issues.
Then there is a whole matter of conciliation and the need for some kind of sifting mechanism. I refer particularly to OPAS—the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service—an organisation with which, as the noble Lord has said, I am connected. This body has done excellent work on an entirely voluntary basis. It is run virtually on a shoe-string. OPAS is not mentioned on the face of the Bill but I believe that it has been told that it may expect some financial support. I should be grateful to hear more from the Minister on this subject. I also welcome the introduction of a registry and a tracing service.
Finally, we come to two inter-related issues, one of which has already been referred to by the noble
262
Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire. There is the unresolved issue of unequal state retirement ages and the accompanying problem of bridging pensions introduced by some employers to try to bridge the gap between the ages of 60 and 65 for men where schemes have been introduced equalising the pension age at 60. This was debated when the last Social Security Bill was before us and I think that the Government must grasp this nettle. So many anomalies arise from differential retirement ages. There have been two reports by Select Committees of this House—one quite recently.
The problem about bridging pensions remains. It is a problem which we were told arises because of EC directives. In my view it is absolutely absurd that this should be regarded as non-acceptable on the basis of equality provisions. Will the Minister say something about these issues? When may we expect legislation equalising state pension ages as between men and women? We shall of course return to a number of the points raised by this side of the House when the Bill is in Committee and we have the opportunity of debating the more detailed provisions, some of which are extremely complex.
1.13 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that we have had a useful and wide-ranging debate on the Social Security Bill. In time I wish to cover various points. Because of time limits, I intend to keep largely to Clause 1, the Social Fund, income support limits for residential nursing homes, some of the occupational pension issues and wider pension issues. For example, the points raised by my noble kinsman Lord Russell on Clause 5 are probably best left to the Committee stage. I look forward to explaining to the noble Earl the details of Clause 5.
Perhaps I may briefly answer two short questions from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He asked who would be the authorised complainant to the pensions ombudsman. I can assure him that this is defined on page 37 of the Bill in Schedule 3, new section 59C(6). Briefly, an authorised complainant would be a member of the pension scheme or the widow or widower of a member or a person claiming to be a member of the scheme.
My noble friend also asked what Clause 16 is about. It is purely to strengthen the link between the national insurance contribution and expenditure on contributory social security benefits. In other words, we are removing from the National Insurance Fund those benefits which are not contributory benefits.
Perhaps I may touch on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He seems to be of the view that the social security system is designed to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. Both he and I have already discussed this in the debate on the growing gap between the rich and the poor some weeks ago. I wish to reiterate what I said then: I simply do not agree with him. The social security system in this country is designed to relieve poverty and ease hardship. It is not designed for social engineering.
Perhaps I may turn to Clause 1 and the definitions of what a progressive disease is and which people

263
will qualify as terminally ill. That point was raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman. We feel that the removal of the qualifying period is intended to help people with any progressive disease—I shall come back to that later—such as cancer, motorneurone disease and the advanced stages of HIV infection, where the timespan between diagnosis and death is very short.
My noble kinsman also asked about people who qualify but who live longer than six months. We recognise that some terminally ill people live for longer than expected. We have no intention of subjecting them to review or reassessment after six months. As the Bill makes clear, anyone who qualifies as a terminally ill person will be entitled to the higher rate of allowance for life, whether this is a matter of weeks, six months or more. That said, we must recognise that diagnosis is not an exact science. The nature of a person's illness or life expectancy can change. Where there has been such a change, we think it right that the claimant's entitlement should be reviewed and reassessed in the light of new evidence.
Turning to the Social Fund, perhaps I may first refer to the newspaper article which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned. It concerned an applicant who was homeless and who was offered money from the fund to buy a tent. We are very concerned and are making inquiries about the case. The reason why I feel it is important, as has been mentioned, is that the case appeared in the press this morning and this is the first opportunity for a Minister from my department to make some mention of it. We are in touch with the local authority and the local social services department to see what can be done to help the family. I understand that a meeting of the relevant local agencies—that is, local authority housing, the local development corporation, since the applicant comes from Milton Keynes, and the social services —has been arranged for this afternoon to see what can be done urgently in order to resolve the family's housing problems.
Responsibility for housing homeless families rests with the local authority. Housing benefit paid by local authorities is available to meet housing costs. It is not the function of the Social Fund to meet housing costs, although rent in advance may be available to help people secure accommodation. The local office made the payment which the applicant had requested on the understanding that there would be no help from other local agencies.
Further, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned capping the Social Fund and the removal of flexibility. He claimed that there was no flexibility or discretion in a cash-limited scheme. As we have always said, most organisations have to operate within a budget. We feel that there is no reason why the Social Fund should be any different. A firm budgetary framework ensures that the available resources go to those who are in the greatest need. Lord Justice Woolf said that, although Parliament intended individual applications to be handled with flexibility, it clearly intended that the scheme should be subject to strict monetary limits, and the Secretary of State needs to be able to give directions to achieve financial control. Operating within a budget is not
264
inconsistent with flexibility. Within the budget. Social Fund officers have the discretion with which to meet a wider variety of needs than was possible under the previous system, and funds can be focused when and where they are most needed.
I shall now turn to the question of residential care and nursing homes which appear in Clause 9. I shall start with the remarks of my noble kinsman Lord Russell, who said that something needs to be done in this area. I can assure him that the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is currently in this House. We had the first day of the Committee stage yesterday and there will be further days in Committee. That Bill is designed to achieve just those objectives that concern the noble Earl. I am sure that he will attend on occasions when the Bill is in Committee and make his contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, wanted to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing now about people who are unable to meet fees and are being evicted from homes. He also wanted to know at what stage after 1991 the Government will begin to use the powers in the new clause. I wish to make two points. In response to the question about the levels of support that we provide now, I must say that we have to reach a judgment about the level of support that we can provide at public expense. The upratings that have just taken effect and those that will come into effect in August amount to an extra £145 million. We meet the full cost of places for a majority of those on benefit. On the question of the implementation of the new clause, I must tell the noble Lord that that depends crucially on the quantity and quality of information that we can obtain from local authorities as they undertake their new responsibilities. Officials will be talking to local authority associations about that matter.
I shall now turn to some of the pension issues. I wish to start with the whole question of equalisation of pensionable age. The noble Baroness raised that matter, as did my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire. The noble Baroness will recall that over a year ago we had a debate on this subject and on the report produced by a Select Committee of this House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I should start with an apology to the House in that in responding to that debate I said at the time that we expected to produce our response by the end of the year. I am afraid that we failed in that but we have produced our response by Easter of this year. The noble Baroness will know that we published it just before Easter as Cmnd. 1038.
I should make it clear that we fully support the principle of equal treatment and we recognise the force of the argument for the equalisation of state retirement pension age. However, as I am sure noble Lords will realise, there is a great deal to consider before deciding what the common pension age for men and women should be and when that should come into operation. We need to look at how the numbers of men and women will change over the years to come, the costs of changing the pension age and the effect on the labour market. We also need to take account of the expectations that men and women have now about the age at which they will receive state pension and the retirement plans they

265
have made. Noble Lords will be aware that the requirement to provide for equal treatment in social security is set out in the directives of the European Community. However, those directives currently include specific derogations which permit pension age and some other matters to be excepted from the general rule of equal treatment for men and women.
There was the third draft directive and, as the noble Baroness will know, a report was also produced by a Select Committee of this House. As I have just stated, the Government responded to that report just before Easter. In that response we restated our view that the draft directive covers issues of fundamental importance; that we have strong reservations about a number of aspects of the draft directive; that we do not wish to be rushed into a judgment and that we do not desire to conclude negotiations until we are completely satisfied with the legal soundness of the provisions. As I have said on more than one occasior, we simply cannot make premature decisions on such an important, complex and potentially far-reaching issue as the equalisation of pensionable age. There are major considerations involved and they indicate that any change will need to be implemented over a period of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, as he has done on many occasions before, attacked the Government for the break in the link between earnings and prices in regard to pensions. In 1980 the link with earnings was broken because the Government felt at the time that to retain it would be to throw an ever heavier burden on the working population. The Government felt that that was not sustainable over a prolonged period. Since that date the Government have met their pledge to maintain the level of pensions in relation to increased prices. As a result pensioners' average total net incomes have increased by over 31 per cent. in real terms during our first eight years in office. That compares more than favourably with the real term increase of only 3 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.
My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire asked about the cost of pension increases to various occupational pension schemes. Many schemes already give increases. Some 80 per cent. of private sector scheme pensioners get increases. Where schemes do not give increases now it will be open to the employers and employees to review the level of pension provided for future service. We are allowing time for that to take place. My noble friend also asked about surpluses in pension schemes. I readily acknowhidge that this is a highly technical and complex area. However, our officials in the Department of Social Security are already engaged in discussions with the actuarial profession and we have no doubt that a sensible and practical definition of surpluses will be developed. But I do not by any means underestimate the difficulties in doing so.
My noble friend also felt that coverage of pension schemes might decline as a result of this Bill. Our proposals will make occupational schemes more attractive to members. In the light of the ever-increasing difficulties that some employers will have in finding employees over the coming years due to the so-called demographic time bomb, it
266
will certainly be in the interests of a great many employers to offer a good package in the form of a good occupational pension scheme to their employees. We believe that occupational schemes will continue to flourish and give their members an even better deal in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about a grant to OPAS. We have agreed with OPAS that we shall make it an immediate grant to cover its committed expenditure to the end of the year. That includes accommodation expenses, staff salaries, production of its annual report and other expenses. We are also seconding to it a senior executive officer from the department to act as the office manager and administrator. We are committed to the support of OPAS and will discuss with it arrangements for the longer term. The noble Baroness also felt that pensions should be fully indexed and not just indexed up to 5 per cent. We feel that requiring increases without a limit would place an open-ended commitment on schemes and would possibly deter the further development of schemes. However, as I have already said, I am sure that there are a great many schemes that already meet that target. Nevertheless we do not feel the time is right to impose such an open-ended commitment on all schemes.
Turning to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on the Consumer Associations' concern about the pensions ombudsman, we have to ensure a balance between the interests of pension scheme members and of the schemes themselves. I believe that a general right to appeal against the ombudsman's decisions would not be in the interests of scheme members. Appeal to the courts would be more easily afforded by the schemes themselves than by their members. It might therefore impose an unfair bias against the members in favour of some of the schemes.
In winding up I wish to emphasise that the changes in this Bill represent only one chapter in our continuing development of the social security system. As I said in my opening remarks, next year—and I make no apologies to my noble kinsman Earl Russell for this—we shall spend over £1 billion each and every week on social security. That is a total of over £56 billion, which is more than one-third higher in real terms than expenditure in 1979.
To take that point a little further, social security help for the long-term sick and disabled has already increased by almost £4 billion in real terms since 1978-79. On current best estimates it is now projected to rise still further by the year 2001 to over £12 billion. As the Bill is largely concerned with disability benefits it is worth stressing that over the last 10 years we have doubled our expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled. Perhaps I may give just one example. Since 1979 the numbers receiving help with extra costs through mobility allowance has increased sixfold and through attendance allowance, threefold.
I emphasise again that the total package of measures for the disabled is not designed to save money; far from it. The total net effect by 1993-94, even allowing for savings, will be to add some £300

267
million to the total cost of benefits we pay to the disabled and their carers. As I said earlier, that is over and above the money that we shall pay on account of inflation and the money paid as a result of increased demand.
The Bill is part of our measured and deliberate strategy to prepare the social security system to meet the needs of the new decade. We are primed, ready to debate detailed provisions in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

