Sitting of 10 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
  Badgers Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Badgers Bill
    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF S. 2 OF BADGERS ACT 1973
      9.37 am
      Mr. Michael Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert 'or'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, leave out line 12.
      No. 3, in line 14, at beginning insert
      'in a manner which causes harm, or would be likely to cause harm, to a badger,'.
      No. 4, in line 16, at end insert—
      (4) An accused shall not be permitted to rebut a presumption of guilt established under sections 1(1A) or 2(2) by evidence that he was engaged in any other activity save where he can show that he was authorised to be engaged in that activity by the occupier of the land on which the alleged offence occurred.
      (5) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(e) (disturbing a badger) by reason of entering a terrier into a badger sett provided that his action would otherwise have been lawful.'.
      No. 5, in clause 2, line 25, leave out '(a), (c) or (e)'.
      No. 16, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 47 and 48.
      No. 18, in clause 5, page 3, line 13, at end insert "'harm" means bodily harm.'.
      Mr. Colvin: This group of amendments is crucial to the Bill. Those Conservative Members who had reservations about the previous Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) are pleased to have the opportunity to support this Bill. The House will agree that there has been a different atmosphere surrounding this Bill from the start, largely to the credit of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who has been only too ready to have discussions with those of us who expressed genuine concerns and reservations about the Bill that the House considered during the last Session. There has been much consultation and compromise.
      As the House will know, it is the nature of private Member's Bills that, unless such an atmosphere prevails, the chances are that a Bill will not make the progress that its promoter would like. I am afraid that that is what befell the previous Bill on the subject. Unfortunately, almost with the same breath as he proposed his Badger Protection Bill, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West proposed another Bill to ban fox hunting. That led one or two of us
      908
      with an interest in field sports, who support the legitimate interests of those who go about their business in the countryside, whether they be field sportsmen, farmers, Iandowners or foresters, to be slightly suspicious about the hon. Gentleman's real objectives.
      There is no doubt about the objectives of the hon. Member for Newport, East. All of us in the House and the many constituents who have written to us on the subject have no doubt that his objective is to see the end of the obnoxious practice of badger digging and baiting. We are in total agreement about that. Any other side effect of this measure can be hotly debated, but the principal objective must remain.
      I shall concentrate first on amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4. As several hon. Members attending this debate have not been present at earlier debates on badgers, either in this Session or the previous one, I shall begin with a few general remarks about the problem as it is seen inside and outside Parliament. The Bill creates a new offence of recklessly or intentionally causing a dog to enter a badger sett and is designed to make it easier to prosecute badger diggers—something we all want to stop.
      At present, it is an offence under section 1(1) of the Badgers Act 1973 to attempt to kill, injure or take a badger. Since 1985, when the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was amended, the burden of proof has been reversed, so that a person who enters a terrier into a badger sett is presumed to have been attempting to kill, injure or take a badger, unless he shows to the contrary—unless he shows that he is digging for foxes.
      It is argued that, despite the tightening of the law in 1985, badger diggers are still evading conviction by taking fox carcases with them, so that they can claim that they were after foxes, not badgers. On the other side, it is argued that there are many legitimate terrier men who are truly after foxes and who have fallen foul of the law because they have been unable to prove their innocence—that happens a great deal in Wales.
      There is general agreement that the law is unsatisfactory and results in lengthy proceedings, with expert witnesses called on both sides. However, although a simple offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett would make it easier to prosecute badger diggers, it would also put an end to the control of foxes by using terriers in setts. Foxes frequently run into, or occupy, badger setts. Therefore, the new offence would be unacceptable to the sheep farming community.
      The legitimate use of terriers by packs of fox hounds and others to control foxes does not harm badgers. If farmers were denied that method of control, alternative methods such as snaring and night shooting are likely to cause far more trouble for the badger, which is essentially a nocturnal animal. At present, packs of fox hounds and other above-board fox control operations do not fall foul of the law when using terriers in setts, as they are plainly not attempting to kill, injure or take badgers.
      The offence, as drafted, makes no allowance for someone who genuinely wishes to take foxes out of badger setts. That is of particular concern, as the Bill presently defines "sett" to include disused setts. However, a simple defence allowing the use of terriers for fox control would not be acceptable, as it would open the loophole for badger diggers to claim that they were after foxes. Therefore, we must find a means of distinguishing between legitimate terrier men and badger diggers.

      909
      A licensing system has been suggested, but that would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. A large number of licences would be needed—the figure would run into thousands—and it would be hard for the licensing authority, whatever it might be, to determine whether an application was genuine. A licensing system is likely to be resisted by the Government—perhaps the Minister will comment on that later.
      Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 4 provide a more simple means of permitting legitimate terrier work. It is accepted that almost all badger diggers are trespassers, but farmers or huntsmen who genuinely wish to control foxes are not. The amendments remove the right of defendants charged under sections 1 or 2 of the Badgers Act 1973 to claim that they were after foxes or engaged in any other activity, unless they can show that they were authorised to be engaged in that activity by the occupier of the land in question.
      A person caught entering a terrier into a sett would face near certain conviction if he were trespassing, so it is far easier to prosecute someone for that offence. Even if authorised to be there by the occupier, the person would still, as at present, have to prove that he was after foxes, not badgers. Therefore, the amendments delete the simple offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett.
      9.45 am
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My hon. Friend talks about the difficulty of licensing. However, clause 3 extends the exceptions so that a person will not be found guilty if he is carrying out work on land
      "with the consent of the landowner and is authorised by a
      Hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association".
      Is that not likely to give rise to some difficulties, because the Masters of Fox Hounds Association is, on the whole, regarded as the establishment organisation? There is nothing wrong with that, but there are quite a large number of perfectly legitimate Welsh packs of fox hounds which, for various reasons, are not authorised—some of them do not like to belong to an establishment organisation. It seems that perfectly legitimate organisations might be excluded by the creation of what I suppose is a closed shop organised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association.
      Mr. Colvin: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's intervention, but a later amendment addresses that issue in some detail.
      There is no doubt that a licensing system would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to administer. We should have reservations about the possibility of the wrong organisation being asked to carry out the licensing. If it were to be the Ministry of Agriculture, perhaps that would be all right, but a local authority might well be given the job. When we consider the political complexion of local government in some districts, we can see that, if a local authority were to issue licences, that might cause difficulties.
      Mr. Budgen: I agree that it seems that there will be difficulties, no matter which organisation is given the duty of issuing licences. My hon. Friend spoke of the possibility of local authorities having a particular political view about a lawful activity. There is also a risk that a private organisation might carry out its licensing duties
      910
      negligently or idly, which would create all sorts of difficulties. The Masters of Fox Hounds Association carries out its duties very well, but a significant minority of legitimate hunts do not belong to that association, and difficulties could arise.
      Mr. Colvin: I absolutely understand my hon. Friend's point, but if he is still in the Chamber later, he will find that that issue is addressed in more detail in other amendments.
      Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 4 delete the simple offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett. They also qualify the offence of disturbing a badger in a sett so that a disturbance is permitted if it occurs as a result of the otherwise lawful use of terriers in setts. That is necessary as, otherwise, someone could be prosecuted for disturbing a badger, however minimall—ythe level of disturbance is not quantified—by entering a terrier into a sett, even where that action was part of a legitimate fox control operation.
      Amendment No. 5 involves the defence provided in clause 2(2), which was amended in Committee. It permits certain interferences with setts where the action is
      "the intentional result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided."
      In essence, that would allow unavoidable acts that interfered with setts; but the defence recognises only incidental damage, obstruction or disturbance of a badger in a sett. For some reason, the unavoidable entry of a dog into a sett or the unavoidable destruction of a sett will in no circumstances be permitted. Obviously, those behind this Bill regard the offences of entering a terrier into a sett or of the destruction of a sett as so heinous that no defence may be permitted. That is unfair, and also probably wrong in law. [Interruption.]
      The Bill creates serious offences with heavy penalties. For the sake of equity, proper and even-handed defences must be allowed—I am sure that the promoter of the Bill agrees with that. Amendment No. 5 alters the defence in clause 2(2) so that it is available for all offences of interfering with a sett—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks with so many conversations going on.
      Mr. Colvin: I should like to raise one other point with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So many amendments are grouped in this first group that it will be difficult for those who want to comment on them and question them to be given answers on each amendment in turn, either by me or by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). Would it therefore be for the convenience of the House if I concluded my remarks now and spoke later on amendments Nos. 3 and 15?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: On Report, the rules of order allow hon. Members to speak once only unless they move the amendment in question.
      Mr. Peter Hardy rose—
      Mr. Colvin: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Hardy: My anxiety about amendments Nos. 4 and 5 arises because of the following problem. I recognise that dogs cannot read law and that, if a dog illegally chases a rabbit, it is no good reading out the statute to it. On the other hand, if this amendment is inserted in the Bill, there is a danger that the badger digger will say that he was walking lawfully in the countryside when his dog

      911
      inadvertently entered a badger sett. He could use that loophole to excuse badger digging every weekend for another 20 years, while a succession of his dogs sometimes got lost down badger setts.
      No one wants to persecute an innocent citizen whose little dog inadvertently enters a badger sett, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real difference between that innocent citizen and the thugs who perpetrate an activity which I hope the hon. Gentleman deplores as much as I do? He should not try to amend the Bill so as to provide such a wide loophole that would give the villains a field day.
      Mr. Colvin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concern is shared by myself and by the House. The whole object of the Bill is to close loopholes, but in doing that we must not make the legislation so onerous as to prevent perfectly legitimate activities. If the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully to me, he will know that the permission of the occupier or the owner of the land is necessary in cases of so-called interference with setts. The example that the hon. Gentleman offers, of an ordinary walker whose dog goes down a sett, could not work as a defence for badger diggers in a court.
      For a start, if the digger had no legitimate right to be on the land, he would be trespassing, because he would be doing damage and would therefore be liable to the laws of trespass. Once the Bill, if amended as I would like A to be, is in force we—should remember that badger diggers are probably mainly townspeople who have no respect for country life—the defences and how the law stands will eventually become generally known.
      The purpose of amendments Nos. 3 and 18 is to ensure that interference with setts which is not harmful to badgers does not become a criminal offence. The prosecution would have to prove that the interference was likely to cause bodily harm to a badger. The protection that the Bill gives badger setts would be unlimited, in the sense that any reckless or intentional interference, however slight. would be an offence—for instance, any disturbance to a badger when occupying a sett, however trivial, would be an offence.
      The National Federation of Badger Groups has suggested that this provision could be used to prevent people from playing war games in a wood in a way that disturbed badgers, or that it could prevent the leaving of sacks in the proximity of setts. The Bill does not specify that any disturbance must be serious or harmful to badgers. While we may disapprove of playing war games or the leaving of sacks near setts, those are hardly matters that should become serious criminal offences. It is extremely worrying to learn that there are people who would be prepared to use the wide provisions of the Bill to prosecute others engaged in such harmless activities.
      No harmful interference with setts occurs in farming operations or during hunting when setts are temporarily stopped or blocked or when hounds temporarily mark—which means indicating the present of a fox at an entrance. The amendments would permit such activities provided that they were not likely to harm badgers.
      Although the amendments would allow the destruction of setts if no harm was likely to be caused to badgers as a result, it must be remembered that only setts showing signs of likely occupation and use are protected in any case. A
      912
      person who destroyed an occupied sett would find it difficult to claim that there was no likelihood of harm to badgers.
      The amendments would allow farming activities that disturbed badgers or slightly damaged setts, provided there was no likelihood of harm to badgers. The National Federation of Badger Groups has drawn attention to the impact of the Bill on non-harmful farming operations. It says of farmers who annually plough over the entrances of sett tunnels near the edges of fields neither intending nor causing harm to the badgers, which probably reopen the holes:
      "this is known to several of our member groups who have contacted us to ask to ensure that such farmers, who are badger-friendly, are not placed at risk by the new provision."
      As it stands, the Bill would lead to badger-friendly farmers committing criminal offences—damaging setts and disturbing badgers. The defence provided in clause 2(2) would be of no help because, unless a farmer was unaware of the presence of the setts, he could have avoided ploughing over them. It is precisely that sort of innocent activity that should be protected. I believe that the promoter of the Bill accepts that. The amendment ensures that harmful farming operations such as the wholesale flattening of occupied setts would not be permitted. I end with the hope that other hon. Members will take part in the debate and support some of my propositions.
      Sir Charles Morrison: I entirely concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has just said, but I want to refer to amendment No. 16, to clause 4. It concerns the use of dogs, especially terriers, but in a different context from that dealt with by the amendments to clause 1.
      Clause 4 is about the granting of licences and the type of licence that may be made available for the removal of badgers in certain circumstances. For example, they can be removed for agricultural operations, for town and country planning or for the maintenance or improvement of a water course. However, lines 47 and 48 on page 2 refer specifically to the fact that dogs may not be used, even under a licensing system, for entry into a badger sett. That appears to be a natural corollary to clause 1, but in clause 4 the lack of the ability to grant a licence allowing a dog to enter a badger sett is a disadvantage to farmers and possibly to badgers, hence my amendment No. 16.
      10 am
      The National Farmers Union is anxious that fox destruction societies should be able to continue to enter dogs into badger setts where authorised to do so by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I suspect that the issue of such licences would be fairly rare, but the control of foxes by organised clearances involving dogs in certain parts of the country, and especially in Wales, is very necessary.
      I understand that it is quite common in Wales for small groups of perhaps three or four farmers between them to own three or four foxhounds which are used in the open countryside to raise foxes and chase them, so that they go to ground in a foxhole or badger sett. No doubt Welsh Members with more experience of that matter will speak about it. Such foxhounds are not used in any sporting sense but purely to control foxes.
      Having chased the fox into the earth, or perhaps into a badger sett, it is necessary for farmers to continue to have the ability to control it. Without the authority to use dogs,

      913
      specifically terriers, under licence, the objectives of such minifox hunts cannot be achieved. That is why I tabled amendment No. 16.
      Secondly, before I received the representation from the NFU, it occurred to me that when a licence is granted for the removal or destruction of a badger sett, it is essential to ensure that no badger or any other animal remains in the sett. In the case of a large sett, I am not sure how one would determine that except by putting in terriers to push out the badger or other animal that may be there. As hon. Members know, some badger setts have existed for centuries and are gigantic. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 16, or that it will be possible to vote on it separately if need be.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I support amendment No. 16 to which the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) has just spoken. In my constituency, it is clear that farmers hate badger baiters. There is no curse on the farm worse than the trespasser and no greater curse than the trespasser who is a badger baiter. I have been told about a recent incident in Montgomeryshire, in which a farmer who caught some badger baiters was petrified with fear: he would not go to the police, because the badger baiters threatened harm to himself and his family, and threatened him with firearms. Those badger baiters were not from Montgomeryshire; such people are never country people. I regret to say that they had clear Merseyside accents and had started to dig for badgers in order to pursue their vile sport when they had transported the badgers to wherever they were taking them.
      Those of us who care for badgers, such as the farmers of Montgomeryshire, think that it is extremely important for a proper balance to be preserved between badgers, foxes, dogs which roam the countryside, and people. It is crucial to remember the people.
      Farmers are keen to preserve and look after badger setts. I know many farmers who are proud to take me to badger setts on their farms. They must also be allowed to carry out their legitimate activities in the countryside, and the most legitimate of those activities is sheep farming. Whatever industries have been brought to my constituency, it still depends on the major industry of Wales, which is sheep farming. If there were no sheep in the hills, there would be no people there either. Farming is already in enough financial trouble for one reason or another, without creating more problems.
      It is somewhat difficult to obtain accurate figures about what is happening to foxes in rural Wales. However, I suggest that the threat posed to lambs by foxes is as great as that posed by uncontrolled dogs. I have obtained figures from the huntsman of the David Davies hunt in Llandinam in mid Wales. As some hon. Members know, that hunt is extremely well respected, and Mr. David Jones, the huntsman, is given the regard that such experienced huntsmen receive in the countryside.
      Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Carlile: I shall give way when I have concluded this point.
      In the lambing season, which recently ended, Mr. Jones was called out many times. For example, he was called three times to the farm of Mr. Newey at Tynymaen,
      914
      Llandinam, where 22 lambs were lost to foxes. He was called four times to the farm of Mr. Williams at Dolhafren, Caersws, where 27 lambs were lost to foxes.
      He was called out twice to the farm of Mr. Higgs at Cefnllydan, Tregynon. Mr. Higgs is the chairman of the Llanidloes branch of the National Farmers Union and a moderate and highly intelligent farmer. Twenty-five lambs were lost to foxes there. He was called out four times to Mr. Trow at Llandinam hall, Llandinam, where 27 lambs were lost to foxes. Mr. Jones was called out often and took 46 foxes during the season, of which 28 were removed from badger setts. This is all clear evidence of the problem.
      Mr. Jones and others like him control the problem of foxes with minimal damage to the badgers. Mr. Jones does not want to hurt badgers. Control of foxes in the way that it has been done in the countryside of Montgomeryshire for a long time is done humanely—the foxes are shot when they are caught—and with rigour and accuracy.
      Mr. Colvin: What the hon. and learned Member has been saying is important, because it proves that fox hunting is a legitimate business carried out to control foxes. He has described a working hunt, as most are. They are not a collection of toffs in top hats out to enjoy themselves spoiling the countryside.
      Mr. Carlile: I cannot contradict what the hon. Gentleman says, although I have never been fox hunting. I speak as someone who has no desire to go fox hunting, but I know that most of the hunting of foxes in my constituency is not done by toffs in top hats. Not many people there could afford the top hat, let alone the rest of the uniform or the horse. It is done to control foxes. It is generally done by—I hope that they will forgive me for saying so—ordinary farmers with a small number of terriers, over a restricted area.
      We do the badger no service by preventing such hunts from continuing. I have to say, with much regret but realism, that there is a real danger of such fox hunting being driven underground and farmers feeling driven to disobey the law because the law does not meet their legitimate needs and aspirations. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—I apologise for taking so long to do so.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I understand the difficulty for the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I should like to understand the totality of his argument, so perhaps he could clarify an apparent inconsistency in his position. He spoke glowingly of the David Davies hunt at Llandinam. However, I understand that it is official Liberal party policy to ban fox hunting. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman's endorsement of the Llandinam hunt extend to Liberal party policy generally?
      Mr. Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman had read what he ought to have read, he would know that it has always been the policy of the parliamentary Liberal party, the parliamentary alliance and the parliamentary Liberal Democrats that this is an issue of conscience. This is a private Members' day, on which hon. Members express their own views. I am expressing my view, conscientiously. The hon. Member is right to say that my party has passed a motion calling for the banning of fox hunting, but he should bear in mind the fact that my party has always

      915
      recognised, and endorsed, the parliamentary party's view that this is a matter of conscience. Perhaps we can get back to the merits of the issue.
      Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Carlile: No, I will not give way again. I do not want to turn the debate into a political one. It is disgraceful to try to do so. I am trying to help to strike a balance between the needs of the farmers in my constituency, whose interests I have described, and the important needs to protect the badger. If amendment No. 16 is not carried, the Bill will be detrimental to the interests of the badger. It would be nonsense to suggest that any farmer would deliberately flout the law, but when his livelihood is under threat and his lambs are being killed by foxes, and the law has removed from him the instrument of protection, he will find it difficult to understand what else he can do.
      I strongly applaud the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for promoting the Bill. It is desirable that we should do whatever we can to protect badgers Further. However, we must do so in a way that balances the interests of the badgers, the danger from the foxes and the needs of the people who live in rural areas such as I represent. For that reason, I support amendment No. 16.
      10.15 am
      Mr. Roger Gale: The purpose of the Bill is to correct an omission from the Badgers Act 1973 so as to give protection to the home of a badger as well as to the badger itself. The clear duty of those of us here this morning who support the Bill—I am certainly one of them—is to resist any amendment that would weaken the shape of the Bill so much that it would become ineffective, and to support responsible amendments that improve the Bill and reflect, and protect, the genuine interests of farmers where they are not in conflict with the aims of the Bill.
      The amendments in this group fall into two categories. The first are those moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and the second is that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). The second, spoken to so articulately by my hon. Friend, reflects the clear view of the NFU that, without such amendment, the work of the farming community would be seriously hampered and the control of foxes as a pest would be made difficult, if not impossible. For that reason alone, I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 16. I believe that it would not have a detrimental effect on the prime purpose of the Bill.
      However, I cannot accept the first group of amendments, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. These, and other amendments that we shall discuss later, would have a detrimental effect on the shape of the Bill to the point where it would become virtually worthless. That would be a great opportunity lost for the House to set right an omission from an earlier Act.
      I hope that, when he responds to the debate, my hon. Friend will clarify the sentiment behind one of his amendments. The League Against Cruel Sports, in a brief sent to Members of Parliament, says—wholly incorrectly—that one of the amendments would create
      "a criminal offence ONLY if it could be shown that the interference was 'likely to cause bodily harm' to a badger."
      That is not what the amendment says, and we must be clear about that and deal with fact rather than emotion.The amendment says that an offence would be created if an incident were conducted
      916
      "in a manner which causes harm, or would be likely to cause harm, to a badger."
      If I disagree with the inaccuracy in the brief from the League Against Cruel Sports, I still concur with the sentiment that it is expressing. The badger is a nocturnal animal and therefore leaves its sett to hunt at night. If the amendments were passed, the unscrupulous would be able to block a badger's sett while it was out hunting, and it would therefore be unable to return to its lawful home. Does my hon. Friend regard the deprival of the lawful home of the badger as being harmful? It seems that the amendments present us with a series of quibbles and that they are designed to create a loophole in the Bill. I should find it impossible to support any amendment that would weaken the Bill and I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the amendments that would have that effect.
      Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I shall speak to amendment No. 16 and take up the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I accept the seriousness of the anecdotal evidence of the killing of lambs by foxes.
      Mr. David Tredinnick: The evidence is not anecdotal.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: It is. Where is the hard evidence?
      Mr. O'Hara: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery presented a series of anecdotes—I accept the seriousness of his anecdotal evidence—concerning the killing of lambs by foxes. The source of that evidence could not be regarded as impartial.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my figures are inaccurate? If he is, I challenge him to make that statement outside the House. It is my view that the figures are accurate. Irrespective of whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the conclusions which I drew from them, it is disgraceful to suggest that there is some dishonesty behind the figures. They are the figures of the person who went and took the foxes. That man spoke to the farmers and took the dead lambs. What more accurate evidence does the hon. Gentleman expect than that?
      Mr. O'Hara: I was not casting any doubt on the accuracy of the statistics, nor was I casting any aspersion on the honesty of the providers of the statistics. I was simply saying—it is a matter of fact—that the statistics were anecdotal. I wish to set against that anecdotal evidence—I accept that the statistics that the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted are serious for the individual farmers who provided them—some evidence that is more scientific.
      There have been studies of the activities of foxes, including the killing of lambs, in areas such as those to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred. I start with a publication that was produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It was produced, I accept, in 1979 but I have more up-to-date evidence. The MAFF survey of farmers' estimates of lamb losses in three predominantly sheep-rearing counties in mid-Wales yielded the figure of 0·5 per cent. loss to foxes. More recently, in 1985, the MAFF reference book 255(83)—"Research and Development Report on Mammal and Bird Pests'—stated:

      917
      "In a study carried out in an upland hill area of Powys stocked with 3,500 lambing ewes, Lamb losses were found to be unaffected by foxes present in the area."
      More recent MAFF studies in Northern Ireland and Scotland have produced the similar conclusion that, although lamb mortality may reach more than 20 per cent. in upland areas, most of that is due to stillbirths, malnutrition and hypothermia. All studies show that fox predation accounts for only between 0·5 and 2 per cent. of the mortality.
      Mr. Hardy: The information that my hon. Friend is giving to the House is sufficiently serious and sufficiently soundly based and in sufficient conflict with the scale of the evidence quoted by the hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that it may be that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that my hon. Friend is doing the House a service, and that following his comments it would probably be useful if hon. Members who are now in the Chamber and who are members of the Select Committee on Agriculture were to embark on a study to establish the facts, given the enormous discrepancy between the evidence produced by the hon. and learned Gentleman and that which has been presented by my hon. Friend. I have formed the view that the hon. and learned Gentleman may have eaten far more sheep than the foxes have done in his constituency.
      Mr. O'Hara: My hon. Friend has made a most useful suggestion.
      I have one more piece of scientific evidence to present. The report is very recent—October 1990—and it emanated from Aberdeen university. It suggests that the persecution and killing of foxes has no impact on either fox numbers or lamb numbers. Given the discrepancy between the evidence produced by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and that which I have put before the House, I commend the useful suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the work that has been done on the Eriboll estate in Sutherland in taking up the findings of the survey that was undertaken by Aberdeen university?
      Mr. O'Hara: I believe so.
      Mr. Soames: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that research in any depth. Is he aware that the Eriboll estate is a unique part of the United Kingdom in terms of its landscape and the way in which the wildlife would be distributed on it? The author of the research has made it plain that it is impossible to extrapolate from the survey that was undertaken at the Eriboll estate any further conclusions for anywhere else within the United Kingdom. It is one of the great wild areas left in the United Kingdom. The key finding of the survey—this comes as no great pleasure to any of us—is that foxes do take and kill viable lambs.
      Mr. O'Hara: Whatever the merits of the evidence, it is one example of the scientific studies to which I have referred. It reinforces the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth that there is room for a close investigation of the matter to be carried out by a Committee of this place.
      918
      If there are pockets of serious predation by foxes upon lambs as described by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I suggest that the provisions in clause 2 provide adequate means for coping with such instances as they arise. If the Welsh fox hunters are as concerned as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests to play their part in coping with the problem, the provisions for the temporary stopping of setts will provide an adequate remedy.
      Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Unfortunately, I was unable to remain in the Chamber for the whole of the debate on Second Reading, but I listened to the opening speeches. I take this opportunity to say that, along with all other hon. Members, I abhor the evil practices of badger digging and badger baiting.
      In reading the report of the Second Reading debate, my attention focused on comments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. She reminded the House that the Protection of Animals Act 1911 forbids the fighting or baiting of any animal, and said that the maximum penalty for that offence has recently been increased to £5,000. She then referred to the Badgers Act 1973, which similarly provides for a maximum fine of £5,000. Thirdly, she referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which provides for a level 5 fine. My right hon. Friend said that the badger is an unendangered species and therefore it already enjoys unique protection in the countryside.
      I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to make it easier to prosecute those evil people who engage in badger baiting. That is a most eminent purpose, and one which strongly support. However, the number of instances where it appears likely that the Bill, when enacted, will be used for successful prosecution is very small indeed. The reality of the countryside is such that the majority of farmers know what is happening on their land. I support the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that farmers, who understand the countryside and love the animals with which they work and the wildlife that surrounds them, will do everything in their power to prohibit badger digging on their land.
      10.30 am
      My interest in the Bill is confined to agriculture. The farmers have no option but to use their land as their factories; it is where they earn their living. This is not a unique Bill, because other legislation already affects the right of a man to do what he will with his land. However, it would impose a new and serious burden on farmers in the use of their land. I tabled an amendment, which unfortunately did not attract Mr. Speaker's attention, to make it possible for farmers who, in their agricultural operations, destroyed a badger sett not to be prosecuted under the Bill. I realise that clause 2 provides that a person shall not be guilty if it happens in the process of lawful acts, but I wanted to draw attention to the legitimate rights of farmers and foresters as they go about their duties.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said on Second Reading:
      "Accidents happen in the countryside, particularly involving farmers and forestry staff. It is easy to drive a truck or heavy vehicle carrying trees over a sett and damage it. I should not wish such an accident to result in people being sent to court."—[Official Report, 15 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 1159.]
      I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will mention that aspect. I do not doubt that the majority of farmers will not be too concerned, as they

      919
      know the location of the badger setts. Nevertheless, there will be accidents—one was reported only the other day—and there must be some defence when such accidents occur.
      I am interested in amendment No. 16, because the National Farmers Union has made a particular plea about it. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, as I have said to him previously, that I have fought two general elections in his constituency, where unquestionably the sheep substantially outnumber the voters. The livelihood of many of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents depends on a successful lambing season. Whatever the arguments about the figures, the fact is that farmers go to considerable trouble to maintain a fox population that does not endanger newly-born lambs.
      The activities of the David Davies hunt and the addresses recalled by the hon. and learned Gentleman revived memories of happy canvassing in the early 1960s. He was right to say that the David Davies hunt is a working hunt. I met many of those involved in it, although I never had any other direct contact with them.
      The NFU has written a sensible letter. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because it makes my point for me. The parliamentary adviser to the NFU, Mr. Holbeche, wrote:
      "However, as awareness of the issues raised by the Bill has grown in the countryside, it has become clear that farmers in sheep farming areas in particular are worried that as it stands the Bill could jeopardise legitimate fox control. For example, in parts of Wales and south-west England, sheep farmers report significant losses during the lambing season from predatory foxes. Accurate figures are hard to come by though it would appear that at the present time the threat from foxes is exceeded by that posed by uncontrolled dogs. Although what surveys have been done to date suggest that foxes account for a relatively small percentage of lamb losses, there is much concern that the threat is increasing on the edge of urban areas, and in parts of Wales where the Forestry Commission has cut back its pest control operations for budgetary reasons. Preventive action to control foxes would be seriously hampered by the Bill's total prohibition on the digging of foxes where they run to earth in a badger sett, including abandoned entrances to active setts which would be protected by the Bill…For these reasons we would support an amendment to the Bill to leave out lines 47 and 48 on page 2. This change to clause 4 would remove the proposed prohibition on the granting of licences permitting dogs to be entered into badger setts. The principle of licensing to allow for anything done in relation to protected wildlife that would otherwise be unlawful is well established, notably in section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981."
      The letter then goes on to promote the general case.
      I have a large badger sett next to the first field on the farm where I have lived for many years. There is no physical way of getting a fox out of a badger sett other than by using a terrier or other dogs. We must accept that most hill farmers think that this is a serious matter and that they must take steps to keep down the fox population, and the only way to do that is to use dogs to get the foxes out of the badger setts.
      I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that amendment No. 16 would be more likely to protect badgers than not. I am concerned about the reasons why the clause is even in the Bill, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport, East will say something about that. I congratulate both him and the hon. Members who took a critical view of the Bill on Second Reading on the way in which they have sought to
      920
      reach a sensible compromise. At one time, the issues appeared virtually irreconcilable. I am glad that common sense has prevailed, as I hope it will on this amendment.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am in some difficulty, because I want to speak against amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), but I am not sure whether he intends to press the amendments. The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), whose name also appears on the amendments, has listened carefully to the debate. If either hon. Member could say whether he was prepared to withdraw the amendments, that would help our deliberations.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to ask your advice. I think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is in fact referring to amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
      Mr. Davies: No, I am referring to Nos. 3 and 4.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: There are three distinct cases to be put within this group of amendments. I had intended at a later stage to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how to split the group for voting purposes. I intend to request a vote on amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I have not yet made a decision on amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Gale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you are to consider splitting the group of amendments for voting purposes, I hope that you will also consider separating amendments Nos. 3 and 18. Amendment No. 18 refers to bodily harm, and it makes a great deal of difference to amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously, much will depend on what happens to amendment No. 1 when it is put to the House. In the appropriate circumstances, I would sympathetically consider the possibility of a separate Division on amendment No. 5. If amendment No. 1 fell, it would be difficult to vote on amendment No. 4. It might be sensible if I reflect on the points that have been raised before I put the Question. That might be the most helpful course.
      Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Upminster for giving us some idea about his intentions. I want to speak briefly against amendment No. 4. We have had a wide debate about the problems of Welsh upland sheep farmers. I note with interest the comments by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about Liberal Democrat policy. I am delighted to know that in that regard, it fully complies with Labour party policy. I was also struck by the intense concern that the fox-hunting lobby now shows for the interests of Welsh sheep farmers. I have no doubt that tabling the amendments is a clear attempt by the fox-hunting lobby in the House to weaken the Bill so that foxhunters can continue to enjoy their sport, as they see it, without further interference. That is the purpose of the amendments, and that is why I want to speak against amendment No. 4. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will also oppose that amendment.
      We have heard the argument about the damage done to sheep farming interests and especially to lambs as a result of predation by foxes. From my own experience, I have no doubt that a problem is caused in upland farms by the predation of foxes on sheep. However, we must get the matter in perspective. The Ministry of Agriculture,

      921
      Fisheries and Food and the National Farmers Union have made it clear—and all the evidence is available—that, as a national problem, such predation is of minimal significance. However, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that predation could be a problem locally. I know that some farmers suffer considerable losses and are understandably anxious to find out about all the methods that can be used to control foxes, in the hope that it will minimise losses of lambs.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that, on my farm in mid-Wales in the mid-1980s, I lost 34 lambs one spring, certainly because of foxes. I had a badger sett on my farm, about which I told no one. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the problem. Foxes kill many lambs in spring and that can cause substantial financial disbenefit to the farmers concerned. We must be careful on this issue.
      Mr. Davies: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman came in. He has made precisely the point that I was making. I do not underestimate the problem, and I acknowledge that it can be a severe problem locally. I have spent more cold March and April nights than I care to recall on the mountains in my constituency at lambing time shooting foxes. I understand the problem, and I understand its severe impact on some farmers.
      The question that we must ask is why some Conservative Members seek grievously to weaken a Bill to protect badger setts on the basis of a small and localised problem. It is an inappropriate response to the problems of fox predation on lambs in upland Wales to seek to weaken a Bill that should extend protection to badger setts throughout the United Kingdom.
      Foxes can be controlled if they are a problem, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, possibly by the use of hounds driving to guns. I am not satisfied that, if there are localised problems and if foxes occasionally take refuge in badger setts, it is an appropriate response for the House to weaken a measure that seeks to protect badger setts and to allow interference with badger setts.
      After listening to the debate, I have come to the conclusion that there is a deliberate attempt by fox-hunting interests to weaken the Bill. Some hon. Members will use any argument. They call in aid the economic interests of sheep farmers, because they will not argue truthfully that they enjoy what they regard as a sport and that they want to continue to enjoy it without interference. They are willing to weaken legislation to protect badger setts to allow them to continue enjoying their sport. It is cynical for them to attempt to torpedo such a Bill. That approach illustrates the arrogant and selfish attitude that is represented by the Tory fox-hunting interests in the House this morning.
      10.45 am
      Mr. James Paice: The last remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) were—
      Mr. Wiggin: They were disgraceful.
      Mr. Paice: As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has said, they were
      922
      disgraceful. The end of the speech was typical of the bombastic way in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly often assaults Conservative Members. He makes many aspersions against our characters, our habits and our motives, which are wholly without justification.
      I have not hunted foxes for 25 years. At that time, I was a member of a pony club, but I hunted only once or twice. I am not a regular foxhunter, I do not go to hunts and I give no particular support to fox hunting, although I support the right of the individual to have the freedom to do what he wants. It is despicable to suggest that those of us who are genuinely concerned about aspects of the Bill have some ulterior motive connected with fox hunting. That is nonsense.
      The hon. Member for Caerphilly and his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) are both Opposition spokesmen on agricultural matters. I suspect that many farmers will look carefully at what they have said about the problem of attacks on lambs.
      Mr. Morley: As an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I have listened carefully to what the National Farmers Union and my local farmers have said about the problem of predation. We have made it clear that there can be localised problems and that they can often be dealt with efficiently and effectively by contractors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Contractors?"] Yes, by contractors. Can the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) give me one example of an independent report that demonstrates that there is a major problem of predation by foxes? Many reports do not show that. Many farmers tell me that often more disturbance is caused by hounds chasing foxes across fields than by the foxes themselves.
      Mr. Paice: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "contractors". There are contractors in a range of agricultural activities. I have never heard of contractors who would get foxes out of their hiding places.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Paice: Of course. We are here to be enlightened.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has given way to a farmer who farms in an area in which we have had problems with foxes. In my part of the world, there is an excellent rabbit clearance society that employs a trapper who is by far the most efficient person to control foxes and who uses a gun. He knows where the foxes will be at any time of day, and he can kill them quickly and humanely without needing to dig them out. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has made a serious point.
      Mr. Paice: The obvious retort is that one way of controlling rabbits is to allow foxes to do it. The other problem is that trapping is one of the cruellest ways in which to control foxes. It often means a drawn-out—
      Mr. Morley: They shoot the foxes.
      Mr. Paice: The foxes have to be trapped before they are shot unless they are drawn to a bait. I know what I am talking about.
      The most important aspect is the question of predation, to which Labour Members have referred. One can, of course, say that only 0·5 or 1 per cent. of lambs are lost through predation and that one can, therefore, disregard

      923
      the problem. It is true that there are greater losses from other causes, such as nutritional problems and stillbirths. There are other reasons why lambs do not survive. All farmers are anxious to reduce lamb mortality. It is the key criterion for profitability in sheep farming. Through a range of measures, such as training courses, farmers are able to set about reducing lamb mortality. They do it by learning about and providing better nutrition and in many other ways. Labour Members have said that that is all very well, but that there is one form of predation that they should not be able to do anything about. That is unjust and unfair on those producers.
      Just as some Labour Members have cast aspersions on the motives of some Conservative Members, there are others outside the House who see the Bill as a means of getting at foxhunters. That is not what the Bill should he about. I share the view of many hon. Members that badger baiting is an abhorrent sport which must be stamped out. I shall support the Bill to the end in its efforts to do that, but we should not confuse a debate about the merits and demerits of fox hunting with the Bill. If hon. Members wish to debate that, I know that many hon. Members from both sides of the House would like to participate, but the Bill should not be used as a vehicle to take a side swipe at fox hunting.
      Many people hold the belief—I fear that this came through in the speech of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)—that nature is benign, and consists only of lambs gambolling and birds singing. The reality is different. Those of us who have lived and grown up in the countryside know that nature is extremely cruel and vicious—often more cruel and vicious than man, who has lowered himself to some pretty despicable acts.
      We have to control foxes. They take lambs. Although doubts have been cast about some of the evidence and it has been suggested that some of it is anecdotal, I have witnessed that happening and I am sure that other hon. Members have done so. It is all very well to say that foxes take only sick or weak lambs. That is true if one defines a weak lamb as one that is only a few minutes old. Many lambs are taken almost immediately after they are born. If the ewe is tired after a difficult lambing and is unable to get back to her feet, that is an ideal opportunity for a fox to rush in and take a lamb. To dismiss the problem by saying that it involves only sick and weakly lambs fails to recognise reality.
      None of the amendments, if accepted, would diminish the Bill's ability to deal with what it sets out to do, which is to end the despicable way in which a tiny minority seek to extract badgers from their setts to carry out their vile sport of badger baiting. It is an important Bill which should not be jeopardised or lost because some people wish to use it for ulterior motives, whatever they may be. So that we can do something about badger baiting, I hope that the House will recognise the merits of the amendments and accept them so that the Bill can become law.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: This has been an extremely good debate on the amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) have tabled. It has been spoiled only by the obvious prejudice shown by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Until then I thought that the debate had been balanced and fair, but I am afraid that it was not once the hon. Member for Caerphilly gave his views.
      924
      Among other things, it has been alleged that foxes do not do any significant damage to lambs. I am a farmer and I must advise the House that two lambs have been taken from my farm by foxes this spring.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to my speech. I did not suggest for one moment that there was not a problem. I said that there was a limited problem nationally, but I acknowledged that the problem can be severe locally.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified his remarks, but I do not acknowledge that a problem that is limited can be severe locally, and this problem is severe locally. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) produced statistics showing that only 0·5 per cent. of lambs were taken. That is no consolation to farmers in areas with a large sheep population of, say, several thousand sheep and where five sheep out of every thousand might be taken.
      Mr. O'Hara: I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has said. I do not underestimate the scale of the problem either locally or nationally. I merely suggested that there should be a more scientific assessment of the problem nationally and that appropriate and not unnecessary measures should be available to deal with severe local problems.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am glad that the problems faced by sheep farmers, both locally and nationally, in the depredation of their sheep flocks by foxes are recognised by Labour Members. That is an advance on the previous position as I understood it.
      Mr. Colvin: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the figures produced on damage to sheep by fox hunting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—by foxes illustrate that fox hunting with terriers is effective. If the Bill ended that perfectly legitimate activity, sheep losses would be very much higher.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is right. Despite his slip of the tongue, I do not think that even the Labour Members with the most extreme views would suggest that fox hunting damages sheep.
      In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside covered most of the issues comprehensively and well and I shall not repeat his arguments. The amendments can be divided into four groups—amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Nos. 4 and 5; No. 16; and No. 18—each of which has a different merit and argument. I shall return to that when it comes to a vote.
      I shall not cover amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 because my hon. Friends have done that extremely well. I shall examine more closely amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the light of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who unfortunately is not in his place, because his views showed a deep prejudice about why the amendments had been tabled and an unfortunate misunderstanding of their consequences. I hope that all hon. Members who have open minds will accept that the amendments are not designed to weaken the protection of badgers. I and all my hon. Friends who have been involved with this Bill this year and with a similar Bill last year have sought to reach, and to a large extent succeeded in reaching, a compromise that will allow a continuation of countryside activities, especially hunting, with the

      925
      substantial protection of the badger that is offered by the Bill in addition to the great protection afforded by the Badgers Act 1973.
      Clause I adds the following five offences to that Act:
      "(3) If any person shall interfere with a badger sett by doing any of the following things, that is to say,

      (a) damaging a badger sett or any part thereof;

      (b) destroying a badger sett;

      (c) obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett;

      (d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett; or

      (e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett

      intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions will have any of those consequences, he shall be guilty of an offence."
      Provided that proper defences are given against the charge of having perpetrated such actions, I agree that they should be criminal offences. The question is whether adequate defences are afforded by the Act. I contend that adequate defences for innocent acts are not provided. Therefore, I have tabled amendments to deal with my concerns and those of many others, especially the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), whose speech I greatly welcomed. He underlined the danger to the Welsh hill farmer that the Bill would pose if sensible amendments were not agreed.
      11 am
      Amendment No. 4 would insert the following subsection:
      "An accused shall not be permitted to rebut a presumption of guilt established under sections 1(1A) or 2(2) by evidence that he was engaged in any other activity save where he can show that he was authorised to be engaged in that activity by the occupier of the land on which the alleged offence occurred."
      That provides a substantial and significant safeguard. No one could argue legitimately—or even illegitimately—that that provision would weaken the existing legislation. It provides yet another layer of proof that anyone out with terriers or other dogs would have to establish to avoid prosecution. I suspect that the only reason why Opposition Members are unable to agree with that contention was summarised neatly by the hon. Member for Caerphilly when he expressed his attitude to those who hunt. He is clearly prejudiced against landowners, farmers and those who live in the countryside and carry on their sports on it. He does not want those people to be involved in the way in which these matters are progressed. He is roaring with laughter and rolling from side to side, but that is the inevitable conclusion of anyone who reads his speeches.
      Mr. Gale: I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that I am not anti-landowner. I represent many farmers. I do not share some of the sentiments of Opposition Members, but there is genuine opposition to some of the amendments simply because they would weaken the Bill.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has come back into the Chamber. I hoped that he would. I hope that, when he hears my arguments, he will accept that the amendments would not weaken the Bill and make it harder to catch and prosecute badger baiters, against whom we all feel strongly. The amendments are necessary to safeguard the legitimate and proper interests of others who are not badger baiting, but who could be wrongfully
      926
      prosecuted under the legislation while carrying out more harmless pursuits unless proper safeguards are put in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend did not deal with amendment No. 4, which would provide an additional safeguard. Badger baiters would be caught, even if they advanced any of the existing defences, unless they could establish that the owner or occupier of the land had given them permission to use that land. Unless my hon. Friend thinks that the owners or occupiers of land are accessories to badger baiting—which is virtually never the case—he should not feel that the amendment does anything other than include another safeguard against the badger baiting that we all wish to prevent.
      The second part of amendment No. 4 provides:
      "A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(e) (disturbing a badger) by reason of entering a terrier into a badger sett provided that his action would otherwise have been lawful."
      That is intended specifically to help the Welsh farmer, and those who hunt foxes with terriers, who face difficulties when foxes enter an earth or a sett where badgers have been. Those who live in the country know that it is not always easy to know whether a fox or a badger is present. I fear that people in perfectly legitimate pursuit of a fox will be caught by the Bill unless the amendment is included.
      Mr. Morley: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's arguments carefully. He wants the Bill to be changed to allow terriers to be put down badger setts to get foxes out of them in order to destroy the foxes. Why is it that in Northern Ireland no such protection of badger setts exists, nor are they allowed to be stopped, yet fox hunters pursue their sport adequately? In Northern Ireland, sheep flocks have increased substantially without any detrimental effect on the sheep farmers. Therefore, why do we need the amendment?
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not believe that fox control is needed in Northern Ireland to the same extent as it is in the areas to which I am referring. The primary purpose of most of the hunts in Northern Ireland is sport. The Bill covers the whole of the United Kingdom, and it would make it almost impossible to hunt in the Welsh hills unless the amendments were accepted.
      Amendment No. 5 does not amend the Bill substantially. It deals with clause 2, which provides the defence against the offences in clause 1. Clause 2 states:
      (1) In section 8(1A) of the Badgers Act 1973—

      (a) after the words 'under section 1(1)' there shall be inserted 'or 2(3)'; and

      (b) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

      (c) the interfering with any badger sett;'

      (2) At the end of section 8 of the Badgers Act 1973 there shall be added—
      '(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section (3) (a),(c) or (e) of this Act if he shows that his action was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not have been reasonably avoided.'."
      The consequence of that defence is that those who are pursuing the activities defined in clause 1 will not be defended against actions in paragraphs (b) and (d) in that clause. The defences provided in the Bill cover those who damage and obstruct access to a badger sett and those who disturb a badger, but they do not cover those who destroy a badger sett and those who cause a dog to enter a badger sett. There is no reason to make that distinction. Although it would be unfortunate if someone, in the course of a

      927
      lawful action,destroyed a badger sett and his action could not reasonably have been avoided, I cannot see why he should be brought within the scope of the Bill for that reason when, if he damaged the badger sett, he would not be. I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will deal with that when he replies.
      Where should the line be drawn? Should a distinction be made between severely damaging and destroying a badger sett by driving a tractor over it by mistake? It is a dangerous line to try to draw. In either case it is not suggested that the badger is harmed by the activity. The amendment covers the destruction of the badger sett.
      I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North that no one wishes to weaken the Bill. The amendment will not affect a badger baiter, who is most unlikely to want to destroy the badger sett, or to need to do so during his baiting. Catching the badger to bait is more likely to damage the sett, yet it is for damaging it that he has a possible defence under the Bill and may be able to wriggle out of it. If he destroys it, he has no such defence. That distinction is not needed to strengthen the protection of the badger.
      The same applies to the action of causing a dog to enter a badger sett. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was rightly concerned about the consequences for those who hunt with terriers in Wales. The amendment would assist them and is essential if they are to continue their activities.
      Amendment No. 18 changes the wording from "harm" to "bodily harm". The reason is that "harm" is an extremely wide-ranging word. There are those who, given the slightest excuse, would take people to court in order to pursue a vendetta against them. The definition of "harm" is so wide that it is almost impossible to know what it means. That would certainly apply to the badger who was the victim of any such action. A badger baiter does bodily harm to a badger; there can be no question about that. In what way would the amendment weaken the Bill if its purpose is to protect the badger and has not spread into the wider issue of fox hunting? A number of Opposition Members have made it clear that they would welcome that, even if that is not their specific intention. The proposed amendment would not weaken the Bill's supposed purpose. I am reliably informed by the legal advice that I have taken that bodily harm includes stress-related harm. If a badger shows signs of physical distress arising from the stress caused to it, that would be included in the definition of bodily harm. I cannot see that the Bill's objective would be weakened if "bodily harm" were substituted for "harm".
      Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the stress-related aspect of the matter. One of my anxieties is that the diggers in the east midlands and South Yorkshire are frequently at their busiest when cubs have just been born and the sow is lactating. Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment include harm caused to badger cubs because the sow had been removed or disturbed? The defence may be that the digger did not know that there were cubs below the ground. Would that exclusion provide the digger with an excuse under the terms of the Bill as amended? Apart from that, I am grateful for his reassurance.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: And I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his great expertise in these
      928
      matters, as I have said in previous debates. I should not like to give him a categorical assurance that that would he the case, but it is certainly my understanding that it would. Bodily harm suffered by a cub would be bodily harm suffered by a badger, as a direct consequence of the act of the badger baiter. It is most unlikely that he would get away with the kind of activity to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      Mr. Gale: I referred to that point when I spoke briefly earlier in the debate. The reason I raised it and the reason I highlighted the comment made by the League Against Cruel Sports, which in the sense of clause 1 is incorrect but which in the sense of clause 5 is correct, is that my hon. Friend must answer the same question as I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin): would he regard harm done to a badger that had been blocked out of its home while absent hunting at night as bodily harm? There is a considerable difference. Many of us feel strongly that the proposed amendment would create an opportunity for the unscrupulous to block up a badger sett while the badger was out hunting, thus depriving it of its sett. It is a moot point whether that would be bodily harm or harm.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I suppose that it is a moot point whether it would be harm at all if the badger managed to find another unoccupied sett close by and went into that instead. If the badger suffered any demonstrable bodily harm as a result of being shut out of the sett, that would indeed be bodily harm. If, however, it could be said that the badger was mightily upset and inconvenienced but not damaged by the action, it would not be bodily harm. We have to keep a sense of proportion. My hon. Friend understands the countryside well. Therefore, he knows that badgers are capable of occupying any hole in the ground. Near most of the main setts there are ancillary setts. That is one reason why there have been so many problems over the question of what is and what is not an occupied sett.
      The answer to my hon. Friend is that, if it really harmed the badger, the badger baiter would be caught under bodily harm. If, however, my hon. Friend is talking about inconvenience and upset to the badger, the badger baiter would not be caught. I do not believe that the criminal law should be used against those who inconvenience and upset badgers. I am afraid that there would be no end to it, in terms of the inconvenience and the upsetting of budgerigars when kept in cages, as well as all the other inconveniences caused to animals by man. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend to keep a sense of proportion. If the badger is seriously and genuinely harmed, that should be a criminal offence. The Bill, as I propose it should be amended, would cover that eventuality.
      I believe that the clauses fall happily into groups. I hope to have the opportunity to vote on the amendments to clauses 4 and 5 and also on amendments Nos. 16 and 18 separately, if necessary. I hope that sufficient hon. Members who have listened to the debate are now persuaded that at least some of the amendments are acceptable, although they may not be prepared to accept all of them.
      11.15 am
      Mr. John Bowis: I do not believe that the interests of badgers are best served by the scoring of party points across the Floor of the House or between hon. Members on the same side of the Chamber. Moreover, I do not believe that the interests of badgers are best served by turning this debate into a debate on the future of hunting. We should be profoundly uninterested in the debate about the future of hunting today, since today's debate is about the protection, preservation and the continuation of the badger's life style. If, as is estimated, 9,000 badgers are losing their lives illegally each year, those are 9,000 reasons why we should aim at getting this measure on to the statute book as fast as is humanly possible.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman may like to think that that is the case and that it is possible to proceed on the basis of consensus. However, he must recognise that amendments have been tabled by people who are directly and publicly associated with fox hunting. Those amendments would grievously weaken the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is to allow fox hunting to continue. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that conflict of interest.
      Mr. Bowis: I entirely accept that amendments have been tabled that are designed to protect the interests of fox hunting, and that a balance must be struck between the interests of fox hunting and the interests of sheep and all those who live in the countryside. We are seeking to bring together all those broad interests when considering the protection of the badger, as the Bill seeks to do.
      We went to great lengths in Committee to meet the genuine and reasonable arguments by the hunting community. Clause 3 was added in response to those demands. That is a tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), the promoter of the Bill, who was willing to seek a compromise and a balance between all the interests in the countryside to which I have referred. I have listened carefully to the arguments on amendment No. 16. I am also prepared to listen to the arguments on the amendment relating to marking. We must be careful, however, not to amend the Bill in such a way that it becomes impossible to enforce in the courts.
      I intend to refer to four of the amendments, about three of which I have strong doubts; on the fourth, I am open to persuasion. I have the strongest doubts about amendment No. 2, which seeks to delete the offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett. If that is deleted, it is deleted not only for the well-intentioned huntsman or farmer but for any immoral or evil person. The amendment is far too wide, and it would be wrong to accept it.
      I hope that my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand amendment No. 4, it provides the acting-under-orders defence. I am not a lawyer, but I find the language used a little puzzling:
      "An accused shall not be permitted to rebut a presumption of guilt".
      I always understood that, under British law, the presumption was innocent until proven guilty and that guilt cannot be presumed until the courts have so decided.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is wrong about the law in this instance. Under British law, there is a presumption of innocence except where statute provides that there should be a presumption of guilt, and the
      930
      Badgers Act 1973 is such an Act. Therefore, there is a presumption of guilt unless innocence is established. That is why the amendment is so phrased.
      Amendment No. 4 has nothing to do with acting under orders. Somebody who uses someone else's land for badger baiting and legitimate terrier hunting, and interferes with a badger sett, would have no defence unless the landowner or occupier had given permission. It would make it impossible for somebody to say that he was acting lawfully for the hunt when he was not, unless the landowner or occupier was prepared to back his story, which he would not be.
      Mr. Bowis: I accept my hon. Friend's interpretation of the law, as I think that he is a lawyer. However, the amendment establishes an offence, and the Bill allows certain defences to be considered in court. I still think that it is odd that we should include in the Bill the inability to rebut guilt. Surely we all have a right to prove our innocence in court.
      I am more concerned about the exemption where someone can show that they have authorisation from the occupier of land. That is simply unnecessary; either it is an offence or not. It does not matter whether it is committed by the occupier or by somebody acting on his behalf. It is no defence in law to say, "I did it only because he said I could do it, guy." If the law says, "Thou shall not do it," thou shall not do it, and it is not good enough for someone to say, "The owner gave me permission."
      Mr. Colvin: I thought that, in moving the amendment, I had explained fairly fully how it would work. It is unthinkable that the owner or occupier of land would authorise somebody to dig for badgers on his land, because in doing so he would be committing an offence. In practice, badger diggers dig on land without permission and are therefore guilty of trespass, which is already an offence. That is why the amendment would not give rise to the fears that my hon. Friend expresses.
      Mr. Bowis: I am simply saying that the amendment is unnecessary because, if it is a legal activity, it is a legal activity. My hon. Friend's point about trespass is different. If it is illegal, the fact that a landowner gave permission should not be a defence for the perpetrator. That is all I am seeking to suggest.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not follow my hon. Friend's logic. The amendment does not establish that somebody who is on land for an illegal purpose will be acting lawfully because a landowner gave permission. It makes it harder for somebody who is on land for an illegal purpose to pretend that his purpose is legal, because a landowner will say, "I never gave permission."
      Mr. Bowis: No doubt we could discuss that legal argument.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to amendment No. 18. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) questioned the definition of "bodily harm", about which my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) admitted there is a difficulty. He singled out the word "harm", but equally one can question the phrase "bodily harm". I am concerned about badger cubs being blocked out of their setts. Evidence shows that they have perished during harsh weather because they lost their shelter and habitat. A court of law would not necessarily regard that as bodily harm.

      931
      My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster used the word "demonstrable". It is better to use the word "harm" than to limit it to "bodily harm", as "harm" covers a variety of causes of a badger's death.
      What will result from amendment No. 16, because we are in the world of double negatives? If we accept the amendment, does it mean that the licence would permit such action, or does it mean that the licence would not not permit it? The amendment needs clarifying before we accept it.
      The Bill is just about right. I am prepared to listen to hon. Members' views on amendment No. 16 and on later amendments, but we should remember that protection is available to law abiding people. I hasten to suggest that there could not be anything but a law-abiding farmer, as I am married to a farmer's daughter—all farmers are law abiding, honest and wish to protect badgers—but we must ensure that the law protects the badger from the actions of people who do not fall into that category. The Bill mentions someone
      "being reckless as to whether his actions will have any of those consequences, he shall be guilty."
      There must be intent and recklessness. That is the defence that the law-abiding user of the countryside needs to protect his genuine activities.
      Mr. David Nicholson: I shall be extremely brief, but as I represent Exmoor and the Brendon hills, which are substantial sheep farming areas in the west country, I want to reinforce the points that were put so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and by the hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The hon. and learned Member was a little ambiguous about the Liberal party's position on fox hunting, but I shall let that pass. His speech contrasted with those of the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), which reinforced a point that Conservative Members have made before in the House—that the Labour party is abdicating all interest in the countryside and the farming community and is restricting itself to its heartlands.
      Farmers in my constituency, which is a substantial sheep farming area, are suffering considerable financial difficulty. They would want me to support amendment No. 16 and the other amendments as explained by my hon. Friends. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have written to hon. Members.
      Various hon. Members have referred to the role of predators. It is ironic that, at the other end of my constituency, on the Somerset levels, nature conservation societies are concerned about the decline in the population of wading birds. It has been suggested that badgers may be responsible for that, and, although badgers are attractive animals, they may have played a role in it.
      I do not however, wish to resile from the commitment that I expressed in Committee, which the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will remember, to see the Bill progress satisfactorily to the statute book. The National Farmers Union has made it clear that it wants the law to be tightened up on badger baiters, who are usually trespassing on farmland. Occasionally, there are reports of farmers being intimidated or physically threatened by badger baiters. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be successful and that the hon. Member for Newport, East will listen to the powerful representations from both sides
      932
      of the House, particularly from those of us with substantial sheep farming interests in England and Wales, and will concede the amendments.
      11.30 am
      Mr. Roy Hughes: All hon. Members have expressed their concern about the continuing ill treatment of badgers. I have spoken to many people and organisations to try to reach a consensus so that the Bill may become law and thus do much to close the loopholes in existing legislation. I have approached the matter in a spirit of reasonableness and have tried to make it clear from the outset that the Bill is not about outlawing fox hunting, and nor is it intended to interfere with farmers' legitimate interests. Yesterday the findings of a Gallup poll showed that 93 per cent. of those interviewed supported the Bill, which is pretty formidable backing.
      The amendments rehash the Bill that was presented by the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), which failed to receive a Second Reading. I am sorry that those old arguments have been resurrected because I thought that they had been settled after Second Reading, and especially after the amicable Committee stage.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. The reason that my Bill failed to receive a Second Reading was technical: I could not ask for my Bill to be given a Second Reading once the hon. Gentleman's Bill had received one. Therefore, any implication that my Bill did not receive a Second Reading on grounds of merit is misleading.
      Mr. Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation.
      I have taken advice from all the animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the National Federation of Badger Groups and the League Against Cruel Sports. All those organisations feel that the amendments, with the exception of amendment No. 16, are dangerous and could even undermine the Badgers Act 1973. The hon. Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) appear to support that contention. The amendments would make interference—destruction, damage or blockage—a criminal offence only if it could be shown that the interference was likely to cause bodily harm to a badger. At night, badgers go out foraging for food. If the relevant amendment were successful, an unscrupulous developer could bulldoze a badger sett at night—there was one such incident recently in Petersfield. Alternatively, a farmer could block the entrance of a badger sett with slurry, or a hunter could block it with oil drums or rocks. Because badgers are not in their setts at night, they would be unlikely to suffer bodily harm as a result of such actions.
      There is also the issue of putting a dog into a sett. The amendment seeks to take it out of the category of sett interference, making it a separate offence. At present any person accused of such an offence must prove that he was not digging for badgers. There is now a reversal of the onus of proof. The amendment will permit the use of the defence of digging for foxes if permission has been received from the owner of the land. Again, that could lead to

      933
      intimidation of farmers by badger diggers. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to one such incident.
      Welsh hill farmers are going through a difficult period and are finding it hard to earn a living. I would be the first to defend their interests. Accurate figures on the threat to their land are hard to come by, but, from my research, it appears that the threat from foxes is exceeded by that posed by uncontrolled dogs. That is the answer to some of the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara).
      The amendment would allow a terrier to enter a sett if it was claimed that the person responsible was hunting for foxes or rabbits. Such a provision is wide open to abuse. Under amendment No. 5 someone could completely destroy a badger sett or put dogs into it if he could prove that it was incidental action of a lawful operation. The Bill provides only for the defence of damage, obstruction or disturbance—for example, damage caused by a fallen tree. To extend the provision to total destruction or to allow dogs to enter opens more loopholes and would certainly be exploited by unscrupulous people. Provided that the operation was lawful, a sett would have no protection against destruction or interference.
      As I want the Bill to progress to Third Reading, I shall make a considerable concession. I have discussed the matter at length with the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), and I am prepared to accept amendment No. 16. As a result of that gesture, I hope that the other amendments will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Colvin: With the permission of the House, I hope that I may respond to one or two issues raised by hon. Members during the debate, which was constructive and thoughtful, and based on considerable knowledge of the subject. As is inevitable with an emotive subject, some of the old prejudices bubbled to the surface. Why fox hunting per se should always be associated with badger digging, I do not know. The Bill might stop many perfectly lawful activities because it affects all countryside pursuits, including fox hunting and farming, and relates to landowners.
      The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) made a major concession in accepting the arguments that were expressed extremely well during the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I am pleased that the spirit of compromise and discussion that prevailed during the Bill's passage, particularly in Committee, has prevailed this morning. I hope that when I make clear what I wish to do about dividing the House on some of the amendments, the same spirit of co-operation and discussion will prevail so that the Bill can wend its way from this place to the other place, as I hope it will. There are many hurdles for the Bill yet to overcome.
      The hon. Member for Newport, East referred to a Gallup poll showing that 93 per cent. of the people questioned supported the Bill. I am sure that they did not. I am sure that what they supported, as all hon. Members do, was the Bill's objective—there is a fundamental difference. If most people questioned were subjected to the detailed provisions of the Bill, many of them would
      934
      express the sort of reservations voiced by hon. Members this morning. Nevertheless, I gladly accept the concession made by the hon. Member for Newport, East, and I am pleased that amendment No. 16 will, with the leave of the House, be accepted.
      I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) about his Bill, which was well drafted and would have worked. It was only as a result of a procedural technicality, and the fact that the Bill of the hon. Member for Newport, East, which was so like the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, had already begun its passage through the House that my hon. Friend's Bill was not allowed to proceed. It is not permitted for two almost identical Bills to proceed through the House. So my hon. Friend's Bill had to be withdrawn. Should the Bill of the hon. Member for Newport, East fail, my hon. Friend's Bill is ready to be resurrected—perhaps in the next Session. But let us hope that this Bill succeeds.
      The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who I am sorry to say is not in the Chamber now, spoke with some passion on amendment No. 4. He suggested that the object of that amendment was to torpedo the Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are legitimate interests to defend, and if we can amend the Bill properly, we should do so.
      The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has been adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. I shall try to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North that the object of the amendments is not to provide loopholes through which those who genuinely dig for badgers and perpetrate the crimes that we want to stop will be able to escape.
      Nobody has yet mentioned that the amendments would enlist the support of country people. Any legislation is only as good as its enforcement. If people are not "on side" with the law, it is sometimes difficult to obtain their co-operation to ensure that those committing the crimes are reported to the police, the evidence is gathered and the law works in practice. If the amendments were approved en bloc, the Bill would have the wholehearted support of country people and would be much more effective. I believe that hon. Members should consider how far they are prepared to go in rejecting the amendments and possibly prejudicing and damaging the legislation's enforceability.
      11.45 am
      The hon. Member for Newport, East has said that he accepts amendment No. 16. I intend to divide the House on amendment No. 4. How should we proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Should we take the amendments in numerical order or as a group? Will we take them one by one?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall seek to help the hon. Gentleman and the House. We shall follow the normal practice. We do not, except with the leave of the House, put amendments formally as a group. I shall put the Question that has already been proposed on amendment No. 1. Should amendment No. 1 be rejected, I doubt whether I can put to the House any of the amendments that come before amendment No. 5, because they would not be available for proposal. However, if the House rejects amendment No. 1, I should be prepared to consider

      935
      allowing a Division on amendment No. 5, should the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) seek to press for one. I hope that I have given some guidance.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to ask the House to divide on amendment Nos. 18 and 5. I shall not seek to divide the House on amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised that the House could divide on amendment No 18 only if amendment No. 3 were carried, which is dependent on the House approving amendment No. 1—[Interruption.] I apologise. I am advised that amendment No. 3 can be put separately, irrespective of what the House decides on amendment No. 1. Therefore, we had better wait and see what the House decides on amendment No. 1. I shall then give further guidance.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been advised that the security doors affecting access to the building from the Norman Shaw building are locked. We have made arrangements to have them opened, but I am exercising the discretion that I understand I have to extend the period before calling for the doors to be locked.
      The House having divided: Ayes 19, Noes 100.

      Division No. 139]

      [11 48 am

      AYES

      Arbuthnot, James

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Benyon, W.

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Paice, James

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Tredinnick, David

      Carr, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Colvin, Michael

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Mr. Nicholas Soames and Mr. Jerry Wiggin.

      Howells, Geraint

      Livsey, Richard

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fraser, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fry, Peter

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Gale, Roger

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Battle, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bell, Stuart

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bowis, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Burns, Simon

      Haynes, Frank

      Burt, Alistair

      Hinchliffe, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cash, William

      Home Robertson, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cryer, Bob

      Knowles, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dixon, Don

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dobson, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dover, Den

      McKelvey, William

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Maclean, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Mans, Keith

      Flannery, Martin

      Marek, Dr John

      Flynn, Paul

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Meale, Alan

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Miscampbell, Norman

      936

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Nellist, Dave

      Soley, Clive

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      Norris, Steve

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dennis

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Waller, Gary

      Richardson, Jo

      Walley, Joan

      Rogers, Allan

      Ward, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watts, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Short, Clare

      Winnick, David

      Sims, Roger

      Wood, Timothy

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Elliot Morley and Mr. Ron Davies.

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

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      EXTENSION OF GENERAL. EXCEPTIONS
      Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 1 at beginning insert—
      '( ) In section 8 of the Badgers Act 1973, after subsection (1B), there is inserted—
      "(1C) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(a), (b), (c) or (e) of this Act if he is lawfully engaged in the maintenance or improvement of any existing watercourse or drainage works, or the construction of new works required for the drainage of any land, including works for the purpose of defence against sea water or tidal water.".'.
      Mr. Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) accepted amendment No. 16, and that is not good enough.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: When we have worked our way through other amendments, I shall ask the House to agree to that.
      12 noon
      Mr. Wiggin: In the storms during 1990, a flood bank in my constituency burst under the attack from the sea. More than 1,000 acres of high quality agricultural land were flooded and one domestic property was affected. The clear cause of the breach in the flood bank was a badger sett. Local farmers had drawn the matter to the attention of the National Rivers Authority, and there had been some debate about what should be done to deal with the problem. The delay militated against any action being taken, and the bank burst, with the consequences that I have outlined. A heavily piled repair was required and was costly. I went to inspect the work with local farmers and found that the badgers were at work again, as is often the case.
      There should be an exemption under the Badgers Act 1973 so that those engaged in such flood protection work—the various fluvial and tidal flood defences, of which there are a great many in my part of the world—should be allowed priority.
      People and property can be placed in danger. I asked the Wessex region of the National Rivers Authority to carry out a review of this matter throughout the region. In a letter dated 10 July 1990, Mr. Nigel Reader, the regional general manager of the Wessex region of the NRA, said:

      937
      "I have initiated a survey of all sea, tidal and fluvial flood defences in the Wessex Region, to identify the presence of badger setts. To date, some 10 significant setts have been identified throughout the region together with a smaller number of minor or inactive ones. I agree with your view that it is not in the best interests of safety to allow the matter to continue unchecked. It is for that reason that we are systematically pursuing with the Ministry of Agriculture appropriate methods of dealing with the identified problems, applying one or more of the options outlined earlier to you."
      The difficulty is that such consultations, licences and so on take a great deal of time. Responsible bodies are involved in these matters—and they are responsible—and the main one is the National Rivers Authority. However, drainage authorities have responsibility for some areas, and practices differ from one part of the country to another. They should be exempted from the legislation, and my amendment seeks to do that.
      There should not be any worry about the welfare of badgers, because it may well be possible to move them from the sites. However, we need legislation to protect people, who are now so conscious of the many ways in which the badger Acts apply that there is an essential nervousness. That was the objective of the legislation, and it has been achieved. I hope that the Bill's promoter will accept this modest amendment in the interests of safety and the countryside. It would in no way affect the welfare of badgers, which we all accept as the paramount purpose of the Bill.
      Sir Alan Glyn: My hon. Friend is arguing about the time that it takes to pass the legislation. He is not arguing on a point of principle but on a technicality.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am sorry that I have not made myself clear. It is question of time. In the past year or two, my part of the world has suffered from storms. When the wind is in the right direction and spring tides coincide, much of my constituency is threatened by the sea. When it is necessary to proceed, it is perfectly reasonable to say that, if badgers are in the way, they should not be considered. That is the aim of my amendment.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on this issue. He expressed similar sentiments on Second Reading. I assure him that drainage works or sea defence works, which are especially relevant in his constituency, are covered by clause 2(2), which states that, where damage caused
      "was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not have been reasonably avoided.",
      section 8(1A) of the Badgers Act, 1973 makes the amendment unnecessary. Such works are also covered by the Bill's licensing provisions—I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 4(b). I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek leave to withdraw his amendment?
      Mr. Wiggin rose—
      Mr. Colvin: Do we not come to this in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question before the House is, That amendment No. 20 be made. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to put the question or does he wish to withdraw the amendment?
      Mr. Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      EXTENSION OF GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
      Sir Charles Morrison: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'section 2(3)(c)' and insert 'section 2(3)(a), (c) or (e)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 5, leave out
      'that he shall not dig into the tops or sides of the entrances,'.
      No. 21, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'shall' and insert 'does'.
      No. 22, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'shall not be' and insert 'are not'.
      No. 23, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'shall be' and insert 'are'.
      No. 8, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'clean'.
      No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert 'or soil, or'.
      No. 10, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'clean'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'loose'.
      No. 12, in page 2, leave out line 15 and insert
      'and removed within twenty four hours'.
      No. 13, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'consent of the landowner' and insert
      'authority of the occupier of the land on which the sett is situated.'.
      No. 14, in page 2, leave out lines 17 and 18.
      No. 15, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
      '(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(a) or (c) or (e) by reason of his hounds marking at a sett, provided they are withdrawn as soon as reasonably practicable.'.
      Sir Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) introduced clause 3 into the Bill in Committee. Like other members of the Committee, I thanked him for doing that, because it meets a number of points on earth stopping that have been made by fox hunters and farmers who are concerned with fox control. None the less, I warned him that some amendments would be necessary. These amendments are those which, after consideration, I feel that it is important to make to clause 3. Some of the amendments do no more than correct defective drafting, but some are more substantial. I should emphasise how important earth stopping is for fox hunting and fox control. Without earth stopping, it is almost impossible to undertake fox hunting and to control foxes.
      The clause states that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under clause 2(3)(c)—the offence of
      "obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett"
      —under certain conditions. However, in stopping a sett, a person could be held to have committed two other offences—disturbing the badgers, an offence set out in clause 1(3)(e) and damaging the sett, the offence set out in clause 1(3)(a). Amendment No. 6 simply allows disturbance to the badger or damage to a sett for the purpose of earth stopping and it removes the two anomalies that I have

      939
      briefly described. The amendment would not allow wholesale or excessive damage to a sett or serious disturbance to a badger, because clause 3 carefully describes how a sett can be blocked. Conditions such as the use of straw or hay or the removal of bundles within a certain time mean that harmful interference with the sett will be avoided.
      Amendment No. 7 is concerned with digging for foxes inside a sett entrance. The act does not harm badgers, but it is not practicable for legislation to insist that every badger sett that is stopped must be stopped with imported material. Earth stoppers are frequently faced with large setts, which may be partly or temporarily disused, and many have 10 or even 20 or more entrances. In those circumstances, the sensible way to stop the earth is to cut into the sides of the entrance to produce a light covering. That would not harm the badger. If cutting into the sides of the entrances were not permitted—the effect of clause 3—stopping would be difficult. Therefore, I hope that amendment No. 7 will be accepted.
      The Bill refers to clean straw, but in practice, defining clean straw would be extremely difficult. The hon. Member for Newport, East may be able to define what constitutes clean straw or say when it become dirty so that use of it is a breach of the law, but I feel that it is difficult to distinguish between clean and dirty straw. Those of us who have farmed know full well that, immediately after harvest, quite a lot of the straw is dirty for a variety of reasons. Therefore, it would be reasonable to accept amendments Nos. 8 and 10, which remove the requirement that the straw be clean.
      12.15 pm
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 deal with the requirement in clause 3 that the soil used in earth stopping is loose—a requirement which is neither sensible nor practical. It would be hard for the courts to determine whether the soil is loose. It may not be possible for an earth stopper to produce loose soil at a sett, particularly on a wet day when the soil tends to compact. Furthermore, if loose soil is dropped into the entrance of a sett, it will fall further down the hole than is desirable. The Masters of Fox Hounds Association recommends soft earth stopping, which is slightly different to loose soil but just as easy for the badger to remove. Therefore, the amendments remove the requirement that the soil should be loose. The provision for loose soil would seem to be unnecessary because clause 3 already contains the important condition that the soil must not be packed hard into the entrances of setts.
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 deal with the time when stopping may take place. The provisions in clause 3 as to when setts are stopped and blocks are removed are somewhat confused. The first part of the defence permits stopping with soil and other material if it is placed in the entrances on the day of the hunt. This is unnecessary and impractical. Stopping with soil may be done before hunting, for instance to close up a large number of apparently disused holes. The stopping must be undertaken in accordance with the strict conditions set out and only for the purpose of hunting foxes with hounds, so it makes no difference whether the stopping takes place
      "on the day of the hunt"
      or earlier, because, if a badger is present, he will dig himself out. Therefore, amendment No. 9 removes the provision that this form of stopping may take place only
      "on the day of the hunt".
      940
      The second part of the defence permits stopping with various blocks, which must be subsequently removed. The provision specifies removal "on the same day". In general, stopping takes place on the same day as hunting, but there would be complications if stopping took place the day before the hunt, before midnight. The hon. Member for Newport, East will remember that I drew attention to that in Committee. This might occur when an earth stopper has a large number of holes to stop in a single night—a pretty regular event. In this case, the stop would have to be removed as soon as it was put in, because after midnight it would no longer be "the same day". Amendment No. 12 rewords the provision to make it clear that these stops should be removed within 24 hours. The amendment would make no difference to the badger, but it would make clause 3 infinitely more practical and realistic.
      Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 deal with the authority of hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association and a register. This point was discussed briefly in Committee. The defence provided by clause 3 insists that earth stoppers must have the consent of land owners and the authority of a hunt recognised by the MFHA, which must keep a register of all earth stoppers.
      The requirement that earth stoppers should have the consent of landowners is, in principle, a good one. I have no doubt, however, that a better wording is "authority of the occupier", as that recognises the rights of tenant farmers and other land occupiers and removes the need for any formal consent to be signified. We must be realistic. It is not unknown for land to be owned by institutions or by landowners who are not immediately available. It seems, therefore, that the occupier of the land is a more relevant person than the landowner.
      The requirement that the Masters of Fox Hounds Association must recognise hunts and keep a registration of earth stoppers is unacceptable. That is because there are many hunts—these have been referred to by implication already—including fell packs in the Lake District and packs in Wales, which are all vital for fox control but which can hardly go under the term "packs of hounds" because there are perhaps only two, three or four hounds. These "packs" are not recognised by the association but they must be able to stop badger setts. Their purpose is to control foxes. It is asking too much of the association, however, to undertake a major survey to cover many organisations for which it does not bear responsibility and over which it has no control. It is to ask too much of the association also that it should accept responsibility where it has no jurisdiction.
      A registration of earth stoppers would be impracticable. First, there is the difficulty that is presented by the small groups of hounds that might go under the heading of fox hunts. I do not know how it would be possible to keep lists of earth stoppers within their ranks through the Masters of Fox Hounds Association or any other organisation. I suspect that the farmers concerned sometimes ask their friends to go out and help them.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I make a suggestion that the hon. Gentleman might find helpful. In Scotland, the Fox Destruction Society is registered with the Scottish Office. In Wales, many of the gun packs to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are established as fox destruction societies. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there would be some merit in having a registration system with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for England,