The Arts Council
1.33 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg Lord Rees-Mogg rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for the future of the Arts Council, and in particular whether they intend that it should continue to enjoy independence under its charter.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the Question which stands in my name. I should like to take the opportunity to thank my noble friends Lord Goodman and Lord Gibson, who joined me in asking for this opportunity.
The Question which we are to discuss arises out of the Wilding Report and out of the statement made in another place by the Minister for the Arts on that report. The Wilding Report has been generally welcomed, although there are obviously points in it which are controversial. It is the Minister's statement, which may well not have been perfectly understood—and the Minister has expressed some anxiety about that—which has led to the difficulties to which we have to refer. It has also led to the resignation as Secretary General of the Arts Council of Mr. Luke Rittner, who has been a most distinguished secretary general of that body and has contributed very great services to the arts. The fact that he felt unable to operate what he believed to be the forthcoming system is a matter of considerable concern to all of us.
What is the difference between what Mr. Wilding—who was himself Head of the Office of Arts and Libraries until he retired—has proposed and what is taken to be the understanding of the Minister's position? Why has one been welcomed and why has the other caused concern?
Mr. Wilding recommended substantial devolution of arts companies from direct funding by the Arts Council to funding by the regional arts associations. However, he recommended that a group of companies, probably amounting in all to about 40 and including those companies which have national status—major companies including all the touring companies and, very significantly, innovative companies—should remain with direct funding by the Arts Council.
The Minister's letter to the Arts Council has been taken to mean something different. It has been taken to mean almost total devolution from the Arts Council to the regional arts associations. It certainly
268
sets up a Minister's steering committee, which will be chaired by the current head of the Office and Arts and Libraries—that is to say, by a civil servant responsible to the Minister—and will report to the Minister, and which is supposed to take the key decisions about devolution.
In broad terms, the Wilding proposal would amount to devolution of about 75 per cent. of the companies which are now directly funded by the Arts Council, but the other proposal, if indeed that is what is in the Minister's mind, would amount to devolution of about 95 per cent. In practical terms, the nub of the matter is whether there is supposed to be 75 per cent. devolution or 95 per cent. devolution.
It would certainly be my view that 75 per cent. devolution would leave an effective and strong Arts Council with genuine and sufficient knowledge of what is happening in the country. On the other hand, 95 per cent. devolution, leaving the Arts Council with only a strategic role plus oversight of the regional arts associations and of the five major national companies—the Royal Opera House, The South Bank and so on —would leave an Arts Council which was not sufficiently strong to be able to do the job it was left with.
Why should one prefer the Wilding Report to the further proposals which appear to be put on the back of it? The first point is the very ability and quality of the regional arts associations themselves. There is a tendency to look at such questions as drawings on a map, as though all the regional arts associations were identical, all equally capable of bearing the burden of responsibility. That is not so at all. Some of the regional arts associations are very good, well organised institutions. In general they have certainly been getting better. However, some of them have had very considerable and persistent problems. In particular, and this is a real difficulty, the largest of the regional arts associations —Greater London Arts—is also the one which has had the greatest problems.
Greater London Arts used to be a sister to the arts operation of the Greater London Council. That operation, under the guidance of my noble friend Lord Birkett, was a very good operation. However, since the Greater London Council was abolished, Greater London Arts has found it very difficult to find any secure base on the London boroughs and has gone through a succession of difficulties. It would be ironic if the administration which abolished the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority were now to give great new responsibilities to the Greater London arts association, at least until it had proved itself far stronger than it yet has. The first point, therefore is that the regional arts associations are not all equally capable of taking on the responsibility.
However, there is also the question of cost. There is the basic, simple point that the Arts Council is a single insitution and 10 regional arts boards are proposed. On the face of it, to reach the same level of capacity to deal with clients, there will have to be 10 enhanced bureaucracies as against one at the present time. The overheads of the regional arts associations are already far higher than the overheads of the Arts Council. The last year for

269
which those figures are available is the year 1987-88. In that year the Arts Council had an overhead —an internal spend—of 4-·5 per cent. of its total expenditure. The regional arts associations in total had an overhead—an internal spend—of 18·5 per cent. of their total expenditure, so the overheads of the regional arts associations are no less than four times as high as the overheads of the Arts Council itself It is no wonder that the arts companies are worried. They think that money which goes through the regional arts associations to them will have an overhead deducted on the way and it is difficult to see that they will necessarily be wrong on that. I am afraid that, if the proposal for complete devolution were to be implemented the probability is that a good deal of money would be lost to the serious arts.
The third objection is that the Arts Council would be left as a shell. One suggestion is that it would have only 20 staff against the present staff of about 160. That staff would not have the range of experience and skill to undertake the tasks that would be left to the Arts Council. In my view, it would not be possible to persuade the experienced people in the arts who work for nothing for the council itself or its panels to continue their work. I cannot see what appeal there would be in joining a body which had been diminished to that point. Nor do I even think that it would have much to contribute where it retained responsibility. I do not see it as being able to be effective in imposing accountability on the proposed regional arts boards. I do not see it as being able to make much of a contribution to supervising the funding of the Royal Opera House and the other major national companies which would be left to it, so it would be destructive of the Arts Council.
There is a fourth objection; namely, that most of the arts companies do not want it. During my seven years as chairman of the Arts Council, I never had a single arts company which did not object to a proposal that it should be devolved from central to regional funding. Let us take the case of symphonic music. There are four major national symphony orchestras, all of which, if the proposal were to be put into full effect, would be devolved to Greater London Arts. I have not asked all of them, but I know that most of them view that prospect with considerable concern and dismay.
There are four regional symphony orchestras, all of which tour widely outside their own regions and none of which regards itself as purely local in character. One of them, the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, under Simon Rattle, has been one of the great artistic successes of the 1980s. They include the Halle Orchestra which is an absolutely first-class orchestra. They would be put against their will into regional arts association funding, in which, I am bound to say, they seem to have inadequate confidence. It would not be right to conscript those great orchestras into a system against their will.
However, there is a broad principle with which this House is particularly concerned because it goes wider than the Arts Council. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who has been very much concerned with this principle in another
270
area, will speak later in the debate. That principle is the so-called arm's length principle—the principle of the independence of the Arts Council.
Starting with the BBC, we have had a principle in this country that governments should keep out of the operation of broadcasting and the operation of the arts. In the case of the BBC, it is just as importnat that it should have its independence in respect of the creative art that it produces and shows as that it should have its independence in respect of its journalism. The two things go together.
The independence of the Arts Council is not something which should be regarded as a selfish benefit for the Arts Council itself It is the separation between the creative artist, the performing arts company and the government of the day which must be maintained. In this case, we have had the steering committee manned by the Minister's man and reporting to the Minister. What has the Arts Council itself, which has so far been pretty mild in its responses, said about that? It has said that it runs counter to the historical tradition of an arm's length policy.
If we could have them—and they would be of great benefit to the arts and would remove many anxieties—I should like three assurances. They would fit not too badly with the statement that the Minister for the Arts made in another place.
The first assurance would be that at every stage serious consideration will be given to the wishes of the arts companies themselves. By that that I mean the major arts companies. I do not say that every small arts company can have a permanent right to be funded directly from the centre whether or not that is a reasonable way to do it, but that the wishes of the major arts companies, as defined by Mr. Wilding, should be given the greatest possible weight.
The second assurance that I should like is that devolution will leave a strong and independent Arts Council. I am sure that, if one cuts too far, nothing useful will be left. The third assurance that I should like is that the Government remain as committed to the principle of the independence of the Arts Council as I believe the great majority of Members of this House are.
1.47 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I take part in the debate as I have had some experience of working with the arts and the Arts Council, but nothing compared with that of the noble Lords, Lord Rees-Mogg, or Lord Goodman.
My experiences have been provincial. I was chairman for a number of years of the Georgian Theatre in Richmond, Yorkshire. It was only a small theatre, but one of the oldest in the country. It was restored by my sister, Lady Crathorne, who raised the money to restore it. It has now been working successfully and happily for some 40 years in the Yorkshire region. I feel strongly in favour of the proposed devolution as we should never have been able to achieve that in Yorkshire unless there had been proposals to encourage local people, regions and enterprises. I would not at any point criticise or

271
make any comment about what the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg has said about devolution. I can speak only from experience.
I am in favour of devolution to regions. It encourages local support and local interests and it can develop local enterprises. I have seen that happen. I have seen local theatres, picture galleries, orchestras and plays encouraged and developed by co-operation with the local authorities through the Arts Council. I hope that that will not in any way be reduced under the new scheme. I think that it should be increased. The Arts Council will remain the governing body but the regional councils will be free to organise whatever they believe that the public will enjoy.
As we all know, finance is the vital item. There will never be enough money for what those who love the arts want to have. On the other hand, we should congratulate the Arts Council on having managed to obtain an extra 24 per cent. this year to distribute. I know that is limited but it is a step in the right direction.
I understand that under the new proposals there will be 10 regions instead of 12. Provided that they cover well all the areas, that should not hamper the work. I am impressed and delighted that the director of the Scottish Arts Council, Mr. Mason, is to be the managing director of the new body. Scotland is honoured by that choice. I wish him well. He has a tremendous task to fulfil.
I also approve of the suggestion that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland arts councils should co-operate together. That would help lead to further developments. I have had some connection with the Crafts Council, and I was interested to learn that that council should remain independent. I am sure that that is right. I hope that as much support as possible will be given to that organisation.
The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, about the British Film Institute and films is an interesting one. I hope that it will work. It is a good idea that the British Film Institute should co-operate with the Arts Council in greater use of films and videos which can be made available to individuals and groups. It could lead to good propaganda for the arts. It would spread the interest over a wider field and encourage people to attend plays, and hear orchestras and music in general.
In the development of national arts there are encouraging signs. A total of 2,500 British museums are open and 100 million people went to museums in 1989. That is an increase from a figure of 80 million in 1987. I understand that the new British Library building will be completed in 1990. It will have the greatest collection of books and will cost, as noble Lords will know, some £400 million. We owe that great enterprise to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who planned the project and secured the money for it.
As I mentioned previously, money is always in demand. However, I was glad to read that grants from private bodies and private sources—business and so on—have increased enormously in recent years. They are the people who can truly help the great national organisations such as the Royal Opera
272
House, Covent Garden, the Royal Shakespeare Company, English National Opera, and the National Theatre. All those organisations are dependent on the Arts Council but they could also find enormous encouragement in grants coming from private sources. Grants have increased—not enough, as we all know —and public support has been encouraged.
Unfortunately, for all these things, like everything else in life, costs increase. It is very difficult to cover all that is needed for the future. These great institutions attract people from all over the world. I do not look upon that money as money that is just spent and given out; it is an investment. It means that thousands of people can come to this country for our arts, music and museums; they would not come if those facilities were not available. They bring a tremendous number of people to this country and that is very valuable for us.
We all support the Arts Council and wish it well in the reorganisation. Mr Luce is to be thanked and supported by us all. He is doing a splendid job. It is up to us to try to help in every way we can to make this work as successful as possible.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we are all very glad to hear again from the noble Baroness, whose record of interest and support for the arts in this country is quite unrivalled. No doubt she will agree with me that the contribution that private investment can make to the arts must always be the icing on the cake. It cannot and is not intended to replace the fundamental role of the state. I am glad to note from the Minister's report (which is basically what we are discussing today) that he does not take the view anywhere in his statement that there is any considerable possibility of replacing the role of the state with private investment. The discussion is a different one.
There are those who see the changes proposed not as leading in themselves to the destruction of the Arts Council or to the disappearance of state support. Rather they see the situation as one from which at some later stage that might develop. In other words, it is a beginning and a step by which, gradually over a period of time, the role of the Arts Council would be whittled down and eventually we should find ourselves without the vital part which state support plays in the arts today.
My view is that that is not the case; or perhaps I should say not necessarily the case. Indeed, it could become the case. Almost anything that one does could become something else. It would be perfectly possible to whittle down the role of the state without abolishing the Arts Council. All that one has to do is starve the Arts Council. After all, for all its vaunted independence the Arts Council is the creature of the Government. All the people on the Arts Council are place men of the Government. The Government maintain in it a degree of independence because it is necessary that the Arts Council should be seen to be independent, even if it is not as independent as it seems. But if one wants to whittle down the role of the state any government can easily do so without going through the laborious procedure of decentralisation.

273
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I shall not make so long a speech as I had first thought I might have to make. The reason that I have been able tC' dispose of most of my speech is that I did not hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, the broad attack on the whole proposition of devolution that I thought I might hear. The noble Lord shakes his head and is agreeing with me. In other words, he says—and I think I can join with him—"I am not against devolution as such. I am worried about the consequences of the proposal that the Minister has put before us". I can go along with that proposition. I cannot go along with the general proposition that devolution in itself is wrong and that the Arts Council must continue to be controlled centrally by the state. That would fundamentally be contrary to something in which I strongly believe.
Recently I looked again at Jennie Lee's first White Paper in 1966. Indeed, it is the only White Paper on the arts that has ever been prepared. It is perhaps high time that that lacuna is filled. I noticed that from the beginning the Minister was concerned that the tendency of the capital city to absorb the arts and, as it were, become the only seat of artistic excellence in the country should be fought against. So long ago at the very beginning, in the White Paper the importance of decentralisation was emphasised. It may have been because the then Minister saw that the action of the Arts Council, when it was first established immediately after the war, in getting rid of its regional offices was a mistake.
It was the first stage in a process of centralisation under which for many years the Arts Council became more centralised and "Londonised". That was not entirely the fault of the Arts Council. To some extent it was the inevitable consequence of London's growth and emergence as a capital city rather than simply one of a number of important cities as in pre-war years. At that stage the Minister was driving against such centralisation. One has constantly to do so because London is over-centralised.
I warmly welcome the Minister's decision to introduce the proposal of decentralisation of control and responsibility, although I recognise almost as clearly as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg—perhaps not quite so clearly because his experience in the matter is much more recent than mine—the dangers in the process of devolution. That nearly always sets the minds of people who have been closely involved in central activity against the proposition of devolution because generally speaking one devolves to people who are less efficient than oneself.
I refer to the dissolution of the British Empire, the disappearance of the British Commonwealth and the devolution of those areas to national governments. Some of the national governments were pretty disastrous, were they not? However, will anyone argue that because of that factor that event should not have happened and that we should have kept the Commonwealth centrally organised? That cannot be done. Devolution has come about. One has to ensure that it is done properly.
I have read the Minister's letter to Mr. Palumbo. I have read the speech. On the whole I believe that the Minister intends well. He deserves the praise
274
that he has received. To that extent, I join in it. However, dangers might arise from devolving the authority of the Arts Council upon a number of regional bodies of varying efficiency and experience. They might not be able to be relied upon in all cases to exercise the skill and integrity that has characterised the Arts Council as the state's main distributor of its patronage. Can the regional bodies resist not only the tendency but the strong temptation of politicians at a local level to impose their will upon regional bodies as successfully as the Arts Council has resisted the temptation nationally? Possibly not so. There is a danger that a local councillor, being close to the regional body, may seek to have a greater influence upon the activities in the arts at a local level rather than at national level.
The proposition of the arm's length principle must not be thrown away. I has to be strengthened. One has to ensure that is adopted at a regional level to the same extent or to an even greater extent than it exists at national level. The preservation of that principle has been responsible for the excellence of the British artistic scene since the war. It is vital that it is retained. Politicians must keep their fingers out of what happens on the stage and elsewhere.
As Arts Minister, I tried unsuccessfully to introduce an element of devolution some years ago. Among the proposals that I put forward was that the regional associations should be funded directly from the Ministry rather than through the Arts Council. It was a somewhat more drastic proposal than the relatively mild suggestions put forward by the present Minister. Whether the proposal was right or wrong, I received much less support from my Cabinet than Mr. Luce has from his for this proposal.
On the other hand, I never wished to lose the Arts Council. I believe that I am the only Arts Minister who has ever been a member of the Arts Council before becoming Arts Minister. I had the privilege and pleasure of serving under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. He and I have seen eye to eye on arts matters for a very long time. This afternoon there may be a difference between us on this point but I hope that it will prove only a difference of emphasis, such as may exist between the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and myself, and not a total difference of view. It would be a disaster to open the door to the horror of direct government control of the arts. That is no more desirable than to open the door to government control of the media of communication.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, will be reassured about the future of the Arts Council. The charter should be altered or replaced in order to admit the introduction of selected or nominated members of the council. I do not believe that the proposals should be opposed in principle. They should be submitted to Parliament, examined in detail, and amended where necessary with due regard to the interests of the staff of the council whose work has not always received the credit that it deserves.
I regret the decision of the secretary of the council to submit his resignation on this issue. There may be reasons behind that which are not apparent to us.

275
I cannot believe that his resignation was a result of the ministerial statement. As I understood it, the decision that he was going to resign had already been made prior to that—I am wrong about that. However, there must have been something else behind it.
It is also my view that the recommendations of the steering group should be the subject of parliamentary debate in government time in due course. I recommend doubters to read again Jennie Lee's White Paper in 1965, A Policy for the Arts. The emphasis on the importance of developing the regional associations is no less important today. Indeed, one might say that with a highly centralising Government in office it is even more important.
As regards the question of devolution and what must stay in order that the Arts Council remains a credible body, I do not know whether the answer is 90 per cent., which I agree is too small, or 75 per cent. It is a question which should be considered carefully because it is important that the Arts Council should still feel that it is doing a worthwhile job.
I see a difficulty arising in respect of personal assurances. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, suggested that organisations should have the opportunity of opting out. It is natural that a single organisation which is asked to change its master should be doubtful about doing so. However, in making a change it might be difficult to allow one body to opt out while allowing another to remain. I am not sure therefore whether the suggestion is practical.
There is total agreement between us on the noble Lord's final point. No change that is made shall make a fundamental difference. The changes must not have the effect of reducing the total financial input to the arts from the state and its organisations; that is whether we mean the state nationally, regionally or locally. The total input to the arts must increase at a greater level because inflation in the arts rises faster than anywhere else. That is because the arts are heavily dependent upon labour and it is in the nature of things that labour costs rise quicker than others. In deciding to subsidise the arts one is climbing onto an escalator and there is no possibility of ever getting off. Everyone must reconcile themselves to that fact. If anyone considers that there is an opportunity of reducing the state input they are much mistaken and that must be resisted.
There must be no erosion of the principle of the arm's length of the state keeping its finger out of the pie. It is vital that that should be preserved, extended and made general throughout the whole arts scene.
2.10 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I can follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on a number of points, particularly on the arm's length principle which I am sure all noble Lords will be steady in supporting. Indeed, some of us believe that there are risks in the present arrangements but I shall deal with that matter later.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has always been much more devolutionist than I. I agree that the
276
Minister intends well and thank goodness he has not gone as far as the noble Lord wished some years ago. He will realise that that is a perfectly fair comment.
The main criticisms of the Minister's approach to the Wilding Report were put well and forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mog, and I have little more to add. However, the problem of funding the arts is not in deciding whether the money should go to London or to the regions. Anyone who takes any interest in the subject will be aware that there must be sufficient money for both. The problem is that there never has been sufficient because over the years the Arts Council has been so successful in stimulating demand from all classes in the regions that the need for more money steadily rises. There has never been enough money to do full justice all round.
It is natural that any regional organisation concerned with the arts should believe that it is neglected; and inevitably that is sometimes the case. It is a general problem in no way confined to the arts. Therefore it is not surprising that those in the regions tend to resent the central council, nor is that disturbing. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that it is disturbing to see no sign of more cash thereby allowing both to flourish. There can be no priority between central and regional excellence; neither can flourish without the other.
One of the recommendations put forward by the Wilding Committee is to save £2 million as a result of reorganisation. In that connection two points arise. First, it is extremely doubtful that such savings can be made because the number of RAAs is being reduced only to 10 and not seven and much of the suggested saving was to come from that. However, Mr. Wilding said that the money saved should be used further to assist the arts. Does the Minister think that the Treasury would ever agree to earmarking the use of savings in that way? I am afraid that I do not.
While entirely agreeing with Wilding that local government associations must work very closely with the RAAs, which in general is the present position, the chance of getting any more money out of them is very remote after the Government's prolonged attack on their expenditure with rate capping, poll tax capping and so on. A reduction seems more probable than an increase from that source.
I find myself broadly in favour, as are the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, with the Wilding suggestion of federation. However, that was based on a specific three-tier organisation hinted at by the noble Lord in his opening speech. The first tier is to be all the major institutions looked after by the Arts Council, and that includes local orchestras as the noble Lord pointed out. The second tier concerns decisions with the RAAs and the Arts Council about the most important matters in the regions' areas. The third tier involves the regions making their own decisions on all smaller issues. That is roughly what is recommended.
However, the Minister's policy—which seems to be a decision and not just a proposal—is to leave out the middle tier thereby leaving the Arts Council with no more to do than to allocate an agreed share

277
of the whole to the major institutions. That is emasculating the Arts Council to an extent which is certainly not acceptable to me nor indeed, as we all know with regret, to the council's very able secretary-general. All decisions as to details are to be left to a steering departmental committee. Therefore, we have only the most sketchy idea of what they will be.
I do not wish to be beastly to the Government but I have a feeling that I have been here before. It is certainly not a new situation in this House but is rather one which we have seen far too often over the past f'ew years. The Government think up a scheme almost invariably based on a perfectly reasonable desire to save money and they then force it through in the teeth of those best acquainted with the practical realities.
It is really an abuse of the English language to call the Tory party "Conservative". It has always claimed that the word means saving the best of the past in a changing world, which indeed it does. However, time after time we have been presented with ill thought-out schemes which ruthlessly disregard the damage which may be done as part of the reorganisation and by Bills which had to be written as they went along and by reorganisations which, even if they contained the possibility of improvement, invariably left the people on the ground with too little money to run matters properly.
On this side of the House we are becoming tired of constantly being told that our only solution to problems is to throw money at them. The Government's delusion is that reorganisation is good in itself and that matters will somehow be worked out with a bit of luck and the help of a departmental committee even without adequate funds to do so.
However, we agree that the arts is a subject beyond politics and my objection to the Minister's approach is not political but is against its ineffectiveness. I remind your Lordships what Keynes said at the founding of the first Arts Council which noble Lords of my age or order will remember was a post-war transformation of CEMA—the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts. That was founded during the war by the Board of Education. Keynes' triumph was to arrange that it should be funded directly from the Treasury. He said:
"I do not believe it is yet realised what an important thing has happened. State patronage of the arts has crept in. It has happened in a very English and informal way—half-baked if you like … At last the public Exchequer has recognised the support and encouragement of the civilising arts of life as a part of their duty".
I believe that the Arts Council has now reached the stage where that idea of Keynes could be further developed throughout the whole country. If the Wilding suggestion of federation is accepted in its entirety, that will be a proper and effective development. But let us have no more half thought-out schemes which are left to a departmental committee to work out.
The second half of the noble Lord's Question is of the greatest importance and everybody has spoken of it. The Arts Council must continue to enjoy independence under its charter, but the work of the proposed committee reporting to the Minister must
278
be scrutinised in a hostile rather than a friendly way. The arm's length principle is fundamental to the council's success. My noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter will deal more fully with that argument later.
I hope that the Minister can persuade his right honourable friend to read the report of this debate very carefully and allow himself to be influenced by the doubts and criticisms so widely held and stated here.
2.20 p.m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, may I at the outset say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, for suggesting that this discussion should take place? It is a discussion of considerable importance and the fact that our Benches are not full of people avid to discuss it is a disappointment. Many years ago when I was chairman of the Arts Council one of my few principles was that an essential freedom of any Englishman was freedom from culture. If I may say so, that is sometimes unhappily reflected in the composition of our Chamber.
The only other person to whom I wish to convey thanks is the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. She made a remarkable speech, although I do not entirely agree with her emphasis on the local interest in regional associations. If one examines that point, the local public are not interested in the association; they are interested in individual institutions. In Manchester they are interested in Halle; in Stratford-upon-Avon they are interested in the Shakespeare theatre. Very few people even know what the constitution of their arts council is, and I do not believe that making this change will encourage support for the arts. In some ways it might discourage support for the arts, but that is a question which requires rather longer discussion than we have time for this afternoon.
I should like, in the few minutes available, to convey to the House the exceptional reputation which the Arts Council has enjoyed, not merely in this country, despite the constant criticism which, needless to say, comes from dissatisfied applicants who have either had their grant application refused or inadequately supplied, or from people who do not like the arts at all. I am sorry to say that one finds an element of that kind in every party. It is not a situation where any chairman of the Arts Council could say that it was easier to do business with a Conservative council rather than a Labour council. My experience was that on the whole it was slightly more difficult to deal with Labour councils.
Whatever the justice of that situation there is not the slightest doubt that the one hallowed principle that needs to be maintained is the so-called arm's length principle. I am disappointed that the previous speeches treated the infringement of that principle with such gentleness. It is the most flagrant and brutal infringement of the arm's length principle that we have encountered on the basis of a report from one civil servant. I know nothing about the gentleman, but I am sure he is highly competent. That report was confirmed by one Minister, who is relatively inexperienced but a very nice man. The fact remains, however, that on the basis of those two