      941
      or with the agriculture department in the Scottish Office for Scotland or with the Welsh Office for Wales? Perhaps it would be possible to introduce the control structure that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting through that registration procedure.
      Sir Charles Morrison: That is an idea which could be pursued. I am not sure whether its implementation would be practical. The hon. Gentleman, knows much more about Wales than I do, but I have a feeling that the procedure would be intensely bureaucratic. I suspect that inadvertently people would find themselves quite often in breach of the law, but it is an idea which would be worth considering in more detail.
      Mr. Bowis: I understand that the framing of the provisions to which my hon. Friend is referring was based on current practice and not on conjecture. In Committee, our attention was drawn to the byelaw of the New Forest. It has been shown to work effectively and perhaps we can take that to be the position unless my hon. Friend can present evidence to the contrary. The byelaw states:
      "All stopping will be undertaken on the morning of the hunting day only. The Joint Masters shall nominate and appoint authorised stoppers, each of whom shall be fully instructed on stopping requirements, and a list of appointees shall be made available to the Forestry Commission prior to the first Meet of the season."
      That byelaw has been shown to work in practice. Perhaps it would not do so throughout the country, but it is a useful example.
      Sir Charles Morrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware of the byelaw. It may be difficult—I would not put it more strongly—to extrapolate from the limited area of the New Forest to embrace the nation as a whole. The matter can be considered further and dealt with, perhaps, in another place at a later stage of the Bill's consideration.
      It is important to stress that it is entirely impracticable for the Masters of Fox Hounds Association to keep a register. For example, the association has no control of gun packs. It is probably true to say that there are fairly regular bands of earth stoppers that act on behalf of the many hunts throughout the length and breadth of England, Wales and part of Scotland. On the other hand, I have no doubt that many of the earth stoppers from time to time ask their friends or mates to help them out if they have a lot of work to do on one particular evening. If the provision is allowed to remain in the Bill, it will inadvertently cause people to find themselves in breach of the law. I should prefer the Bill to be amended in the way that I have suggested.
      Amendment No. 15 is concerned with marking. The matter was referred to in Committee. Marking occurs when foxes run to ground either in a fox earth or, more relevant in the context of the debate, in a badger sett. When that happens, the hounds will stand on top of the badger sett, scuffle around and bay. They cannot go down the hole because they are too big. They will stand on top, however, until the huntsmen appear. Sometimes they are unable to arrive at the scene for about two minutes after the hounds have arrived, due to difficulties getting across country, for example. The hounds will not do any harm to the sett, but, as I have said, they will stand on top of it until the huntsmen arrive and call them off.
      942
      In some circumstances marking will be an offence, whereas in others it will not. If the damage or disturbance to a sett is neither intentional nor reckless, no offence under the Bill will have been committed. Where the master or the huntsmen could not foresee the risk of marking taking place, they would be safe from prosecution. They may also be covered by the terms of the revised offence that is set out in clause 2, which permits interference with a sett if the action was the accidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided. The burden of proof would be on the master or the huntsman, who would have to show that he could not have reasonably avoided his hounds marking out the sett.
      The problem will arise when hunts draw coverts or other places in search of a fox, when they know that badger setts are in the vicinity and they know that it is possible, if not probable, that the fox will run to one of the setts and that the hounds will mark the fox to ground. In those circumstances, an offence would be committed.
      I emphasise that in the west country, Wales and other areas where both badgers and foxes are highly numerous, that could happen on every hunting day. If masters were to suspend hunting in every place where there was a risk of marking a fox in a badger sett, fox hunting would come to an end. Of course, under clause 3 hunts may stop up the badger setts to prevent foxes from running to ground in them. Hunts do that to the best of their ability, but badgers dig large numbers of holes and, where they are prolific, earth stoppers simply cannot keep up with them. It is inevitable that the foxes will find some hole to run to, and often they will be unstopped setts. Amendment No. 15 would permit interference with a sett by reason of marking with hounds. Masters and huntsmen would be required to take their hounds away from the sett as soon as reasonably practicable.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East will favourably consider the amendments. None would undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, but they would make clause 3 more practical, because it would then take account of reality.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Colvin: I shall be brief in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). I am pleased that an earth-stopping code has been written into the Bill, even though it is not the code that I want. For what it is worth, the code that has not been written into the Bill—that is, the code used by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association—needed tightening in certain areas. I accept that it is no use those who support fox hunting criticising the Bill if they are not prepared to put their own house in order. That is what the amendments, so expertly introduced by my hon. Friend, would achieve.
      On Second Reading, I read out some of the contents of the MFHA code, and the House took the view that it was inadequate because it did not specify in enough detail precisely what people should be allowed or not allowed to do within the provisions of the Badgers Act 1973 or the Bill. In principle, I like the idea of an earth-stopping code being written into the Bill, but in practice I feel that the details have many deficiencies. If the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is not prepared to accept the amendments, he should have an urgent meeting with the MFHA before the Bill goes to another place. Quite frankly, the only way to reach agreement is to sit around

      943
      a table talking to the MFHA; it is the only way to find a solution that is workable, practicable and fair under the law.
      The suggestion of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) about an additional register to take in fell packs, gun packs and so on made sense. The Bill's proposal would put too much onus on the MFHA to keep a register. Quite frankly, the idea of a register of earth stoppers is ridiculous. I have been an earth stopper, and most of the workers on my farm are earth stoppers. It would be impossible to keep a register of every earth stopper in the country.
      On a day when the hunt is due to come to my farm, the master telephones and asks me to stop the earths. What do I do? Everybody is busy and the farm is under tremendous economic pressure. I grab the first person I see and tell him where to go. That is why it would be good to have a code, and I hope that the MFHA publishes one on a piece of plastic paper that can be distributed to landowners. I could then hand that to the man that I have asked to do the earth stopping and say, "Go and do it George—but you must do it this way or you will be breaking the law." If the Bill can achieve that, it will have done a good job. The hon. Member for Newport, East must accept the impracticability of what he has suggested. If he is prepared to accept the amendments, there will be no problem.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned the New Forest and Forestry Commission land. That especially interested me, because the New Forest extends just to my constituency, so I know something about it. In the New Forest and on Forestry Commission land, the conditions for earth stopping are as onerous as those proposed in clause 3. The Forestry Commission's authority to hunt specifies, for example, minimal use of loose soil and that the sides of holes must not be cut or interfered with. However, that is no reason for extending the conditions across the country.
      The experience of hunts attempting to meet those conditions has led to concern about the wider implications. Earth stoppers have reported considerable practical difficulties in stopping according to the strict requirements. The most recent occasion on which I stopped a badger's sett on my farm is an example. The sett was situated in chalk, so no soil was available. We need a definition of soil. Is chalk soil? I am not sure. Nothing was available except flintstones. Would they be acceptable under the earth-stopping code? I doubt it. We had a considerable job. We had to journey some distance to get the soil to carry out the earth-stopping job.
      The hon. Member for Newport, East must be practical about the implications of his proposals. Perhaps he will accept the amendments. In areas in which setts are far more prolific than in the New Forest, and in which there are many holes, the same stringent regulations would result in many setts being left unstopped. The effect would be a reduction in the ability of hunts to control foxes, with a consequent increase in alternative methods such as snaring, which would be extremely unfortunate for the badger. Badgers can become caught in snares as easily as foxes can. If the fox-hunting control of foxes diminishes, farmers will resort to shooting. That is a most unsuitable way in which to try to control foxes, because it is difficult to shoot a fox with a shotgun.
      The Forestry Commission and the New Forest may be able to ensure that alternative methods are not taken up, but that would not be the case elsewhere. It is highly
      944
      important for the badger that hunting can continue without restrictions. Only hunting ensures that it is only foxes—and not badgers—that are taken. I support the amendment.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: We have discussed the amendments at length. The issue of stopping arose in a big way in Committee. Hon. Members will be aware that I made a major concession in Committee and incorporated the code of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association in the Bill. The masters of foxhounds are the experts in the matter, and I was prepared to be guided by them. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) now speaks in reasonable terms and that the hon. member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) has adopted a persuasive approach.
      Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman said that the stopping code of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association had been incorporated in the Bill. Has the hon. Gentleman sat down with the MFHA and talked through the code with it? Is the MFHA in 100 per cent. agreement with what has been incorporated in the Bill? If the hon. Gentleman does not mean that, I hope that he will explain.
      Mr. Hughes: I did not intend to be categorical about the matter. The provisions are based on the provisions of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association.
      Mr. Colvin: The principle?
      Mr. Hughes: Yes, the principle. The provisions were accepted by the Committee.
      Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are essentially technical amendments. We will oppose the other amendments in the group, except amendment No. 15, which we will concede.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) wish to move amendment No. 7 formally? I imagine that the answer is no.
      Mr. Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your hearing is probably better than mine, but am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said that he would accept amendment No. 15? That was certainly my impression.
      Mr. Roy Hughes indicated assent.
      Mr. Colvin: I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We accept amendment No. 15.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman accepts amendment No. 15, but that comes later. The hon. Gentleman is the sponsor of the Bill and has said that amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 are technical amendments. If the House agrees, I shall put them together.
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'shall' and insert 'does'.
      No. 22, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'shall not be' and insert 'are not'.
      No. 23, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'shall be' and insert 'are'.—[Mr. Roy Hughes.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) accepts amendment No. 15.
      Mr. Roy Hughes indicated assent.
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
      '(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(a) or (c) or (e) by reason of his hounds marking at a sett, provided they are withdrawn as soon as reasonably practicable.'.—(Sir Charles Morrison.)

    Clause 4

      AMENDMENT OF S.9 OF BADGERS ACT 1973
      Amendment made: No. 24, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'section 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971' and insert
      'section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990'.—(Mr. Roy Hughes.)
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Newport, East accepts amendment No. 16.
      Mr. Roy Hughes indicated assent.
      Amendment made: No. 16, in page 2, leave out lines 47 and 48.—[Sir C. Morrison.]

    Clause 5

      AMENDMENT OF S.II OF BADGERS ACT 1973
      Sir Charles Morrison: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 12, leave out 'likely occupation or use' and insert 'present occupation'.
      We indulged in considerable debate in Committee about the right words to cover what would or would not constitute a breach of the law. The Committee debated two definitions of a badger sett, and, ultimately, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) was accepted on the basis that we would return to the matter on Report to try to improve the drafting.
      As drafted, the Bill will protect badger setts that show signs of
      "likely occupation or use by a badger."
      This should ensure that abandoned setts are no longer protected. However, doubt remains about the position of setts that are neither occupied by a badger nor completely abandoned. In reality, badgers make infrequent use of subsidiary or outlying setts, so many setts are unoccupied throughout the year. The point was covered by the Nature Conservancy Council report, "The Badger in Britain", which divided badger setts into four types. It made the point that the main setts were those of most importance and that the subsidiary setts were steadily decreasing in importance.
      I believe that it is not necessary to protect unoccupied setts. The extensive protection that the Bill affords to setts, coupled with severe penalties should any interference occur, is appropriate only for occupied setts. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to protect the badger, not to protect large numbers of empty holes in the ground.
      The problem would be dealt with if the hon. Member for Newport, East accepted amendment No. 17. I do not want to take up any more of the House's time, because the point is clear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make a concession, as he has done so generously on previous amendments.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will not accept the amendment. As the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) said, this matter was discussed at length in Committee. The amendment would create a further loophole. If the words "likely occupation" were removed and replaced by the words "present occupation", some clever person would say that there was no badger in the sett at the time: the badger might have been out foraging. That is a technical point, but, as we know, a case could turn on a technicality.
      Badgers often leave a sett and return to it a considerable time later—perhaps after months or even years. In certain areas, badger setts go back hundreds of years. In other countries, setts are protected as we would protect our stately homes. The badger sett may be the stately home of the badger, and hon. Members should bear that in mind. Such edifices need to be protected, and the amendment would introduce further loopholes which would imperil the badger sett. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Soames: I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks); I merely wish to disagree with him. As he will remember, when we considered his Bill this matter was a major point of contention. I should like to quote from a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) from Dr. Stephen Harris, who is an important expert on such matters, as the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) knows. It relates to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West:
      "One problem with the Banks Bill was that it tried to protect every possible badger sett, whether it was a single hole either not currently in use, or a massive main sett. This is not practical, since recognising smaller badger setts for what they are can be very difficult. It is also not necessary from a conservation stand point: most small setts are not in regular use, of little biological importance, and as the NCC's survey showed, most digging … occurs at main setts."
      That is the opinion of a considerable expert. I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East will bear that in mind when he considers whether to accept the amendment. He has given generous consideration to earlier amendments.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I intend to stick to my original wording and to oppose amendment No. 17. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) advanced a convincing argument. Badgers often vacate a sett and then return to it later. Without further ado, I invite hon. Members to oppose amendment No. 17.
      Sir Charles Morrison: With the permission of the House, may I say a few words in reply to the debate.
      I note what the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has said. In the light of his remarks, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. However, the matter will undoubtedly be referred to in the debate in another place, where a solution may be found that is acceptable to both sides. If so, well and good. It is, though, a matter which, as I say, the other House will wish to consider. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Roy Hughes.]
      12.49 pm
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on having done an extremely good job in bringing the Bill before the House. His attitude throughout has been conciliatory. I am very pleased that we have managed substantially to improve the Bill. Much of the credit for that must go to the hon. Gentleman. Credit must also go to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), who worked extremely hard in Committee to improve the Bill which, as it now leaves the House, is in very much better shape.
      Some of us have said today that the Bill is by no means perfect. We still have reservations about certain clauses, most notably about those that we sought to amend on Report. However, as it is much better than it was when it originally came before House, we do not intend to oppose it. I have sufficient of my hon. Friends here today for us to have fought the Bill through to 2.30 pm, had we so wished, but in the same spirit of conciliation as that shown by the hon. Member for Newport, East we decided not to do so. It gives me great pleasure, therefore, to congratulate him once again and to wish the Bill a speedy and successful passage through the other place, with a few more amendments, before it reaches the statute book.
      12.51 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) was wise not to pursue the course that he has just described. If he had, there would have been considerable difficulties both for him and others as well as ourselves.
      I join the hon. Gentleman—this is one of the few times on which we can agree—in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on steering the Bill through the House. It is almost a good day for badgers. The hon. Member for Upminster knows that I was not so compromising about the proposals that he and other followers of blood sports put forward. I, too, look for improvements to the Bill. They may not be made in another place, but they will come at another time.
      I still do not believe that the Bill gives to the badger sett and, therefore, to the badger the absolute protection that is needed. However, my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on having succeeded where I failed. I am delighted not only for him but, more importantly, for badgers. The Bill is a partial success. We shall no doubt return again to the matter and make it a whole success. That is not only what the majority of hon. Members but, far more importantly, what the majority of the people of this country want.
      I hope that those Conservative Members who opposed the various badger protection Bills as they went through the House in order to protect their own vile pastime will at least have been impressed by the weight of public opinion. Public opinion has yet again prevailed in this place. Therefore, I am glad to give the Bill my total support.
      12.53 pm
      Mr. William Cash: I thoroughly welcome the Bill. It is important, however, to put on record the fact that those of us who have watched the proceedings on badger Bills during the last two years have noted with considerable interest and satisfaction the way in which both sides have moved towards one another. For some it is a highly controversial subject. Last year some tempers began to get frayed. I am a little worried about the hon.
      948
      Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He seemed to be about to insert yet another unnecessary element of tension into the argument.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) on the way that he has handled his side of the argument. I congratulate, too, both my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on his contribution and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who has piloted the Bill through the House with considerable skill. I wish it well in its final stages.
      12.54 pm
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on introducing the Protection of Badger Setts Bill last year, which unfortunately was unsuccessful. They both succeeded in achieving a major reform for the protection of badgers. In that sense, it is a good day for Brock at last.
      It is sad that a Bill to protect a creature as beautiful as the badger must be the subject of negotiation with those who pursue disgusting blood sports. I hope—I am sure that it will not be too long—that a Bill will be introduced to end the awful practice of blood sports.
      In welcoming the Bill, the House should pay credit where it is due—to the League Against Cruel Sports and others who have campaigned for so long to protect the badger and other creatures and the thousands of people who have taken the trouble to write to Members of Parliament asking them to support the Bill and encouraging so many to attend the debate. A Bill such as this represents considerable progress and is a step towards a more humane attitude to animals.
      I last observed badgers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). I hope that he will take the opportunity to observe them from the downs above Devizes because he will realise what beautiful creatures they are and why the rest of us want to give them the ultimate protection that other hon. Members seek to deny them because they practise blood sports.
      It is a good day for the badger; let us look forward to making it a good day for the fox and hare.
      12.56 pm
      Sir Charles Morrison: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was not present for earlier debates, because he would have heard hon. Members emphasising their concern for badgers and their determination to take action that would help to reduce badger baiting.
      I warmly thank the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for his co-operation and for the helpful concessions that he made. I congratulate him on getting his name in the history books. I sympathise with his having being burdened with the Bill this year. If there had been a greater feeling of compromise last year, the Protection of Badger Setts Bill would have become an Act. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is still quite a young and likely lad, and as time passes he will realise that, in the House, it is better to be prepared to compromise to achieve the results achieved by the hon. Member for Newport, East.
      12.58 pm
      Ms. Joan Walley: I wish briefly to place on record the thanks of people in Staffordshire to members of the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and constituents who have lobbied me to ensure that I support the Bill today.
      It was very important that Conservative Members did not resort to wrecking tactics. There has been a long battle to improve legislation on protecting the badger. I should have liked the Bill to be tighter, but none the less I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on it. People in Staffordshire, constituents at the ICL factory in Kidsgrove, have worked closely with pupils in Staffordshire schools to give wider protection to badgers by developing new computers and software to assist in their protection.
      1 pm
      Mr. Bowis: This is a good day for badgers and for Parliament because, for once, we have shown that a measure that does not have universal support and which has been proposed by a Back Bencher can reach its final stage in the House of Commons. That is a great tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), and I warmly congratulate him on his stewardship of the Bill.
      Some of us have been supporting measures to protect badgers for some time, and to see one achieve success is great news. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames), whose concern for the balance of the countryside has led them to reach a compromise on the Bill. I hope that that spirit will be reflected in another place so that, when the Bill is discussed there, it will be speeded to the statute book.
      Badgers are beautiful creatures and we wish them well. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to their stately homes. From my memory of childhood literature, I thought that the stately home was owned by Mr. Toad of Toad Hall, but Mr. Badger is also welcome to one. If every Englishman's home is his castle, from today every English badger's home will be a protected castle in the earth.
      Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that he had been supporting the protection of badgers for a long time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who deserves the congratulations of the House and everyone connected with and interested in conservation. It is a pity that it has taken the House 18 years, since the Badgers Act 1973, to introduce such a measure. That Act was revised during the 1974–75 Session and then had to be improved further in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and again when my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was fortunate in the ballot and devoted his measure to improving the 1981 Act.
      However, against the great weight of public opinion, badger baiting continues in the most obscene and sadistic way. If the Bill fails this time, I shall present another to seek to deny those who perpetrate such brutal acts the benefits of anaesthesia, should they require treatment or surgery under the national health service. They deserve a
      950
      harsh penalty. An obvious further step would be to interpret existing legislation to allow the courts to order the confiscation of the motor vehicles that take them to the setts where they perpetrate their brutal crimes.
      The whole House has been involved in the Bill. Although some Conservative Members have expressed reservations about the risk of menace to their activities, I appreciate the fact that they recognise that badgers must be protected further, and the conservation organisations and I are grateful that they have enabled the measure to pass through the House.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East will be long remembered for his contribution to the survival of one of Britain's most attractive species. Hon. Members can go away today feeling that they have done a very good job.
      1.4 pm
      Mr. Colvin: Anyone witnessing this debate could be forgiven for suddenly wondering whether we had lost our senses. Peace and good will seem to be breaking out all over. It is almost like the time when, during the first world war, the combatants came out of their trenches on Christmas day and, instead of firing bullets at one another, started playing football. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have been playing football. In the best possible spirit, we have joined the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) in trying to find a solution to the legitimate concerns of people engaged in activities in the countryside, including farmers, foresters and field sportsmen. We have gone a long way to finding compromises, but that is largely to the credit of the hon. Member for Newport, East.
      Many hon. Members have congratulated the hon. Gentleman on successfully steering his Bill through Parliament. He has succeeded in bringing the Bill to its fifth stage, Third Reading, which I trust the House will give it. But it is only at its fifth stage; it has still to encounter the other place and then return to this place. If we are to believe what we read in the newspapers about the possibility of a summer election, perhaps all the good work that has been done so far will have been in vain. However, I do not believe that, even were that to happen, the work will have been in vain because our debates and the work that goes into them produce a greater understanding of the issues involved. Anyone who reads reports of this morning's debates will understand more about the problems of the countryside and the difficulties faced by those who seek to give the badger the greater protection that it needs. Those problems must be overcome without impairing other perfectly legitimate activities.
      As I sat downstairs signing my letters half an hour ago, I saw on the annunciator that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was on his feet. I thought, "Trouble has arrived." For a moment I thought that we were back to the acrimonious debates that we had during the passage of his Bill. It is sad that, at the end of a thoroughly good-natured and constructive debate, the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who took no part in today's debates on Report, should come into the Chamber and spoil it. They have added a little bit of sourness to what is otherwise a happy conclusion.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East on his achievement and I hope that we shall see his Bill back

      951
      here in a satisfactory state to discuss any amendments passed in the other place and to give it our final good wishes on its way to Royal Assent.
      1.7 pm
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on having the patience and persistence to steer the Bill through the House, and the shrewd sense to accept one or two amendments in order to achieve a compromise to allow the Bill to succeed. He has performed a balancing act and obtained the best form of Bill rather than seeing it talked out this morning.
      Fridays are valuable for private Members. They provide opportunities for presenting and passing useful legislation. I understand that some yuppie tendencies in various parties in this place have been talking about working until 5.30 pm on weekdays, finishing on Thursday night, and getting home on Friday, which is a nonsensical suggestion. Our debates on the Bill have demonstrated how we can make good use of Friday mornings.
      Even in 1973, when the first Badgers Bill was passed, and shortly before I entered the House in 1974 as Member for Keighley, people made representations to me to the effect that there were loopholes in the 1973 Act. Attempts to remedy them failed. When I re-entered the House, with great pleasure, as Member for Bradford, South in 1987 a new group of people repeated the same anxieties to me. Some, if not all, of them supported the League Against Cruel Sports, which has consistently provided information about and campaigned on this issue. Its pressure outside must be recognised as a factor in the successful passage of this Bill.
      This legislation has been so important in West Yorkshire that some animal care and preservation societies have suggested that if it had not got through today badgers might well have become extinct in West Yorkshire. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East has been first rate—
      Mr. Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Cryer: I would rather not. Several other hon. Members want to speak.
      This has been a satisfactory morning, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East on the Bill. Most of all, I congratulate the badgers of West Yorkshire on preserving their lives.
      1.11 pm
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I hope that, as one of the sponsors of the Bill, I may make a few brief comments.
      I am delighted that today has been such a good day for badgers. I must slightly chastise the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for the tone that he injected into the debate, but he did the House one service by showing how genuinely difficult it is, with a wide variety of different beliefs about and angles on the subject, to achieve the consensus arrived at today. That, above all, is the measure of the success of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes).
      Secondly, not only is today a good day for badgers but, if the House sees fit, next week will be yet another good week for badgers, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and I intend to introduce a Bill known as the
      952
      Badgers (Further Protection) Bill which I hope will receive its First Reading next Wednesday and go through all its other stages, if the House sees fit, on Friday.
      Our Bill should command all-party consent. Its other sponsors include such diverse personalities as my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and the hon. Members for Newport, East and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). With a cast of supporters like that, the Bill, I feel sure, will win the consent and favour of both Houses of Parliament—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to give us a preview of his later Bill, but he must now return to Third Reading of this Bill.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of that.
      I hope that the Bill will appear next week. In the meantime, I warmly commend the promoter of today's Bill and congratulate him on his success.
      1.13 pm
      Ms. Mildred Gordon: I represent an inner-city area and I have had many letters from constituents in support of this Bill. I grew up in the east end, as did my son. Although we made many trips to the Northaw woods to look at badger setts in the hope of seeing a badger, we never had the luck to see one in the wild. I have no doubt that many of the people who have written to me in support of the Bill have never seen a badger either. In some ways it is even more important to them that these beautiful animals should exist in this country, that they should be protected and that men with dogs—fortunately, it is not women who do this—should not be allowed to hunt them in a bloodthirsty fashion that was likely to exterminate them.
      I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on the work that has been done over the years leading to this Bill. I congratulate all who have worked together for the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friends on bringing the Bill through to its fifth stage, and I hope that it will proceed through its remaining stages and be enacted to protect an important part of the wildlife of our country.
      1.14 pm
      Mr. Soames: I join in the general spirit of harmony and pleasure in the House and warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on his Bill. The House should also congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) who for many years has been a leading expert on this matter not only in the House but in the country. His opinions have been widely sought on both sides of the debate, and he has made a notable and important contribution. His approval of the Bill will give further pleasure to the hon. Member for Newport, East.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) injected a sour and rather pointless note into our proceedings. The great achievement of the hon. Member for Newport, East and his supporters in all parts of the House was the ability to recognise the desire for such legislation. There was a vigorous and important public

      953
      lobbying effort about the importance of seeing the badger further and properly protected. Some hon. Members sought to confuse that issue with the issue of field sports, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) spoke.
      I commend to the House an admirable article by Dr. Roger Scruton in The Sunday Telegraph. I shall quote from the article and direct it especially to the hon. Member for Islington, North. The article states:
      "The real motive behind the proposals is not a love for the animal kingdom but a hatred for a particular part, the part that goes by the name of England. This is the ruling passion of today's Labour Party. Field sports involve a blatant assertion of English values, manners, ceremony, heirarchy, easy courtesy, boldness and display, and above all the natural harmony between people from all backgrounds which is so fundamentally obnoxious to those brought up in the belief that the classes are truly at war. No polytechnic-bred lout can witness the pink coats and prancing horses without feeling the urge to pull down the symbols of authority and spit on a piece of England."
      Opposition Members may laugh. However, the hon. Member for Newport, East managed to dissociate himself from that perilous, ghastly riff-raff whose interest is not the protection of the badger or anything else. He allied himself firmly and honourably on the side of an animal which deserves and has achieved further protection and enhancement of its habitat. I wish the Bill every success.
      1.17 pm
      Mr. Robin Corbett: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on persevering with the Bill and on finding ways to get it to the stage at which it goes to another place. I thank him for being kind enough to allow me to be among the Bill's all-party sponsors.
      It is a tragedy that the badger is one of those rare animals whose only known enemy is man. I say "man" because to my knowledge its enemies do not include women. When I was with friends in Sussex I was fortunate enough to be within 3 ft to 4 ft of a badger and one of her young and I watched them having supper. It was muesli with apples and they seemed to thrive on it.
      I hope that the hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and others who have been so keen to reach a consensus on this Bill will, next Wednesday, bring that spirit to the Committee considering the Hare Coursing Bill, which is being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I also hope that, after the next general election, when the Labour Government introduce a Bill to abolish all forms of hunting with hounds, on a free vote, those hon. Members will again strive for consensus.
      As has already been said, the Bill is, regrettably, neither the end of the matter of adequate protection of badgers nor of animal welfare and wildlife matters. I hope that the one thing on which we can all agree, and on which we can all send a message to the other place as it considers the Bill, is that we need to build on this until we can truly say that we properly treat the animals with which we share this planet.
      1.20 pm
      Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is right to say that many other animal welfare matters will require our consideration. I have the honour to be the vice-chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, which concerns itself deeply with, for example, the export of live horses and with whaling. On both those matters, Her Majesty's Government have taken a strong and correct stand.
      It gives me pleasure to see the passage of the Bill, because the all-party group has given the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) support throughout the stages of the Bill. I know that the chairman of the group, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and all its members wish him well as the Bill completes its stages. It is also appropriate for me, on behalf of the group, to thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its officers for the advice and help that they have given us in reaching a consensus. The officers of the National Farmers Union have been similarly helpful.
      It saddens me that a note of acrimony was introduced into the debate. It is easy to criticise, but those of us who listened to the articulate debate can only have been impressed by the knowledge of the countryside shown by those of my hon. Friends who have not supported the cause that we have supported. We should not forget that many of those engaged in farming or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) pointed out, in forestry and other country pursuits do a great deal for the conservation of the countryside. It is easy to be hypocritical about such matters. Often, when those who shout the loudest about animal welfare from the town move into constituencies such as mine, they do infinitely more harm to animal welfare, through either negligence or vandalism, than do those whom they have been criticising. I have never hunted or wanted to hunt and there is no likelihood that I ever will, but I recognise, and the House should recognise, and not deride, the strongly held beliefs expressed this morning.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside made it clear that this is but the fifth stage of the Bill. I hope that today will be seen as a good day for badgers, but the Bill has to complete its stages in another place and come back here. I trust that, when all those stages have been completed, we shall be able to say that we have afforded badgers more protection.
      1.23 pm
      Mr. Roy Hughes: This is a happy day for me. It has been a privilege to promote a Bill which will protect these wonderful creatures. My thanks are due to all those right hon. and hon. Members who have supported me. My thanks are also due to those who, in opposing some of the provisions of the Bill, made their arguments lucidly. This is, after all, a democratic institution.
      My gratitude and thanks are due especially to animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Nature Conservancy Council, the World Wildlife Foundation, the National Federation of Badger Groups and the League Against Cruel Sports. They have been enthusiastic throughout and unstinting in their efforts.
      Arguments have been advanced throughout our discussions and they have been answered. Certain.

      955
      concessions have been made and now the Bill is to go to another place. I hope that efforts will be made speedily to ensure that the Bill can soon be put on the statute book.
      1.25 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): As the House will know, on occasions such as this the Government always maintain a strictly neutral stance. That has been the position that I have held during the Bill's passage and its consideration on the Floor of the House and in Committee. It would not be right, however, at this stage of its progress to allow the Bill to go forward without offering to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) my congratulations on the way in which he has skilfully drawn the arguments together and taken the Bill—privately, I am happy to see it reach its present stage—through the House.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have co-operated with and participated in an important measure. I am happy to have had the opportunity to express my personal position. I look forward to the advance of the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has announced that he and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will be bringing forward further to help and support badgers.
      1.27 pm
      Sir Alan Glyn: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the passage of the Bill. It is an example of the compromise that can be reached on the Floor of the House. It is the result of a great deal of work behind the scenes in which, I am sure, the representatives of both sides of the argument have participated. They have succeeded in reaching agreement.
      The hon. Member for Newport, East said that the badger has no enemies in this place. I am sure that many of us have received more letters about badgers than about the Gulf war. It is clear that the country is behind the Bill—I am certainly behind it—and I am glad that we have reached this stage in its consideration. Let us hope that its progress will not be stopped by a general election and that it will be brought to a successful conclusion. Certain small amendments may have to be made to it in another place during its constitutional passage, but I am sure that we shall support any improvement that can be made to the Bill.
      1.28 pm
      Mr. David Amess: I join all hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the passage of the Bill, I extend some credit to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who I know was disappointed by the failure of his Bill last year. I am sure that he will be extremely pleased by the progress so far of the Bill before us.
      Throughout the eight years that I have been an hon. Member we have seemed to spend many hours discussing the welfare of badgers. We have now arrived at a splendid Bill which I hope will shortly receive its Third Reading. I know that some of my colleagues have reservations about the precise details of the measure, and I have no doubt that those in another place will, in their wisdom, ensure that all the concerns which have been expressed during our consideration of the Bill are met.
      Many of my constituents love badgers. Tonight, I shall be joining the badgers at the bottom of my garden in celebrating the passage of the Bill. The toast will be, "The hon. Member for Newport, East."
      1.29 pm
      Mr. Alan Meale: I am delighted to add thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for the hard work that he has undertaken in seeing the Bill through to its final stage here before it goes to another place. I add my thanks to those that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) to those who have worked extremely hard on another Bill that is shortly to come before the House. The measure is intended further to help and support badgers. I thank the Minister of State for the sign that she has given that it will receive Government support when it comes before the House next week. I hope that it will complete all its stages.
      I congratulate all those who have been involved in the Bill, from both sides of the House. Like all those who remained in London today to try to help the Bill through its last stages, I think that we have gained a tremendous boost for those in British society who care about the animal kingdom. Such Bills as this can only be good for the whole of society.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Gaming (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Gaming (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 31 OF THE GAMING ACT 1968
      Amendment proposed: No. 1 in page 1, line 11, after 'premises'. insert
      '(Other than bingo club premises as defined in section 20 of this Act)'.—[Mr. Favell.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
      No. 3, in title, line 3, after 'on', insert 'certain'.
      No. 4, in title, line 4, leave out from 'Act to end.
      1.30 pm
      Mr. John Watts: The Committee that considered the Bill did some very good work in improving its provisions. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) now seeks to undo that good work. The amendments that were carried in Committee were modest in their impact. They would allow working men's clubs and social clubs to have three jackpot machines instead of two, as under existing law, and commercial bingo clubs to have four instead of two.
      Those of us who voted for the amendments in Committee believe that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. We wholeheartedly rejected the assertion of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that jackpot machines were part of hard gaming and that if members of our working men's clubs put 20p in a slot in the hope of winning the princely sum of £150, they were going down the slippery slope to hard gambling. We thought it a nonsense then, and we think it a nonsense now.
      I am sorry that the Home Office appears to have taken the rather prickly view that, because it did not agree in advance that further provisions should be included in the Bill, it will resist them. I should be sorry if, as a result of that, the changes in respect of casinos—which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport supports—must be rejected by the House.
      Speaking for myself and for the clubs that I represent as joint chairman of the all-party group on non-profit-making members' clubs, I cannot accept the amendments that my hon. Friend is trying to make to the Bill, as amended. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in the Lobby to defeat them.
      Mr. Peter Fry: I wish first to declare my interest as consultant to the Bingo Association of Great Britain.
      The amendments counter the two amendments that were passed in Committee. One of the problems is that the whole area of gambling was set out in legislation by a previous Government, and any attempts to amend it have been left to private Members of each House. We all know the difficulties of conducting private Members' business through both Houses.
      It became clear in Committee that the Government have, quite correctly, very strong views and that they feel that the Bill touches on fundamental matters. I ask the Government to appreciate that if they take such a strong hand, the time will come when they must consider
      958
      legislation on gaming as a whole so that the provisions can be put together. It is not entirely satisfactory that we have to rely on the luck of the draw for private Member's legislation, with all the perils of its passage through the House, when the Government take a firm line and have a clear policy.
      The bingo industry has no wish to wreck the Bill. The industry accepts that the casinos are perfectly entitled to put forward their arguments—which we have not heard this afternoon—about why the number of gaming machines or one-armed bandits should be increased. However, it is important that other sections that are affected by the legislation should also reconsider their position. The Bingo Association of Great Britain initially felt on balance that, although it would have liked an increase in the number of machines, it did not want to object to the Bill.
      However, because we believe that it is important to work closely with all the others affected, we talked to the representatives of the clubs. It was decided that if the clubs were likely to seek to increase the number of machines in their premises, the Bingo Association should reassess its view. I am entirely in favour of the clubs supporting such an amendment. They are right to do so in their own interests. In some clubs, the pressure on the two gaming machines is intense and income from the machines may be important to the survival of the club.
      I find it difficult to understand why we seem to get on the hook of believing that it is perfectly moral to have two machines, but immoral to have three or four. I know that it could be argued that once there are three or four, one can then increase the numbers. We do not ask for that. The amendments tabled in Committee were specific. They sought one extra machine for clubs and two extra for bingo halls.
      I also made the point in Committee that, funnily enough, the increase in the number of machines would bring little benefit to the larger clubs owned by big groups such as Bass Leisure or Rank. The vast majority of those clubs prefer to use an alternative machine whose numbers can be increased by an application to the local magistrates.
      Mr. Terry Dicks: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a working-class versus middle-class approach. If one is an Arab, or one has a bow tie or a long frock on—Opposition Members know my views on this—one goes to a gaming club in central London where there are many one-armed bandits. It is different if one belongs to a bingo club or to a working men's club, as people do in my constituency. What is the thinking behind that? What sort of nonsensical attitude are the Government showing on the issue yet again? Surely they should say that we are all equal or, better still, they should give more facilities to people in working men's clubs and bingo halls who are ordinary working-class people. The Government should say to the people with bow ties or long frocks in the gaming clubs in central London that they do not need all the machines because they have more money to use on the gaming tables instead.
      Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend, as usual, puts his point of view graphically and I agree with most of what he says. However, his question should be addressed to our right hon. Friend the Minister rather than to me.