279
opinions it is proposed to invade a principle which is regarded with admiration and almost hallowed both in this country and in other parts of the world.
I should like to recommend to the House a symposium that was published by Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. in 1977. The symposium represented the views of art experts and practitioners in five countries. Perhaps I may be permitted to incorporate in my speech one or two observations made about England in the publication. They would be useful for the Government and the House to consider. One section is headed "Great Britain: patronage and passivity". I shall not read the whole of it because it is much too long but I give two extracts. I should point out that this was written and published abroad. The writer refers to the creation of an arts council and states:
"The new agency was to be the principal vehicle for distribution of official support for the arts; at the same time, elaborate measures were taken to ensure its formal independence. The council is composed of private citizens who are appointed by the government but who have complete authority for setting policy and for distributing the funds it receives. The politicians leave the council free to spend as it thinks fit. Parliament provides the funds but does not lay down purposes or priorities for which they must be spent".
That is directly at variance with the suggestion that there should be a steering committee answerable to Parliament. If anyone cares to write to me I shall be happy to secure a copy of this publication for them because it is basic reading for anyone concerned with the administration of the arts in this country. I quote one more passage which I hope will sink in:
"Whatever the particular contours of Arts Council policy, British cultural life in many fields has flourished during the period of its existence. London has regained its position as a world center of drama, music, opera and dance. Its actors, actresses and directors have given it a leading position on the international stage. The country has made a remarkable record in finding new playwrights and choreographers. For the first time since Purcell, Britain has produced composers who have attracted international admiration. The least that can be said for the government's aid to the arts, therefore, is that it has avoided the danger of official stultification".
All I wish to say about that is that anyone reading that on the morning when the Minister's letter appeared would be in a state of total bewilderment. One would find it difficult to believe that this was the view of the Arts Council taken by informed experts in another country and contrasting with a view of an Arts Council which is on the verge of total destruction. If I may say so, if this policy is put into effect one would have great difficulty in finding an insurance company to issue a policy for the survival of the Arts Council.
My noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg put forward a proposal for compromise. I support that proposal only in the sense that it is better to have something than nothing. The Government should think again about pursuing this policy in the way that they have. One has an unhappy feeling that people organising this policy know very little about the Arts Council. They do not appear to know anything about its diverse functions that have nothing to do with money. On my journey here this morning I prepared a short list of those activities. I am sure it would astonish the Minister to learn of them. For example, the Arts Council advises the Government on copyright situations. It advises the Treasury. I took
280
two deputations to the Treasury in regard to income tax on authors, which is of crucial concern to the Arts Council. The Arts Council has a committee on and has published an elaborate book on matters of censorship. It has established the new activities committee. It has been prominent in establishing and lobbying for public lending rights. Who will do all that if we have 10 regions with responsibility divided between them? It is an absurdity.
I have an unhappy feeling that whoever devised this plan knew nothing whatever about these extra-mural activities which have been carried out so industriously and quietly by the Arts Council over the years. It would be a very great pity if the Arts Council were deprived of the capacity to do these things because of a governmental review.
I could continue for a very long time but I know that we are all anxious to return to our country homes and so, in mercy, I conclude by saying that my hope is that the debate will draw the attention of those in charge of these matters to the fact that there are a great many imperfections in what is proposed which need to be rectified.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, for opening this debate and I agree with a very large part of what he said. Among other things he spoke about his fear of increasing bureaucracy. Any of us who have had to deal with the Arts Council or with arts management share that fear of bureaucracy. About 10 years ago I was invited by the Arts Council to join a working party under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. There were four of us who were invited to look into the structure and management of the Arts Council.
As a member of that working party, I was amazed at the amount of detailed work that went on in the Arts Council and at its extraordinarily clumsy, awkward and difficult structure. I counted no less than 45 committees in the Arts Council at that time, about half of which appeared to report to the Arts Council itself The load of paper, the load of work, the amount of talk and the little decision taking of the 45 committees surprised me greatly.
Much has changed since then. I believe that many of the recommendations of our small working party were adopted. I am perfectly certain that the number of committees and the efficiency of the Arts Council, in terms of its bureaucracy and decision-taking process, is greatly improved. However, recent experience with something which is rather ironically called "incentive funding", which is to be a reward for enterprise, was handled, regretfully, in a most bureaucratic, unimaginative and unenterprising manner. When an Arts Council has such a broad spread of responsibilities and such a vast variation between the largest and smallest of its clients, it is very difficult to give the attention which that very early Keynesian Arts Council was able to give to all its clients. It tried hard, as did its dedicated Secretary-General and his staff. I very much regret that they have resigned.
In principle I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, that there should be devolution. I

281
believe that his figures are much more likely to be right than perhaps the implication that the figure should be 95 per cent. I read what was said in another place. I read that the associations will be responsible "for most clients". When I came to read the Minister's letter the emphasis seemed to be very different. He said in that letter:
"I believe that in principle all regionally based organisations should become the day to day responsibility of the regional arts boards'.
As someone who is innocent of the ways of ministerial decisions, there seems to be a very marked contrast of emphasis between what was said in another place and what was said in the letter written to the Arts Council. What should govern the question of who is a client of the Arts Council as opposed to a regional board should be the decision of the Arts Council and not of the Minister. I do not think it should be a question of what the client would like; it should be a question of where the Arts Council, taking into account that much of its work should be devolved, thinks it can bring special expertise to a decision. There are the kinds of examples which the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, gave and I agree with them.
There is another point which has not been mentioned yet. As I understand it, the right of the Arts (Council to nominate members to the regional boards—I believe that it does so now to the extent of two in each association —is being ended. That is very sad. The Arts Council is very well placed to suggest members of regional boards. I urge the Minister to reconsider that decision. In the end the way in which the Arts Council works so greatly depends upon the money that the Government give it.
As a client —I declare an interest as chairman of the Royal Opera House—I find it easier that the principle of arm's length is upheld and there is enough money to go around. When there is not enough money to go around I would consider it most important to complain not only to the chairman of the Arts Council but also to his paymaster, the Minister.
For a structure to work well it must be properly funded. I have to give the House the example of how badly it has worked lately. The Priestley Report was a thorough and lengthy assessment of the needs of the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company. The year after the report had been accepted by the Government and funds had been voted in acordance with its recommendations the report was forgotten. To all intents and purposes it was forgotten by the Arts Council. The formula that it suggested was ignored. As a result, in the five years that followed, the grant to the Royal Opera House was reduced in real terms every year. By last year we had experienced a 15 per cent. reduction in grant in real terms.
We have been told of the marvellous recent Vote that the Minister has been able to achieve for the arts. We received an increase in grant of about 11 per cent. In the current year it is substantially more than inflation. But last year's very small grant of 1·7 per cent., taken with 11 per cent. in the current year, makes a total of 12·7 per cent. That still represents a
282
reduction over that two-year period of 3 per cent. in real terms.
We are commissioning an independent survey of opera houses throughout Europe. I shall not be surprised if it shows that the Royal Opera House is the most underfunded major opera house in the whole of Europe. If the Minister is going for a new structure he should so arrange funds that it is possible that the major institutions of this country are funded adequately. The very worthy wish of the Arts Council through its policy the Glory of the Garden, which turned out to be a disaster at Covent Garden, to obtain more funds for the regions should not be at the price of the major art institutions in the centre. They serve the nation as a whole and not just those who go to the actual performances. Private funding cannot bridge the gap. We have increased enormously our private sponsorship, by 60 per cent. in two years, but we still have a huge gap which is conservatively estimated at £2 million this year against what the objective Priestley Report would have suggested.
I support devolution. I hope that as a result a better balance is kept between the great and largest institutions and the important mass of institutions around the country. I hope that we do not get more bureaucracy through spreading the load to the different regions. Being smaller they should be carefully controlled to avoid any increase in bureaucracy.
2.39 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wish that I could be as sanguine as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that the Government will listen to what is being said in this debate. The almost unanimous approval in another place when the Minister made his statement gives me great grounds for fearing that whatever is said here will not cut much ice. Of course we know why there was such unanimous approval. Every Member of another place representing a constituency naturally supports a set-up which he thinks will reward the interests of his constituents.
I myself think that the Government's policy follows almost inexorably from the famous publication of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, The Glory of the Garden. We should also remember that it is 50 years since Maynard Keynes set up CEMA, which was the forerunner of the Arts Council. During that time enthusiasm for the arts has spread over the whole country and it is natural therefore that there should be some devolution to regions. The sheer number of candidates clamouring for funds means that it must really be beyond the capacity of one body sitting in London, however dedicated, lively and contentious its committees may be, to judge between different claimants.
How big is this devolution to be? There the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is fundamental to this debate. Is it to be 75 per cent. or 95 per cent? And, for example, what is to happen to that superb orchestra in Brimingham under the leadership of Simon Rattle? Is it to be considered a national orchestra or merely a provincial orchestra?
However, let us be under no delusion: under present proposals this is the end of an era. Keynes'

283
vision was never realised until the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, became chairman of the Arts Council, and that was a singularly glorious chapter in its history. From now on, the Arts Council is going to be like the old University Grants Committee; and how odd it is that the Government, having abolished that committee, now create a body that is in almost exactly the same relationship with these regional arts boards as the University Grants Committee was with the universities—but with a difference. No single vice-chancellor ever sat on the University Grants Committee, whereas here it is proposed that five out of the 10 regional arts boards should have direct representation on this award-giving body. That really seems to me, organisationally, to be mad. Either you have none or you have the lot. Of course I am in favour of none because I think that anyone who is chairman of a regional arts board is bound to want to paddle his own canoe and to take biased decisions.
May I issue a warning here? It follows immediately from what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said a moment ago. Unlike West Germany and Italy, where no single city is the cultural capital of those countries, in both France and in Britain the capital city is also the cultural capital. Tourists come to London to see the theatre and hear opera and concerts; and it is London that sets the artistic standards for the rest of the country. If those standards decline, Britain will be elbowed out of what might be called the cultural contest. What is worse, the whole country's standards will fall.
I am lost in admiration for the vitality of Glasgow's cultural life when I go there. I remember very well touring in the 1950s the provinces with the committee set up by the Gulbenkian Foundation under Lord Bridges to support the arts. I remember how struck I was with the determination of Newcastle to extricate itself from virtual cultural bankruptcy; and it has done so, of course. However, the success of the arts in the regions depends on London. The Welsh National Opera is a marvellous company and it has had the good sense to employ the dazzling German producer, Peter Stein. However, Cardiff will never be a rival to Milan's La Scala. So let us remember that London needs the subvention because the whole of the cultural life of the rest of the country depends on it to some extent.
I hope that when he comes to reply the noble Lord will tell us a little more about what is called the strategic role of the Arts Council. I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in thinking that the Arts Council will disappear. As I understand it, it will certainly remain but it will be given a strategic role. That is a fine phrase, but what the devil does it mean? I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, was chairman of the Arts Council. I once asked him at a meeting whether the council regarded itself as responsible for rationalising artistic activities. He replied that in his view part of the council's role was, if it could, to drop pennies into the hats which clients held out. Has there been a change of policy? That is the point to which I should like the noble Lord to address himself.
In the view of some good judges, there are too many orchestras in London and musical standards
284
have suffered as a result. I used to hold the view that there was at least one too many ballet companies in the country supported by the council. Is the council now intended to review the role of the major companies—the Royal Shakespeare Company no less than the orchestras?
May we also hear a little more about the so-called strengthening of accountability? The Minister referred to forward planning and budgeting by the regional boards. Does that mean, for instance, that a regional board will require a theatre to submit budgets for all future productions in that theatre? That great impresario at H. M. Tennent, Mr. Hugh Beaumont, was an old friend of mine. He once told me that he was astonished at the laxity of control in our great state opera and theatrical companies. He could put on "My Fair Lady" and keep it within budget only by exercising the most rigid personal control. He had to ensure that none of his leading ladies could declare that the costume or hat she has to wear in Act III should be disposed of and another garment or headgear more suitable to her taste be substituted for it. If he could keep those people in control, why can companies financed by the Arts Council not do the same?
Of course imperious renowned producers of international reputation may refuse to come to this country to produce operas or plays unless they are given carte blanche. But there are ways of meeting their demands without giving way on the point of principle that budgets for productions must not be decorous garlands but should be regarded as fetters that can only be struck off in exceptional circumstances.
Lastly, I am bound to say that I regard with Stygian gloom the Minister's enthusiasm for substantial representation on regional boards by local councillors. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, often says when we discuss education in schools, the politicisation of education in the 1950s was a disaster. I predict that we shall see an increasing politicisation of the arts by local councillors when they set their minds to it.
Do noble Lords remember the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, reassuring the House in the most dulcet tones that the infamous queer-bashing Clause 20 in the Local Government Act, which was inspired by the very proper desire to stop the circulation of books in schools advocating homosexuality, would never be used to censor works of art? However, last year Kent County Council, with immense self-righteousness, managed to stop its schools from seeing a production of Benjamin Britten's "Death in Venice". Does the noble Lord regard that as a splendid achievement in the promotion of the arts?
It is not clear who will appoint members to the regional boards. Can the noble Lord tell us whether it is to be the Minister himself, and whether anyone will advise him on that matter? Noble Lords have been trying to put the view to the Government that no one really expects the Minister himself to begin to interfere personally in the grant to this organisation or that company, but they are worried that in some subtle way the membership of these boards, and perhaps of the Arts Council itself, will tend to be drawn not necessarily from a political

285
party but from people who hold similar views to that party. I should like some reassurance that there will be a diversity of views on the boards. That is all I have to say and I apologise for having detained the House so long.
2.51 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I can happily be brief as so much has been said so eloquently already. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, for introducing this debate. He asked for reassurance from the Government on three points but the debate has brought up two vastly important points of principle. One concerns independence and the other concerns the degree of devolution in this matter. Everyone seems to welcome devolution, and indeed it looks reactionary and undemocratic not to do so. However, the exact degree of it depends, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, pointed out at the beginning of this debate, entirely on the quality of to whom one hands over. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was brave enough to point out that it is often the case that devolution involves handing over responsibility from a reasonably efficient body to a series of inefficient bodies. At any rate that has been known to happen. Of the two principles I have referred to, obviously independence is by far the most important and any erosion of that principle would be by far the most dangerous.
I do not regard the matter with quite the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who was severe in his condemnation of the Minister's Statement because he thought it eroded the principle of independence. I may be naive in my thinking and I may have mistaken the intention of the Minister's Statement, but it seems to me that the steering committee that was referred to in the Minister's Statement in another place is a steering committee which is designed to make the working nuts and bolts of this devolution come together.
The arm's length principle is surely designed to prevent governments from influencing the arts and, above all, from influencing the content of them, lest any interfering or domineering government should be tempted to start down the path which decades later could end in the kind of censorship that we have seen under totalitarian governments. We may think that is unlikely in this country, God willing, but it is the start of a path which should never be followed. It seems to me that that is what the arm's length principle enshrines and what it defends.
If I understand the matter correctly, I do not think that principle is endangered by the steering committee. However, the minute the steering committee starts to determine in what way the newly organised regional arts boards should spend their money and upon what clients and in which particular cultural climate and temperature they should operate, I shall share every moment of the alarm of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. However, at the moment I do not share that alarm. I am more inclined to share the alarm of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the presence of local councillors. I cannot join the noble Lord in Stygian gloom, but I am prepared to stand beside him in a light shadow on the matter.
286
In my experience politics is as rife in local government as it is in central government. It can be as dangerous. Above all, it is twice as changeable if that is possible. Therefore I am enormously relieved to see embodied in the Minister's statement an absolute embargo on local councillors of any political complexion being in the majority on the local arts board. I am dismayed to find that they may nevertheless be its chairman. Although there are many exceedingly bright and wise local councillors, for a local councillor belonging as he invariably will to one political party or the other to be the chairman of a board seems to me to be dangerous. I am surprised that the Minister turned his face against the suggestion that they should be banned from the boards.
It seems rather churlish to say such a thing in view of the many bright and intelligent councillors I know, but I believe that the principle is probably wrong. I urge the Minister to make sure that the local arts boards do not take on the political complexion that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, so graphically feared. If they did so I believe that they should be reformed and their constitution changed forthwith.
On the question of the extent of devolution, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, regarding the equation; namely, that 75 per cent. might be tolerable but 95 per cent. would be a mistake. I say that for two reasons one of which is the capability of the regional boards to cope. It is a cliche that the Arts Council is a remote and central temple of mandarins incapable of understanding small local needs and that local arts authorities —the regional arts associations that we have at the moment —are incapable of understanding anything else and are composed entirely of reactionary community arts people bent upon saw-toothed local drama and little else. Those two cliches foolish though they are, are very widely accepted in my experience. Simply because they have been accepted there is a certain edge of truth. The two animals are different. The central Arts Council and the regional arts associations comprise different kinds of people.
In view of the extent of devolution which is contemplated—even if it is 75 per cent.—the new regional arts boards must be capable of understanding national needs. It is a difficult point to argue. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and others have mentioned the orchestras, particularly our much admired Birmingham orchestra. There are other instances—Opera North, in London the Royal Court, the Whitechapel Art Gallery and Sadler's Wells. All of those are at once local and national. Whichever way one cares to place one's argument one can use those instances. They can be local if one's argument is local and they can be strategic if one's argument is strategic. However, I suggest that with such a degree of devolution any regional arts board must be capable of assessing the wide, general and even national needs of such bodies as well as the purely local needs which it has already experienced. Unless that happens we shall find ourselves with no Arts Council and no substitute for it either. If the regional arts boards are to become merely the Arts Council sliced up neatly and apportioned, wisdom and all, around the country there would be not so much alarm.

287
Therefore I tend to share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, that about 75 per cent. devolution would be about right. I also share the confusion which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, expressed between the Minister's statement and his letter. The statement refers to "some organisations" while the letter refers to "almost all".
I believe that the notion of the 40 or so additional organisations—even if it means the tier system that the Minister said that he had rejected—would represent a good balance, and I believe that he should reconsider. I sense that most noble Lords in this House share that view. Devolution is to be welcomed with all the reservations that we have about freedom and about the remaining clients of the Arts Council.
3 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I think we have made up in quality for what we have lacked in numbers of audience. Almost everyone has spoken of the importance of the arm's length principle and almost everyone, if not everyone, has spoken in favour of the principle of devolution.
Let me begin by saying that I am totally ranged on the side of devolution for every reason, including that which has not perhaps been mentioned; namely, the enormous size to which the Arts Council has grown. I was Chairman of the Arts Council, a post which I left 13 years ago. One cannot handle sensibly and without a frightening bureaucracy the amount which the Arts Council now handles without devolving, so there is no choice in the matter; there must be devolution. The question is one of degree.
When I retired from the Arts Council, I had the privilege of following the late Lord Clark as the president of the South-East Arts Association —one of the regional arts associations—until I retired from that post last year. I watched with great admiration as it grew under its excellent committee. It has a first-class arts administrator whom it recruited from the Arts Council and it does excellent work all over the South East.
It is obvious that, as time passes and as such associations grow and become more qualified to take over the funding in the regions, the Arts Council must devolve more and more of its work to them, as it has done. There is not much disagreement about that.
As has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, the questions that should be asked are what the Arts Council should retain and why it is necessary for the independence of the council that it should retain direct funding of anything in the regions. Those questions should first be considered from the point of view not of those who fund the arts, but of the artists themselves and those who run the orchestras, theatres, opera companies, picture galleries and so forth in the regions. It is they who produce the arts and it is what works for them that matters most, not what seems tidiest and politically easiest for those who provide the subsidies.
I have no doubt that it will work best if major regional theatres, orchestras and so on retain a direct link with the Arts Council in London. The regional arts boards, as they are to be called, are fine, but the
288
link with a national body able to make comparisons with what is going on all over the country and, through its international links, all over the world, is essential for the major arts companies.
Furthermore, when the Arts Council directly funds a major regional company, it is able to counterbalance through its national position the influence of local politics to which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and other noble Lords referred. That inevitably follows the presence on regional boards of local politicians representing local authorities' funds. Local councillors are often on the boards of the regional arts companies, and why not? It does not fill me with Stygian gloom, provided that the Arts Council is there to counterbalance it. One cannot expect to get the money out of local authorities and not have them represented on the boards. I hope that the Minister will accept the Wilding recommendation that, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, councillors should not be chairmen. They will certainly be there, but they must be counterbalanced. A national body is best able to achieve that end.
Above all, what is so important to the major arts companies is the direct link with the officers of the national arts council—officers whose standing and experience will hardly be repeatable in each of the 10 boards which it is proposed should take over the Arts Council's responsibilities. So, from the standpoint of those who run the major arts companies in the regions, that direct link is a very important source of support. I know that they themseves believe it to be so. For instance, I know that the chairman of the Arts Council has had many requests from such companies in recent weeks that that direct link be maintained.
Last week I took the chair at an address given by Mr. Palumbo at the Royal Society of Arts on his first year's work as chairman of the Arts Council. It was a very good address. The place was packed. There was an audience overflow downstairs. His address was followed by an hour's questioning, which he handled with great knowledge and skill. But it was Sir Ian Hunter, possibly the most experienced administrator of arts festivals in the country, who stressed at that meeting the important part which he considered the direct participation of the Arts Council to have played in the success of the festivals which he organised.
That is why I feel that the Minister's Statement that the big regional companies are—to quote his words—"essentially a regional resource", though perfectly true, misses the point.
So much for the point of view of the regional arts companies. From the Arts Council's own point of view the direct link is also very important. The Minister claimed that, after these proposed changes, the Arts Council would still be in what he called "the driving seat". That is a much more theoretical than real statement. It is rather like what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said—what does "the strategic role" mean? It does not mean just dropping pennies into hats —which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said was how I described the Arts Council's role in my early days—although of course that is part of it. But we have been told that it is the regions' accountability