      959
      After the amendments had been agreed in Committee, the Bill would have increased the number of gaming machines in bingo halls. That would not have been taken up in the large halls and by the most prosperous companies in the industry.
      The section of the industry that is concerned is that which is most at risk. I refer to the small clubs, often in small country towns where there may not be any alternative entertainment or relaxation for people who like to go to bingo halls, and who do not like to go to pubs on their own. That especially applies to ladies who are over 40 years of age and who enjoy a flutter in a bingo hall. Various studies have demonstrated the social value of bingo halls to that section of the community. When the Government accepted my Gaming (Amendment) Act 1987, which established the National Game a few years ago, they recognised that point.
      If the clubs that are at most risk financially are not given some form of extra encouragement, they will tend to go out of business, and this type of social activity will disappear in some areas. The Bingo Association of Great Britain merely wants a level and fair playing field. I hope that the Government recognise the differences between the various sectors of gambling. If they do not and they state that they are all the same and that the law will not be revised, they should not be surprised when amendments such as those accepted in Committee are tabled.
      It is perfectly proper for the casinos to make their proposals and for the clubs to do likewise. If those proposals are accepted, the bingo industry is fully entitled to ask for equal treatment. That was the basis of our amendment in Committee and that is why it was accepted.
      I do not wish to wreck the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), but I hope that he understands that I cannot support his amendments. Having won the argument in Committee, I should at least stand by the amendment that I tabled then.
      Mr. Dennis Turner: I declare my interest as a member of the all-party clubs group.
      The amendments tabled in Committee were generous to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). As has been already stated, all that we sought from the Government was fair and non-discriminatory treatment between the clubs, bingo halls and casinos. It is incomprehensible that the Government could not accept those amendments, which were tabled in good faith and accepted by a substantial majority in Committee, as the hon. Member for Stockport would concede. The Government's reasoning in Committee seemed fallacious—that the casinos should be treated differently from clubs and bingo halls for no apparent or justifiable reason. The Minister argued that the recommendations came from the Gaming Board and that the board was prepared to accept an increase in the number of one-arm bandits in casinos.
      On behalf of the clubs committee, we registered the majority of our clubs under the Industrial and Providence Society. If it is argued that the Gaming Board supports the application for an increase in the number of one-arm bandits in casinos, we could argue that the Industrial and Providence Society would equally like an increase in the number of one-arm bandits in clubs. They should be given equal status.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: A classless society.
      Mr. Turner: Exactly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, as did the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). Discrimination exists, and working men's clubs, as well as Conservative, Liberal and Labour clubs and bingo halls where people go for a little pleasure—who can deny them that—should be treated equally so that they can have the facilities that they want.
      Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are prepared to treat all those important entertainment institutions with equity, so that the legislation can be passed to benefit all the interests that we have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government have relented and want to treat everyone fairly. We can then get the legislation through and help the important institutions that we support.
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Tony Favell: May I say at the outset that I have no interest in the British Casino Association. The Bill was introduced by Lord Lisle in another place, and that is why I am dealing with the matter here. Like many punters in casinos, bingo halls and clubs, I am in a no win situation. I have much sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr. Watts), for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). He made a sensible intervention, as usual.
      I have been to casinos—although I do not think that I have ever won—and they are not confined to the nobs. I have seen people from all walks of life playing blackjack and even baccarat, and other games the rules of which I do not understand Casinos are the only places in which people can indulge in hard gaming. There are only about 100 in the United Kingdom. That is why the Gaming Board for Great Britain does not object to an increase in the number of fruit machines in gaming casinos.
      The Gaming Board was set up by the Government when the Gaming Act 1968 was first introduced. It has carried out its functions extremely well. It was feared that the Mafia could come into the country if gaming remained underground or was not supervised properly. I have never heard any criticism of the Gaming Board and the way in which it discharges its functions. Therefore, the Home Office is bound to take its advice seriously.
      The Minister will no doubt confirm that the advice of the Gaming Board is that it is all right for people to engage in hard gaming in a gaming casino. These days, the jackpot from a fruit machine is £250, which is not peanuts. It believes that elsewhere they should be restricted to the present numbers, because otherwise young people and others might be drawn into gambling. I am not an expert on this matter, but the Gaming Board is, and that is its view.
      I am obliged to introduce the amendments to reverse the changes made in Committee, not because I do not have sympathy with what has been said, but simply because the Bill will fail otherwise. I have seen Home Office Ministers on a number of occasions and it has been made clear to me that either we accept two more fruit machines in the gaming casinos and no more elsewhere or the Bill will fail. It is as simple as that. Let us have half a loaf, which is better than none. I ask my hon. Friends to come back next

      961
      year with amendments to deal with premises that are not devoted to hard gaming to see whether they can persuade the Home Office and the Gaming Board.
      Mr. Turner: The argument about young people playing the machines was not advanced in Committee. The Government would not have used that argument because they would have been perfectly aware that if one wants to become a member of a club of the kind that we are talking about, one has to be 18 or over. Therefore, the argument about youngsters playing the machines is irrelevant.
      Mr. Favell: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not an expert. He may be right, but one goes into a gaming casino for one reason only—to indulge in hard gaming. When one joins a cricket, golf, working men's or even a Labour party club the main reason for doing so is not, I hope, to play the fruit machines or to indulge in gambling.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The Government very much welcome the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). He is absolutely right when he says that the Gaming Board for Great Britain was set up under the Gaming Act 1968 to consider such proposals as the increase in the number of jackpot machines. What is in question here is gaming machines. It is, therefore, right that the Gaming Board's role should come into play.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked about how strongly the Government feel about the matter. He also said that if the Government feel so strongly about the amendments that he tabled in Committee, they should reconsider their stance on gaming. That may be a reasonable request, but at present we are considering this Bill. Therefore, the Government are simply putting forward the view that to amend the gaming laws in this way would be unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Fry: I trust that the Government would take a similarly sympathetic view about sensible moves to reform the gaming legislation if a private Member's Bill should be introduced.
      Mrs. Rumbold: It would be up to my hon. Friend to bring forward such suggestion, if he so wished. I do not intend to pre-empt the view of any future Government, but I am sure that they would look carefully at such proposals, if they were made.
      As for the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), the argument that the Government advance is that which influenced the Rothschild royal commission on betting and gaming when it considered the question of casinos versus working men's clubs, bingo clubs and Conservative party clubs. It is not a question of having one set of rules for one type of person and another set for another type of person. The fact is that casinos are different and should be treated differently from bingo and other registered clubs. That fact is underlined by the different regulations, which provide, appropriately, for a different allocation of jackpot machines.
      Mr. Turner: I accept the contention that casinos are different, in the sense that hard gambling takes place on roulette tables, but I do not see how one can make the case that they are different in terms of one-armed bandits. All one-armed bandits are identical, whether they stand in a
      962
      casino, a bingo hall or other club. The people who go into casinos do not put their money into one-armed bandits. They go in for the hard gambling on the roulette tables. I repeat, however, that the one-armed bandit is the same, wherever it stands. That is the best argument, therefore, for treating them all in the same way.
      Mrs. Rumbold: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Casinos in Las Vegas have serried ranks of jackpot machines for hard gambling, whereas people use clubs for different reasons—possibly to take their children or to meet friends—but not for the sole purpose of hard gambling. Jackpot machines in those clubs are restricted, but their principal purpose is not an attraction but very much an aside.
      Mr. Turner: The machines are identical—they all take 10p coins. One does not spend £5 on a machine in a casino but only 10p in a club. It is wrong, therefore, to differentiate between machines. I have never been to Las Vegas, but the cost of playing machines there may be graded. If a machine in a casino cost £5 to play but only 10p in a club, I could understand the Minister making a distinction, but that does not arise. The machines are the same and the cost is the same, so why not treat them the same?
      Mrs. Rumbold: The Gaming Act 1968 provides for two types of gaming machine—jackpots and amusements with prizes. The latter, with their low stake and maximum cash prize of £2·40p or non-monetary prizes of £4·80p, are much more appropriate for clubs and bingo clubs. The maximum prize on jackpot machines is £150. That is hard gaming. There is a difference between clubs and casinos. Bingo is a comparatively soft form of gambling, but there is no doubt what people do at a casino, which is different from the kind of clubs that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East is talking about. One cannot make a comparison; nor can one say that there is discrimination because people can choose where they wish to go.
      Therefore, the Government welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport to reinstate the original provisions of the Bill, whereby casinos will be allowed four jackpot machines instead of two and clubs such as bingo halls and other working men's clubs will be restricted to two.
      Mr. Robin Corbett: I am afraid—I think that the House will share this view—that the Minister is wholly unconvincing. The Government are right to be cautious about increasing people's ability to gamble. I acknowledge the special problem of gambling addiction among extremely young people.
      The so-called amusement arcades in many high streets are not members of an association or federation and are badly supervised. I wish that local authorities had far more powers to refuse or to refuse to renew licences.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—he insists on calling his constituency Bilston, which describes it more accurately—goes to the nub of the problem. He said that fruit machines are the same wherever they are. I accept the Minister's distinction between bingo halls and casinos. Like her, I do not frequent casinos—I may have been in one or two in my life when I have been on holiday—but I cannot believe that someone who crosses the threshold of

      963
      a casino does so merely to play on a fruit machine. As the Minister said, people go there for hard gambling. They may not use the machines while they are there, but that is not the point of the amendment.
      2 pm
      The Minister overlooked the fact that supervision in bingo halls and clubs is not just good but fierce. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East has great experience of that, as do some other hon. Members. I do not mean to criticise that supervision. In my constituency there is an ex-service men's club. I wish that it was a club for everyone who has been in the services, but that is another matter. The security at the entrance to that club is first class. It not only has cameras, but somebody is always on the door to ensure that only members are allowed in. No one could quarrel with the fact that that club is well supervised. I have no doubt that, if youngsters were seen spending a long time and a lot of money on fruit machines—their parents might have gone for a quick snorter so that the children were not properly supervised—responsible members of the club's committee would intervene and talk to the parents.
      Although it would not usually be wrong for the House to overturn decisions taken at Committee stage, it would be so in the case of this Bill. Although I was not party to it, there was an extensive debate aimed at achieving equality of treatment for different gambling places. We have not persuaded the Minister about that. I never thought that I would agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and he doubtless reciprocates that feeling, but he is dead right on this matter. It may be an accident of history—the Act went on the statute book in 1968—but behind the Gaming Board for Great Britain is a hint of suspicion that we are legislating against working people who cannot be trusted as much as the sheikhs who can be found in casinos tonight while Kuwait burns and whose standard of living has not changed a jot or tittle since the dreadful invasion of that country. Gambling places should be treated equally and I am sorry that the Minister denies that. I hope that the House will not support the amendments.
      Mr. Dicks: I find myself in a strange position. We are almost back to the philosophy behind my speech during the arts debate.
      The Home Office Ministers and those who advise them have probably never been in a working men's club or sat in a bingo hall. I have been to many such clubs, including the Conservative club in Hayes and Harlington, and, many years ago, I was a bingo caller. Those who go to such places are average people.
      Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman is in good company because I too used to be a bingo caller—clickety click, 66.
      Mr. Favell: I have also been a bingo caller.
      Mr. Dicks: I was going to say, "Legs 11, two little ducks—quack, quack."
      This is a serious matter for all our friends in the clubs and bingo halls. Why cannot ordinary people who go to bingo halls to play bingo, and who might want a break between one game and another, spend a couple of bob trying to win £250? The same should apply in working men's clubs. It annoys me greatly that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not seem to realise that the people in their bow ties and long skirts do not go to play
      964
      machines in casinos, but for hard gambling. The machines are just an afterthought, along with the coffee and double Scotch that they have when they cannot get a table.
      Knowing that the Prime Minister talks of a classless society—we all accept that—how can my right hon. Friend the Minister give us a class-ridden argument? Why can the Arabs and everybody else go to the best parts of London such as Mayfair and gamble to their hearts' content, but a little old lady who spends £1 to go in and play bingo cannot put another 50p into a one-armed bandit machine?
      Mr. Watts: 20p.
      Mr. Dicks: As my hon. Friend says, why cannot that little old lady spend 20p? Why cannot those who use the Hayes and Harlington conservative club have the same opportunity as those using casinos? Why do they have to wait?
      If my right hon. Friend the Minister is going to argue, she should talk with knowledge and understanding of the position and bear in mind that we are not all from the middle and upper classes. We do not all have first class degrees from Oxbridge and sit in the Home Office giving advice; we are ordinary, working people. We are talking about ordinary, working people—the Prime Minister is an ordinary, working chap. He talks about the classless society. My right hon. Friend the Minister should listen, accept what is happening and allow the ordinary clubs the same facilities and consideration.
      Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend accept that the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister about Las Vegas can hardly apply to working men's clubs and bingo halls when we are talking about an increase of only one or two machines? The position is slightly different.
      Mr. Dicks: I agree that there can be no comparison. When my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that issue I wondered where she had gone in the United States and whether she could name a bingo hall or a working men's club in America. The advice that my right hon. Friend the Minister has received is bad advice. Her comments to the House have been uninformed and class ridden, and I hope that she will reconsider.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: I should like to jump on the same bandwagon as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). I am little upset by some of this morning's suggestions relating to amendments, particularly those made by the Minister. How many times are examples given in this pace of what is done in Europe, Japan and America? I am bothered about what we do here. That should be our first consideration. Other places have the same problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned clip joints. I have never been into one of them, but I have heard about the goings on in them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) talked about security in some places and having to look after this, that and the other, and ensure that everything is all right. But the bandwagon of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is the correct one. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and talked about a classless society. The measure creates a two-tier society—with one thing for the workers and one thing for the big nobs.
      Mr. Skinner: This is all about opted-out one-armed bandits.
      Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend can always come up with the right suggestion or comment straight off the top of his head.
      I am surprised that the Prime Minister talked about a classless society not all that many days ago, and then the Minister stood here this afternoon and went in a different direction. It would seem that the Government are not together—
      Mr. Corbett: Another split.
      Mr. Haynes: Quite right. One half of the Cabinet wants to go to the country, the other half does not. One half wants one-armed bandits in the Cabinet room, the other half does not. They do not know where they are going, do they? But we are here to put them right.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East. Members served on the Committee and did all that hard work and now, in a few moments, the Government are trying to destroy it. We are not going to have it. We will vote on this one—
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend knows only too well that if there were a couple of one-armed bandits in the House of Commons on a Friday they would not make a deal of money.
      Mr. Haynes: I hope that the Minister will not take up that idea. They are talking about having televisions sets in different rooms. If that happens, no one will come in here, and if one-armed bandits are installed Members will not come in even on a Thursday, let alone a Friday. Some of us, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Wolverhampton, South-East, try to come here regularly, but other hon. Members will be spending their time on the one-armed bandits. We cannot have that. I hope that the Minister will ignore that suggestion and will listen to our serious suggestions. I even hope that she will go into the Lobby with us now.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 43.

      Division No. 140]

      [2.11 pm

      AYES

      Arbuthnot, James

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Tredinnick, David

      Cash, William

      Waller, Gary

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Ward, John

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

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Favell, Tony

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Ground, Patrick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Raffan, Keith

      Sir Nicholas Bonsor and Mr. John Bowis.

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dicks, Terry

      Battle, John

      Dixon, Don

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dobson, Frank

      Bottomley, Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Carr, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Cohen, Harry

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Corbett, Robin

      Gordon, Mildred

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      966

      Hardy, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      O'Hara, Edward

      Haynes, Frank

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Holt, Richard

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Watts, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Meale, Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Dennis Turner.

      Nellist, Dave

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      2.21 pm
      Mrs. Rumbold: It may be helpful if I put the Government's view on the Bill. We saw the proposal in the Bill, as originally drafted, to increase, from two to four, the number of jackpot machines permitted in casinos as a modest one which fits well within the established framework of gambling in this country.
      I may be helpful if I set out briefly the provisions on gaming machines. These machines are regulated by part III of the Gaming Act 1968. The Act provides for two types of gaming machine—jackpot machines, which are the subject of this Bill, and amusement-with-prizes machines, that is, the common fruit machine. As their name suggests, amusement-with-prizes machines are primarily intended for amusement, not for gambling, and are therefore widely available, for example, in pubs, amusement arcades and cafes. In fact, there are some 193,000 such machines, the majority of which are located in pubs, as most hon. Members will know. The emphasis on amusement is reflected in the modest prize that may be won—£2·40 in cash or £4·80 in tokens—the low stake-prize ration which is only 1:12 in the case of the cash prize, and in the prize structure, which deliberately provides for a non-monetary prize significantly greater in value than the cash prize.
      Jackpot machines, on the other hand, provide for a much harder form of gambling and are therefore confined to casinos, licensed bingo clubs and members' clubs and miners' welfare institutes registered under the Gaming Act 1986, and anything else registered under the Act. In each case, the Act limits the number of machines to two. There are some 40,000 jackpot machines in circulation—240 in casinos, 400 to 500 in bingo clubs and some 39,000 in registered clubs. Confining these machines to members' clubs, where the public do not have direct access, reflects the nature of the machines. The character of the machines as hard gaming machines is also reflected in the size of the prize—that is £150—which serves to encourage play, the high stake-prize ration of 1:750, the rapidity of play and the absence of any restraints on the length of play. Indeed, although the maximum stake is only 20p, many machines accept a £1 coin for five games, so it is possible to spend relatively large amounts of money in a short time. As many hon. Members will know, it is also possible to become addicted to this form of gambling.
      As long ago as 1978, the Rothschild royal commission on gambling concluded that it was anomalous for premises expressly set aside for hard gaming to be treated on an equal footing with, for example, a village cricket club. By way of remedy, the commission adopted the proposal put

      967
      forward by the British Casino Association that a casino's entitlement to jackpot machines be linked to the number of gaming tables, and recommended a ratio of one machine for every two tables. Such an arrangement is, in our view, no longer practicable.
      Mr. Turner: Will the Minister tell the House whether it is the Government's intention to talk the Bill out and not allow us to vote on Third Reading?
      Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested in the Government's reasons for wishing to support the Bill in its original form. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I should prefer to continue with what I have to say.
      Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is disgraceful. My hon. Friend the member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) asked the Minister whether she was talking the Bill out on behalf of the Government. We can see and we know what is going on. The Minister did not have the decency to say yes or no to my hon. Friend. I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you should challenge the Minister to answer the question. It is an extremely important Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Minister is in order, and that is the sole concern of the Chair.
      Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is normal on Fridays for private Members' Bills to be enacted. Back-Bench Members bring Bills before the House, of their own accord, to be passed. Sometimes, as we all know, Bills can be talked out, especially on a Friday, but it is unusual for the Government to use Ministers to stop Bills. There have been many occasions when Back-Bench Members have done that, but it has not been done by Ministers. Today, it seems that the Government are intervening to prevent the progress of a Bill that they supported. They do not like it because they have been defeated in a Division, and they have the cheek to talk about democracy. The Bill was considered in Committee and it was reported. The Government wanted to change the Bill—it must be remembered that this is a private Member's Bill—and, because they cannot get their own way, they have decided, it seems, to talk it out. It is an unusual practice.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Points of order are taking up time. It would be better if the Minister were able to get on with her speech.
      Mrs. Rumbold: It is important that I explain to the House why the Government feel relatively strongly about the Bill.
      The royal commission's recommendation was made when gaming duty was assessed partly on the number of
      968
      gaming tables, and casino proprietors were under no obligation to notify changes in the number to Customs and Excise. Duty is no longer assessed on that basis. Since 1984, it has instead been assessed on the basis of a casino's gross gaming yield, that is, the amount staked less winnings. Subject only to the available gaming area or any undertaking given the licensing justices, there are now no controls on the number of gaming tables; as a result, entitlement to jackpot machines could vary without notice as a casino proprietor increased or decreased his complement of gaming tables.
      The solution adopted by the British Casino Association, to increase the entitlement to four machines per casino, overcomes this difficulty. Furthermore, by maintaining a reasonable upper limit on the number of machines, the Bill avoids the Las Vegas-style serried ranks of jackpot machines, which were opposed by both the Rothschild royal commission and by the Gaming Board for Great Britain, as alien to the character and atmosphere of casinos in this country.
      The Bill, as originally drafted, quite rightly in our view, maintains the existing limit of two machines for premises other than casinos which are permitted to use jackpot machines. I am referring, of course, to licensed bingo clubs and registered clubs. Such premises are not intended primarily for hard gaming, and so are in many respects less tightly regulated than are casinos. This is particularly true of registered clubs and miners' welfare institutes as I was at pains to point out earlier today. Indeed, a case can be made for removing members' clubs' entitlement to jackpot machines on the grounds that the 1968 Act provides inadequate controls of these clubs. To obtain a licence under the Act, the proprietor must first undergo searching scrutiny by the Gaming Board; the licence is up for renewal annually and there is year-round supervision by the board inspectorate, paid for through a substantial renewal fee.
      Registered clubs have no such regime. The grounds for refusal of registration are closely circumscribed, and registration lasts for five years. That relative absence of control on registered clubs opens up the possibility of fiddling. The Rothschild royal commission identified three possible means of fiddling:
      "(i) The mechanism of the machine may be interfered with to give a lower rate of return than that specified by the manufacturer; or to give an increased rate of return for a short time to stimulate play. Alternatively, a symbol on a reel may just be altered to decrease the chance of a player winning a prize. Those 'adjustments' are not difficult to make but very difficult at present for a player to detect."
      (ii) Someone with—
      It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 17 May.

  Private Members' Bills

    FORESTRY BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    EDUCATION (PUBLICATION OF EXAMINATION RESULTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 July.

    NATIONAL AUDIT (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 June.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STREET LIGHTING) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Bill has not been printed, so I decline to put the Question.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 May.

    ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 May.

    RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME (LONDON) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I decline to put the Question. No day named.

    BAN OF IMPORTS (CHILD LABOUR) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 June.

    GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 June.

    NATIONAL ENTERPRISE (RECONSTRUCTION) BOARD BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I decline to put the Question.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 July.

    RIVER SAFETY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 June.

    VALUE-ADDED TAX (OVERCHARGING) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I decline to put the Question.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 June.

    GARDEN SUPPLIES (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 May.

    LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    FORESTRY COMMISSION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I decline to put the Question.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 June.

    TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 June.

    PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 June.

    COAL IMPORTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 June.

    HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 June.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th May, the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Education may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock, and if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Question necessary to dispose of them.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

    ESTIMATES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee),
    That this House agrees with the Report [7th May] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
    Question agreed to.

  Women (Labour Market)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  2.34 pm
  Ms. Joan Walley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having the opportunity to raise the most important issue of women returning to work. Women throughout the country will be aware of the irony that, on the day when most hon. Members return from work to their homes, it is necessary for me to delay going home for a further day to raise the most important issue of how women can play their full part in the working environment.
  It is also a timely occasion on which to raise the subject because the Prime Minister is about to make a speech—and may already have done so—on a charter for citizens. To what extent has the whole issue of women's rights been incorporated in the Prime Minister's charter?
  In a week in which we have heard from an ex-Prime Minister that
  "Home is where you come to when you have nothing better to do",
  this is a timely occasion on which to raise the issue of women returning to the labour market. I suspect that many women, like myself, want to do their full duty to their children, to their families generally and to their homes and at the same time want an opportunity to continue to work or to return to work with the full rights and benefits that are achieved by our counterparts in other European countries. The issue must be given greater political priority.
  It is also a timely occasion on which to raise the issue because on Tuesday I had the great privilege officially to open an exhibition that was organised by the equal opportunities advisory sub-committee of Staffordshire county council in partnership with the training and enterprise council in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent city council. It was an absolutely magnificent initiative, taken by the Labour-controlled council on behalf of women in Staffordshire. The point of the two-day exhibition, which was called "New Directions", was to encourage women to start to take back their places in the work force.
  I have nothing but praise for the chair of that sub-committee, Councillor Pauline Brownless, because of the way in which she, together with her partners, organised the two-day exhibition. Just as she is asking women in Staffordshire to take on new directions, it is only right that I, as a woman representative of Staffordshire, should raise the issue. Now is the time to say that we have good representation by women in Staffordshire. I am thinking especially of my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal). If the county council, despite cuts in local authority services, is raising the issue, it is time that the Government gave the highest political priority to women returning to work. What is done in Staffordshire can be done only with the full backing of Government.
  The issue is important in terms not only of women wanting to achieve their full potential by returning to work or to avoid living in poverty, but of the current demographic trend. We have information from the National Economic Development Office which shows that, by 1995, 80 per cent. of those returning to work will be women. There will be a net increase of 80 per cent. in

  973
  women returning to work. The current recession may create some slight delay to that trend. In Staffordshire, the current recession has caused many people to be thrown back on to the unemployment queues. None the less, it is important that the county council did not abandon the two-day exhibition because of the recession. The county council recognises that, despite the recession, we have to plan long term for the needs of women.
  I will outline for the Minister's benefit what Staffordshire council and its partners, the TEC and the city council, did. It had a two-day exhibition which was well supported by local industry, by local businesses, by local voluntary organisations and, not least, by the services of Staffordshire county council, such as the fire services, and by the environmental health department of the city council. All those departments give women their full part in terms of higher management positions. They do not merely keep them doing menial, low-paid tasks.
  Child care was available for the women who went to the exhibition, which included seminars, information and advice on training, enterprise and employment throughout the day. Flexible opening hours meant that it was possible for women to fit attending the exhibition into their schedules whether they were at home or at work. Every woman with a child at school in the city received an invitation to the event. It was advertised on a huge scale.
  If more women are to become involved in public life and in the workplace, the first thing is to recognise that we must convince ourselves—and this includes female hon. Members—that we have the confidence to take the next step forward, whatever that may be. The exhibition was therefore about confidence-building for women.
  It was not a two-day exhibition which, once held, would never be heard of again; there is to be a follow-up. The county council is to evaluate fully the issues that arose. Having brought together leading people from industry, local authorities and local voluntary groups, there will now be a group of people to monitor and assess the needs of women locally to improve the desperately needed facilities. That co-ordination to ensure that whatever is needed is provided does not exist at Government level.
  In Staffordshire, we wish to press forward with a number of issues. We want flexible working hours, job-sharing schemes, work-break schemes and term-time contracts. Any woman who holds down a job knows that that is difficult when the children go to school because half-term holidays, school holidays and so-called "Baker days" make nonsense of any arrangements that might have been made. We want child care centres for the under-fives and—the Government referred to this some time ago but, to my knowledge, little came of it—a facility whereby children can stay in the school buildings and be properly looked after until their parents finish work. The initiative of the North Staffordshire health authority is a good example. It has a scheme for children who are on holiday which fits in with their parents' shifts in the hospitals. That makes a great difference to women who want to return to work and a great deal of economic sense bearing in mind the shortage of and the difficulties in recruiting women back to the work force.
  We also wish training to be improved. Our adult training budget in Stoke-on-Trent is completely inadequate for the needs not just of the city but of the whole of
  974
  Staffordshire. I was distressed to receive a letter from the Staffordshire training and enterprise council, which stated that it would be failing in its responsibilities to the local community if it did not set out the implications for its adult programme of the reductions in the budget that it receives from the Government. About 600 training places have been terminated and people who had been taken on to conduct those training responsibilities have been made redundant. That is not the way to get women back to work.
  I should also like to draw attention to the booklet produced by the Minister's Department, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94". One has to search the document very hard to find any reference to gender. I could not find any direct reference to gender or equal opportunities or any help for women wishing to return to work.
  Not only far-sighted Labour-controlled authorities and the local partners who joined in Staffordshire county council's venture have women's interests at heart. It is clear to me from my limited research that some companies assist women who wish to return to work. One such company is ICL, in Kidsgrove in my constituency, which has a large manufacturing plant producing mainframe computers. It has issued a policy statement, "Women's Employment in ICL", and it recognises that the development and retention of existing skills within the work force is important.
  Many professional associations, such as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, have published booklets and given advice and information to women to encourage them to return to work. Many trade unions, such as the Ceramic and Allied Trade Union in Stoke-on-Trent, have women's officers to encourage women who are returning to the work force.
  By contrast, the Government's commitment and proven track record is worrying. There is still no woman in the Cabinet. Britain has the worst maternity pay rights in Europe. There is no reference to gender in the statement from the Department of Education and Science, or in the Government's expenditure plans for the Department of Employment. The Minister should tell us why there is no concerted, co-ordinated attempt to ensure that women's interests are properly taken into account when policies are made.
  This problem applies to all Departments. The Department of Health is rightly being criticised at the moment. Rather than just giving advice on retainer schemes in the public sector, it should have required such schemes to be introduced. I tabled questions at the beginning of the week to find out the Government's view. It was inconvenient because I had to go from one Department to another, not knowing which one had responsibility for what. I wonder how we can find out who is monitoring and evaluating the introduction of retainer schemes in not only the public sector but the private sector.
  Many issues need to be raised, such as part-time work, maternity rights and minimum wage protection. It is scandalous that some women work for only £1·25 per hour as contract clearners and 52p an hour as homeworkers. The Government cut training instead of planning a strategy to enable women to top up their skills and return to work. There is fragmentation and a lack of a coherent strategy.
  There is still a clear distinction between girls' subjects, boys' subjects and integrated subjects in schools.

  975
  Discrimination, no matter how inadvertent, begins at school and may affect future career decisions and act against women.
  The women in Staffordshire who sampled the huge feast of opportunity that was laid on by a partnership of local authorities need Government backing to be able to return to work. The educational and training needs of women are linked with those of the economy. A woman should not be forced to choose between the children whom she loves and the work that she would like to do. In contrast to the Government, the Labour party has a charter for working women. Only when those women who attended the New Directions fair return to work with equal rights, pay and opportunities, and help with child care and looking after dependent relatives, will we have a Government who are prepared to equal the commitment made by Staffordshire county council.
  We do not want decision makers who are out of touch and who pay lip service to women's hopes of fulfilment. We want a co-ordinated strategy and a full charter for women who, as citizens, make up more than 50 per cent. of the population. In the absence of a combined Government strategy, I look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly how he believes that the hopes, aims and ambitions of women in north Staffordshire can be achieved.
  2.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on raising this important issue. I think that she will find that there is common ground between the parties in all parts of the House about its significance. She made a wide-ranging speech. I may not succeed in doing so, but I shall try to take up all her points.
  Women make a crucial contribution to this country's economic wealth. More and more women are, as we know, entering the labour market or, just as importantly—this was one of the themes to which the hon. Lady referred—rejoining it after having had families.
  Let me start with a few simple facts. The hon. Lady mentioned the European Community context. Britain has the second highest participation rate for women in work in the EC, at 61·7 per cent. Only Denmark outranks us, with 75·2 per cent. of their women being economically active. There are, however, more women in employment in the United Kingdom than in any other European Community state. In fact, 44 per cent. of our labour force are women. There are 12 million women in Great Britain who are economically active, and a quarter of small business owners are women. That is a very impressive set of facts. The hon. Lady was inclined on some points to be somewhat critical of the Government's record and of our achievements in Britain, but those facts suggest that we cannot be doing so badly if we compare them with the performance of other countries.
  Why has Britain done relatively well in encouraging the employment of women? The most important factors are, I believe, economic. They have to do with the operation of the market and market forces. That will be the main theme of what I have to say. In fairness to ourselves, however, we must recognise that both local and central Government have played their part in this achievement. I am very
  976
  happy to join the hon. Lady in congratulating Staffordshire county council on what sounds like an excellent and interesting initiative, which I wish well.
  The Government's view, however, is that the most important factor in achieving progress for women's employment lies in the creation and development of a competitive economic environment that encourages job creation. That has been the main thrust of Government policy over the last 10 years. Women have taken full advantage of it. In fact, two thirds of the growth in the size of the labour force between 1984 and 1990 was accounted for by married women. We believe that one of the most important features of the past 10 years has been the growth of enterprise in the United Kingdom, which has led to a significant culture change in the role and participation of women in the economic life of the country.
  We think that self-employment, which has grown enormously under this Government, has a particular appeal for women who want to combine financial independence and career satisfaction while responding—as the hon. Lady said that they should and must—to the ever-changing needs of their families. There has been a vast growth in the numbers of women choosing the self-employed option over the last 10 years. In 1979, there were 373,000 women in that category. In 1990, there were more than 800,000. Women now comprise a quarter of all self-employed people, with more than 200,000 having staff of their own.
  The hon. Lady may think that this is an excessively economist interpretation of the way that progress can be made in female employment. I can assure her that the Government believe that political and legislative action has its place, though I think that there may be some difference between the parties on the importance of political and legislative action. The hon. Lady may, I believe, attach exaggerated weight to the concepts of co-ordination and strategic planning and to the development of political and governmental machinery. I am not sure that that is the way forward for women.
  The hon. Lady recommended that the Government accept the concept of the minimum wage, but that would be detrimental to female employment. She must accept that if she imposes burdens on employers in relation to certain categories of employees, employers may not give them jobs. She may set out with the best of intentions, but their effect may be to damage people's opportunities.
  The Government are fully committed to the principle of equal opportunities employment and to the legislation that gives effect to it. We have continued to work in that spirit. We removed, in the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 and the Employment Act 1989, the outdated restrictions on the hours that women can work and on the work that they can do. They are free to compete equally with men for higher paid jobs, including shift work.
  The hon. Lady referred to training, in which it is important that Government play an active part. More than 60,000 women are being trained under employment training. The hon. Lady was fairly critical of developments in employment training. I have corresponded with her and she understands the shift that we have been trying to make between employment training measures and employment service measures to help unemployed people through the job clubs and the job interview guaranteee scheme. However, those 60,000 women being trained on ET are much more than was achieved by the previous Labour Government. In 1979, only 24,000 women were trained

  977
  under TOPs. Although adjustments are being made, they are from a much higher base than the Labour party achieved in government. More than 350,000 women have been trained since the launch of ET in September 1988, and a higher proportion of new trainees are women than when it began.
  Ms. Walley: Many issues have been raised, but the Minister is overlooking my point about the importance of ensuring that women are able to participate in projects that enable them to get back to work. In 1989, Mrs. Kay Jackson, who was married with three children, was offered a place on employment training but was unable to take it because her allowance and her husband's salary would not have covered the costs of child care. The Government changed the Employment Protection Act 1975, and a case of discrimination that was upheld was subsequently reversed because of that change. That leads me to think that their commitment to equal opportunities is not as straightforward as the Minister suggests.
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Lady knows that there is a time limit on the debate and that responding to her intervention will make it more difficult for me to respond to her speech. I was about to deal with the role of the training and enterprise councils and their flexibility in, for example, payment of child care allowances.
  One of the most important developments in training has been the creation of the training and enterprise councils. I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned them favourably and that there is co-operation between Staffordshire county council and the TEC to which she referred. We have given TECs a clear message in our strategic guidance about the growing importance of women in the work force. The plans of TECs show awareness of that, not only in their main training programmes but in the enterprise allowance scheme, whereby more than a third of enterprise allowance scheme support is given to women, and that has doubled since 1982.
  Staffordshire TEC runs a course, mainly for women, to help to inform career choices. It is running short courses for women returners, often with creches, it has contributed to returners' day exhibitions and it has applied for funds for returners from the European social fund, which is rather innovative. There are several other examples of what TECs are doing, such as the issuing of women returners' newsletters, the setting up of returners' units by Essex TEC, action in Thames Valley TEC for retraining women in sales and marketing and action by Tyneside TEC, East Lancashire TEC, the Heart of England TEC and the Hertfordshire TEC.
  A great deal is being done by TECs in different ways to promote the opportunity for women to return to work. However, as I said in response to the hon. Lady's intervention, the Government are setting a flexible framework for TECs to decide the real needs of women returning to work in their areas. We are allowing for women returners to enter employment training, even though they may not have been registered as unemployed. That is an element of flexibility. We are allowing part-time training and have given TECs greater flexibility in the payment of child care allowances while retaining the
  978
  principle that child care allowances are mandatory for the long-term unemployed who need it under the Government's guarantee.
  Another crucial subject to which the hon. Lady referred was working practices. Ultimately, the question of the opportunity for women to return to work will be largely determined by what happens in the workplace, particularly employers' policies. The hon. Lady mentioned many ways in which employers can adapt working practices to make it easier for employees—men as well as women—to combine work and family responsibilities, such as job sharing, career breaks, part-time work, using new technology, and so on. I am happy to join her in paying tribute to ICL in that context.
  The Government believe that it is for employers to judge what best suits their circumstances. Many employers are taking a lead in adopting flexible working practices. For example, the civil service, which is a major employer, is setting a good example by spreading good practice. My Department will shortly publish a booklet that will illustrate working examples of innovative schemes and the benefits that they have brought to employees and their families.
  I note what the hon. Lady said about child care. The Government believe that employers should be encouraged to recognise that child care assistance for their employees is an important way to recruit and retain the staff that they need. That is best done by voluntary action to ensure that employers find an appropriate way to match their needs with parents' requirements for child care. The Government's role is primarily regulatory to ensure higher standards, but we have been encouraging additional provision for good quality child care—for example, through the concession in the 1990 budget to exempt employer-provided nurseries from tax. That exemption goes wider than is often appreciated. It extends beyond the workplace—a fact which is often misunderstood—to nurseries run by employers at the workplace or elsewhere, and to nurseries run by employers jointly with other employers, voluntary bodies or local authorities. The provision is flexible and should be more widely taken up.
  Comparisons are often made between this country's performance on child care and that of other countries in the European Community. We have a different pattern of child care provision, with a greater mixture of private, public and voluntary sector provision for children of all ages, and we do not do too badly. The strength of our variety is reflected in the fact that about 86 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in Britain are in education and day care, which places us near the top of the European league table of comparisons.
  I hope that the hon. Lady referred to part-time work, because it is one of the most important areas of opportunity for women returners. Its growth was one of the most striking phenomena in the 1980s. It has increased by 34 per cent. since 1983 and is often a welcome form of flexible work for women who want to combine work with family responsibilities. It will be an increasingly important option in the 1990s. Research by the Confederation of British Industry suggests that 80 per cent. of women who wish to return to work in the next five years will look for part-time work. The labour force survey that my Department conducts shows that a high proportion of women who work part time do not want a full-time job.