289
to the Arts Council which will keep the council in the driving seat and that the power to increase or diminish the regional grants will give it the authority that it needs. Authority, yes; but knowledge, no. It will be much too remote from what is going on.
The power to grant money to or withhold it from an organisation which itself then decides how to allocate that money does not lead to a real understanding of the problems of the ultimate recipients, nor to the power to influence the solution of those problems. In practice all that the Arts Council will have, if these proposals are followed, is a power of veto. That is not the best foundation for a constructive relationship.
The role of the Arts Council will be restricted to a broad assessment of the quality of the arts in the regions—an assessment of results without any close contact with the processes that have produced them. I fear also that a region which feels that it has a grievance that it has suffered perhaps in comparison with another region may be tempted to appeal to the Minister. If he agrees to intervene—which I hope that he would not, but some ministers may be tempted to do so—that would put him right in the middle of questions that he ought not to be asked to resolve, because then the arm's length principle would finally have been destroyed. Incidentally—and this has been referred to certainly by one: noble Lord and perhaps by more—I was more than a little dismayed to note in the Statement that, in finally determining what was to be devolved, the Minister would have to be satisfied that the excellence of what was to be devolved would be maintained or enhanced.
Why do we have an Arts Council if that judgment is to be made by the Minister? Why cannot he trust the Arts Council to carry out his plans—it has given him considerable support—without appointing a steering group headed by the no doubt admirable director of the Scottish Arts Council, instead of leaving it to the Arts Council to do? I find that that is a most extraordinary move. I must say that, if I were the chairman or indeed the secretary-general of the Arts Council, and had that imposed upon me, I should not stay. That alone would be sufficient to cause me to walk out. I believe that a most extraordinary misunderstanding of the position must have led to this proposition, whatever the merits or demerits of the remainder of what is proposed.
However, the most important point still remains; namely, that the major arts organisations need the direct link with the Arts Council for the reasons that I have given; and, conversely, the Arts Council needs the direct contact with them. Only a direct funding role can secure that. If the Arts Council does not play that role, its usefulness will be seriously curtailed and it will gradually be found quite easy to dispense with it.
Mr. Wilding, whose report the Minister largely rejected, clearly understood that position very well. He was a thoroughly experienced and intelligent observer. He talked to every conceivable interest before making his recommendations. He devised the
290
three-tier system to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred. In my view that would largely have overcome the difficulties. The Minister dismissed that recommendation as confusing and liable to lead to confusion, in particular with regard to the middle tier. It is true that in an ideal world such proposals would not have been necessary and would have been ridiculously confusing. But we do not have an ideal world. Those recommendations recognised the facts as they are and attempted to reconcile them. It is a great pity that Mr. Wilding was not heeded.
However, I understand the Minister's difficulty. I do not think that it is reasonable to blame him, or that it is not his duty to examine and call for a review of the structure of arts funding. That does not mean that he wishes to become involved in what money should go to whom. The structure of the funding is his business.
There is no perfect solution to these problems. In every nationwide organisation, whether in business, in the public service, or in any large-scale administration the same problem always occurs. What is the right relationship between the centre and the periphery? No one is ever quite satisfied with the answers and the search for them is permanent; it goes on forever. If one devolves too much, one eviscerates the centre and there is no common goal. If one over-centralises, bureaucracy prevails and morale at the periphery disappears. It is a difficult problem. I agree that Mr. Wilding's solution left certain unsatisfactory aspects unresolved. But at least he understood the danger of leaving the Arts Council—which is the successful embodiment of the arm's length principle —with too little to do. It is that which makes me fear for the future independence of the council.
I do not believe that the proposals represent some 'sinister intention to breach the arm's length principle. However, I believe that such a breach would in time have that effect unless we can build on three very important words in the Minister's Statement. I beg the Minister to consider this. He said that the Arts Council's direct funding should be restricted to the four national companies, the South Bank, education, touring, one or two other aspects, and "some other organisations". I urge that those three words be built upon to preserve the direct link between the council and the 40 major arts organisations in the regions. There seems to be some agreement, and it was certainly Mr. Wilding's view, that there would be some 40 major arts organisations in the regions. I take it that that is the 75 per cent. figure to which reference has been made, although I have not worked it out. There would then be some chance of retaining effective contact with the arts over the country as a whole and thus of retaining the services of the council's experienced officers—certainly its most valuable asset and one which it may otherwise lose. If that is not done, the Arts Council is in danger of becoming a mere talking shop and, sooner or later, a talking shop about the arts will be dispensed with.
3.14 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, in this

291
interesting and important discussion. He is the third former chairman of the Arts Council to participate in the debate. I wondered in the course of the debate whether any of those three former chairmen of the Arts Council were consulted by the Minister before he made his Statement or before he issued his letter. I find it difficult to believe that he consulted them because, had he done so and had he paid any attention to what they had said, the form of the Statement and of the letter would have been very different.
I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, for introducing the debate so powerfully and for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss an extremely important matter. In one way or another all noble Lords have referred to the arm's length principle, to which I shall return.
I agree with the emphasis placed by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, on the economic benefits gained from the arts by the country as a whole. I also agree with the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, of the way in which funding has been delivered to the institutions. I hope that the Minister heard and understood those comments and that he will not tell the House once more that during the next three years funds will be increased by 22 per cent., which is an act of great generosity. Having regard to the inflation from which we are now suffering, it is nothing of the kind. As all noble Lords have said, the most important aspect in dealing with the arts is the funding that they receive.
The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is a matter of principle and practice in connection with the arm's length relationship. I have always had doubts about the wisdom of appointing a Minister for the Arts, although I am sure that, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would disagree. I believe that there are few topics on which politicians are less qualified to pronounce. It is an area in which their direct intervention is almost always destructive. Of course if you are a Minister for the Arts you feel bound to do something and to say even more.
Hence the importance of the Arts Council. It acts as a kind of buffer between the Minister and the Government —between their words and deeds —and the activity of artists, who need government money but who cannot afford to be directed by them.
The classic quango is the BBC. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, said, unless it is seen to be independent, it loses all its authority. Another classic quango is the Arts Council, which cannot do its job unless it is independent. The independent centre of power—that is to say, independent of government—is an important element in the unwritten constitution of this country. I regret to say it is an element for which this Government have shown little understanding and scant respect. They have made too many political appointments and indulged in too much bullying.
I respect the efforts made by Mr. Luce on behalf of the arts. However, he should not be surprised if his Statement and his letter to Mr. Peter Palumbo are examined with a degree of scepticism. I agree
292
with other noble Lords that the two are not synchronised; there are substantial differences of emphasis between one and the other. At times it appears as though two different voices are speaking, or that it is one voice in very different tones: first, for example, in respect of the relationship between the Office of Arts and Libraries and the Arts Council itself The Office of Arts and Libraries is part of government and part of the Civil Service. While it has responsibility, as I understand it, for proposing that grants be given to its clients —the Arts Council, the Museums and Galleries Commission, the British Film Institute, and so on—it does not have responsibility for seeing how that money is spent. That is a responsibility of the bodies which receive the grants.
In the case of the Arts Council —and this is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson —it is for the council to be satisfied that the bodies it grant-aids maintain standards of artistic excellence. That is the situation as it always was but no longer will be if the Minister's letter goes through unchallenged.
In paragraph 4 of the letter he writes in the last sentence:
"I will need to be satisfied that standards of artistic excellence will be maintained and enhanced in the regions as a result of any changes".
That puzzles me as it puzzled the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. That does not seem to me ever to have been the job of the Minister. That has always been the job of the Arts Council. It is a gross violation of the arm's length principle for the Minister to start interfering and taking over a responsibility which has never heretofore been his.
Again, the Minister established a steering committee. In his Statement he said:
"I am establishing a steering group to be responsible for implementing the changes. This group will report to me. I am pleased to announce the apointment of Mr. Timothy Mason … to manage these reforms". —[Official Report. Commons, 13/3/90; col. 156.]
That group is to report not to the Arts Council but to the Minister. Mr. Mason and not the director of the Arts Council is to manage the reforms. In the light of that, it does not seem to me to be surprising that Mr. Rittner felt unable to continue to be director of the Arts Council. His responsibilities had been taken away from him by the Minister and handed over to other people. I do not know whether the chairman of the Arts Council was consulted but I am sure that if former chairmen of the Arts Council who have spoken had been consulted they would have predicted precisely what happened.
Secondly, there is the relationship, which has been touched on on many occasions in this debate, between the Arts Council and the regional boards. The latter are to be responsible for the day-to-day administration but accountable to the Arts Council. That is the federal principle about which we have heard so much. There are to be 10 regional arts boards but only five are to be on the council. That seems to me to be in defiance of any federal constitution of which I have ever heard; namely, that the elements of the federation are not represented on

293
the body which runs the federation. That seems to me to be a constitutional deformity of a gross and unnatural nature.
There are those who say—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said this—that there should be no members of the regional boards on the council. That is a possible drastic and rather dictatorial solution. However, if you are to have any boards on the council you should have all of them. Those which are not on the central council will have no hand in policy-making and the excuse that that would increase the council membership from 20 to 25 seems to me to be totally inadequate.
We then come —and this has also been mentioned by many of your Lordships—to the extended responsibilities of the regional boards. That matter is set out in paragraph 5 of the letter. Those responsibilities are extensive. I should have thought —here I speak without personal experience—that inevitably if they are to carry out those responsibilities properly they will require increased numbers of staff. If they have that increase in staff and if the Arts Council's responsibilities are as important as the Minister suggests, the idea that there will be any saving in the overheads of the whole organisation is extremely unlikely. I should expect an increase in staff and increased overheads as a -result of the changes.
We then come to the last question, which is what, in the name of fortune, under this reorganisation will 1 he Arts Council do? The question was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Rees-Mogg, Lord Annan and Lord Gibson. None of them was capable of giving a satisfactory answer. The council's revised responsibilities are set forth in paragraph 2 of the famous letter, which states:
"A; I have indicated in my statement, the Council should also retain [in addition to its strategic role] its leading responsibility on matters such as broadcasting, education, training, research and international affairs".
I know that national strategy is difficult to define. I know that the monitoring of arts boards is relatively easy to understand. But I do not understand the responsibilities which the council is to retain. I thought that touring and international promotion were the responsibility more broadly of the British Council than of the Arts Council. I never knew, though that may be ignorance on my part, that the Arts Council had any responsibility for broadcasting or, if it did, how it would carry it out and in what direction. How it is to do that I cannot tell.
Those are some of the questions which require an answer. The basic anxiety which is shared by many noble Lords and which has been expressed today is that the Minister's response to the Wilding Report, which purports to be about devolution and the dispersal of power, is window dressing and conceals what, in the result, will be a centralisation of power not in the Arts Council, but in Whitehall. By elevating the Arts Council to have responsibility for strategy; by giving it responsibility for the "glamour" companies (which, let us face it, arouse the most envy); and by leaving five out of the 10 regional arts boards off the council, in my view the Arts Council will find itself emasculated, just as the Nature
294
Conservancy Council was emasculated by being split into three in the name of devolution. The Government's power will be less fettered; opposition will be more muted from an emasculated Arts Council.
Those are the anxieties which some of us have tried to express today; those are the anxieties which the Minister must address and that I trust he will be able to allay.
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, one of my worst nightmares is that I shall wake up and find myself answering on this side of the House, being the last speaker in an arts debate which up till then has been entirely taken up by the great and the good; with people who have had experience as past chairmen of the Arts Council, ex-Ministers of the Arts and so on. There are practically no Indians here today; it is practically all chiefs who have spoken in the debate, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and myself, if she does not mind being classified in that way.
I should like to start by saying that the devolution proposals are very attractive and I welcome them. On this point I am sorry to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, whose experience is so great and whose partnership with Jennie Lee in the 1960s was the golden time of the Arts Council. We should perhaps be a little more patient. Listening to this debate I have the feeling that we are not sufficiently taking account of the fact that the Statement was made only five weeks ago. After all, the regional arts boards are not already in operation. There must be time for the new system to shake down. There are obviously many corners which need to be smoothed. Many questions have been put to the Minister and it is clear that a considerable amount of clarification needs to be given.
As regards representation of the regional arts boards on the Arts Council, I believe that unless all the regional chairmen are members of the council, inevitably there will be a feeling that some regions will get a better deal than others. As the Arts Council is to be even more fully in charge of providing finance for the regional arts boards than it has for the associations, the worry must be acknowledged to be genuine. Equally, unless the Arts Council, having lost many of its detailed funding responsibilities, includes all the regional bodies as a basic part of its decision-making process, the opportunities for divide and rule by government —a fear expressed by almost every speaker this afternoon —will be dangerously increased.
I do not share the great fears that have also been expressed about participation of local government and local councillors. This is very important. For example, after the abolition of the GLC it was pointed out time after time and night after night during our debates on the arts component that the local authorities would take on a great many of the responsibilities in this respect. Some did, some did not; some could and some could not. Nevertheless, one cannot try to draw in people and say "We require your help both financial and in encouragement" and

295
at the same time refuse to let them participate, saying "You are too political" or "You do not know enough about the subject".
I have found, as I am sure have other noble Lords who sit on committees outside this House, that politics are not the monopoly of politicians and do not occur only when political matters are dealt with. There are, for example, medical politics and politics on almost any body on which one sits. The same applies to the arts and will apply to the regional arts boards.
Of particular concern is that the gap between the Arts Council and the Government is becoming disturbingly narrow. The Minister said in another place:
"How one interprets arm's length is a matter for debate. How far it is taken is a matter for argument and discussion". —[Official Report, Commons, 22/2/90; col. 1168.]
I share the strong feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I agree that this is a matter of great concern. If it were the intention of the Government to create a fully-fledged interventionist ministry of culture in the Continental tradition, which they have never given any indication of wanting to do —and this is not the time to discuss the merits or demerits of that —they should do that properly by bringing forward a White Paper for debate.
These changes are so far-reaching and go so deep that I feel —a feeling that has increased as I listened to the debate—that this matter should be brought before Parliament. It should not be dealt with by way of a Statement and correspondence between the Minister, the Arts Council and other people. At the same time that is what we should be investigating and probably asking for.
The management of the changes is not to be handled by the Secretary General of the Arts Council as one might reasonably expect. The point has been made by practically everyone else. The management is to be by a committee headed by a civil servant which will be responsible to the Office of Arts and Libraries. That lends further credence to the suspicion that the Government are significantly lengthening the arm's length policy and almost getting to the point that if they take it any further the arm will be amputated.
Why is it necessary to bring in an outside manager, Timothy Mason, who has done an extraordinarily good job in Scotland? It is no personal reflection on him. However, why is it necessary for an outside manager to be brought in to dictate the manner of reforms to the Arts Council? Can the Minister say why the Minister for Arts does not believe that the Secretary General of the Arts Council is competent to run the affairs of the council rather than to have them located in the Office of Arts and Libraries? That fact is causing us all a great deal of concern.
In that situation it is very understandable why the present secretary general, Mr. Luke Rittner, had decided to resign. Whatever the strength and weaknesses of the present system there is no possibility of it working without proper funding. We have talked around the subject and a great many wise and sensible things have been said about the future of the regional arts boards. At the end of the
296
day, we return to the question of whether there will be sufficient resources.
We have heard graphic examples from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, of what happens when funds are too small. I have had experience of that in other parts of the arts field including in particular the British Film Institute. At best these bureaucratic arrangements are just a distraction from the real problems facing the arts whether regional or national. Shifting the burden of grant-giving from a large and poverty-stricken institution such as the Arts Council which is also being starved of funds, to a smaller regional arts board which is just as impoverished, will not help the theatres to remain open, the orchestras to give innovative programmes or galleries to acquire new works.
Even more damaging is the unavoidable administrative cost of the upheaval which will transfer resources to the bureaucracy at precisely the moment when they are most needed by the arts companies themselves. The basic issue that worries me is how far any artist, performer or musician will benefit from this structure. If they are to benefit and there are extra resources to make it possible, we should feel happier about the situation.
The money for this restructuring is expected to come from the Arts Council's existing budget. Despite the Government's assertion that the council's budget has been increased significantly, the optimism is illusory as the National Campaign for the Arts has recently pointed out. The increase of 12·5 per cent. for the first year is fine and that is what we all applauded. There will be 5·1 per cent. for the next year and 3·9 per cent. for the years 1990-93. They represent an actual fall in the real level of the grant when set against inflation. I shall not trouble noble Lords with the figures though they are plain to be seen and quite simple.
The Arts Council has already had to find extra money to compensate English National Opera and English National Ballet for the disappearance of their support from Westminster City Council. That is the final chapter in the saga of the abolition of the GLC. I say in parenthesis that whatever the GLC did or did not do—I do not believe that it was perfect —the loss to the arts and to many other areas of our national life since its abolition has been extremely great. The failure of the Government either to accept all the recommendations of the Priestley Report or to tackle the Arts Council's calls for what it needs leaves the arts weakened and renders the change irrelevant. None of this will help the Arts Council to deal with the crippling deficits of the national and regional companies. The housing of the arts will not be improved unless extra funds are made available.
The Wilding Report suggested that local authorities would be able to relieve the regional arts boards of much of the present Arts Association responsibility for community projects. But with the poll tax eating into local government funds and with the capping of local authorities, they have little room for manoeuvre—even those local authorities that would like to do more for the arts. They will not be in a position to expand their services for some time

297
to come. Many have taken on arts officers and some would like to have done so but could not because of lack of funds.
How is this wonderful strategic function to be financed? The Arts Council does not have the money to do its present job. A bureaucratic shuffle will not solve the problem. Without the injection of new investment how can this devolved system achieve anything? In a press release of 10th April the PSI gave figures for 1987 for direct public expenditure on arts and museums. We come at the bottom of the list. It is something of which we should be ashamed. In Britain we spend £9·8 per head, compared with £27·8 in Sweden, £20·5 in the Netherlands, £21·4 in France, £24 in Germany and £17·4 in Canada. Internationally we have a very bad record. It is not for lack of people like ourselves trying to nudge this Government, and indeed all governments, to do something for the arts.
I hope that the Minister will offer some illumination and light when he answers the questions put to him. Is there any possibility that all the chairmen of the regional arts boards will be on the Arts Council? There would then be 10 instead of the seven suggested. That would make an enormous difference because it would also deal with some of the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and others. If they were there as part of the Arts Council they would have an opportunity to work together instead of feeling remote and having to fight for their own region.
3.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, it is very rare that I am envious of the Minister in another place, but today I think I can truly say that I am envious of the position my right honourable friend was in the other day when he made his Statement. If I might carry the allusion of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a little further, I believe I am the third Indian in this debate today in your Lordships' House.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and to the other noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I am very conscious that the noble Lord and other speakers today are able to bring a great deal of knowledge and personal experience to the subject of the funding of the arts and the role of the Arts Council. I hope nevertheless that I shall be able to give them some reassurance about the particular concerns that have been raised.
Before turning to those concerns in detail, it might be helpful for the House if I were to set out briefly some of the background to the noble Lord's Question. As noble Lords will know, the last decade has seen a major expansion of the arts economy. Increased levels of central and local government support for the arts and greater private affluence have enabled arts organisations to increase their turnover to record levels. The Arts Council of Great Britain and the 12 English regional arts associations, which are responsible for funding some local arts organisations, have played a major role in this expansion. Over a long period a situation has
298
developed, however, whereby in any one region a theatre or gallery might be funded by a regional arts association but a similar organisation a few miles away might be funded directly by the Arts Council. This reflects the haphazard way in which over 30 years or more the regional arts associations have established themselves to met local arts needs without ever being fully integrated into a national system of planning and decision-making.
That is why in December 1988 my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts set up the first major external review of the role of the Arts Council and the regional arts associations since the council was established in 1946. The review was undertaken by Mr. Richard Wilding, the former head of the Office of Arts and Libraries. In his report Mr. Wilding was asked to pay particular attention to four specific objectives.
First, there was the need for greater accountability by the regional arts associations. Currently some £35 million of the Arts Council's £175 million grant is allocated to the regional arts associations, which are responsible for the development of the arts in their regions. But although the officers of the council and the associations have worked closely together, the associations are not directly accountable to the council for the ways in which they allocate and spend council money within the region and for the value which they get for it.
Secondly, there was the need for a more coherent funding policy. I have already described the way in which both the Arts Council and the associations might both be funding arts organisations in the same area. As a result, local authorities have to deal with both the Arts Council and the regional arts associations, and they may find that the two tiers have different policies and priorities.
Thirdly, there was the need for improved structures for the handling of business. In the past it has proved difficult to combine the effective handling of business with due recognition of the multiplicity of interests which have a legitimate claim to be represented in the decision-making process. Meetings are often attended by large numbers of people, and the pressure of immediate business makes it difficult to see the wood for the trees. The Minister for the Arts acknowledged that some associations were already tackling this problem and he now wanted to consider whether these improvements could be disseminated more wisely.
Fourthly, the Minister for the Arts asked Mr. Wilding to consider the administrative cost of the whole system so that he could be satisfied that the taxpayer was getting the best value for money from the arts funding structure.
After consulting widely all the interested parties, Mr. Wilding submitted his report to the Minister for the Arts in September 1989. Copies of the report, entitled Supporting the Arts, were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Following receipt of the report, my right honourable friend initiated an intensive period of consultation during which he received over 6,000 written responses. He also held discussions with all the interested parties and met a