  979
  Indeed, only 7 per cent. said that they did. The evidence shows that the vast majority of part-time workers work part time because they prefer to do so.
  The hon. Lady did not mention the European Community's part-time and temporary work directives, which fall under the heading of some of the well-intentioned political and legislative actions that can be detrimental and damaging. They would increase the
  980
  financial and administrative burdens on businesses, especially small ones, which is why we are resisting those proposals—
  The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at four minutes past Three o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  RECHAR
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to meet the requirements of the European Commissioner to allow additional spending with regard to RECHAR; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for Northern Ireland, for Wales and for Scotland, and other Ministers, met Mr. Bruce Millan, European Commissioner with responsibility for regional policies, on 25 April to discuss issues relating to the Community's structural funds.

  The proposed RECHAR programmes of grants for United Kingdom coalfield areas were one of the subjects discussed. The meeting helped reduce the misunderstanding there has been about the additionality of Community grants. We remain in touch with the Commission and hope that agreement will now soon he reached to enable these useful programmes to proceed.

  Consumers' Deposits
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to ensure that deposits paid by consumers for goods or services are held in trust so that in the event of a company going into receivership, liquidation or bankruptcy. the deposit will be refunded to the consumer.

  Mr. Leigh
  We have no plans to introduce such legislation. The Government accepted the view of the Insolvency Law Review Committee that compulsory trust accounts would add to the costs and prices of businesses and would be detrimental to the interests of ordinary creditors. The Director General of Fair Trading is, however, continuing to keep this area under review, and we shall give careful consideration to any recommendations he may make.

  Stormseal
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make an application against Mike and Mark Sweeney, formerly directors of Stormseal and now directors of Sure Style, under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, having particular regard to any responsibility they may have had for the Stormseal company becoming insolvent.

  Mr. Redwood
  Stormseal UPVC Window Co. Ltd. was one of a group of six companies that went into administrative receivership on 4 January 1991 and were controlled by brothers Mark and Michael Sweeney. Subsequently on 27 March 1991 winding-up orders were made against Stormseal arid one other company Stirfront 596
  Ltd. and the official receiver at Manchester is dealing with their affairs. Both the administrative receiver and the official receiver have a responsibility under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to consider the conduct of the directors and report any matters to the Secretary of State which they consider makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.

  An initial report is required to be submitted within six months of the appointment of the administrative receiver, but it is understood that the complexity of the affairs of the Stormseal group makes it unlikely that a full report will be able to be prepared by June 1991. On receipt of the full reports from the administrative receiver and the official receiver, the Secretary of State will consider whether it is appropriate to apply for disqualification of the said directors or any other persons involved in the affairs of the group.

  National Film Commission
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to take a decision on the film industry's proposal for a national film commission.

  Mr. Leigh
  I am happy to announce that the Government have decided to invite Sydney Samuelson to establish a United Kingdom film commission to promote the United Kingdom as a place to make films and that the commission will receive grants from the DTI totalling £3·5 million over the next four years. The Department will discuss with the commission detailed terms and conditions.

  Industry Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the discussions which took place in the EC Industry Council on 29 April.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The Industry Council meeting on 29 April, which Lord Hesketh attended for the United Kingdom, discussed Commission communications on the European electronics and information technology industry, the biotechnology industry and the future of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. The Council also discussed Community policy on small and medium-sized enterprises and adopted a resolution reaffirming the Council's commitment to promoting the creation and development of small firms throughout the European Community.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what proposals he has to privatise Post Office Counters Ltd;

  (2) what preparations Post Office Counters Ltd. is making for privatisation;

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the re-establishment of a sub-post office at Newhill, near Rotherham; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is his policy on the provision of sub-post offices.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 May 1991]: The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we remain fully committed to the maintenance of a network of post offices adequate to enable the Post Office

  597
  to fulfil its statutory duty to have regard to economy and efficiency, and to the social, commercial and industrial needs of the United Kingdom. I am satisfied that in managing its network of post offices the Post Office is fully meeting these obligations.

  We have at present no plans for the privatisation of the Post Office. Girobank has been successfully transferred to the private sector, but no other decisions have been taken.

  It has been the policy of successive Governments since the establishment of the Post Office as a public corporation in 1969 that decisions concerning aspects of the day-to-day running of the postal business, such as those relating to the level of service provision available in particular areas, are the operational responsibility of the Post Office Board. The Government's role in Post Office matters is confined to broad issues of general policy and to matters of overall control.

  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations concerning the re-establishment of a sub-post office at Newhill, Rotherham.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Zoological Society
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when grants were first made to the Zoological Society of London in connection with scientific research; what has been the total grant paid to date; and what is the proposed grant for the current financial year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department of the Environment first provided funds specifically for the society's Institute of Zoology of £.1·3 million in 1988–89. Responsibility for public funding of the institute was transferred to my Department through the Universities Funding Council and the university of London in April 1989. The transfer was accompanied by an increase in public funding through the UFC in respect of the university of London of £1·3 million in the 1989–90 financial year and £1·4 million in the subsequent two financial years. The actual level of funding for the institute is strictly a matter for the university of London. In addition, the institute received grants from the research councils and the Royal Society of £0·5 million in 1989–90.

  Humanities (Postgraduate Studentships)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the recent change in the arrangements for the administration of the postgraduate state studentship scheme in the humanities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Since 1984 the British Academy has administered the national scheme for postgraduate studentships in the humanities on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Full responsibility for the scheme was transferred to the academy which, with effect from the beginning of this financial year, administers it in its own right. It continues to receive funds for this purpose from my Department.

WALES

  Regional Policy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement following his discussion with the Commissioner for regional policy of the European Community held on 15 April.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and other ministerial colleagues, I met European Commissioner Millan on 25 April.

  We discussed a wide range of European structural fund matters. Commissioner Millan assured me that a decision on the Dyfed-Gwynedd-Powys integrated development operation programme would be made shortly.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The readily available information about the appointments for which I am responsible, a number of which will fall to be made in 1991 and 1992, is in "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to institute a review of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Given the proposed changes in the education service, I think that this is an opportune moment to conduct an in-depth review of the role and structure of Her Majesty's inspectorate in Wales. I am putting in hand arrangements for such a review.

THE ARTS

  Paisley Pattern
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to fund a heritage centre to show the history of and to promote the sale of articles in the paisley pattern; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I have no plans to fund such a heritage centre. My funding responsibility does not extend to museums in Scotland, where I assume that such a centre would be based.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passport Service
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be in a position to reply to the correspondence of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon requesting a passport for Mrs. Williams of Blaengwynfi, Port Talbot.
  599
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I wrote to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about this matter on 22 January. Unfortunately, he does not appear to have received the letter. My office has now forwarded a further copy which I trust he has received.

  Gloucester Prison
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the ratio of prison staff to inmates at Gloucester prison for each of the last three years; and what was the comparable figure in the five prisons nearest to it in size.

  Officers per inmate

  1 April 1988

  1 April 1989

  1 April 1990

  1 April 1991

  Gloucester

  0·45

  0·45

  0·44

  0·48

  Bedford

  0·50

  0·54

  0·56

  0·68

  Shrewsbury

  0·33

  0·44

  0·42

  0·53

  Leicester1

  0·49

  0·54

  0·63

  0·70

  Reading

  0·40

  0·51

  0·56

  0·55

  Swansea

  0·39

  0·51

  0·57

  0·53

  1 Including special unit.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he considers to be appropriate profit levels in privately run penal establishments.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will take a view on what profit levels are appropriate when considering bids for the operation of Wolds remand prison. The profit level in any agreed contract would, however, be regarded as commercially confidential.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to provide for the proper training of managers, social workers and guards in privately run penal establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The director and other custodial staff of any contracted-out prison would require training to a level specifically approved by my right hon. Friend. The training requirement for Wolds remand prison is set out in schedule 3(b ) of the tender documents and is available in the Library. Any social workers engaged by contractors would require the qualifications of their profession.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners he expects to be situated in privately run penal establishments by 31 December 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On present plans the management of Wolds remand prison, which will hold some 300 prisoners, would be contracted out in 1992. No decisions have yet been taken about any extension of contracting out. Any such proposals would be subject to parliamentary approval in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill.

  River Tweed (Boats)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any proposals for bye-laws to be confirmed relating to the launching of boats in the River Tweed in the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed.
  600
  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 1 April 1991, the ratio of prison officers to inmates in local prisons, including principal and senior officers but excluding female establishments, ranged from 0·34 to 0·71 officers per inmate. This variation reflects differences in workload, scale and the particular facilities contained in establishments.

  Over the past three years, the ratios at Her Majesty's Prison Gloucester and at the five local prisons nearest to it in size, by number of inmates, were as follows:

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Haslar Project
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he has withdrawn the Home Office grant for the Haslar project concerned with refugees.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 3 May at column 340.

  Somalis
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the Merseyside immigration unit to discuss the number of Somalis who are seeking to join their family in Liverpool.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend and I do not consider that a meeting at this time would be productive. If there are any particular problems of concern to the Merseyside immigration and advice unit, we should be happy to consider any written representation it wishes to make.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Somali citizens are seeking settlement in(a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside at the latest date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is of the number of Somali nationals granted settlement in the United Kingdom, figures for which are published in table 15 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1989"—Cmnd. 1124—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average waiting time for Somali refugees to join their relatives in Liverpool at the most recent date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time between receipt of an application in the asylum division and a decision is 16 months.
  601
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to improve replies from Lunar house to solicitors and community bodies concerning Somalis seeking settlement in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Because of very large-scale increases in the number of asylum applications from Somalis and other nationalities and the concession operated by the Government for Somalis seeking to join their families in this country, a large amount of work continues to be generated in the asylum division of the immigration and nationality department. On 26 April my right hon. Friend announced a nearly fivefold increase in staff resources for this division. It will take time to recruit and train such a large number of additional staff, but I would expect that in due course decisions will be able to be taken more quickly than at present.

  Breathalysers
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions, advice or other forms of commercial or contractual restrictions have been issued by his Department to the manufacturers or distributors of breathalysers in the United Kingdom on the retail supply of such devices to the public; and if he will list the respective authorities on which they are based.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No such instructions have been issued.

  Asylum
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) if he will list by nationality the numbers of nationals seeking asylum in the United Kingdom whose applications have been outstanding for(a) one month, (b) six months, (c) 12 months, (d) 18 months and (e) 24 months; and, of these, how many are in detention;

  (2) if he will list the number of asylum seekers by nationality detained at (a) Hardmondsworth, (b) Haslar and (c) HM prisons for a period in excess of (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) three months, (iv) four months, (v) five months, (vi) six months and (vii) seven months.

  Table B: Asylum applicants detained1, by nationality, place of detention and length of detention

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  Harmondsworth1

  Haslar2

  Her Majesty's prisons2

  Total

  (i) Detained for between one and two months

  Angolan

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Bangladeshi

  5

  —

  7

  12

  Colombian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Gambian

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Ghanaian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Indian

  —

  1

  4

  5

  Nigerian

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Pakistani

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Turkish

  —

  1

  6

  7

  Zairois

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Nationality doubtful

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  8

  5

  23

  36

  (ii) Detained for between two and three months

  Albanian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Angolan

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Bangladeshi

  5

  —

  1

  6

  602
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: A breakdown by nationality of the number of asylum applications which have currently been awaiting a decision for less than 12 months is not readily available because of delays in recording. Approximate estimates of applications awaiting a decision for between 12 and 24 months are given in table A. Reliable information on cases outstanding for more than 24 months is not available.

  Available information on asylum applicants detained is given in table B. No applicants currently detained have been in detention for more than 18 months.

  Table A

  Approximate estimates1 2 of asylum applicants awaiting a decision in the United Kingdom for between 12 and 24 months, by nationality and length of time outstanding

  Number of persons

  Outstanding for between 12 and 18 months3

  Outstanding for between 18 and 24 months3

  Angolan

  160

  110

  Bangladeshi

  10

  *

  Colombian

  20

  5

  Czechoslovakian

  *

  15

  Ethiopian

  220

  155

  Ghanaian

  320

  150

  Indian

  555

  280

  Iranian

  65

  95

  Iraqi

  50

  35

  Lebanese

  10

  5

  Libyan

  *

  10

  Pakistani

  280

  40

  Polish

  5

  10

  Seychellois

  10

  10

  Somalian

  125

  150

  South African

  10

  5

  Sri Lankan

  1,415

  650

  Sudanese

  95

  60

  Turkish

  210

  345

  Ugandan

  465

  250

  Zairois

  750

  270

  Other and unknown nationality

  210

  170

  GRAND TOTAL

  4,990

  2,810

  1 As at 26 April 1991. Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with '*' = less than 3.

  2 Including associated dependants.

  3 Figures for African countries may understate because of delays in recording applications: those for other countries may overstate, because of under-recording of decisions made earlier.

  603

  Nationality

  Harmondsworth2

  Haslar2

  Her Majesty's prisons2

  Total

  Colombian

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Ethiopian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Ghanaian

  8

  3

  —

  11

  Guyanan

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Indian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Iraqi

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Nigerian

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Turkish

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Zairois

  2

  1

  —

  3

  Total

  17

  11

  4

  32

  (iii) Detained for between three and four months

  Algerian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Angolan

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Bulgarian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Egyptian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Ghanaian

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Indian

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Iranian

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Lebanese

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Romanian

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Sri Lankan

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Turkish

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  3

  3

  8

  14

  (iv) Detained for between four and five months

  Algerian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Angolan

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Ghanaian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Turkish

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Zairois

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Total

  1

  2

  3

  6

  (v) Detained for between five and six months

  Ghanaian

  —

  —

  6

  6

  Indian

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Nigerian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  —

  1

  7

  8

  (vi) Detained for between six and seven months

  Bangladeshi

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Ghanaian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Pakistani

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Zairois

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Total

  2

  3

  2

  7

  (vii) Detained for between seven and twelve months

  Angolan

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Colombian

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Ghanaian

  —

  5

  —

  5

  Jordanian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Turkish

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Zairois

  1

  1

  4

  6

  Total

  2

  10

  4

  16

  (viii) Detained for longer than twelve months

  Ghanaian

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1Persons detained, as at 26 April 1991, solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work. For the latter, the figures exclude persons whose asylum application was refused but who remained in detention.

  2Any asylum applicant detained for longer than one month is held in one of these locations.

  604

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many administrative staff are currently in post at the Football Licensing Authority; how many more administrative staff it is planned to appoint; and what will be the time scale of such appointments.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 May 1991]: The number of staff employed by the Football Licensing Authority is a matter entirely within the authority's own discretion. I understand, however, that seven administrative staff are currently in post, and that, while there are no current plans to increase that number, the position will be kept under review.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Director of Works
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed as representing the House of Commons Commission, how much has been paid to headhunters Saxton Bampfylde for the process of selecting a Director of Works for the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Beith
  £20,871·86.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to make an official visit to the Paisley, South constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so. I am visiting Scotland today to attend the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association conference.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet representatives of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 18 April 1991 at columns 568–69.

  Press Office
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the criteria used to govern the activities of his press office; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My press office operates under the same rules as govern the activities of other civil servants—namely, the civil service pay and conditions of service code and the December 1987 Armstrong note on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers. Information officers are involved, as a proper part of their duties, in the processes of presentation of Government policies and decisions.

  Economic Regions
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) which Minister is responsible for keeping under review the relevance of the boundaries of the economic regions; and what is the procedure for altering those boundaries;

  (2) whether he will publish a table showing which departments (a) collect or publish statistics based on the economic regions and (b) allocate grants, wholly or in part, on a regional basis, using the economic regions for such allocations, and statistics based on such regions.

  The Prime Minister
  In considering any proposal to alter the boundaries of the 11 standard regions of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State for the Environment would take the lead in consultation with colleagues.

  A large number of Departments collect or publish statistics based on standard regions. "Regional Trends 25" (HMSO) brings together a very wide range of such statistics and attributes them to the appropriate departmental sources. It is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Grants are not allocated, wholly or in part, on the basis of standard regions in England.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the recent Antarctic meeting in Madrid.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government warmly welcome the outcome of the Madrid meeting and hope that the draft protocol tabled there will provide the basis for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment which has always been the Government's objective.

  Of particular importance are the provisions for a ban on mineral activity for 50 years, and mechanisms for a review of the ban after 50 years, or before if everyone agrees. The results of these provisions would be that there can never be mining in Antarctica unless all the present consultative parties agree.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the number of persons employed by the Northern Ireland Office in Northern Ireland and the areas of Northern Ireland from which they are drawn, the number of Roman Catholics, the number of Protestants and the number of others and the religious composition of the population of the areas from which the persons are drawn between the ages of 18 and 64 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A significant proportion of the home civil service staff employed in the Northern Ireland Office in Northern Ireland are from Great Britain. They were educated outside Northern Ireland and their community background has not been determined. It would not be appropriate to provide the information sought.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the number of persons employed by the civil service in Northern Ireland, the areas of Northern Ireland from
  607
  which they are drawn, the number of Roman Catholics, the number of Protestants and the number of others, the religious composition of the areas from which they are drawn in the age group 18 to 64 years and the religious composition of the Northern Ireland population in the same age group.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers and composition in terms of the community background of Northern Ireland civil servants are given in a regular series of reports issued by the Northern Ireland civil service's equal opportunities unit, the most recent of which was published during October 1989. Copies of this and the two previous reports are in the Library.

  The third report, besides giving information about the numbers and community background of Northern Ireland civil servants, also gave an estimate as to labour availability. For this it drew on the continuous household survey for the years 1985 to 1987 regarding economically active persons aged 16 and over. Details for the age group 18 to 64 are not readily available. The table gives the relevant information.

  Percentage Protestant

  Percentage Roman Catholic

  Percentage Others

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  55·3

  34·5

  10·2

  Economically active population estimate

  60·9

  35·5

  3·6

  In the main, the Northern Ireland civil service recruits on a Northern Ireland basis. The community background of successful candidates plays no part in determining where such candidates are posted. For this reason, it has not been considered appropriate to monitor applications and/or appointments other than on a Northern Ireland basis. Information regarding the community background of staff based on the areas of Northern Ireland from which they are drawn is not therefore available. Such analyses could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia (Peace Plan)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on additions to the permanent five peace plan for Cambodia, proposed recently by Japan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcome Japan's active involvement in the peace process. We are carefully considering the Japanese proposals concerning the ceasefire arrangements and measures to prevent the recurrence of genocide, although both the state of Cambodia and China have expressed reservations.

TRANSPORT

  Breathalysers
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now take steps to permit and encourage the advertising and retail sale of self-testing breathalyser devices and procedures.
  608
  Mr. Chope
  Those wishing to advertise and sell self-testing breathalyser devices are free to do so. As in any commercial endeavour, the demands of the marketplace are likely to provide the most effective form of encouragement.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Solicitors Complaints Bureau
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Attorney-General how many complaints have been received about the legal profession from judges, lawyers, members of the public and the lay observer during the past 12 months; and what assessments he has made of the efficiency of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not available in the form requested. The responsibility for any assessment of the efficiency of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau lies with the Law Society.

  The Government responded to disquiet about the handling of complaints about the legal profession by establishing under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 the office of Legal Services Ombudsman, to be independent of government and the profession, and to have a wider range of powers than the lay observer whom he replaced. The Legal Services Ombudsman will present an annual report to the Lord Chancellor which will be laid before Parliament.

DEFENCE

  Efficiency Exercise Incentive Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has issued on the uses to which money awarded under the Department's efficiency exercise incentive scheme can be put; and how the expenditure of such moneys is monitored.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Guidance was issued to management areas about the way money awarded under the Department's trial efficiency incentive scheme was to be used. The guidelines stated that the scheme was intended to provide as much flexibility as possible on the type of project on which a management area chose to spend its reward, provided that the project did not breach Treasury guidelines and complied with departmental instructions on propriety and value for money; and that the project should benefit the defence community as a whole and/or contribute to its future efficiency. Proposals for projects on which management areas wished to spend their rewards were required to be approved by the relevant service executive committee member, commander-in-chief or the chief of defence procurement, and also by the relevant senior finance officer. Details were reported to a central point where the expenditure could be monitored against the sums awarded.

  NATO
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how and when he expects to make known to the House the results of NATO's review of its role, force levels and the deployment of allied forces in Europe, following the end of the cold war and east-west agreement on conventional forces.
  609
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Work on NATO's strategy review is continuing. We will keep the House informed.

  NGOs (Appointments)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to "Public Bodies 1990" issued by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service in December 1990; pages 12 to 14 list Ministry of Defence appointments. Relevant information is also in "Public Appointments: a Handbook for Women's Organisations", pages 31 to 37, published by the Women's National Commission. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Buccaneer and Tornado Aircraft
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, on completion of his assessment of the performance of RAF equipment in Operation Desert Storm, he will make a statement on the operational benefits, including target identification and accuracy, of Buccaneer and Tornado aircraft working together.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The performance of all aircraft and equipment used in the Gulf is still being evaluated. We have not yet decided how the results of this work might he made public.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to order Sea King helicopters to replace or supplement older helicopters in the search and rescue role; and when he will announce his decision on replacement search and rescue aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Although the Wessex continues to make a valuable contribution to the search and rescue service, we are examining the case for its replacement as part of the MOD's normal equipment planning process. An announcement will be made once a decision is taken.

HEALTH

  Cryptosporidiosis
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current incidence of cryptosporidiosis in the Battersea area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An increased number of cases of cryptosporidiosis has been reported from the Wandsworth area. A detailed investigation into the cause of the increase is being conducted by the local consultant in communicable disease control with the support of the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  Severely Disabled People
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives from disability organisations on the need to secure future local authority payments to severely disabled people to enable them to make their own personal assistance arrangements.
  610
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have had several such discussions, most recently at a meeting with the Spinal Injuries Association in March.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is still his policy to retain the legal prohibition on local authorities from making payments to severely disabled people to employ their own personal care assistants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  During the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the Government gave careful consideration to an amendment to allow local authorities to make payments direct to those in need of services, but decided not to do so because of the difficulties in determining which clients would be eligible for direct payments and in controlling costs. However, our guidance stresses the need for disabled people to be fully involved in decisions about the care which they need and points out that there is no reason why a disabled person who wants to have day-to-day management of his or her carers should not do so.

  Hip Fractures
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of hospital episodes for hip fractures distinguishing between men and women, and women aged over 75 years nationally and in each health authority region, in each year since 1980; and what is his estimate of the total annual national cost of these procedures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: Information is given in the table about the estimated numbers of discharges and deaths from 1980 to 1985 and finished consultant episodes between 1987–88 and 1989–90 for hip fractures. Information is not available centrally on the total annual national cost of these procedures.

  Estimated numbers of discharges and deaths (1980 to 1985) and finished consultant episodes (1987–88 to 1989–90)

  where principal diagnosis was ICD 820: Fracture of neck or femur by RHA of residence

  1980

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  8,750

  21,874

  30,511

  Northern

  698

  1,212

  1,797

  Yorkshire

  637

  1,766

  2,362

  Trent

  965

  2,352

  2,968

  East Anglia

  370

  791

  1,130

  North West Thames

  513

  1,119

  1,736

  North East Thames

  709

  1,715

  2,270

  South East Thames

  750

  2,136

  2,845

  South West Thames

  606

  1,766

  2,331

  Wessex

  462

  1,469

  1,920

  Oxford

  308

  637

  1,027

  South Western

  606

  2,105

  2,896

  West Midlands

  924

  2,300

  3,420

  Mersey

  257

  791

  1,253

  North Western

  945

  1,715

  2,557

  1981

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  8,904

  22,409

  30,670

  Northern

  541

  1,234

  1,846

  Yorkshire

  663

  1,897

  2,499

  Trent

  918

  2,601

  3,346

  East Anglia

  275

  949

  1,224

  611

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  North West Thames

  592

  1,010

  1,469

  North East Thames

  704

  1,683

  2,244

  South East Thames

  877

  2,152

  2,887

  South West Thames

  592

  1,703

  2,275

  Wessex

  581

  1,387

  1,805

  Oxford

  214

  918

  1,244

  South Western

  571

  1,703

  2,295

  West Midlands

  989

  2,346

  3,335

  Mersey

  530

  969

  1,397

  North Western

  857

  1,856

  2,805

  1982

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  8,994

  23,095

  31,835

  Northern

  590

  1,516

  2,218

  Yorkshire

  743

  1,913

  2,686

  Trent

  1,119

  2,452

  3,256

  East Anglia

  346

  987

  1,445

  North West Thames

  539

  1,302

  1,811

  North East Thames

  733

  1,608

  2,320

  South East Thames

  804

  2,035

  2,706

  South West Thames

  712

  1,852

  2,381

  Wessex

  366

  1,292

  1,923

  Oxford

  315

  926

  1,201

  South Western

  529

  1,730

  2,269

  West Midlands

  1,058

  2,635

  3,602

  Mersey

  387

  997

  1,424

  North Western

  753

  1,852

  2,594

  1983

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  9,157

  24,277

  33,032

  Northern

  494

  1,483

  2,235

  Yorkshire

  834

  2,122

  2,719

  Trent

  1,123

  2,709

  3,708

  East Anglia

  309

  1,236

  1,710

  North West Thames

  474

  1,277

  1,720

  North East Thames

  721

  1,813

  2,575

  South East Thames

  772

  2,070

  2,812

  South West Thames

  505

  1,648

  2,163

  Wessex

  556

  1,514

  2,029

  Oxford

  288

  834

  1,009

  South Western

  814

  1,936

  2,482

  West Midlands

  1,112

  2,297

  3,389

  Mersey

  546

  1,092

  1,483

  North Western

  608

  2,245

  2,997

  1984

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  8,450

  25,256

  33,541

  Northern

  596

  1,521

  2,107

  Yorkshire

  555

  1,943

  2,631

  Trent

  802

  2,703

  3,454

  East Anglia

  493

  1,203

  1,562

  North West Thames

  473

  1,511

  2,015

  North East Thames

  514

  1,953

  2,601

  South East Thames

  586

  2,446

  3,094

  South West Thames

  565

  1,758

  2,292

  Wessex

  545

  1,614

  2,087

  Oxford

  319

  730

  1,038

  South Western

  555

  2,015

  2,703

  West Midlands

  1,182

  2,344

  3,392

  Mersey

  411

  1,367

  1,747

  North Western

  853

  2,148

  2,817

  612

  1985

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  9,700

  26,272

  34,703

  Northern

  609

  1,496

  2,177

  Yorkshire

  867

  2,301

  3,106

  Trent

  939

  2,827

  3,508

  East Anglia

  351

  1,125

  1,538

  North West Thames

  578

  1,269

  1,847

  North East Thames

  887

  2,023

  2,590

  South East Thames

  640

  2,353

  3,106

  South West Thames

  702

  1,713

  2,270

  Wessex

  609

  1,507

  1,981

  Oxford

  258

  929

  1,218

  South Western

  774

  2,126

  2,745

  West Midlands

  1,218

  3,085

  3,890

  Mersey

  454

  1,383

  1,744

  North Western

  815

  2,136

  2,982

  1987–881

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  9,055

  25,049

  32,707

  1988–89

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  8,677

  25,722

  33,371

  Northern

  513

  1,309

  1,702

  Yorkshire

  514

  1,462

  1,936

  Trent

  989

  2,506

  3,215

  East Anglia

  388

  1,173

  1,464

  North West Thames

  572

  1,824

  2,369

  North East Thames

  678

  2,027

  2,750

  South East Thames

  772

  2,298

  2,839

  South West Thames

  535

  1,829

  2,329

  Wessex

  575

  2,263

  2,779

  Oxford

  252

  878

  1,235

  South Western

  840

  2,697

  3,354

  West Midlands

  825

  2,306

  3,078

  Mersey

  463

  1,252

  1,646

  North Western

  765

  2,264

  3,047

  1989–90

  Male

  Female

  All ages

  Over 75

  All ages

  England

  10,303

  30,295

  38,622

  Northern

  752

  1,919

  2,515

  Yorkshire

  627

  1,944

  2,478

  Trent

  939

  3,022

  3,832

  East Anglia

  491

  1,366

  1,780

  North West Thames

  782

  2,177

  2,846

  North East Thames

  940

  2,467

  3,210

  South East Thames

  800

  3,146

  3,848

  South West Thames

  608

  2,174

  2,623

  Wessex

  725

  2,660

  3,304

  Oxford

  390

  1,094

  1,381

  South Western

  767

  2,014

  2,424

  West Midlands

  953

  2,837

  3,588

  Mersey

  574

  1,477

  1,940

  North Western

  1,000

  2,229

  2,917

  1 Data for 1987–88 are not available centrally by region of residence.

  Notes:

  Date for 1986 are not available.

  The figures for 1987–88 onwards are provisional estimates based on incomplete date and may be subject to revision when ongoing analysis has been completed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Claims
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current figures in(a) numbers and (b) time involved in waiting for claims to be dealt with; and what were the figures 12 months ago.

  Month ending 31 March 1991

  Month ending 31 March 1990

  Benefit

  Number received

  Average clearance (days)1

  Number received

  Average clearance (days)1

  Income support

  352,299

  5

  298,705

  5

  Sickness/Invalidity

  88,867

  8

  90,391

  9

  Retirement pension

  47,128

  19

  46,407

  21

  Family credit

  81,696

  73 per cent, within 20 days

  77,694

  —

  Invalid care allowance

  5,683

  35

  5,342

  40

  Severe disablement allowance

  764

  32

  707

  32

  War disablement pension

  3,277

  37 per cent, within 125 days

  3,573

  36 per cent, within 125 days

  War widows pension

  508

  63 per cent. within 50 days

  401

  64 per cent, within 50 days

  Attendance allowance

  39,264

  42

  39,208

  42

  Mobility allowance

  21,079

  50

  23,916

  35

  Child benefit straightforward claims

  37,431

  96 per cent, within 5 days

  42,879

  100 per cent, within 5 days

  non-straightforward claims

  27,152

  82 per cent, within 16 days

  30,495

  95 per cent, within 16 days

  One parent benefit

  15,650

  85 per cent, within 12 days

  17,438

  93 per cent. within 12 days

  1 Rounded.

  Quarter ending 31 March 1991

  Quarter ending 31 March 1990

  Benefit

  Number received

  Average clearance (days)1

  Number received

  Average clearance (days)1

  Widows benefit

  14,994

  15

  15,984

  15

  Maternity allowance

  27,611

  10

  31,377

  12

  1 Rounded.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The readily available information about the appointments for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible, a number of which fall to be made in 1991 and 1992, is given in "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate how many mortgages supported by DSS interest payments total (i) over £700,000, (ii) £600,000 to £700,000, (iii) £500,000 to £600,000,
  614
  Miss Widdecombe
  The total number of claims received and the average clearance time for the month or quarter ending 31 March, and the comparable figures for March 1990 are in the table.

  (iv) £400,000 to £500,000, (v) £300,000 to £400,000, (vi) £200,000 to £300,000, (vii) £100,000 to £200,000, (viii) £50,000 to £100,000 and (ix) under £50,000; what is the average weekly interest paid by the DSS in each band; and what is the total DSS payment of interest for each band.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information about the amount of weekly loan interest included in the assessment of income support is collected and is published in the income support annual statistical enquiry. A copy of the 1989 enquiry is in the Library; the 1990 enquiry will be available shortly.

  Residential Care Allowance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the level of funding provided by way of the residential care allowance.
  615
  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated annual expenditure on income support for claimants in residential care at August 1990 was £772 million, excluding nursing homes.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the adequacy of residential care allowances.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A number of representations have been received recently both from individuals and representative bodies.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he takes to monitor the impact on rent levels and the number of tenancies in the private, housing association and local authority sectors of the residential care allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The higher income support limits for people in residential care homes are based on costs of care, not on charges by the homes or on housing costs and occupancy rates prevailing in the community as a whole. Residents in local authority homes do not receive the higher income support levels of benefit.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for cold weather payments have been received by his Department since 1 January; and how many claims were (i) approved, (ii) refused and (iii) still outstanding at 30 April.

  Industrial disablement pensions assessments current at 31 March 1990

  Males

  Percentage all assessment

  Total all ages

  101

  201

  30

  40

  50

  60

  70

  80

  90

  100

  All ages

  167,940

  13,180

  67,580

  41,370

  19,960

  9,980

  6,240

  3,140

  2,180

  860

  3,450

  Under 18

  30

  —

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18–19

  290

  —

  170

  30

  70

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20–24

  1,480

  —

  920

  220

  160

  60

  50

  10

  30

  10

  20

  25–29

  3,120

  20

  1,710

  770

  250

  100

  110

  60

  10

  10

  80

  30–34

  5,170

  70

  2,710

  1,290

  470

  190

  170

  80

  30

  20

  140

  35–39

  6,880

  110

  3,420

  1,670

  650

  370

  230

  130

  80

  70

  150

  40–44

  10,850

  260

  5,030

  2,720

  1,210

  550

  360

  260

  150

  70

  240

  45–49

  13,670

  410

  5,840

  3,340

  1,820

  900

  500

  170

  240

  80

  370

  50–54

  17,170

  870

  7,380

  4,180

  2,100

  1,000

  520

  330

  170

  100

  520

  55–59

  20,150

  1,240

  8,030

  5,570

  2,550

  1,150

  700

  350

  230

  10

  320

  60–64

  25,030

  2,250

  9,640

  6,190

  3,410

  1,360

  910

  420

  370

  100

  380

  65–69

  25,480

  2,730

  9,320

  6,420

  2,920

  1,670

  990

  490

  370

  150

  420

  70–74

  17,510

  2,190

  6,060

  3,910

  2,070

  1,300

  830

  500

  250

  120

  280

  75–79

  12,450

  1,720

  4,250

  3,080

  1,350

  900

  500

  160

  140

  90

  260

  80–84

  6,150

  830

  2,100

  1,410

  790

  290

  310

  130

  80

  20

  190

  85 and over

  2,510

  480

  970

  570

  140

  130

  50

  50

  30

  10

  80

  Females

  Percentage all assessment

  Total all ages

  101

  201

  30

  40

  50

  60

  70

  80

  90

  100

  All ages

  22,740

  2,000

  11,460

  5,040

  1,890

  1,120

  650

  280

  120

  50

  130

  Under 18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18–19

  30

  —

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20–24

  260

  —

  190

  50

  10

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25–29

  450

  —

  370

  30

  20

  10

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30–34

  580

  30

  330

  150

  40

  20

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35–39

  980

  30

  560

  170

  110

  50

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40–44

  1,610

  80

  970

  340

  90

  50

  50

  10

  —

  10

  10

  45–49

  2,150

  120

  1,150

  420

  200

  130

  60

  30

  10

  —

  30

  50–54

  2,610

  140

  1,510

  540

  140

  140

  80

  40

  10

  10

  —

  55–59

  3,100

  200

  1,750

  630

  200

  170

  40

  30

  20

  —

  10

  60–64

  2,920

  390

  1,360

  540

  260

  180

  110

  20

  40

  —

  20

  65–69

  2,580

  330

  1,140

  630

  270

  70

  40

  50

  20

  10

  20

  616
  Mr. Scott
  The information will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Gulf: Crisis Loans
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston's letters of 7 March and 14 April regarding the Gulf crisis: crisis loans.

  Mr. Jack
  I apologise for the delay in the Department not replying sooner to the hon. Member's letters. Following receipt of the letters, work has been undertaken to fully examine the circumstances of the hon. Member's constituent, and to recheck the information given in the reply he received from the local office manager on 29 January. The case has a number of factors which are being given careful consideration, but inquiries should shortly be completed and a reply will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Disablement Benefits
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were receiving industrial disablement at each rate at the last date for which figures are available; and if he will break down the figures by sex and standard age cohorts.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: The information is in the table.
  617

  Percentage all assessment

  Total all ages

  101

  201

  30

  40

  50

  60

  70

  80

  90

  100

  70–74

  1,860

  280

  640

  600

  130

  70

  80

  40

  —

  —

  20

  75–79

  1,670

  190

  700

  450

  160

  90

  40

  10

  10

  10

  10

  80–84

  1,250

  100

  550

  310

  160

  60

  20

  40

  —

  —

  10

  85 and over

  690

  110

  210

  130

  100

  80

  30

  10

  10

  10

  —

  1 10,200 beneficiaries with disablements of between one and nineteen per cent, receive disablement pensions. Those of 1–13 per cent, are included at 10 per cent, and those of 14–19 per cent, are included at 20 per cent.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will indicate for the last year for which figures are available, how much was collected in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Scotland in respect of (i) income tax, showing PAYE separately, (ii) national insurance, (iii) value added tax, (iv) capital gains tax, (v) capital transfer tax, (vi) stamp duty on conveyancing, (vii) other stamp duty, (viii) inheritance tax, (ix) road tax on private vehicles and commercial vehicles separately, (x) duty on alcohol, (xi) duty on tobacco, (xii) duty on petrol and (xiii) duty on purchase of new vehicles.

  Mr. Maude

  (i) No information is available on total income tax or PAYE collected in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but total income tax liabilities in 1987–88, the latest available year, were estimated to be £3·4 billion for taxpayers resident in Scotland and £0·8 billion for Northern Ireland residents.

  (ii) National insurance receipts from Northern Ireland were £574 million in 1989–90. No figures are available for Scotland.

  (iv) No information available for Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  (v) and

  (viii) Provisional estimates of receipts of estate duty, capital transfer tax and inheritance tax in 1990–91 are £74 million for Scotland and £18 million for Northern Ireland.

  (vi) Stamp duty on conveyancing received by the Edinburgh Stamp Office in 1990–91 was £62 million and the corresponding amount for the Belfast Stamp Office was £8 million.