299
number of delegations of MPs and regional representatives.
My right honourable friend announced his response to the report in another place on 13th March. In it he accepted the thrust of many of Mr. Wilding's recommendations. In particular, he accepted the need to distinguish more clearly between the complementary but distinct roles of the Arts Council and the regional arts associations. He also accepted that the way to achieve this was by devolving many of the council's grant-giving responsibilities to the associations, which would be strengthened and reconstituted as regional arts boards. In return, the boards would become more accountable to the Arts Council for their spending of central government funding and for their delivery of national policy objectives.
In reaching his decisions, my right honourable friend has stressed that his primary objective has been to establish a system of arts funding which is best for the arts and for the public which is served by those arts organisations. The Government are not in the business of making change for change's sake, nor do they want to undermine the excellent work which the Arts Council has achieved over many years. Like Mr. Wilding, the Minister for the Arts concluded, however, that there was an urgent need for a better integrated system of planning and budgeting which could deliver a coherent policy for the arts and which takes full account of regional as well as national needs.
This is what led the Minister for the Arts to announce a major shift in funding responsibilities from the Arts Council to the regional arts associations. It is his view, which I share, that decisions about the funding of arts organisations can best be taken by the people who are in day-to-day contact with those organisations. In the majority of cases it is the regional arts associations, with their knowledge of local circumstances and their close working relationship with local authorities, which are best equipped to fulfil this role.
Moreover, it is in the regions that many of the most exciting developments have taken place in the arts in recent years. A few years ago the idea of Birmingham as a major artistic centre would have been greeted with hollow laughter. Yet the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra has now built for itself an international reputation. Later this year it will be joined by the Sadler's Wells Royal Ballet which will be re-named the Birmingham Royal Ballet when it moves into its new home in the Birmingham Hippodrome. The orchestra itself will be moving into a new concert hall which promises to be one of the finest in the country.
The same story can be repeated in many of our great regional towns and cities. Last month saw the opening of the new West Yorkshire Playhouse which is another addition to the excellent facilities that are already available in Leeds. In Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Newcastle and in many other centres we have witnessed in recent years a renaissance of the arts. This has not only been a stimulus for civic pride but also a major force for
300
economic regeneration, as my noble friend Lady Elliot pointed out. Many of these developments have been the result of local authority investment working in partnership with other government agencies and with the private sector. It is these partnerships in the arts that the Government now want to build on with their reforms.
Nothing in these reforms is intended to diminish the role of the Arts Council. On the contary, they will enable the council to develop its key strategic role of determining national arts policy. That role is of crucial importance. First and foremost, the council will remain the national body with sole responsibility for determining the overall direction of arts policy. The framework for that policy will be a national strategy for the arts which the Arts Council has been charged with producing by April 1992. The council will also be responsible for ensuring that the strategy is implemented through a system of forward planning and budgeting and by monitoring its delivery.
In addition to its strategic role, the council will retain and develop a wide range of specific responsibilities which can only sensibly be handled at the national level. It will continue to fund directly the four national companies—the Royal Opera House, the English National Opera, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal National Theatre —as well as the South Bank Centre and some other organisations, still to be determined. It will also retain responsibility for other major policy issues such as touring, innovation, broadcasting, international affairs, research, education and training.
Within the exercise of its responsibility for planning and accountability, the council will also need to satisfy itself in future that standards of excellence in the regions are being maintained. Indeed, devolution will not take place until my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts is satisfied that there are satisfactory arrangements in place to maintain and enhance standards of excellence.
As I have already described, the regional arts associations will be re-constituted as regional arts boards. They will be reduced from 12 to 10 in number to ensure that they are of sufficient size to take on their enhanced responsibilities. They will continue to be responsible for determining the shape of their decision-making structures provided that local authority representation is not in a majority. The Minister for the Arts has not, however, accepted Mr. Wilding's recommendation that all the boards should in future have an automatic place on the Arts Council because this would risk making the council unwieldy. Instead, regional representation on the Arts Council will also be increased from three to five places.
The Minister for the Arts also announced that the Crafts Council would remain an independent body and would not be merged with the Arts Council. He has, however, asked the two councils to explore ways of co-operating more closely so that there is no duplication of funding at the regional level. He has also defined more clearly the complementary roles of the Arts Council and the British Film Institute in the funding of film and video work.

301
I should record at this point that the announcement by the Minister for the Arts received strong support from all sides in another place. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made reference to that point, and I shall return to it at a later stage. It has also received the personal support of the chairman of the Arts Council and has been endorsed by the lull council at a specially convened meeting. It has been welcomed by the regional arts associations.
Nevertheless, the Minister for the Arts has recognised that, following his announcement, there are concerns on the part of some of those who are directly affected by the changes. To some extent this is inevitable. It is not possible to implement a set of proposals as complex and wide-ranging as the ones I have described without creating some uncertainty. This was one of the reasons why the Minister announced the appointment of Mr. Timothy Mason, the director of the Scottish Arts Council, who commands wide respect in the arts world, to manage the changes resulting from his announcement. It will be Mr. Mason's job to advise the Minister for the Arts on the detailed implementation of his decisions, having taken account of the concerns raised by interested parties whom he will consult. He will be working with a small steering group that has been set up by the Minister.
My right honourable friend intends that the Arts Council will remain a strong and robust organisation as a result of these changes. I hope and believe that the noble Lord's fears on this score are misplaced. The council's overall responsibility for arts policy and funding will be enhanced.
The noble Lord is also concerned that the arm's length principle of arts funding, and with it the independence of the council, is being eroded. Nothing in the changes that the Government have announced will compromise the council's independence. Decisions about the allocation of the council's grant-in-aid, about artistic priorities and about the funding of individual arts bodies will continue to be the sole responsibility of the council and regional arts boards. The structure of arts funding and the mechanism for ensuring the accountability of taxpayers' money are, however, properly a matter for the Government and the Arts Minister, who must demonstrate that accountability to Parliament.
Concern has also been expressed that these changes will threaten the standards of excellence being achieved by leading arts organisations when they are no longer funded directly by the Arts Council. Excellence is not of course the sole preserve of the Arts Council. Nevertheless, the Minister recognised that it was important to ensure that the position of these organisations would be protected in any new arrangement. As I made clear earlier, he will therefore want to be satisfied that standards of excellence will be maintained and enhanced before devolution of funding responsibilities can take place. In particular, where the Arts Council has agreed a level of three-year funding with an arts organisation this will be maintained by the regional arts board.
Beyond that, the new planning and monitoring arrangements will require the Arts Council to
302
approve in advance the funding of major organisations. Each autumn the council will indicate its provisional grant allocation to each regional arts board. The board will then assemble a detailed programme for the coming year which will include its allocation to major arts bodies. The programme will need to be submitted to the Arts Council for its approval and the board will be subsequently held to account by the council for the delivery of that programme. To enable it to maintain its knowledge of regional organisations, the Arts Council will also retain its responsibility for undertaking in-depth assessments of leading arts organisations and their funding bodies.
Various points have been raised and I shall try to answer some of them. Other points will only be answered as the working party proceeds in the months ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, mentioned the increasing costs and bureaucracy that devolution could bring about. That point was in turn returned across the net, so to speak, by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who referred not only to devolution but to dissolution. Whatever the outcome, he made the very respectable point that when the British Empire came to an end the question of whether the system that succeeded it was more efficient was offset by the de facto coming of that end.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, questioned the meaning of "strategic role". The Arts Council has been charged with producing a national strategy for the arts and holding the regions to account in delivering it. If they do not deliver it the Arts Council will ensure that they do not receive any money. That is what we mean by the Arts Council having a strategic role.
It was, as always, a privilege to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, speak in your Lordships' House this afternoon. He raised the point that there are activities that the Arts Council engages in of which the Minister may not be aware. I had the privilege many years ago of discovering some of the good work that the noble Lord was doing when I led a small delegation to the Treasury. I thought that there was a unique and unshakeable case for special treatment for a group of individuals who had a very short life-span and career—namely, racing drivers. It was pointed out to me by an official that the Arts Council had been making the case for years in the case of authors. Therefore I am aware of what was written on the back of the envelope which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, brought with him this afternoon.
Regarding the broader aspects of the important items which he mentioned, which if I recollect correctly included copyright, we believe that if the Arts Council is freed from having to deal with hundreds of small regional organisations it will have more time to attend to important issues which are not commonly brought to the attention of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and many other noble Lords, referred to the beginning of the end. In his case the noble Lord referred to the finger being taken out of the pie. That is far from the case. The Government have increased expenditure substantially in recent years and are totally

303
committed to the Arts Council and its successful future.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, raised three principal points which he wanted answered if he was to be convinced that the Government were dealing with the case with sincerity. The first of those points was that arts organisations should be consulted before being devolved. I hope that I have made it very clear from my reference to the steering group that that will certainly be the case.
The noble Lord then referred to the need for the Arts Council to remain a strong organisation. The Arts Council will continue to be responsible for arts policy nationally, as I pointed out earlier. I believe that it will be unfettered by a number of small issues. That will allow it to concentrate on the larger issues and to have more time effectively to lobby the Government of the day on behalf of the arts.
Thirdly, the noble Lord wanted an assurance that the Arts Council would remain independent. As I said earlier, the Arts Council will continue to be responsible for decisions about art. The Government have no desire to be in any way involved. They have an interest only in answering to Parliament for expenditure undertaken on behalf of the taxpayer.
Arts expenditure has been referred to. The subject was not dealt with in great detail, although it could form the subject of a separate debate in your Lordships' House. However, I should point out that in the lifetime of this Government expenditure on the arts has risen in real terms by some 40 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, raised a very valid point with regard to the intentions of the steering committee. He described the position perfectly when he said that the committee would deal with the nuts and bolts of the devolution changes as they took place. That is correct. I should add that that committee consists of five people, of whom three are from the Arts Council itself. That ensures that the Arts Council will have a majority on the steering committee.
The matter of local councillors was raised. In some ways I was rather surprised because I am often accused at the Dispatch Box of not having the needs of local councillors to the forefront of my heart and desire. We have insisted that local councillors will not have a majority on any board, but it should be recognised that many local authorities give a considerable amount of money to the arts. It would not be practical to say that local councillors could not be represented on the boards, although I know that that will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, given the way that the Minister looked at me when speaking about local councillors, I thought that he had perhaps misunderstood me. I was arguing that local councillors should be involved. For those few minutes I was on his side.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I agreed with the noble Baroness. I am sure that, when she inspects Hansard, she will find that I was in agreement with her on that occasion.
304
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to appointments to the regional boards. Again, we were divided on that issue. I have to say—I am often assaulted in this respect when speaking at the Dispatch Box for the other department which I represent —that one of the Government's principles is a commitment to local democracy. One of the ways in which we shall achieve that is through having local councillors on regional arts boards.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, drew attention to what he believed was the compromise of the arm's length position. The key point to remember is that the Government hold a responsibility for the structure of the arts in terms of funding. There must be some connection between the Government and the arts because the Arts Council itself was a government creation, but we do not have any intention of involving ourselves in the arts.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, raised the reasonable point of why we need a steering group. The Wilding Report makes some 80 detailed recommendations. The Minister felt that he could not prescribe all the answers without further consideration and advice and he has therefore set up that steering group which has a majority of Arts Council members. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord up to a point.
The noble Lord then drew our attention to three crucial words—"some other organisations". One of the reasons for setting up the steering group was to consider that matter. It is too early to say whether there will be 40 organisations, as he believes is correct, but those words are there and the noble Lord is quite right: there will be other organisations.
The most important point about this afternoon's debate was that first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and by many other noble Lords later. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out that the Statement received a welcome response in the House of Commons for reasons which he felt were obvious. He felt that there was a different interest for elected Members of Parliament than for Members in this House who have shown their interest in and experience of such matters this afternoon. I had frequent discussions with my right honourable friend in the days preceding this debate. I can assure noble Lords that he will read the entire debate with great interest because a great deal which is of interest has been said this afternoon. I hope that in the limited time available to me this afternoon I have been able to give some reassurance that the concerns raised by noble Lords are being taken on board by the Government.
We are concerned that the artistic features of this country should be the best. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that if I were given a choice of going to Sweden, Canada or the United Kingdom for the benefit of a creative week, I should choose the United Kingdom every time with regard to the arts.
We believe that the Arts Council will not only survive but will thrive. It is the Government's firm view that the council is set fair to meet the challenges that lie before it in the 1990s.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps before the noble Lord sits down I could make clear my point about local councillors. Of course local councillors should be on these bodies. It was simply the enthusiasm of his right honourable friend who said, "I should like far more, though they must not go over 49 per cent." that I thought was perhaps a little questionable.
House adjourned at ten minutes past four o'clock.

  ROADS: CHANGE OF DESIGNATION
  ROADS: CHANGE OF DESIGNATION
  TENANTS' CHOICE LANDLORDS
  TENANTS' CHOICE LANDLORDS
  FOSSIL FUEL LEVY REGULATIONS 1990
  FOSSIL FUEL LEVY REGULATIONS 1990
  HONG KONG: ANNUAL REPORT
  HONG KONG: ANNUAL REPORT