  (vii) No information available for Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  (ix) Estimates for Vehicle Excise Duty revenue in 1989–90 are as follows:

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  £ million

  £ million

  Total

  230

  65

  Private, light goods vehicles and motorcycles

  175

  50

  Others

  55

  15

  Note: Figures are rounded to nearest £5 million

  Information on the tax collected in Northern Ireland and Scotland in respect of value added tax, car duty on alcohol, tobacco and petrol could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information would not reflect the tax falling on final expenditure in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  VAT (Hospices)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of the recent increase in value added tax on hospices with charity status.
  618
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that detailed information of this sort is not readily available.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on value added tax rating release for hospices with charity status.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There is a wide range of VAT reliefs designed to assist charities such as hospices with their caring work.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any proposals to reduce the burden of value added tax falling on caring charities such as hospices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No. Charities, including hospices, already benefit from a wide range of VAT reliefs, as well as direct tax reliefs.

  Income Levels
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to April 1991 the information on net earnings provided in the answer to the then hon. Member for Fulham of 10 February 1987,Official Report, columns 177–78.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of the levels of earnings for the top 5 per cent. of earners are not published. The information in the table is based on estimates of these levels derived from distributions of earnings published in the relevant new earnings surveys. Information for April 1991 is not yet available. Earnings levels are for men or women as appropriate paid at adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Taxpayers are assumed to have no reliefs or allowances other than the appropriate personal allowance.

  Earnings after Income Tax, National Insurance Contributions1 and Child Benefit (£ per week)

  4 April 1979

  April 1990

  Single man

  At current prices

  114·17

  403·75

  At constant April 1990 prices2

  263·03

  403·75

  Married man3

  At current prices

  117·98

  416·98

  At constant April 1990 prices2

  271·81

  416·98

  Married man3 with two children under 11

  At current prices

  125·98

  431·48

  At constant April 1990 prices2

  290·24

  431·48

  Single woman

  At current prices

  72·23

  262·92

  At constant April 1990 prices2

  166·41

  262·92

  1 At the contracted in rate.

  2 By reference to the retail price index.

  3 Assuming no wife's earnings.

  4 Under the April 1979 tax/benefit regime.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  During 1991 the Chancellor is scheduled to appoint or reappoint five members of the National Economic Development Council and a further 15 during 1992. Appointments are for two years and no salary is paid.

  In February the Queen, on the recommendation of the Chancellor, appointed five members to the Royal Mint Advisory Committee and during 1992 the Chancellor is scheduled to recommend up to four more appointments. Appointments are for seven years and no salary is paid.

  Central Unit on Purchasing
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of savings achieved by the central unit on purchasing in each year since 1986.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The central unit on purchasing is an advisory unit responsible for encouraging best procurement practice in central Government Departments. It, therefore, has no executive purchasing responsibilities. However, since the formation of CUP and the start of the Government purchasing initiative in 1986, Departments collectively have achieved savings in excess of £1·3 billion. Detailed figures on departmental savings are set out in CU P's annual reports to the Prime Minister, copies of which are available in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the authorities 'which have a higher spending above standard spending assessment but have a lower council tax than Grimsby; and if he will set out the reasons for the difference in each case;

  (2) further to his answer of 29 April, Official Report, column 13, if he will list each district where most households are in band B in order of the district's divergence from the standard spending assessment. with the estimated council tax for band B in each district;

  (3) further to his answer of 29 April, Official Report, column 13, if he will list each district in order of its percentage increase in spending above its standard spending assessment, showing its correlation with its position in rank order of level of council tax;

  (4) if he will publish the correlation, and its statistical significance, between the level of council tax in band B for a two-person household in all districts with (a) the percentage spending of the district over or under standard spending assessment, (b) the band of the average value home in that district, (c) the percentage of homes in band A in that district and (d) the level of unemployment in each district according to the latest available figures.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 April 1991 to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) at column 12.

  Property Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing nationally and by regions the average and quintile amounts in income per head and property values together with the percentage deviation in each region from the national average.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  House Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (i) the outturn of average dwelling prices for 1989 and (ii) for Greater London, Yorkshire and Humberside, the estimated average national capital value for the proposed council tax for all dwellings, all council dwellings and all dwellings less council dwellings; and if he will provide an estimate of the percentage in each of the proposed tax bands in each case.

  Mr. Key
  The illustrative council tax bills published on 23 April were based on an average property value of about £80,000. Estimates on the same basis of average property values in 1989 are not available. Nor are estimates which distinguish between council and other dwellings.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992, indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Information about the number and levels of remuneration of people appointed to public bodies by my Department is given in "Public Bodies 1990" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each region, county and district the number of dwellings and the average rateable value of dwellings within each quintile ranked by rateable value, together with the corresponding capital value; and if he will add in each case the gross revenue yield from rates in 1989–90 and the corresponding yield from the proposed council tax.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what is the ratio of average freehold and leasehold dwelling prices in each English region, Scotland and Wales to the English average used in his calculations in the illustrative tables for the council tax compared to 1982, 1977 and 1967; and what were the corresponding ratios for average incomes/earnings.

  Mr. Key
  Information on house prices for 1982, 1977 and 1967 is not available on a basis comparable with that
  621
  used in the tables showing illustrative council tax bills. Information on average earnings by regions is published by the Department of Employment in its annual reports of the new earnings survey.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allowance is made in the standard spending assessment for numbers in private rented accommodation; and how this affects allocations per head of the population in(a) Grimsby, (b) Westminster, (c) Harrogate and (d) Eastbourne.

  Mr. Key
  The proportion of persons aged 65 years and over living in privately rented accommodation is used within the calculation of the standard spending assessment element for social services for the elderly. Details are given in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) which is in the Library.

  The SSAs for Grimsby, Harrogate and Eastbourne are therefore unaffected by this factor since they are not social services authorities. Westminster receives around £14 per head of population in its SSA for 1991–92 as a result of this factor.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allowance is taken in the standard spending assessment for Humberside of the need to raise the numbers of young people staying in education after 16 years.

  Mr. Key
  The post-16 education standard spending assessment is based on a measure of the number of students aged 16 years and over derived from the latest available counts. Any increase in the numbers of young people in Humberside staying in education beyond the age of 16 will, therefore, be directly reflected in that authority's assessment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allowance is made in the standard spending assessment for tourism; and what is the rate per head of population for(a) Grimsby, (b) Westminster, (c) Scarborough and (d) Oxford.

  Mr. Key
  An allowance for tourism based on domestic overnight visitors is made in the standard spending assessment element for all other services. Details are given in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England) which is in the Library. The amount of SSA per head of population for 1991–92 allocated on the basis of the tourism factor for each of the listed authorities is as follows: Grimsby £1 per head; Westminster £10 per head; Scarborough £10 per head; and Oxford £1 per head.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for Barrow-in-Furness, Great Grimsby, Westminster, Wandsworth and Elmbridge, the amount per household allowed under the various headings of the standard spending assessment together with the reasons for any difference.

  Mr. Key
  Details of the 1991–92 standard spending assessments, for all authorities, disaggregated by the main service elements, are given in the "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1991–92" which was placed in the Library on 24 April 1991. Figures are shown in pound 622
  million and pounds per adult. SSAs are calculated on the basis of general principles applied in the same way to all authorities as described in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) and the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England) both of which are also in the Library. Any differences in SSAs between authorities, therefore, reflect their varying characteristics.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allowance is made in the standard spending assessment for ethnic minorities; and how this affects allocations in(a) Grimsby, (b) Leeds, (c) Birmingham and (d) Wandsworth.

  Mr. Key
  The country of origin of household members is included in the additional needs indicator which is part of the education standard spending assessment; in the children's social index which is part of the personal social services and all other services SSA. Details are given in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) as amended by the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report, copies of which are in the Library.

  The amounts allocated on the basis of each of these indices are shown for all authorities in the "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1991/92" which is also in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each of the seven bands of council tax (i) the average value of the dwellings together with his estimate of (ii) the rateable value and (iii) the average rate required to raise £6·8 billion and (iv) the rate yield in each case as against the tax yield from his proposal.

  Mr. Key
  Since the bands we propose for the council tax be the same in each area, the average value in each band will be broadly the same in each area. If capital values were taxed directly, a tax rate of under 0·5 per pound of value would be sufficient to raise £6·8 billion in England. Estimates of the rateable value of properties in each of the seven council tax bands are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment further to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 13 about the size of increase in council tax required for each percentage point of increase in spending; what is the level of spending above standard spending assessment for (a) Cleethorpes and (b) Grimsby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Cleethorpes borough council set its demand on the collection fund for 1991–92 at £7·7 million, which is 31·0 per cent. or £34 per adult above the standard spending assessment. Great Grimsby borough council set its demand on the collection fund for 1991–92 at £11·8 million, which is 30·9 per cent. or £42 per adult above the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the assumed yield in paragraph 5 of his illustrative tables for the council tax is gross or net of rebates; and what is the gross yield as a percentage of the capital value overall and by decile groups of properties in terms of value.
  623
  Mr. Key
  The assumed yield is gross of rebates. The gross yield as a percentage of capital value overall is less than 0·5p in the pound.

  Information by decile groups of properties in terms of value is not available.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he estimates will be the effect of the reduced income from second homes as a result of the change from double standard charge to 50 per cent. council tax in the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed; and whether this figure was taken into account in the published projection of council tax for the borough.

  Mr. Key
  As explained in the consultation paper "A New Tax for Local Government", we propose that grant be distributed so that authorities in each area can finance spending at a standard level by levying standard taxable amounts. This will allow for the incidence of homes which are no one's sole or main residence. The illustrative council tax bills published on 23 April made allowance for the incidence of properties presently subject to the standard community charge.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on how the percentage yield from the council tax in each of his seven tax bands compares with the rate of wealth tax on houses in Germany.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The proposed council tax and German wealth tax are not directly comparable systems of local taxation.

  Humming Birds
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of licences which were issued for the import of humming birds and other nectar feeding birds in 1988 and 1989, and the average number of birds covered by each licence;

  (2) what advice he has received from the United Kingdom Scientific Authority on the convention on trade in endangered species concerning the importation of humming birds and other nectar feeding birds.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is as follows:

  Licences issued1

  Birds per licence

  1988

  1989

  1988

  1989

  Humming birds (trochilidae)

  51

  32

  22

  30

  Nectar feeding birds (nectariniidae)

  206

  372

  26

  31

  1 Not all licences issued are used.

  Our scientific adviser, the joint nature conservation committee, is consulted on all applications to import these birds. It has advised my Department that a number of these species are extremely sensitive and difficult to keep in captivity, although there is no reason why they should not be kept by zoos or individuals with specialist knowledge.

  Tenant Incentive Scheme (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been made available to Lambeth council for the tenant incentive scheme; and how much has been taken up.
  624
  Mr. Yeo
  Lambeth borough council has been allocated £1 million for cash incentive grants to its tenants in 1991–92 under the Government's homelessness initiative. None of this funding has yet been taken up by the council.

  Calderdale (Rating)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the comparable estimated bills for Calderdale under(a) the proposed council tax, (b) under the poll tax in 1991–92 and (c) on the assumption that rates had remained.

  Mr. Key
  Illustrative 1991–92 council tax bills were published on 23 April. I have no estimate of the comparable level of bills had rates remained.

  Housing (Taxation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what unadjusted gross and net percentage rate of tax on the freehold or leasehold value of dwellings in England would be required to yield £6·8 billion of revenue for local government purposes; and if he will publish a table showing the rate of tax and yield nationally and regionally.

  Mr. Key
  The explanatory notes covering the illustrative council tax bills published on 23 April show that the 18·9 million homes in England had an estimated value of about £80,000. This implies a total value of £1,500 billion and a tax rate of under 0·5p per pound of value to raise £6·8 billion.

  Houses (Demolition)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to introduce planning controls over the demolition of houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Yesterday we tabled amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill which will enable the Government to bring the demolition of houses within planning control in England and Wales.

  Until recently the Government believed that demolition did not usually constitute development and therefore did not fall within planning control. However, a recent High Court decision held that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the demolition of dwelling houses was development. That decision is subject to an appeal.

  For buildings listed as of historical or architectural importance and buildings within conservation areas, demolition is already covered by other controls. Most other demolitions of houses are not contentious and do not justify additional planning controls. However the Government are aware of the concern that has been expressed in particular cases. For example, some potential developers have demolished perfectly sound houses before having the necessary planning permission to erect replacement buildings. Rather than leave a vacant site that may blight neighbouring properties, the local planning authority can feel pressured to grant planning permission for an out-of-character development for which planning permission should be refused.

  A public consultation exercise last year showed that, although such "speculative" demolition was not widespread, its occurrence did sometimes cause serious

  625
  concern. In the light of responses to that consultation process, having reflected on the debates on the subject of demolition at various stages of the Planning and Compensation Bill and bearing in mind the recent High Court judgment, the Government have now concluded that the time is right to introduce selective controls on demolition.

  The proposed amendments would extend the definition of development to include the demolition of all buildings. They would also incorporate a direction-making power, which would enable the Secretary of State to provide that the demolition of particular types of building is not development and would not therefore be subject to planning control. Since the problem which these amendments are designed to tackle relates in particular to dwelling houses, our intention is to use this power to exclude from control all demolitions except demolitions of dwelling houses.

  Because most demolitions of dwelling houses would not justify the full application of the new controls, we propose using the Town and Country General Development Order 1988 to grant permitted development rights for the demolition of dwelling houses in most circumstances. This would mean that planning permission would not normally be required for such demolition.

  However, if a local planning authority wished to prevent demolition in a particular case or in a vulnerable area, it could use its power to give a direction which would require the developer to seek planning permission before proceeding with demolition. Such a direction would require the confirmation of the Secretary of State if it is to remain effective for longer than six months.

  By these measures we believe that it will be possible to control these undesirable cases of demolition without putting an undue burden either on developers or on local planning authorities.

  Gloucester Grove Estate, Peckham
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make a decision on the estate action programme bid submitted by the London borough of Southwark in respect of funds to improve the Gloucester Grove estate in Peckham.

  Mr. Yeo
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing announced in February that the Gloucester Grove estate scheme was among applications approved in principle for support under this year's estate action programme, and that the London borough of Southwark had been invited to work up detailed proposals. Final decisions on individual schemes are announced as soon as possible after full submissions have been made and considered.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce compulsory notification and publicity for all planning applications submitted to local authorities.

  Mr. Yeo
  At present, applicants for planning permission in Scotland are statutorily required to notify neighbours. In England and Wales, by contrast, publicity for most types of planning application is at the discretion of the local planning authority; advice about this is given in my Department's circular 22/88—Welsh Office 44/88.
  626
  In the past, the Government have resisted proposals, from hon. Members and elsewhere, that there should be compulsory neighbour notification arrangements in England and Wales. We have argued that the present largely discretionary arrangements are appropriate, given the wide variety of situations in which development proposals arise, and that a statutory requirement to notify neighbours would be a burden on local authorities and applicants.

  It has recently come to light that in fact some 75 per cent. of local authorities in England now give some type of publicity to all planning applications. The wide use of computers in local authority planning departments makes this practice less onerous than it would once have been.

  Accordingly, the Government have decided that all planning applications in England and Wales, and any subsequent non-trivial amendments to applications, should be given some publicity. We will give effect to this by amending the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, when we have considered the outcome of a public consultation exercise about the methods for achieving this objective. For example, in particular situations site notices, media announcements and other public notice may be no less effective than neighbour notification. The Department will publish by the end of June a consultation paper inviting the views of a wide range of organisations, including local authority and consumer interests. We would then make an amendment to the general development order which could come into effect later this year.

  There is already a statutory requirement that owners of land and tenants of agricultural holdings must be notified by applicants for planning permission of planning applications affecting their land. Clause 15 of the Planning and Compensation Bill provides for transferring to secondary legislation many of the detailed procedures which have to be followed. This will make it easier to streamline and reform those procedures. But the Government propose to retain in primary legislation a requirement that owners and agricultural tenants must be notified of planning applications affecting their land. We will table an amendment to the Bill to give effect to this commitment at Report stage.

  Twin Tracking
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet reached any conclusions in the light of responses to the consultation letter "Planning and Compensation Bill: Twin-Tracking".

  Sir George Young
  The Department's consultation letter of 6 March proposed an amendment to clause 14 of the Planning and Compensation Bill to enable local planning authorities to decline to determine a planning application if an appeal was before the Secretary of State in respect of a similar application.

  A total of 74 responses were received, of which 16 expressed support for the proposal on the grounds that twin-tracking wastes the resources of local planning authorities and the planning inspectorate and that it involves an element of "queue jumping" in that twin-tracking applicants submit appeals for tactical reasons rather than as a matter of last resort.

  Fifty-six respondents were against or strongly against the proposal. Many contended that twin-tracking is often the only lever available to applicants to encourage local

  627
  authorities to process applications with reasonable promptness. They also argued that the proposal would reduce the scope for constructive negotiation, because developers would lodge appeals as early as possible rather than risking protracted—and possibly fruitless—discussions with local planning authorities.

  We announced in another place that we would review the 75 per cent. fee concession at present enjoyed by duplicate planning applications. I confirm that we intend to consult on the proposal that this concession should be eliminated altogether when we amend the application fees regulations later this year.

  The Government are reluctant to take any action which would reduce the pressure on local authorities to determine planning applications quickly. Although the speed with which applications are decided has improved slightly, there is still considerable room for improvement—only 52 per cent. of applications were decided within eight weeks in the third quarter of 1990, compared with the Government's target of 80 per cent.

  We accept that appeals should be made as actions of last resort, but at present applicants need some means of ensuring reasonable handling times. Accordingly, the Government have decided not to proceed with the proposal described in the consultation letter.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many employees of the City of London and City of London Corporation earn more than the salary level that would bring them within the scope of parts I and II of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, and have not obtained exemption; and if he will list the designated posts in the City of London and City of London Corporation to which parts I and II apply.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: My Department does not hold this information. I have asked the independent adjudicator to let the hon. Member have such relevant information as he can.

  Political Candidates, North Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold an investigation into the free issue to political candidates for non-official purposes of self-adhesive labels bearing the name, address and rent book number of residents in the North Devon district council area.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: I understand that the local authority concerned has already held an inquiry and published the results.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Hazards
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many control of industrial major hazards safety case reports remained uncompleted in each of the Health and Executive's area offices on 1 April; and within what time scale he anticipates the backlog will be cleared.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of scientific/ medical staff undertaking research and development work on(a) health-related topics and (b) safety-related topics in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures requested are as follows.

  Health

  Safety

  1988–89

  87

  136

  1989–90

  92

  143

  1990–91

  94

  139

  The term "research and development work" has been interpreted widely, and the figures include all scientific/ medical staff engaged on the main laboratory activities.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of(a) vacancies, (b) applications received, (c) those interviewed, (d) those offered a job and (e) those who accepted a job as a specialist inspector of health and safety in the latest recruitment round.

  Mr. Forth
  There were no specific number of vacancies for specialist inspectors of health and safety in the latest completed recruitment round which took place in August 1990. Seven hundred and forty-nine applications were received; 229 applicants were interviewed; 58 were offered a job; and 47 accepted a job.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of factory inspectors in each Health and Safety Executive area office with less than two years' experience in the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April.

  Mr. Forth
  The total number of factory inspectors in each Health and Safety Executive area office with less than two years' experience in the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April is 146. The number in each area office as follows:

  Factory Inspectors Class II with less than two years in the Health and Safety Executive at 1 April 1991.

  Inspectors

  Bristol

  4

  Basingstoke

  10

  East Grinstead

  7

  Barking

  9

  London South

  6

  Chelmsford

  5

  Luton

  5

  Northampton

  9

  Birmingham

  7

  Cardiff

  11

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  9

  Nottingham

  8

  Sheffield

  6

  Leeds

  4

  Manchester

  7

  Bootle

  7

  Preston

  9

  Newcastle-on-Tyne

  8

  Edinburgh

  8

  Glasgow

  7

  Total

  146

  629
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number and grades of specialist staff currently employed in the offshore safety division and the number it is proposed to employ in 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Grade

  Staff in post

  Grade 7 and above

  10

  Petroleum Specialist I

  1

  Petroleum Specialist II

  4

  Petroleum Specialist III

  7

  Petroleum Specialist IV

  24

  Reservoir Evaluation Specialist II

  1

  Reservoir Evaluation Specialist III

  2

  Reservoir Evaluation Specialist IV

  1

  Principal Inspector of Mines

  1

  Superintending Specialist Inspector

  1

  Factories Inspector 1A

  2

  Principal Agricultural Inspector

  1

  TOTAL

  55

  Detailed staffing targets are not yet available.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what reasons, and on which grades, the Health and Safety Executive imposed recruitment bans in 1990–91.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive did not impose recruitment bans for any grades in 1990–91.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unfilled professional/scientific posts existed at the Health and Safety Executive, Cricklewood laboratories as at 1 April.

  Mr. Forth
  There were 11 such posts unfilled at the Cricklewood laboratories on 1 April.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the Health and Safety Executive's scientific staff at the Cricklewood laboratories had less than two years' experience on 1 April.

  Mr. Forth
  There were 20 Cricklewood scientific staff with less than two years' experience on 1 April.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of staff at the Health and Safety Executive's Cricklewood laboratory on 1 April and how many there were on 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive employed 87 staff at its Cricklewood laboratory on 1 April 1991. There were 91 staff at the same location on 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many occupational hygienists are currently working specifically on gas safety at the Health and Safety Executive's Bootle headquarters; how many explosives inspectors are engaged on the same work; and how many staff days are allocated specifically to this work.

  Mr. Forth
  There is currently one occupational hygienist working specifically on gas safety at the Health and Safety Executive's Bootle headquarters; 60 staff days are allocated for this work. Explosives inspectors do not work on gas safety.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to help relieve 630
  the Health and Safety Executive of the burden of inexperience mentioned by the Health and Safety Executive's director general in the 1989–90 annual report, caused by the high resignation rate of factory inspectors.

  Mr. Forth
  In meeting the Health and Safety Commission's public expenditure survey bids in full in recent years, the Government welcomed the Health and Safety Executive's intention to increase numbers of inspectors, including factory inspectors. The consequent increased recruitment effort by the HSE has led to increases in the numbers of inspectors since 1988 and, therefore, a larger number of inexperienced inspectors. As a result, the HSE is giving close attention to training arrangements for new recruits. The HSE's plans for further recruitment, training and retention are set out in the commission's plan of work for 1991–92 and beyond, to be published at the end of May.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resource costs, both in terms of finance and staff years, were incurred by the Health and Safety Executive in the investigation of the(a) Cannon street, (b) Redbourne gas over-pressurisation, (c) Hillsborough, (d) Piper Alpha and (e) King's Cross accidents.

  Mr. Forth
  Comprehensive and precise information about the costs of the HSE's contributions to investigations of those accidents is not available. The estimates given relate to resource inputs from HSE's field operations and technology divisions and its research and laboratories division. They do not include the time of senior management or other associated work and are thus minimum estimates of technical resources directly applied. The HSE is not aware of any incident at Redbourne.

  Identified investigation costs to the HSE are:

  Cannon Street— not available: investigation ongoing

  Hillsborough — approximately 6 staff years

  Piper Alpha — approximately 1 staff year

  Kings Cross — approximately 18 staff years.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of agricultural inspectors in each Health and Safety Executive area office with less than two years' experience in the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April.

  Mr. Forth
  The total number of agricultural inspectors in each Health and Safety Executive area office with less than two years' experience in the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April is 39. The number in each area office is as follows:

  Assistant agricultural inspectors with less than two years in the Health and Safety Executive at 1 April 1991

  Assistant inspectors

  Bristol

  4

  Basingstoke

  1

  East Grinstead

  3

  Chelmsford

  3

  Luton

  3

  Northampton

  2

  Cardiff

  2

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  3

  Nottingham

  2

  Sheffield

  1

  Leeds

  4

  Bootle

  2

  Preston

  2

  Newcastle-on-Tyne

  3

  631

  Assistant inspectors

  Edinburgh

  3

  Glasgow

  1

  TOTAL

  39

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the maximum number of trainee factory and agricultural inspectors it is possible for the Health and Safety Executive to recruit and train effectively each year.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive estimates that it is possible to make arrangements for the effective training of a maximum of 90 newly recruited inspectors each year.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff years will be devoted in 1991 to preventive inspectors by the Health and Safety Executive's field operations divisions.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. In the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992 the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division proposes to spend 383·9 staff years on planned preventive inspection.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of health and Safety Executive inspectors working on risk assessment of major hazards.

  Mr. Forth
  There are currently 18 Health and Safety Executive inspectors working on risk assessment of major hazards.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number of vacancies for specialist staff that exist in the Health and Safety Executive's offshore safety division; and how many applications were received to the most recent recruitment advertisement.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no specific number of vacancies for specialist staff in offshore safety division available at present, as the reorganisation and structure of the offshore safety division is still under consideration. A total of 530 applications were received for the current recruitment competition for petroleum specialists.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many safety cases he estimates the Health and Safety Executive's offshore safety division will be required to undertake in 1991–92; how many specialist staff will be engaged on this work; and at what grade.

  Mr. Forth
  Allowing for the necessary consultations, legislation requiring the submission of safety cases for offshore installations will not be made until 1992. Arrangements for assessing safety cases are currently being considered but it is too early to say how many staff will be engaged.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of safety reports, under regulation 7(i) of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984, submitted to each Health and Safety Executive region before 8 July 1989 and the number of site occupiers who have still to receive a confirmatory letter from the Health and Safety Executive stating that the report has been examined, that selective inspections based on the report have been completed and that the report will now be used as a reference document in future inspections.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the submission of safety reports under the Control of Industrial Major Hazards Regulations 1984—CIMAH—before 8 July 1989 is not available in the form requested and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However under CIMAH, operators at existing industrial activities covered by the regulations were required to submit safety reports to the HSE by 8 July 1989. The HSE received 331 such reports by August 1989. The table shows a breakdown by the HSE regions that now exist:

  Number

  Wales and the South West

  45

  London and the South East

  14

  Home Counties

  24

  Midlands

  21

  Yorkshire and the North East

  105

  North West

  57

  Scotland

  65

  All reports must be examined on a multi-disciplinary basis by the HSE's field operations and technology divisions. A total of 325 reports have been examined and 86 of these have been categorised as entirely satisfying the requirement of schedule 6 of the CIMAH and have received a confirmatory letter.

  Agricultural and Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory and agricultural inspectors have been recruited in each of the years 1978 to 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  The available figures are as follows:

  Year

  Factory inspectors

  Agricultural inspectors

  19851

  27

  7

  1986

  44

  20

  1987

  33

  0

  1988

  44

  12

  1989

  56

  14

  1990

  56

  16

  TOTAL

  260

  69

  1 Centrally held recruitment figures are not available before 1985.

  633
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors 1 B, with more than two years' experience in the grade, resigned in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and the first three months of 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of factory inspectors 1B with more than two years' experience in the grade who resigned in the years in question are as follows:
  634

  Number

  1987

  22

  1988

  14

  1989

  12

  1990

  13

  11991

  5

  1 January to March.

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

Barber Judgment
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a test case has yet been found in order to clarify the Barber judgment and, if so, to what extent the Government are supporting the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, suitable case has been identified. The trustees of the Coloroll group pension schemes are seeking direction as from the High Court on how, in the light of Barber, their liabilities to scheme members should be discharged on winding up these schemes. Her Majesty's Government have agreed in principle with the trustees to provide financial support for any subsequent reference from the High Court to the European Court of Justice.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I am glad to learn that the Government support the Coloroll case and will do so even if is goes so far as the European Court. However, I wish to ask the Minister this. Since there are bound to be a number of individual cases arising from the Barber judgment, can guidance be given to industrial tribunal chairmen to the effect that it would be wise to adjourn such cases pending the outcome of the Coloroll case?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would not be right for the Government to interfere with the chairmen of tribunals, but I am sure they are aware of the Coloroll case. Our decision to support it in principle has been given a certain degree of publicity. I am sure that in individual cases they will consider whether it may be wise to adjourn those cases pending the decision of the European Court on Coloroll.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how long the sensible action the Government are taking will take to resolve the difficult situation which has been created by this ill thought out and confused judgment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not for me to say how long the European Court will take to reach a decision. We hope that Coloroll will go before the judges of the Chancery Division some time before the courts recess in the summer. Thereafter, it will be in the hands of the European Court and obviously it is a matter for that court how long it takes. I hope that it will bear in mind the importance of these cases and look at the matter as speedily as possible.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is my noble friend a ware of the difficulties of the company
1276
occupational pension schemes which have been made worse by this case? The Government would greatly assist them by announcing a date by which there would be equalisation of pension ages between men and women—perhaps within a decade, though that is flexible—so that the pension schemes can be planned with a carefully designed programme to achieve equalisation by that date.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I have said previously, the equalisation of the state pension age is another matter not directly related to Barber. We accept that equalisation of state pension ages is a complex issue requiring careful study. Obviously consideration would have to be given to a number of factors before we could reach a decision.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will it be noted that a Member of the House of Lords, if not of the Judicial Committee of the House, has pronounced the judgment to be ill-conceived and confused? Arising out of that, does the Minister agree that it would be advisable at least for chairmen of industrial tribunals to be informed officially by the Government of their intention to support this case throughout the hearings?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I make no comment on the noble Lord's earlier remarks. As regards officially advising chairmen of tribunals, I should take advice on whether that would be right and proper. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, we believe that the chairmen will have seen the publicity about our announcement to support the Coloroll case and will take it into consideration.

Kurdish Refugees: EC Aid
11.9 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much assistance the European Community has decided to give to the Kurds of Iraq, since the provisional cease-fire in the Gulf.
Lord Reay: My Lords, since early April, the European Community has allocated 105 million ecu (about £70 million) for emergency aid to Iraqi refugees, a majority of whom are Kurds. Over 70 per cent. of this amount has now been committed. British non-governmental organisations have benefited from this help and the European Community has partly funded the United Kingdom's 90-strong humanitarian teams which left for Turkey and Iran last Monday.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. While the United Kingdom initiative on safe havens, supported by all the other members of the EC, has provided immediate practical help, what are now the most urgent needs of the Kurds? Is an international police force a necessary part of the present proposals?
Lord Reay: My Lords, for the refugees still in the camps in Turkey and Iran, the priority remains the distribution of tents, blankets, food and medicines. It

1277
is also essential to improve conditions in the camps. To help tackle this problem, we sent 90 volunteers to work in camps on the Turkish border to provide basic medical care, to improve sanitation and to provide other practical assistance.
With regard to my noble friend's second question, one way of providing the security that the refugees need would be the deployment of United Nations civilian police. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary received strong support for this proposal from the European Community Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg on 28th April.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that as concerns the action of the police force that is required to safeguard the Kurds, Saddam Hussein has already said, as reported in the press, that he does not approve and will not allow it? Will the Minister comment on that? Would he also say how much Belgium has paid towards the European Community costs? It did nothing during the conflict.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I know of the noble Lord's interest in the matter of Belgium's contributions. I do not have the figures with me, but I shall look into them and write to the noble Lord. On the first point made by the noble Lord, we have to view that situation as not being the end of the road. In the past the Iraqis have shown reluctance in certain situations but have subsequently acquiesced. We continue to hope that the Iraqis will acquiesce.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the important thing is to provide the Kurds in the mountains with enough security to enable them to come down before the weather makes it wholly impossible for them to stay on the mountains? However, this can only be achieved if they are provided with security. Far from wishing to assist in this, the Secretary-General of the United Nations seems to be reluctant even to consider it.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend to the extent that it is necessary to provide a haven for the refugees to enable them to come down from the mountains and to live in the haven on a temporary basis in conditions of security. That is what the joint forces are attempting to do.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, what proportion of this aid has gone to the Kurds in Iran and to the Shi'ites on the Iran/Iraqi border further south?
Lord Reay: My Lords, of the EC aid, around 60 per cent. of the commitments has been allocated to Iran, 30 per cent. has been allocated to Turkey and the remainder has been allocated to projects in Iraq.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will the EC be told—to make our Prime Minister's initiative a reality—that what is really needed is the construction of public buildings and homes so that the Kurds have somewhere to return to and do not have to continue their appalling existence
1278
in tents? That is vitally important. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, the Kurds must be shielded while the construction of a haven is under way.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that in the longer term the priority remains to achieve secure and stable conditions within Iraq so that all the refugees, both those in the north and those in the south, may have the confidence to return to their own homes.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is it the case that of the £30 million new funds announced by the Prime Minister on 29th April for the aid programme,£10 million has been allocated to the concert organised by Mr. Jeffrey Archer in aid of the Kurds and the other £20 million has been allocated to the Ministry of Defence to fund the use of Chinook helicopters and Hercules aircraft? Is it also the case that the vast bulk of the £70 million ODA contingency reserve for emergency relief has already been committed? If that is so, will new funds be allocated to the contingency relief fund, because clearly the demands placed upon it will still be very great?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have figures with me as regards what proportion of the contingency reserve has already been committed. It has, of course, been heavily drawn upon because of the tragedies that we have seen in the Horn of Africa and in Bangladesh as well as the tragedy of the Iraqi refugees. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 29th April £30 million of new assistance. The noble Baroness is correct to say that £10 million of that money will be allocated to the concert which is due to take place this weekend.

Rail Services: Severe Weather Disruption
11.17 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken to ease the cost to British Rail of implementing measures to prevent further disruption of rail services such as occurred as a result of last February's snowstorms.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, British Rail has undertaken a detailed review of the railway's ability to deal with severe weather following the disruption in February and has announced a programme of improvements. I understand that BR expects that most of its recommendations could be financed out of existing budgets and that BR has not put any request for additional funding to the Government. The department has also reviewed the experience of severe weather conditions here and in other European countries and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to make an announcement about this shortly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, if British Rail finds at a later date that there is an urgent need for further finance to deal with this problem, will the

1279
Government give that matter sympathetic consideration bearing in mind that money put in at such a point could be a worthwhile insurance policy against the economic devastation that Britain suffered last winter when we were unprepared for the disruption that took place?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, at the moment British Rail has not identified need for additional funding. However, we shall discuss any additional funding requirements that it may have.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if future difficulties occur, will my noble friend persuade British Rail not to make itself look ridiculous by claiming again that all the troubles are due to the snow being the wrong kind of snow?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I suspect that the spokesman who used that phrase regrets having used it as it has probably entered the annals of British Rail. The problem was caused by snow reaching parts it should not have reached. It consequently caused damage; which takes quite a while to repair.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is it not rather difficult for British Rail to get it right on these occasions unless it takes. all the precautions that the Swiss Railways take against the most severe weather which hits the British Isles only once in 25 years? Should British Rail not be told to spend its limited resources on other projects which will bring more immediate and more certain benefits?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. It is right to say that one cannot ensure against every possible eventuality. The weather that we had in February was extremely unusual. As I said in my original Answer, visits have been made to six European countries, including Switzerland, to examine, their operations. Obviously lessons that can be learnt from that experience will be taken on board.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps it is not so much the parts that cannot be reached but the Ministers who cannot be reached by British Rail which may account for its reticence. Will the Minister indicate in financial terms the extent of the programme which British Rail now proposes to undertake to deal with the matter and the main lines of that programme, without going into too much detail?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I follow the noble Lord's first point about the Ministers who cannot be reached. Ministers have taken a close interest in this matter.
British h Rail has come up with a ten-point plan to try to avoid the type of situation which occurred in February. It includes items on operating, communications with passengers—a very important matter—and engineering modifications which need to be made. I cannot tell the noble Lord the likely costs of the programme as they have not yet been worked out.

Insurance: EC Directive
11.20 a.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they have had with consumer organisations on the proposal for a Third Council Directive on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life insurance (Corn (90) 348 final, 27th July 1990) and what action they are taking as a consequence.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultative document in February seeking views on the directive. The document was sent to seven consumer organisations, of which four have submitted observations. In addition, one meeting has been held with the Consumers' Association. These and other responses to the consultative document are currently being evaluated.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister able to offer further and better particulars of the representations that have been made by the Consumers in the European Community Group in particular? Is it true that it has expressed deep anxieties about certain aspects of the draft directive, notably the information about the type of policy that is said to be likely to be available to consumers, the contract terms and questions relating to arbitration and redress? In regard to those three areas can the Minister say, concisely, where the Government stand?
Lord Henley: My Lords, very broadly, because I would rather not go into detail about all of the representations made by those four bodies, all four consumer associations which responded supported the third directive and particularly the provisions to increase competition and choice. As the noble Lord said, there were some very specific suggestions for additions or clarifications, particularly in the fields which the noble Lord mentioned. They concerned the provision of information and arrangements to deal with complaints. Obviously the department will consider them carefully and take them fully into account.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate the timescale that is likely to apply in respect of meetings of the Council and when it is likely that the directive may come into force? I do not know what the present state of play is in that regard. Can the Minister enlighten me?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, we asked for responses to the consultative document by 12th April. The directive is now in the initial stages of discussion and the Commission hopes that a common position will be achieved by the end of this year, with adoption sometime in 1992.

Business of the House: Debates, 15th May
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Birk and the Lord Ennals set down for 15th May shall each be limited to 21/2 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate —(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991
11.23 a.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order has been made necessary by Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome, which provides for free movement in the Community labour market. It aims, among other things, to cut out unnecessary restrictions on employment due to nationality qualifications. The position at the present time is that, whereas EC law permits only a central core of posts in the Civil Service to be closed on grounds of nationality to the citizens of other EC countries, our law excludes anyone from employment anywhere in the Civil Service who is not a British citizen, a Commonwealth citizen, a British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland save in exceptional circumstances to which I shall refer in a moment.
The order before your Lordships therefore amends our law so as to bring it into conformity with EC law by allowing EC nationals from now on to compete on merit in fair competition with our own nationals for all Civil Service posts except those in the central core. We know that other member states, France for instance, are making similar changes in respect of their civil services.
At this point, I should say a word about the relevant legislation. Article 48 of the treaty prohibits discrimination based on nationality between workers of member states as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment, with Article 48(4) providing a limited exception to that general rule in relation to the public service. The trouble is that the "public service" is not itself defined in the treaty, but it has been defined by the European Court of Justice in a number of cases as:
"posts which … require a special relationship of allegiance to the state on the part of the persons occupying them and the reciprocity of rights and duties which form the foundation of the bond of nationality".
That is a pretty narrow definition which cannot cover all our Civil Service posts, but under our current domestic legislation all posts in the Home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service are subject to the
1282
provisions of the Act of Settlement 1700, the Aliens (Restriction) Amendment Act 1919 and the Aliens' Employment Act 1955.
The result is that anyone who is not a Commonwealth (including British) citizen, a British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is excluded from employment in the Civil Service, subject only to the exception provided in the Aliens' Employment Act 1955 which allows an alien to be employed under a certificate authorised by the employing Minister with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service. Under the Civil Service nationality rules such a certificate will be issued only in the exceptional circumstances where no suitably qualified person meeting the nationality requirement is available for employment or where the alien possesses exceptional qualifications or experience.
Article 2 of the Order in Council therefore extends the exception in the Aliens' Employment Act 1955 so as to allow nationals of member states of the Community to be employed in the Civil Service in posts other than posts defined as being in the public service within the meaning of Article 48(4) of the Treaty of Rome. The article also provides that where a national of another member state is employed accordingly, so may be the spouse, a child under the age of 21 years, or a dependent child.
Article 3 of the order makes similar provision in relation to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, to which the Aliens' Employment Act 1955 does not extend, thus ensuring that the same position is achieved in the whole of the United Kingdom.
The only other matter I need inform the House of is that I am advised that, although the Order in Council is effective in meeting the main point concerning the conflict of laws, it may not remove every conceivable legal anomaly. We shall need to look at the matter further in due course to determine the extent of any anomalies which may remain and which could require primary legislation to remove them. For example, after compliance with the treaty there could be an offence under the 1919 Act of employing someone wrongly if a government department were inadvertently to appoint an EC national to a post in the narrow public service sense. That does not seem right.
The Government attach great importance to complying with our obligations under EC law. We believe that UK legislation is incompatible with Community law for the reasons I have given and we should put matters right. I therefore commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for introducing a somewhat complex order dealing with a complex situation. From these Benches we fully support the Government in their efforts to comply with Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome. It is certainly right to do so. I understand, and perhaps the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can confirm, that had the

1283
Government not produced this Order in Council there was a risk that the United Kingdom might be taken to the European Court for violation of Article 48.
As I understand it—perhaps the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will confirm this point—the complex problem is the distinction that has been made between public service and civil service. As he said, the European Court has pronounced in a number of judgments on the matter. Is he satisfied that the European Court judgments, taken as a whole, are entirely clear and that there is no obscurity about their definition? They seem to be very complex. Will he tell the House approximately how many posts in the Civil Service. as we define it, are involved, and what level of posts we are talking about?
Perhaps I may now refer to Northern Ireland. Will there be any political sensitivity—I am sure that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will understand what I mean when I use that expression—about opening up posts in. the Northern Ireland Civil Service to other nationalities within the European Community? If so, is there any method that one can employ to avoid such political sensitivity?
Finally, the noble Lord referred to certain possible legal anomalies that might remain, and he said that that might mean primary legislation. I should like to reassure. him that, if primary legislation is necessary and comes before your Lordships' House, the Government will have our support.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I am a little confused by the distinction between the public and the civil service. Does the order mean that a European national can be employed in posts in—I use a neutral term—our governmental system which involve knowledge of security matters in the defence sense of the term and political matters in the sense of, for example, service in a Minister's private office? Are we opening up either of those areas of activity to non-British citizens?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we have not been taken to the European Court, but it follows from what I have said that there would be a risk of our being taken to the European Court if we did not take action in order to conform to Article 48(4).
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The European Court judgments seem to me to be extremely complex. The only thing that one can say with certainty is that public service within the meaning of Article 48 must be narrower than the Civil Service as we know it in this country. I cannot give a precise answer:o the question of how many posts will be involved. It will be up to us to look at each post and to make a sensible judgment whether it is a post in the public service as defined in the article.
The position in Northern Ireland is extremely difficult because, ironically, the situation there is closer to conformity with European law than our own law. In Northern Ireland citizens of the Republic are excluded from the Civil Service and all European Community citizens are therefore treated alike. In Britain we do not treat all European Community citizens alike because under our legislation—the last
1284
important Act was the British Nationality Act of 1981
—we do not treat Republic citizens as aliens. As I understand it, what we are doing today does not suddenly allow Republic citizens access to Northern Ireland Civil Service posts. That matter will also have to be addressed.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his indication that, when it becomes necessary to address those matters, he will give us his co-operation.
I think that I can say with certainty to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that it would be odd if a post requiring security vetting, for instance, was not a public service post as defined in Article 48(4). We believe that all the central functions of the Civil Service—that must include, for instance, a Minister's private secretary in his private office—are protected by Article 48(4). I hope that that is of some assistance to my noble friend.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches would support the order if we understood what it meant; but I am even more confused now than I was before the noble Lord spoke. As I understand it, he said that the Civil Service covered a broader span than the public service, but surely it is the other way round.Does not the public service include people who work in nationalised industries? I always thought that it did and that they were regarded as public servants. That makes the term vastly wider than the Civil Service. Does it include, for example, the Post Office? There could be no objection to having a few French postmen around. What are we talking about? Does the term "public service" include nationalised industries? I thought that it did.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it will be for the convenience of the House if I try to answer that point. There seems to be little doubt that the effect of the European Court judgments is that public service is a very much more narrow concept than the Civil Service as we know it in this country. Perhaps I may try to help the noble Baroness by reading out the full definition as set out in the European Court judgments to which I referred. They refer to those:
"posts which involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and in the discharge of functions whose purpose is to safeguard the general interests of the state or of other public authorities and which therefore require a special relationship of allegiance to the state on the part of the persons occupying them and the reciprocity of rights and duties which form the foundation of the bond of nationality".
I should have thought that one could think at once of a number of posts in the Civil Service where one would not automatically say that there must be that bond of allegiance between the person and the state in order to guarantee that the person carries out his duties correctly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will help me on one small matter. In reply to my point about Northern Ireland —I think that I heard him correctly—he said that the order would not affect the prohibition with regard to citizens of the Republic of Ireland being employed in

1285
the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I hope that I heard him aright. If that is the case, would it not in itself be in contravention of Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it may well be; but I do not think that the anomaly could be removed—I stand to be corrected on this point—merely by acting as we have done in this order. A number of matters will be left to be addressed, but I have stated what I think is the correct position with regard to Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
11.39 a.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Ports Bill
11.40 a.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill concerns the privatisation of the trust ports. The trust ports form an important sector of our ports industry. This is therefore an important Bill, not only for the ports industry itself but also for the national economy because of the role which our ports play in it.
The Bill is the product of two important factors. First, it represents the next stage in the Government's longer-term strategy of progressively opening up the ports industry to market forces. There have long been some ports in the private sector, but in 1981 the Government took a further step in this direction when they privatised the former British Transport Docks Board ports, now Associated British Ports, and the Sealink harbours. These enterprises have been successful in their own right and they also serve as examples to us in considering the present Bill that ports in the private sector can successfully discharge their duties and functions as harbour authorities.
In 1989, a further major step was taken through the Dock Work Act which abolished the Dock Labour Scheme, which had become almost a caricature of restrictive practices and which had hindered and distorted developments in much of the ports industry for many years. The results of its abolition in terms of the improvements in labour relations, the restructuring of labour in the ports, increases in productivity and reductions in ship turnround times, are already a considerable success story. With the dock labour scheme still in place, the scope for further revitalisation of Britain's ports would have been limited. Its removal has opened the way for further opportunities which the Government are now seeking to take, through this Bill.
But the Bill is not just the result of the Government's initiative alone. A number of the largest trust ports have made clear their enthusiasm for privatisation and, as many noble Lords will know, two of them—the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde
1286
port authorities—have gone so far as to introduce Private Bills for that purpose; efforts which unfortunately have not yet met with the success which their initiative deserves.
However, the desire among a number of the trust ports themselves for the greater freedoms and opportunities which privatisation will offer is clear and this Bill, which is primarily an enabling measure, is a response to those aspirations, as well as a further step in the Government's own strategy. This Bill will give those ports the opportunity to enter the private sector without the need to bring forward private legislation.
It may be helpful at this stage if I say something by way of background about the trust ports themselves, which are the category of port to which this Bill applies. First, there are over 100 of them and, although many of them are very small, they form a major component of the ports industry. They include many of the largest ports in the country; such as London, Medway, Forth, Dover and Tees and Hartlepool. It is towards the larger trust ports that this Bill is chiefly directed, although some smaller ones may also wish to take advantage of it.
All trust ports whether large or small are independent statutory bodies each established under its own local legislation. Like the trustee savings banks before they were privatised, they are not owned by anybody except the state; nor are they accountable to anybody. Their status is in a strange limbo which makes them neither properly public nor properly private, answerable neither to shareholders nor to the Government. In some cases the chairman and board members of the harbour trusts, or some of them, are appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, while in other cases the appointments are entirely in the hands of others; but there is no particular pattern to this patchwork quilt of arrangements which have emerged over many years.
Nor is there any overall pattern to the scope of, or the restrictions on, their powers and duties, which differ from port to port. The Government see the benefits of privatisation as being primarily the removal of those restrictions, which will open the way to important benefits. Privatisation will enhance the prospects for the development of the ports by given them access to share capital as well as loan capital, and making them more attractive partners to industrial users of ports and to property developers. It will stimulate the development of surplus land, since most trust ports are restricted to development for port purposes only. It will make it possible for port undertakings to diversify their businesses or to develop port activities outside their home territory. It will sharpen performance by bringing about clearer accountability and greater emphasis on profitability; and it will open up the possibility of employees owning shares in their own businesses, building on the new atmosphere created by the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme.
I have already mentioned the initiatives taken by the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities. I know that other trust ports were

1287
planning to introduce their own Private Bills when the Government took the opportunity of bringing forward this Bill. Other ports are looking very carefully at the opportunities offered by privatisation. I ask any other of the major trust ports which are not already doing so to look very carefully at the advantages of privatisation; and I hope that some of the smaller ports also will consider whether this is an opportunity that they should take. In our view it would be in the public interest for most of the major trust ports to enter the private sector, though we accept that immediate privatisation may not necessarily be right for all of them.
That, very broadly, is the objective of Part I of the Bill. I shall outline its provisions in rather more detail in a moment. I should like first, however, to mention the two other major parts of the Bill. The first deals with the Port of London Authority, which is the largest trust port. It deals with the PLA separately and in a different way from the other ports, which are enabled by the Bill to privatise themselves lock, stock and barrel. The PLA, by contrast, is empowered under Part II of the Bill to sell off its commercial docks at Tilbury, while retaining its conservancy and other statutory functions as regards the River Thames as a whole.
In concluding that this is the right course to take for the PLA we have had in mind three factors. The first is the sheer size of the area for which the PLA is responsible: 150 kilometres of river from Teddingtono Lock to well seaward of the Medway estuary and Clacton-on-Sea. The second is the very wide range of regulatory functions which the PLA undertakes compared with other harbour authorities; including, in particular, the regulation of public passenger traffic on the Thames. The third is the place and role of the river in the capital city; for example, in its use for state occasions and by royalty.
I know that the PLA welcomes these proposals: it is one of the ports that is keen to take advantage of the opportunities which this Bill offers. Noble Lords will also wish to be aware that the proceeds from the sale of Tilbury will go towards repaying to the Government the PLA's outstanding debts and repayable grant.
The remaining major part of the Bill concerns navigational aids in harbour authorities' areas. The provisions in the Bill will correct an anomaly under which some harbour authorities have the financial responsibility for all navigational aids in their area while others do not. Where the harbour authorities do not have this responsibility, it is the general lighthouse authorities which have it. These are Trinity House in England and Wales, the Northern Lighthouse Board in Scotland and the Commissioners of Irish Lights in Northern Ireland, The Bill sets out arrangements for the transfer of these responsibilities to the local port authorties.
I now turn to the detailed provisions of Part I of the Bill, which deals with the privatisation of trust ports apart from the PLA. Clause 1 defines a trust port by excluding other categories of harbour authority. It also excludes the PLA from this part of the Bill. It
1288
empowers trust ports to set up a successor company to which the property, rights, liabilities and functions of the trust port may be transferred.
Clause 2 provides for the transfer of the property, rights, liabilities and functions of the trust port to the successor company on the coming into force of a transfer scheme to be made under this part of the Bill. Part I of Schedule 1 contains supplementary provisions which relate to all transfers under this clause, while Part II of the schedule contains supplementary provisions any of which may be applied to a transfer scheme.
Clauses 3 and 4 oblige a successor company, in consideration for the transfer of the port's undertaking, to issue securities to the trust port as and when the port directs it to do so. The port is then obliged to dispose of the whole of its holding in the successor company at the time and on the terms that it thinks fit. The port is also obliged to pay over to the successor company the bulk of the proceeds of the sale of its holding in the company, after payment of the Government levy and any capital gains tax. I shall discuss the levy when I come to Clause 13.
Clause 5 makes the exercise of the port's powers under Clauses 3 and 4 subject to Ministerial consent. The clause also empowers the appropriate Minister to give the port authority directions about the exercise of those powers. Subsection (3) of this clause provides that, in exercising his powers, the Minister is to have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the sale of the port to its management and employees.
Clause 6 contains supplementary provisions to the preceding clauses. Clause 7 provides for the Minister to dissolve the authority once he is satisfied that it has discharged all its necessary functions. All remaining property, rights and liabilities of the port authority will then be transferred to the successor company. Clause 8 makes provision for the accounting treatment by the successor company of these net proceeds of sale. Clause 9 lays down the procedure to be followed by trust ports in making schemes for the transfer of their undertakings to successor companies.
Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State a reserve power to direct a port to make a transfer scheme. This is an important aspect of the Bill, and the Government are aware that a number of ports, even among those which are prepared to look seriously at the merits of privatisation, are opposed to a provision of this kind. Noble Lords will, however, see that it has been made subject to a number of constraints.
First, it will not be exercisable until two years after the enactment of the Bill. Secondly, it can be exercised only after consultation with the port authority concerned. Thirdly, it will be applicable only to those ports above an annual turnover threshold of £5 million, and that figure will be index-linked. Fourthly, any order confirming a scheme of transfer resulting from the use of the reserve power will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, and so debated in both Houses of Parliament. Finally, the Government undertook during the Report stage of the Bill in another place to introduce an amendment in this House to ensure that, if the Secretary of State consults a port after two years about the application of his

1289
power of compulsion, but decides not to apply it, he will not be able to reconsider its application to that port for a further five years.
I hope that these important safeguards in the Bill will reassure my noble friends and other noble Lords that the Government have the clear and firm intention of applying the reserve power in this clause responsibly and carefully. The same will apply to the companion provision in Clause 12, which empowers the Secretary of State to make a transfer scheme of his own where he considers that a scheme which a port authority has been directed to make is unsatisfactory.
Clause 11 sets out the annual turnover threshold to which I have just referred and sets out how it will be calculated. Clause 13 provides for a 50 per cent. levy to be charged on the proceeds of the sale of a trust port's successor company. In my introductory remarks I mentioned that the trust ports have no legal owner except the state. If there were no levy, therefore, the purchaser of a port would, in the absence of any recognisable vendor, receive back the entire proceeds of the sale along with the port itself. We believe that it would be difficult to justify a windfall gain on such a scale.
Clause 14 sets out the arrangements for the payment of this levy and Clause 15 sets out the arrangements for the provision of the information which the Secretary of State will need for the purposes of the levy. Clause 16 makes supplementary provisions relating to the levy and provides that levy paid will be allowable as a deduction against gains for the purposes of capital gains tax. Clauses 17 and 18 empower the Secretary of State to make an order for a levy on any gains from the disposal of land by the successor company within 10 years of the privatisation.
Clause 19 gives a port authority the power to reimburse the costs incurred by a management-employee buy-out team in mounting a bid for the port's undertaking. As I mentioned earlier, these costs are deductible for the purposes of calculating the levy on proceeds. This further underlines the Government's wish to encourage management-employee buy-outs in this privatisation process. Clause 20 is supplementary to Part I of the Bill.
Part II of the Bill is concerned with the sale by the Port of London Authority of the Port of Tilbury. Clause 21 empowers the PLA to establish a company to take over the Tilbury undertaking. Clause 22 provides for the PLA to submit to the Secretary of State a scheme for the transfer of the Tilbury undertaking to that company. The Secretary of State's confirmation of such a scheme, with or without modifications, will be given by means of an order. The statutory functions of the PLA, to the extent that they relate to the undertaking being transferred, will be transferred with it, subject to any exceptions made in the scheme.
Clause 23 and Schedule 2 are supplementary to Clause 22, and set out in detail the provisions that the PLA scheme of transfer may contain.
Clause 24 sets out the provision which the scheme of transfer of the Tilbury undertaking will need to
1290
make to protect the pension rights of those employees of the PLA whose jobs are transferred with the Tilbury undertaking. No similar protection is needed in Part I of the Bill because the pension rights of the employees of other trust ports transfer automatically under Clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 25 makes special provision about works licences for property transferred by the scheme.
Clause 26 empowers the PLA to dispose of the securities of the Tilbury company, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State, who will also be empowered to give the PLA directions concerning the disposal. Clause 27 enables the Secretary of State to direct the PLA to form a company and transfer its undertaking. As in Part I, this reserve power would only become operative two years after enactment; and the other constraints on the reserve power which I have already mentioned in relation to the corresponding provisions in Part I of the Bill will also apply.
Clause 28 contains a parallel provision to Clause 19, and empowers the PLA to underwrite the costs of a bid for the port mounted by its management and employees. Clause 29 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations about the rateable values of the new Tilbury company, and of the residual PLA undertaking, during the transitional period after privatisation. Finally, Clause 30 concerns the interpretation of Part II of the Bill.
Part III of the Bill contains the provisions about navigational aids in harbour authorities' areas to which I referred earlier, together with some supplementary provisions.
Clause 31 confirms that harbour authorities have power to mark and to light their harbours and that they are to be regarded as local lighthouse authorities. The clause also prevents the general lighthouse authorities from installing lighthouses, buoys or beacons in the area of a harbour authority unless they are aids to general navigation.
Under Clause 32 the general lighthouse authorities are to put to the Secretary of State proposals for the transfer of local navigational aids within harbour areas to the local harbour authorities. The Secretary of State may approve such proposals with or without modifications and he may by order appoint a date for the transfer. Clause 33 makes it possible for a general lighthouse authority to transfer to a harbour authority at any time, with the consent of the Secretary of State, a navigational aid in that harbour authority's area. Clause 34 is supplementary to Clauses 31 to 33.
Clause 35 deals with the tax treatment of companies formed under Parts I and II of the Bill. Clause 36 effects certain exemptions from stamp duty. Clauses 37 to 42 make various supplementary provisions, including the extent to which the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland. With the exception of some of the provisions about navigational aids, the Bill will come into force on Royal Assent.
That is the Bill which is now before your Lordships. It was of course thoroughly debated in the various stages of its progress in another place and important additions and changes were made to some parts of the Bill to meet points which were then raised. I shall need to bring forward a handful of amendments during our

1291
Committee stage, but I do not expect these to give rise to any great controversy. The Government believe that the Bill which they have now brought to this House is a well-balanced measure which deals fairly with the ports industry, and those who are concerned with it, in pursuing the privatisation of trust ports. It will hell) our ports to adapt to the changing needs of the economy and will give them the scope and freedom for development which they will need to face the challenges of the single market. I commend the Bill to this House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
12 noon
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his detailed explanation of the Bill, though his speech contained some significant omissions on which I propose to alight in the course of my remarks.
We oppose this Bill and even though, as the Minister- said, it is true that certain concessions were wrung out—and I use that phrase advisedly—of the Government during the Committee and Report stages in another place, the fact is that the Bill still remains substantially flawed. The Minister's claims for its potentia1 success are unlikely to be realised, not least because this Government have little time left to live.
The Minister alighted on the possibility of a management-employee buy-out. That was one of the concessions that was drawn from the Government as a result of defeats that they sustained in Committee in another place. I do not believe that that potential is likely to be realised to any great extent, if at all. That will be sad because we believe that management-employee buy-outs would be an advantage. However, in reality that will not occur.
In Committee we shall represent not only our views but also a variety of interests; for example the trust ports, the shipping industry, trade unions, the National Trust and other environmental bodies and, not least, local communities and authorities all of which have made powerful but largely unavailing representations to the Government. We shall test the Government on those issues.
The Bill has been devised by a department which indulges in piecemeal policies and legislation. It is at present a bits-and-pieces department; it has no coherent or cohesive policies. The Bill is not a transport Bill. It has nothing to do with ensuring that port undertakings are seen to be operating as a critical part of a national integrated transport system. The Minister says that he does not understand the meaning of that phrase. No doubt he has failed as yet to educate himself on the point. Most people understand its meaning although the Minister does not.
The Bill is about as relevant to port interests as a report that I once read in a newspaper. It stated:
"Last night a mini-car swerved off the road and crashed into a lamp-post in Magdalen Road, Bexhill. No casualties were reported but communications on the 155-mile railway, the only link between Addis Ababa and Djibouti, have been disrupted".
There is no relationship between the two issues.
1292
The Bill is not relevant to ports and I shall tell the Minister why. It relates to one of the most significant omissions from his speech. The Bill is truly preoccupied not with securing a viable national ports policy but with adding £500 million to the Treasury coffers. It is about the encouragement of land speculation in order to achieve that objective. The Bill takes no account of the widely differing operating practices that have emerged in the trust ports, often to the benefit of the community as a whole. The Government are anxious to be able to sustain the poll tax which they say must remain with us for another three years, although they will not have the opportunity to do so. It has already cost the country approximately £10 billion and the Government must scrape around wherever they can to find money to sustain that and the tax cuts that they wish to make. The Bill is about selling assets to which frequently the Government can lay no claim.
The Bill is not about local communities and it ought to be. It divorces the closely integrated interests of local communities and the trust ports which have been established for many years. The Minister said not one word about that in his opening speech. The Bill offers local communities no say in the further development of their ports policies. None of the proceeds of sale is to be used in trust for local communities. The Bill may well produce consequences that are inimical to the interests of those local communities. It is all about Whitehall knowing best. Why is it purported that the Department of Transport and the Treasury should know what is in the best interests of the local community? That is the kind of political arrogance that cost the Government so many seats in last week's local elections. There is a streak of authoritarianism about the Bill. That indeed is represented in many of the Government's policies but, happily, it is slightly redeemed by the bungling incompetence with which it is executed.
It is absolutely clear that the Bill is not about advancing the interests of industrial relations. It is another instalment in the vendetta that the Government have waged against trade unions, in particular those in the docks. They have encouraged non-recognition and more de-casualisation. I agree with the Minister that the old system had many flaws and needed to be revised and dealt with afresh. However, it is interesting to reflect that when the Dock Labour Scheme was abolished ministerial estimates considered that the cost would be in the order of £24 million. But what was the true cost? Almost £141 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on the scheme already.
There were not, as estimated, between 1,500 and 2,000 redundancies. By 30th June 1990 4,840 former registered dockers—that is 52 per cent.—were made redundant and there are more yet to come. On that occasion the Department of Trade demonstrated all the true qualities of Treasury forecasting upon which my noble friend Lord Peston has commented from time to time. The truth is that the Department of Transport did not do its homework. I hesitate to say

1293
that it misled both Houses of Parliament, but at the least it did not do its homework. Why has the Minister not commented on that matter? Is it not relevant?
The Bill cannot be associated with environmental protection. Deep anxiety has been expressed by the National Trust, in particular about Poole harbour. However, its anxieties have wider application. The National Trust states:
"The Trust recognises the importance of economic prosperity, and notes the contribution made to local income by visitors to Brownsea Island and other Trust property in the region. It has supported strategic plans prepared by local and harbour authorities …Our support is a reflection of the Poole Harbour Commissioners' ability to balance commercial, recreational and conservation interests and their willingness to consult with the Trust and other conservation bodies …The Trust takes the view that to place responsibility in the hands of a commercial operator would destroy this balance to the detriment of conservation".
That is a powerful charge. The National Trust is also anxious about the disposal and unsympathetic development of surplus land on a major environmental site. It considers that it has been able to influence the harbour commissioners but it has the keenest doubts about whether that can be done under the Bill now before us.
The National Trust wishes to see two amendments which have not yet appeared. It seeks a general environmental duty to apply to relevant Ministers, port authorities and successor bodies, and safeguards for lands of special interest when transferred from a port authority to a successor body. The National Trust is deeply anxious but those anxieties have neither been addressed nor allayed by the Government. No doubt the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds will also have sent a briefing to the Minister. I hope that in reply he will refer to what the society and the National Trust have said.
I turn to the issue of compulsion. Notwithstanding what the Minister said we know that he has been unable to satisfy the grave anxieties of many people who are not normally known for their affiliation to the Labour Party. We side with those organisations and Members of Parliament in another place on both sides of the House in saying that we oppose the element of compulsion. That is notwithstanding the qualifications to which the Government have been induced to agree.
We say that trust ports should not be compelled to be privatised if their turnover exceeds £5 million, taking into account what the Minister said. The figure of £5 million is substantially different from the proposals of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Paul Channon, in 1988. He said that he would not force smaller ports into privatisation. That is why his threshold was £10 million. In current prices, that figure should be £13 million. Why is there the change? Again there was no explanation from the Minister in his opening speech. Perhaps that too will be remedied later.
The great virtue of trust ports is that they are independent. They operate as trusts, which means that there are no shareholders. Profit goes to reserve or to finance new investment or to reduce charges. Contrary to some assertions, many have been extremely
1294
successful in building up new businesses in preparation for the new single market in the European Community with all that that involves. Normally their activities are restricted to the interests of the ports and the people outside the ports in local communities.
If operating surpluses are insufficient to provide the needs of the trust ports, they are able to raise capital by means of government loan stock and bank loans. They now have to go to the money markets for any new capital needs. They are not able to offer assets as collateral. Therefore the money is offered against operating revenue and a borrowing limit is set in each Ports Act. Such limit is perfectly capable of being revised to the advantage of the trust ports without having to go through the paraphernalia that the Government seek to impose. I suggest that if that were so, there would be less enthusiasm for this measure by the trust ports. They are concerned about those restrictions.
With such a Bill, the House is entitled to know what a trust port is. How many trust ports are there? Surely those trust ports which are likely to be affected should be mentioned in a schedule to the Bill. The trouble is that the Government either did not know or deliberately declined to give either those statistics or definitions. The best estimates indicate that there are about 111. How many are commercial? It appears that 23 had a turnover in excess of £1 million in 1989. Of those, 14 had a turnover of more than £5 million. Those are not figures volunteered by the Government. Why have the Government been so shy about providing Parliament with those details?
I now refer to major areas of anxiety that will need to be addressed as we proceed with the Bill. Concern has been expressed by the General Council of British Shipping that charges for users will increase. There is worry that exploitation by ports of their monopoly position over captive port users is likely to occur more frequently in particular where their own cargo handling operations directly compete for other traffic with nearby ports or private wharfs. There is anxiety that there could be excessive concentration of port ownership, and that some port users will become port owners and abuse that position to the detriment of competitors. Those are serious worries which the Minister has not begun to address today.
There is anxiety that employment in the ports and activities connected with the ports will decline further. Another point is that ports will come under the gaze of predators avid to develop land rather than ports. The Select Committee of this House on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill was heavily indicted by one Member in another place. I shall not repeat the insulting words that were used. I do not think that they will affect the members of the Select Committee of this House. The Select Committee on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill said—and it has a wider application—that,
"There can be no restrictions on the control of the company when it is eventually floated on the Stock Market … the promoters acknowledged that this was not the only possible method of sale and there is no guarantee that the original shareholders will not sell to a predatory outsider. We acknowledge that such risks are acceptable in the private sector. But we believe that exposing the holding company to such risks could endanger the successor company's ability to

1295
fulfil its statutory obligations and to carry on its core business of running the ports. That could have a detrimental impact on local industry and on the local economy".
I quote that passage from the special report of a Select Committee of this House.
There is disquiet that maximising profits will take priority over safety. As I have already indicated, there is worry that conservation will take second, third or even lower place. Concern is felt that the local community receives nothing while half the proceeds of privatisation will go to the Government and the remainder to the port, with management encouraged to keep a keen eye on diversification rather than intensification of investment in the ports.
Concern has been expressed that consultation with the trade unions will be confined to those ports where trade unions are recognised. I know that mention of trade unions often produces something of a knee-jerk reaction in Ministers these days. However, the port industry is a hazardous industry. It is an industry where c very worker needs protection, and is entitled to protection, which a trade union can help to provide by going beyond wage bargaining, dealing with safety and help with recovering from the effects of injury. Another anxiety relates to the power of compulsion, to which I have already referred.
Those are matters to which we shall return in the course of our debates. I refer now to Part II and the Port of London Authority. It is dealt with separately. As the Minister said, that is because it is a residual authority. However, the significant matter omitted by the Minister today is that the Government made substantial loans and grants to the Port of London. A significant element of those were the payments that had to be made to the dockers who were laid off when the dock labour scheme was abolished. They did not pretend to have any real knowledge of that situation as it developed.
What are the consequences for the Port of London Authority? The Government will take all the proceeds of sale of the commercial docks at Tilbury, but the PLA remains responsible for its statutory duties to which the Minister referred.
There is an extensive navigational area remaining with the Port of London Authority. The anxiety of the General Council of British Shipping is that higher levies on shipping may well have to be imposed. Our merchant fleet has declined alarmingly over the past 12 years It can do without running additional hazards as a result of this measure.
Additional perils were referred to in an article which I am sure that the Minister will have read because I know that he takes the journal every week: the Tilbury Recorder. It had some rather significant comments to make in an article which stated:
"The Government has made sure its Bill loads the dice in favour of a management buy-out but the large tracks of land in such an important area of the country must be an attractive proposition for developers.
"It is by no means certain they would carry on the difficult business of importing and exporting.
"It would be much easier to sell the land for development, if the figures add up.
"This, is the crunch. The Government has said it will claw back half the profits of land speculation in the first ten years after privatisation, which may or may not be enough to guarantee that the McNab team will win"—
1296
the McNab team being the team in favour of management buy-outs.
Those are real perils. That is the reality about the prospects of success for management or employee buy-outs.
In addition, many questions remain unanswered concerning Tilbury. What real protection is offered against the Government simply accepting the highest bid from a purchaser who then refuses to operate Tilbury as a port, preferring property development in the style perhaps of London Docklands? That is a situation which again the Government have not addressed. What about defining the Port of Tilbury as distinct from the Port of London? That is an important consideration. But it does not appear anywhere in the Bill. What about consultation with and recognition of trade unions? The Opposition are concerned about that. We support the concepts of the social charter in Europe, and consultation is an important ingredient of the social charter.
Our objective is to ensure that ports, docks and waterways developments fit into the wider national transport and economic objectives that we will set for the nation. We want to ensure the improvement and maintenance of high standards of safety, welfare and medical services in employment. We want to secure high levels of environment protection, and clearly that is not being addressed by the Bill. We want to ensure that existing planning powers, which at present are inadequate, are reinforced. We say categorically that a start should already have been made to enhance environmental impact assessment in that regard. The way in which the European directive was watered down, largely as a result of this Government's activities, has meant that it does not cover the situation satisfactorily.
We believe that encouraging sales of land owned by trust ports and expanding commercial activity, which is desirable, could nonetheless have an environmental price. The fair quid pro quo for that is to enhance environmental protection. The trouble is that it is the quids rather than the quos that interest this Government.
I conclude on this note. If the Government had invested as much time and thought in developing a true ports policy as they have in pushing their ideological missions, the ports and the nation would be infinitely better off. It is a bad Bill. It is an irrelevant Bill from the point of view of the welfare of the ports, those that they serve and the nation. Come the general election we shall seek to tackle the problems of our ports in an entirely different fashion.
12.22 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, indicated in his introduction of this Second Reading debate on the Ports Bill, the measure is principally an enabling one. The object is to construct a framework under which any trust port that wishes may become privatised more quickly than through the often cumbersome and costly Private Bill procedure. On that basis we on these Benches feel that the Bill has much to commend it; nevertheless, we shall support amendments at Committee stage to

1297
provide safeguards against some of the points referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Our main anxiety relates to the reserve powers under Clause 10 of the Bill, even as now modified. I shall come back to that if I may.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, reminded us, there are around 111 trust ports, although in reading the historical background I understand that nobody is quite clear whether that is the right number. They have grown up in a somewhat haphazard way, as the Minister pointed out. They have been constituted in different manners, the one from the other and for varying periods. They have differing responsibilities. However, I am not sure that that need necessarily be regarded as a disadvantage.
Trust ports have been tailored in some sense to fit in with their local communities. I am aware of the pride with which some local communities regard their trust ports. Nevertheless it is perfectly true that some of the trust ports consider that they are constrained by their constitutions and regulations in the proper pursuit of their functions. If they feel that privatisation is the right route for them to take, it is surely perfectly proper that they take it, and this measure would facilitate their doing so. It is equally right that those trust ports—I speak about the larger ones which are caught by the measures in Clause 10—which feel that they can most effectively perform their functions as at present and have the full support of the communities they serve should be able to continue to do so.
Among the larger ports which either wish to continue to operate as they are or have serious reservations about the Bill are Poole, Aberdeen, Lerwick, Dover, Milford Haven and Harwich. Therefore quite a number of the larger trust ports have serious anxieties about the Bill. We must take note of those anxieties. In some cases that anxiety is supported by strong local feeling. A case in point is Poole, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred.
The port of Poole not only operates a port which covers 60 acres of ground; it is responsible also for a further 10,000 acres of land of special scientific interest. Therefore it has a major environmental responsibility. There is grave concern that if the port were to pass into other hands, that environmental responsibility might not be discharged as effectively as it is at present.
The port of Poole can claim to have had a successful commercial operation. Its turnover in the past five years has increased from £4.5 million to £7.5 million and it is showing profits before tax of the order of £1/2 million. It has built up reserves of £6 million. It does not regard the legislative powers under which it operates as in any way constraining its operations and firmly wishes to continue along the successful line on which it has operated hitherto.
Another example of a port which has reservations about the Bill is Lerwick. That is a port which has also succeeded in expanding its port business and effectively developing surplus land. Over the past 20 years its income has grown from £40,000 to over £5.5
1298
million.It has responded efficiently to the needs of the oil and fishing industries, tourism and agriculture. In other words, as a trust port it has done all that might be expected of a successful, enlightened and profitable private sector company. Therefore one might well ask why such a port, if it does not wish to move in the direction of privatisation, should be made to do so. Surely that is a case for leaving well alone and encouraging rather than discouraging it to carry on down the path on which it is so effectively embarked. The port sees no impediment in the way of borrowing money under its existing charter, and its investments in any event are largely financed from its own cashflow. Over £30 million has been reinvested in its activities in the past 20 years. That is a substantial sum for a company of its size.
The reasons escape one as to why there should be any application of the Government's reserve powers under Clause 10 to such an operation. It is true that as a result of the Committee deliberations in another place, and as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, a number of modifications to the application of the Government's reserve powers were agreed. We know that those powers will not be exercised for a period of two years from the time the Bill passes. In one way that is a benefit; in another way it is a disadvantage. It means that for that two-year period the equivalent of a sword of Damocles could be hanging over the heads of some of the ports. In conducting their operations they would not know what their ultimate fate might be.
The second modification is that there will be consultation. That is excellent, but quite clearly it is implied that the Minister will finally decide whatever he might be told during consultation. As we know, it is only the ports with a turnover of over £5 million that will be affected. However, it is those trust ports with such a turnover that have been so successful. Therefore, they should be able to decide for themselves which way they want to go. Certainly a beneficial modification, as a result of the deliberations in another place, is that any order made by the Minister will be subject to affirmative resolution.
The Government have stated that they will adopt a responsible attitude. That is fine. I am sure that they will. But the question still remains as to why successful trust ports coming into the larger category should have the threat of being compelled to move in a direction of which they do not approve. I very much hope that amendments will be moved at Committee stage which will enable us to overcome that. If the amendments to remove the powers of compulsion are not successful I hope at the very least that the Government will be prepared to lay down precisely what will be the criteria on which they will decide, at the end of the two-year period, to constrain the larger trust ports that do not wish to go down the privatisation route to do so. For example, would the Government consider as a candidate for that treatment a port which had a consistent profitability over the past five years? Would the Government consider for such treatment a port which had substantially invested from its own reserves into the development of the port? Would they consider that a

1299
port which in addition to discharging its port responsibilities had very successfully undertaken large environmental activities should be subject to that procedure?
The existence of these reserve powers raises very serious questions. I do not consider it right that these larger trust ports should live in uncertainty for two years without knowing what is going to happen to them and the basis on which the Government will reach their decision. While I support the broad thrust of the Bill as an enabling measure, I express the gravest concern about the reserve powers and how they are likely to be used.
12.33 p.m.
Lord Napier of Magdala: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Ports Bill. I have been in the ports industry for about 25 years; all of that time in the private sector. I am very interested in the welfare and efficiency of our ports and in the influence that that has on the economy of the country. The Ports Bill is about privatisation of the trust ports, as has been explained. In particular, the issue is whether there should be an element of compulsion for the larger ports.
I am in favour of private industry and, broadly speaking, I feel that the case has to be argued against privatisation in most instances. It is true that there are many different kinds of ports and they have many different responsibilities. Those factors have to be looked at in individual cases. The British Isles are blessed with a number of splendid natural harbours many of which have been developed into excellent ports. There is strong competition in the ports industry, both within the UK and with the Continent. That is one of the main prerequisites to be satisfied for successful privatisation. A competitive environment is very important in this issue.
However, a number of the trust ports have expressed disapproval of the element of compulsion in the Bill. I have heard about Dover expressing doubts about the uncertain prospects due to the Channel Tunnel being completed. On the same day I read in Lloyds' List that the ferry operators are building newer, bigger and faster cross-Channel ferries. I doubt that the activities of the port of Dover will collapse when the tunnel is operating. Aberdeen has said that everything is fine as it is. Its concern is that the cross-subsidy in favour of the fishing industry might be prejudiced by privatisation. Possibly marginal costing benefits to help the fishing industry over a difficult period would be of benefit.
However, for new investment surely the disciplines of capital investment as seen in the private sector provide the best way of weighing up the demands of the different interests such as fishing, shipping, the import and export trade, shipyards, the North Sea supply business and leisure interests. That is all within the scope of the harbours legislation and normal business obligations as regards the Office of Fair Trading And considerations of the environment. I am sure that my colleagues will be disappointed to hear of the implication that the private sector cannot be
1300
responsible for the environment. Let us hope that within the framework the Scottish fishing industry can be put back on its own feet as soon as possible.
There are one or two other situations which need to be mentioned. In estuaries there are circumstances where one port authority which may be private, a trust or a municipal port, has the conservancy authority and controls the whole estuary as regards access to the other ports, commercial wharves and marine terminals. The ports may be competing against others over which the authority exercises some control. Therefore, there is potential for clashes. One such authority is the Thames. That may be part of the reason for the special treatment that the PLA has received in this Bill. The PLA split Tilbury from the river authority a number of years ago for operational and profit-and-loss accounting reasons. Under the Bill that split will be formalised.
The PLA will remain as a trust conservancy authority for the estuary. Included in its area will be not only Tilbury but other terminals on the Thames, the Medway ports and the private terminals in the area. As a controlling authority it can be even-handed in the allocation of charges without the temptation to favour its own commercial port. However, the next main estuary along the coast at Harwich harbour is being treated differently. That is the harbour in which Felixstowe, Ipswich and the Stena-Sealink port of Parkestone Quay and other smaller ports are located.
The Harwich Haven Authority already exists as a trust port for the same purpose of controlling the entrance to the harbour and it has marine and navigational responsibility for the harbour. It is one of the trusts which is under possible compulsion to privatise. It should be noted that there appears to be uneven treatment between the two estuaries. But does it matter? Is there a danger that one of the ports or an outside competitor may buy up the Harwich Haven Authority and squeeze out one or more of the other ports? That is the kind of scenario that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, set out.
I do not believe that that is a real danger. First, there are already a large number of private ports in that position. They include many important ones such as the Mersey and the Humber with upper ports separate from ABP, which is the controlling authority. That situation has been in existence for a long time and there has been no serious conflict in that respect. There is also the Harbours Act, which provides obligations, including the requirement that charges in this respect must be reasonable. There is a mechanism under Section 31 to resolve such disputes. I have not heard any concern expressed in the area which I know—namely, the upstream ports—at the prospect of such privatisation.
I should also like to comment on the levy in the Bill. The legislation proposes that 50 per cent. of the proceeds should go to the Government. I accept that the Government should be the recipient as keeper of the public purse. I cannot see any reasonable alternative to that arrangement. The level of 50 per cent. sounds a reasonable sort of compromise, but it actually creates a peculiar situation. Let us imagine that one is at an auction and that the rules of the

1301
auction are such that whatever one bids, and if that bid is successful, one is given back half of the money put forward. One does not need to be a senior wrangler to work out that one can actually afford to bid double what one thinks the item is worth. That seems to me to be a peculiar situation. If tendering for the trust ports is truly competitive the bid price quoted will, in any event, be artificially inflated.
Again, does it actually matter? Under the Bill as drafted, the cash is deemed to be accumulated profit for the successor company. That does not actually affect the value at which the assets are transferred and therefore the clawback provisions for the sale of surplus land should still work. But, more importantly, the cash should still be distributable—that is, unless it is needed immediately for development—otherwise cash would be tied up unnecessarily and would therefore be unproductive.
The Secretary of State for Transport spoke the day before yesterday at the British Ports Federation lunch. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the other noble Lords who were present, of the right honourable gentleman's equivalent of NIMBY (not in my back yard) which he put forward in respect of the reluctant ports. He called them "WIMPs": that is, "Why in my port?". Perhaps I may add my contribution to that. I hope that most of the trust ports—at least, the larger ones—will see the light and that in order to avoid the aggravation of compulsion they will agree to the privatisation plans of the harbour authority; thus making everyone happy.
I thank your Lordships for giving me the opportunity to speak in this House for the first time.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will want me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Napier of Magdala, on his maiden speech. I congratulate him not only on his declaration of interest, because he brings to this House considerable knowledge of ports and of the shipping industry, but also—and more importantly—on the content of his speech, which was laced with an element of weight and also with a realism and confidence in the affairs of the industry. He supports the Bill. I am especially glad that another noble Lord joins a rather small group of people who take part in transport matters in this Chamber. I am sure that he will agree that ships, shipping and matters of the sea are as much transport as any other mode. If we are to have the pleasure of hearing his future contributions in these areas, I am confident that it will be to our benefit.
I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill which I see as completing the reorganisation of the ports and shipping industry which started about eight years ago with the privatisation of Associated British Ports. A few years later, we had the abolition of the dock labour scheme. I greatly differ from what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said about the Bill. He opposed it, and he gave a variety of reasons therefor. I remember most of those reasons being expressed by speakers from the other side of the House during the
1302
progress of the two measures to which I referred. In my view, it is quite wrong for him to suggest that those two measures have not been successful. Indeed, they have been hugely successful for the undertakings, for those employed by them and also for the nation as a whole.
I was glad to hear my noble friend the Minister give the House an explanation of the Bill and of how certain parts of it were decided. Although I shall make a few comments, I hope that my noble friend will not see them as being in any way critical; they are more of an inquiring nature. I, too, should like to refer to Clauses 10 and 12, as did the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Ezra. I listened carefully to what my noble friend said about the reserve powers and how the clauses were drafted. He also described the mechanics and the safeguards. However, although I do not disagree with compulsion, I cannot follow the basic thinking as to why it should be necessary. For example, why should a satisfactorily operated trust change its status against a reasonable desire? I can envisage great advantages in the prospect, but much anxiety has been expressed. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we can discuss the matter in greater detail in Committee.
Stemming from that, regarding privatization—that is, voluntary or by virtue of Clauses 10 and 12—I wonder what kind of company structure is envisaged for the "successor company". There is no indication whether there is to be any direction or any suggestion whether the structure of the company will be left entirely to each authority and merely conform to that which is required under the Companies Act.
I cannot imagine that there need be any kind of a golden share arrangement. However, is it suggested, or thought necessary, to protect the successor companies from foreign predators? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned that point. Regarding under-utilised assets in some of the trust ports, especially where those assets are not considered to be direct port activities, perhaps I may ask this. Is it thought necessary to ensure that developers from wherever they may come are constrained from forming consortia to create monopolies in certain out-of-the-normal port activities which would arise from a utilisation of the unused assets?
My last point of concern relates to Clause 19. The clause provides for financial support for management and employee participation—what we used to call management buy-outs. I am greatly concerned that such support may encourage an over-exposure to debt liability. We have seen this in a number of other areas where management buy-outs—admittedly not supported in any way under the terms of an Act of Parliament—supported by merchant banking and other financial institutions have brought the companies into dire straits. One has only to read the financial pages of the newspapers to have this confirmed. Such a provision in the clause may encourage that kind of practice.
The imbalance between owner or shareholder-owner equity and loan funding to complete a purchase has always seemed to me somewhat dangerous. The

1303
clause seems to encourage exactly that. Borrowing for expansion and other activities, which the trust ports have not been able to do, is a totally different matter. I welcome the Bill. It complements all that has been done in the industry in the past. I hope that we shall not spend too much abortive time on later stages and that the Bill can quickly be brought to the statute book.
12.52 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I too declare an interest, albeit an indirect one, in that I am a director of a company that owns small ports. However, I have no connection with any trust ports.
I should like to add my support to the Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that movement to the private sector is the right direction for achieving a successful ports industry which will be competitive in a world market. Privatisation of the trust ports will be an important milestone along that road and one which must be passed if we are to maintain Britain's position in this industry and provide our importers and exporters with the efficient service they need to function properly. However, like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I have some niggling doubts on specific points in the Bill. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could address himself to them either today or at Committee stage.
Like my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am concerned at the possibility of excessive foreign control of the ports that are relevant to this Bill. I should much appreciate it if my noble friend could give the House advice as to whether there will be any safeguards in this context. What safeguards exist, if any, or are contemplated against excessive acquisition leading to a monopoly or even a quasi-monopoly situation? What consideration is contemplated to improve the procedure for examining cases of unreasonably high charges after privatisation?
That said, the proof of the more general and the more important pudding is in the eating. As my noble friend the Minister has already said, this particular pudding has been found to be very wholesome. I refer specifically to Associated British Ports. ABP was privatised in 1981 and its holding company was successfully floated onto the Stock Market in 1983, with many of its employees becoming shareholders. Since 1983 the turnover and profitability of ABP has increased significantly and ABP has achieved the highest growth in share price and market valuation of all the previously state owned enterprises now in the private sector. If ever there was an historic illustration of the benefit of privatisation of ports that surely is it.
The Bill provides that all liabilities of the existing trust ports, as well as all the functions conferred or imposed On those ports by any statutory provision of local application, will be transferred to their successor companies. This will—I am sure my noble friend made this point in his opening remarks—naturally include all conservancy and environmental responsibilities, and, by the same provision, all existing port users and amenity groups, including fishermen, will be protected. In my submission the objections raised to the Bill
1304
on these grounds are not well founded. I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Napier of Magdala, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I support him particularly in his comment—indeed I would go further and perhaps say that it is an insult to say this —concerning it being said that the owner of a port in the commercial sector does not have strong environmental interests at heart. It is in his own interests to do so, and indeed this is proven.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my point was not an attack in any sense on those who are involved in the trust ports. However, there is the risk of predatory activities taking place which will have little or nothing to do with the ports. They could be very dangerous indeed for the environmental scene. That is the point made by a number of environmental bodies, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Lord is talking about the exploitation of the land adjacent to the ports rather than the port activities themselves. I am not, nor do I want to be, in a position to defend what has happened in the past. However, I know for a fact that port owners in the private sector are extremely conscious of the whole environmental situation. It is in their interests—I repeat what I said just before the noble Lord's intervention—to have very great regard for environmental impact.
Much emphasis has been put on Clauses 10 and 12, and understandably so. The question of compulsory privatisation of the ports is very difficult. However, the Bill makes clear—indeed my noble friend has made it even more clear—that preference will be given to management and employee buy-out schemes. Even the party opposite, although clearly opposing this Bill, supports the concept of such management and employee buy-outs. On balance it does not seem to me to be right that the employees of a minority of trust ports should be deprived of the right to participate in the running and the success of their authority, especially when they will probably see their colleagues in other adjacent ports across the country doing just that.
Experience has shown that privatisation works. It increases efficiency and profitability and it improves the service offered to its users. If a few ports are left out and begin to lag behind those which have been privatised, the effects will surely be felt throughout the locality, not just by the port alone. Ports are just as much a public service industry as, for instance, the electricity industry, the telephone industry or the postal industry.
I submit to the House that in the interests of the port industry as a whole—and more importantly of the country—it is vital that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. The UK needs a port industry of the highest calibre which can meet the challenge of competition from the rest of the world. We must ensure that the ports are given the opportunity to meet that objective. I believe that this Bill helps greatly in that respect.
12.59 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I strongly support this Bill, which will give the opportunity for those ports in the country which are not fully independent to play their part in developing the export opportunities and growth of industry that will be available as we move into the next century. At present, 92 per cent. of our imports and exports goes through our ports and one-third goes through what are now trust ports. They will have to be more flexible and use their assets more effectively. They will have to become more competitive if our industry and exporters are to make use of the opportunities available.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that this was all about, "Whitehall knows best". I appreciate that noble Lords opposite always believe that Whitehall knows best and that the best way to run anything is to plan it centrally and make it conform to rules. In practice, private enterprise and private initiative as well as the ability to be flexible are the most efficient way forward. The Bill is not about, "Whitehall knows best", but about individual businessmen knowing best. We should give them the opportunity to play their part.
I support noble Lords who agree that the best way forward in many instances would be the creation of management buy-outs. I hope that the Government will give every opportunity for that. I know that my noble friend Lord Lucas believes that there must be concern that if some management buy-outs are under financed they will run into difficulties. However, that is one of the dangers of private enterprise. The danger is more than outweighed by the strengths that can be achieved.
I cannot understand why some noble Lords feel that there needs to be a reference to environmental matters in the Bill. This is an enabling Bill to allow certain ports to become independent. It does not deal with planning or environmental matters. Surely a mere change of ownership will not alter the fact that all those ports will come under the same planning and environmental controls as now exist for anyone. I fail to see why it is of concern to a seagull flying along our coast that the land underneath him should be owned on the one hand by a trust port or on the other by an enterprising business. I should have thought it would be in his interests to fly over something that was prosperous and effective.
I also find it odd that it is suggested that workers may not be so well off. I have never yet come across a worker who is not more satisfied in a successful and prosperous business than in a difficult business. In a company such as trust ports now are, where profits and ability to use their assets are restricted, there is clearly a restriction on the company's ability to support its employees. Any employee worth his salt —and most are of that caliber—wants to be in a business that can grow, use its assets, expand and be competitive in the growing world. All workers within such a business will benefit rather than being worse off.
I hope that the House will support the Bill. It is right for the Government to proceed. It is not part of an ad hoc arrangement to raise money but part of a
1306
determined effort by the Government to bring more prosperity to the industry and take away silly controls which are no longer available or applicable in a growing and changing world. I support the Bill wholeheartedly.
1.4 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, at the outset I wish to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Napier of Magdala on his exceedingly well informed maiden speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we look forward very much to hearing more of his expertise on maritime subjects in your Lordships' House. We are doubly pleased to have him among us. Speaking as a flag officer of your Lordships' yacht club, I must say that the noble Lord is an ace dinghy helmsman. That will stand us in good stead when we hold our annual dinghy race against the other place.
I must also declare an interest in that I am a director of a company involved in the international port business. I welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, it is a logical step to make our ports even more efficient by better use of their assets. It follows the successful privatisation that created Associated British Ports in 1981 and the abolition of the dock labour scheme two years ago. The Bill has been much improved in the course of its passage through the House of Commons.
We are an island nation, and, as other noble Lords have said, we need our ports. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said that 92 per cent. of our trade passes through our ports. To give a comparison with two of our continental neighbours, the figure is 69 per cent. in France and 76 per cent. in Italy.
Whoever may own the ports, they are a national asset. I hope that the Government will take on board some of the reservations that have been mentioned regarding the future of the ports once they have been privatised. I hope that the Government will not lose all interest, once privatisation has taken place, as is suggested by some of the financial advisers who are rushing round the ports which wish to be privatised like bees round a honey pot.
Compulsion is one of the areas of the Bill that has been mentioned by nearly all noble Lords. It is an element of the Bill that still causes a certain amount of anxiety. It is to be welcomed that during the passage of the Bill through another place the Government stated that the affirmative resolution is to apply in relation to compulsion orders. They thereby give the opportunity to both Houses to discuss the matter.
I suppose that there is just an outside chance that a port may see itself coming into the £5 million turnover band and turn away business in order to stay below the limit. I do not suggest that that will happen, but there is a slight element of worry there. To be fair, the Government have made it clear all along; they have never said that they would privatise all trust ports. The Bill is an enabling measure and it has enough flexibility built into it for each port to put its case to the Government, who need not necessarily say, having seen the scheme put forward, "We think you ought to be privatised". If the privatisation scheme is not

1307
compelled to go through, that port will not be affected for another five years. That is a useful addition to the Bill.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has left his place. He is implacably opposed to the element of compulsion, as no doubt is his noble friend Lord Underhill. Incidentally, a former trade minister of New Zealand, when speaking at the ports privatisation conference in January this year—I have a feeling that it was a Labour minister—said that he favoured the compulsion element.
Conservancy and conservation have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The Government and the Secretary of State for Transport are on record as having said that conservancy will be looked at carefully if a compulsion order is issued by the Government. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, there is no evidence of Associated British Ports or the Sealink ports having failed in their conservancy duties.
I turn now to management-employee buy-outs. It is welcome that the Government have now stated their willingness to give a measure of preference to MEBOs. Many ports are anxious to get the Government to put a definite figure on how much they are prepared to help in terms of percentage. Some have talked about 5 per cent., others 10 per cent. If any such undertaking is written into the Bill at this stage, it may well prejudice matters against the ports' wishes when they come I o put their individual schemes to the Government, not to mention the fact that too high a preference might also discourage other potential buyers and do away with the competition element entirely. However, I agree with noble Lords who have said that some form of protection against predators in the early years of a MEBO would be welcome. We shall no doubt return to that matter in Committee.
Before I leave MEBOs, I understand there are some guidance. notes on procedure for sale. I hope the Minister will tell the House what the position is as regards any guidelines. Some ports, for example, favour slightly different methods of privatisation. The port of Blyth is quite interested in whether it can adopt flotation. as an option to sale by tender. I should like to hear the Minister's view on that.
I turn now to another matter that has been raised this morning and which was also raised briefly in another place. It concerns the competition element. Monopoly situations could arise in two ways. They could arise either by several ports in one area coming under the control of one company—that may be a company from abroad—thereby creating a local monopoly; or, alternatively, the new owner of a port might well already be involved in some element of the port business. He may well either hinder or exclude others who wish to carry on that same business. However, I take on board the point made by my noble friend that these kinds of practices have not occurred in areas such as the Humber and the Mersey.
There is already a problem on the south coast as regards the competition element in relation to yachting marinas where one company has bought up a considerable number of marinas and is fast approaching a monopoly situation much to the consternation of yachtsmen who are already paying
1308
high charges and fear swingeing increases. I addressed a Question to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on this point earlier this year in your Lordships' House. Although I recognise that it is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and therefore I do not expect the Minister to answer me on this point, I urge him to get together with his noble friend and reconsider the whole question of the Fair Trading Act 1973 which specifically excluded ports. As a side effect, such a measure might help some of the smaller ports which are worried about predatory advances being made from their neighbouring ports.
I wish to say a few words about groupings. We already have Associated British Ports which is a fairly large group of ports. Some trust ports have expressed an interest in getting together to form another group. That is certainly not a matter that is covered in the Bill. I should like to hear the Minister's views on whether that might be feasible.
I have already mentioned yachtsmen and charges for moorings. It is an inescapable consequence of privatising harbours that the profit motive will raise its head and will no doubt cause an immediate upward pressure on all harbour dues and mooring prices. I hope the Minister can assure the House that the implied obligation in the harbours Act 1964 to keep charges to a reasonable level will still apply after privatisation. Yacht marinas are certainly a fairly new element of sailing which do not necessarily feature in the ports that are already in the private sector. According to the figures issued by the Royal Yachting Association, we shall need some 80,000 new berths for yachts in the next 10 years. That is quite a large element that must be taken into account when considering the whole business of privatisation.
By and large, this is a well thought out Bill with an admirable element of flexibility built into it to cater for the wide variation that exists among the trust ports. Subject to clarifying one or two points in Committee and seeking further assurances from the Minister to allay some of the real fears that still exist in some of the ports —several have been mentioned such as Dover, Poole, Blyth and others—I
am happy to support the Bill's Second Reading. I hope the Bill has a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said—one could almost believe from his remarks that no one wants privatisation—some of the trust ports are exceedingly keen to privatise. Certainly Tilbury, our largest trust port, is keen to privatise as quickly as possible.
1.15 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Napier of Magdala, on a fine maiden speech. His authority leads me to suspect that we shall be hearing a great deal more from him.
Before I turn to the particular case of the trust port with which I have the most intimate knowledge; namely, Tees and Hartlepool, being the mouth of the river on which the town of Stockton stands, a town whose name I have the honour to bear, I wish to welcome the Bill before your Lordships' House today.

1309
The history of Britain's ports is as long and important as the history of the realm. The British have always prided themselves on being a maritime nation. One just has to watch the average Briton on a cross-Channel ferry, binoculars in hand, astride his own personal quarter deck, scanning the horizon, to know how deep that feeling for the sea is in all of us.
Without the ports and harbours of Britain there would have been no trade, no navy, no Empire—in short, no Britain. The development of that trade, even in the early days of the navy, was down to the enterprise and daring of individual subjects of the realm. The exploratory voyages of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were more often than not in search of new markets and new products. Enterprise, the readiness to accept risks and the wish to fulfil a dream have always been the hallmarks of our maritime tradition. This Bill gives the trust ports back to that tradition.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, whose knowledge of the problems of the port of Dundee is considerable, is sadly unable to be in your Lordships' House today. However, she has asked me to express her support and that of the management and employees at Dundee for the Bill.
On 29th January this year it was my privilege to move in this House the Second Reading of the Bill to privatise the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority. On the previous night in another place this Bill, the Ports Bill, received its Second Reading. Now it is before this House. I take great pride that it was the initiative of the Private Bill which I introduced into this House which has produced the Ports Bill we are now debating.
Clearly I am disappointed at the treatment of that Private Bill by the Select Committee in this House, and I shall return to that later. Its fate has obliged Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority to review its position and the prospects for securing privatisation under this Bill.
I am sad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is not in his seat. He has claimed that privatisation is not in the interests of the future of any port, as he did during the Private Bill that I sponsored. I am afraid I must inform the noble Lord that he is wrong. I have discussed the situation closely with the port authority and I am delighted to say that it shares my views. The authority remains committed to privatisation and, just as importantly, so do the employees. I have held consultations with employees' representatives and the major customers and users of the port, and I have elicited that they are all in support of this development. The only serious objection came from one group in Cleveland County Council and that was not the largest group in the majority on the council. The Ports Bill is an excellent Bill. Privatisation under its terms is a tremendous opportunity for those ports that choose to take it. Tees and Hartlepool certainly will take that opportunity.
The priority is to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible so that privatisation can get under
1310
way. The competitive map is changing as the benefits from scrapping the dock labour scheme unfold. 1992 is nearly upon us; we must get on with this matter.
There has been much debate on the question of the proceeds, on compulsion and on management and employee buy-outs. The Government have been receptive to amendments in another place. The position on those issues as the Bill now stands is about right, in my view. However, fundamentally those are still side issues. Trust ports which quickly seize the competitive benefits of privatisation offered by the Bill will have an attractive future. Those which do not will come to recognise that long before the question of compulsion arises. The vital issue is to get the Bill onto the statute book quickly.
The Bill will involve competitive bidding. There will be no guarantee of success for the home team. I have discussed that aspect with Tees and Hartlepool, which accepts it. I understand that other significant players also accept it. For the Tees and Hartlepool board the key is whether privatisation will secure its objectives. The Government propose to agree objectives on a port-by-port basis. I welcome that. Tees and Hartlepool's objectives are on record in this House. I put them there on Second Reading of its own Bill earlier this year.
Tees and Hartlepool wants to see its cash resources used to broaden and diversify its undertaking as an independent business. It wants to see the promotion of sustained and fair competition in the UK ports industry. After all, this Bill could well see over a third of the industry change ownership in the next few years. The board looks to the emergence of one or two additional independent port groupings which will provide fair competition to ABP in offering comprehensive services through a range of port outlets. It believes that its objectives will be achieved if the successful purchaser is the present management and staff. It believes that a management/employee buy-out has a splendid chance, but agrees that others must also be given a chance.
The Government are aware of those objectives. The Secretary of State said in another place on 28th January that one of his objectives for the Bill was to enable trust ports to diversify. I have no doubt therefore that he will be able to reach early agreement with Tees and Hartlepool.
The Select Committee of this House which considered the Private Bill also agreed with them. It agreed that the port should be freed from the constraints of its trust Act. It agreed that its cash resources should be freed to be put to more productive use. It endorsed the plans to achieve those objectives through diversification. Notwithstanding, the Select Committee of your Lordships' House put a stop to Tees and Hartlepool's plans. It took the view that Parliament should restrict the powers of that large commercial enterprise because at some unknown future date it might use them to venture into new areas about which it knows nothing. It felt that Parliament should prevent the issue of shares, even to the staff, because at some future unspecified time they might fall into unwelcome hands.

1311
I find that difficult to understand. It ignores the experience of existing private sector ports—Associated British Ports, Sealink, Felixstowe and the Mersey. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company was once a trust port but has been a plo for many years. The difference between the Mersey and Tees and Hartlepool is simply the result of an historic accident. To persist with the difference, allowing one to develop but not the other, would be a complete failure c f policy, particularly because trust ports are large commercial businesses. Tees and Hartlepool reported a pre-tax profit for 1990 of £10.9 million, larger than that of the Mersey.
The Opposition believe that trust ports should be freed from constraints through an amended harbour revision order procedure. That means keeping their present, unaccountable, trust status. However, mixing wider commercial powers of accountability is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. The best guarantee of commercial performance is the accountability of the private sector.
I should like to repeat my encouragement to the Minister to get on with the job of putting this Bill into place. I am glad to say that one port, now the second largest in the UK according to the Government's latest statistics published last week and with which I am proud to be associated, will use it as it stands as quickly as it can. The port's successful privatisation depends on a close degree of agreement with the Secretary of State. I am confident that that will be achieved and that within a year Teesside will boast a major new dynamic private sector company. Both in this particular case and in general I welcome the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask this question. Will he accept that at least some members of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to which the opposed Tees and Hartlepool Bill was committed take the view that Clause 9(1) of this particular Bill would have precluded the scheme which the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority put forward in its Private Bill?
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am happy to accept that and to have learned from my noble friend's experience and judgment.
1.25 p.m
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Napier of Magdala, on a well-composed and informative speech based upon his considerable experience of the port industry. We all look forward to hearing from him again on subsequent occasions on this and on other matters.
I am intervening in this debate specifically in connection with the port of Poole and with Poole Harbour. For me it is a matter of great interest and of considerable concern.
I begin by stating that I am not motivated by any financial interest. However, I had a home in Poole for 27 years. I served on Poole Borough Council for a time and I rep resented the borough in the other place for
1312
nearly 15 years. So my interest in the future of the port and of the harbour stems from personal knowledge and much affection.
Before I discuss the implications of the Bill I hope that your Lordships will allow me a little latitude because of my close connection with the place to make some general remarks about the national importance not only of the harbour but also the port of Poole itself.
The harbour is one of the largest natural harbours in Europe. Local pride, indeed, makes a wider claim and equates it with Sydney harbour in New South Wales. The fact remains that it covers 10,000 acres. It enjoys unusual tidal conditions, shared with Southampton Water, in that the height of water is at or above mean sea level for some 16 hours out of each 24-hour cycle. That is virtually a double tide. That is a natural and valuable facility which helps to make Poole Harbour one of the best and most well-known sailing centres in the country.
The southern and western parts of the harbour are classified as an area of outstanding natural beauty and are heritage coast. The shoreline, islands and hinterland contain 14 sites of special scientific interest. The harbour itself in its entirety is an SSSI. There are also six nature reserves adjacent to the harbour shores. Brownsea Island and parts of the south-western shoreline are owned by the National Trust. The harbour bed is an important commercial shellfish ground. The ecology of the whole area is delicately balanced and contains many listed species of both flora and fauna.
Within the confines of the harbour, apart from the commercial port itself, there is a fishermen's dock with 138 registered craft actively employed, seven yacht clubs, one ship repair yard, seven other boatyards and no fewer than 4,000 swinging moorings.
The harbour commissioners have wide statutory powers covering the whole of the harbour, including conservancy, improvement and regulation, navigational aids and pilotage. Other by-laws have to be enforced not only over an area of inland water with a linear landward boundary of some 95 miles but also covering the seaward area from the harbour entrance through the navigable channel in Poole Bay as far as the extremity of the Hook Sands and the Milkmaid Bank.
The extent of the traffic in the harbour and in the harbour approaches can be gauged from the fact that on a weekday in the height of the summer season there can be up to 12,000 small craft afloat, as well as fishing boats, board sailers and water skiers, while moving in the middle channel at a speed necessary to maintain steerage way there can be cross-channel freight and passenger ferries. A new 18,000 tonne super-ferry is also soon to begin operating a frequent service. Three harbour patrol launches have to be kept in commission to monitor the by-laws.
Within the harbour itself, Furzey Island is part of the Wytch Farm oilfield which has proved reserves, making it one of the largest reservoirs of oil on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. A project is under consideration to build an artificial island off the Hook Sands in Poole Bay to facilitate extraction. When

1313
built, that island will come within the regulatory powers of the harbour commissioners. I have described the harbour in some detail because I am at pains to show the heavy responsibilities carried by the harbour commissioners both for conservation and for safety.
The port of Poole itself is an ancient port. There are reasons to believe that it was visited by Phoenician traders. Following the Roman conquest it became the port of supply for the Second (Augusta) Legion. Nearly 1,000 years later Canute the Dane in AD 1020 anchored his transports off the port preparatory to laying waste to Wessex. Having wintered in Poole, he sailed off in the following spring to Greenwich from whence he invested the City of London. After an almost equal span of years, there is again an amphibious military presence in Poole, rather better armed and of a much more friendly disposition-the Royal Marines.
Around the time of the Norman conquest, Poole had become quite an extensive settlement and in the next two centuries it had grown into one of the largest and most prosperous ports on the south coast of England. I believe that the first port-reeve or mayor was elected in 1272. By the middle of the 16th century the port and town had reached such significance that Queen Elizabeth I granted a Royal Charter in 1568 making Poole a county corporate in the style of "The county of the Town of Poole". At that time there were only 16 cities or towns in the whole of the kingdom with that distinction. Poole still has its own sheriff.
By the early 18th century Poole had more ships than any other English port engaged in trade with North America. The barquentines and brigantines registered in Poole carried settlers and domestic goods to Newfoundland and returned with stockfish, whalemeat and timber. The arrival of the steamship and vessels of greater draught destroyed much of Poole's importance as a major maritime town. In 1810, well over 90 per cent. of the working population had been engaged directly with the sea or the harbour. By 1900 the figure was down to 20 per cent. Nevertheless, much of the traditional trade continued to be handled through the port: ball clay, stone, timber and grain. Between the last two wars a close relation of mine frequently sent his quite big ships into Poole with timber from the Baltic.
The turn-round in Poole's prosperity came in 1973 when, through the commendable initiative of the chief executive and his commissioners, a roll-on, roll-off freight terminal was brought into use on the eastern side of the port on the Hamworthy Peninsula and Truckline ferries inaugurated its twice daily service between Poole and Cherbourg. The importance of that ro-ro terminal has grown remarkably. In its first year of operation, 4,750 freight units were carried. By last year the numbers moved annually had risen to 96,700.
In the intervening years the commissioners have bought and reclaimed mudflats from the Crown Estate and have constructed two more berths. These are multi-purpose and enable the ferries to handle private vehicles and foot passengers. Truckline, now
1314
operated by Brittany Ferries, a French company, operates a seasonal passenger service as well as the all-year-round freight, while British Channel Island Ferries carries cars and passengers between Poole and the Channel Islands. In 1990, 781,000 passengers used the terminals and 219,000 private vehicles were carried.
The port now has modern facilities for all that traffic, including comprehensive reception and marshalling areas, warehousing and cold storage. There is of course cargo handling elsewhere within the port for those commodities in bulk carried in conventional cargo vessels. There are six berths on the Hamworthy Peninsula and one at the Town Quay. One berth is used for offshore oil support. Good rail communications have encouraged considerable imports of steel, particularly from Rotterdam and destined for the Midlands. Other imports include bagged chemicals and cement, animal foodstuffs, fertilisers, grain, pumice stone, granite and marble chippings.
The commissioners' stevedoring department expect to handle 360,000 tonnes this year. A great success has been the mutual trust engendered with the port employees. Since the repeal of the dock labour scheme, Poole is the only ex-scheme port in the whole of the United Kingdom where no dock worker has been made redundant. Some 200 persons are employed in the port and a further 650 people are engaged in work allied to port business. The port area covers about 50 acres, all of which is in intensive use. There is no spare land on the peninsula. I emphasise that point. The commissioners own no other land capable of early or easy exploitation.
That is a description of Poole Harbour and the Trust Port of Poole and I make no apology if I have dealt with the matter at some length.
I now turn to the Bill before the House. It is readily conceded that to pursue privatisation through the medium of Private Bill procedure can be a lengthy and expensive process and uncertain as to its outcome. I have had some experience of that in another place and here. The fate of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is a good example. It was thrown out by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House in February of this year. As a consequence, the Clyde Port Authority Bill has since been withdrawn, at least temporarily.
It is only natural that, with the abolition of the dock labour scheme and the greater efficiency thereby introduced into the industry's working practices, there should be a desire on the part of some of the larger trust ports to become public companies. In that they have been supported by the Government and an enabling Bill was foreshadowed by a number of ministerial statements made in the course of last year.
We now have the Bill, but, to my dismay, I find that, allied to enablement, there is a strong element of compulsion, certainly as it affects trust ports with turnovers exceeding £5 million in 1990-91. Poole had a turnover of £8.5 million in 1990-91 so it is effectively caught in the net. The Bill has netted 14 trust ports. All those 14 ports above the £5 million threshold are successful and profitable, but they differ in terms of

1315
location, operations, customers, financial structure and their role within their respective regions, some of which are geographically remote and in one case an island. Notwithstanding the introduction of an affirmative resolution procedure into the Bill, the ports industry continues to seek reassurance that the Government will take all those factors fully into account in deciding whether privatisation is appropriate for a particular port.
For example, some trust ports perform a pure conservancy function by providing for the safe passage of ships in harbour. Others are enmeshed with and support the local or regional economy and employment in a way which might be destabilising if privatisation takes place. In some cases ports already have wide powers to function commercially. In each of those types of port, privatisation would not always be considered by the port in question to be beneficial. Regrettably, and in spite of many opportunities to do so, the debates in the other place have yielded little information from Ministers on what the criteria for a directed privatisation might be. The industry therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to provide information and guidance on the criteria so that at least some of the uncertainty surrounding the issue may be removed and ports can continue to plan ahead for their future development.
Some of the ports have declared for privatisation without qualification, but there is a group of eight which either have certain reservations or are totally opposed to the principle of compulsion. I mention seven of them, but only in passing, because I am neither entitled nor qualified to comment further on them. They are Aberdeen, Lerwick, Dundee, Blyth, Tyne—both places that I know well—Yarmouth and Dover. The eighth is Poole.
The difficulty about the Bill in its present form with its reserve powers is that all the ports are lumped together even though they do not form a uniform group. As I said, they all have varying commercial interests and objectives. That being the case, why the compulsion? It is a highly doctrinaire approach, if I may say so. What has happened to the excellent Tory philosophy of freedom of choice? The plain fact is that no one in Poole wishes the port to be privatised. Public opinion is dead against it and I suspect that my noble friend the. Minister is already aware of that.
There are fears for the future of the environment of Poole Harbour in the hands of anyone other than the commissioners. I have read ministerial statements that the trust ports, having been given certain government financial aid in the past, should be required on privatisation to make a financial return to the Exchequer; hence the proposed levy of half the proceeds of sale.
No government subvention whatsoever has been received by Poole, either toward investment projects or in any other form. The development of the port and the improvement of the harbour has been entirely self-financing from—to quote the preamble in the original Poole Act of 1756—"time out of mind". This has been achieved through the product of the income of boomage, wharfage and, in recent times, the dues from freight, cargo and passengers.
1316
All extra finance needed has been borrowed on the open market—in recent years through lines of credit from the clearing banks. The limit of borrowing under the provisions of the Ports (Finance) Act 1985 is £9 million.
It is a situation of some anomaly. The Government do not own these trust ports, nor in the case of Poole has the Exchequer a lien upon it. It has been suggested that there is an analogy with the original trustee savings banks where there were no explicit owners. On the other hand, at least in that case there was a large number of investors. Parliament had to decide at the time of privatisation whether the TSB should surrender any of the proceeds. Parliament decided that the TSB should not do so.
In the case of the trust ports there is no beneficial membership and no investing public. Yet there is to be this levy. It may be an unworthy thought but I wonder whether the financial penalties that the Bill imposes are not an attempt by the Treasury to recoup some of the £141 million expended in winding up the dock labour scheme. If so, it is bad luck on Poole, which always paid its dues, never made a single dock worker redundant and neither needed nor received any government aid under that scheme.
This question of a mandatory change in status from a trust port to a public limited company is causing great concern. People in Poole cannot understand why the issue of privatisation has not been left to the discretion of individual port authorities which, after all, exist to serve the best interests of the local population. In the case of Poole there is a real fear that there could be a predatory approach by a consortium —as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out—which might seek to run down the port either to rationalise trade elsewhere or to use the 60 acres of dockland for redevelopment as a high value residential waterfront scheme. I wish that I could envisage a management and employee buy-out. At least that would keep port and harbour secure. From what I have been told, however, I doubt whether it is a feasible option.
If the worst comes to the worst, what public company could or would be either willing or able within the severe restraints of profit-making to protect and maintain the amenities of Poole Harbour? The port puts infinitely more into the harbour from its commercial dues for maintenance than it receives from any other maritime activity. The latter merely contributes less than 10 per cent. of the whole. There is considerable apprehension as to what form any future change would take and what result it would have upon the careful control which the present commissioners exercise over the priceless heritage of Poole Harbour.
If the Bill reaches the statute book with the clauses on compulsion intact, it behoves my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ensure that any scheme submitted for approval not only guarantees to maintain the integrity of Poole as an operating port but also guarantees to safeguard the future of the harbour in its present form, in the interests of all who have the pleasure of sailing in it, working from it or just enjoying its unique beauty. Poole awaits such an assurance and so do I.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am not averse to the principles of this Bill but equally it will be no surprise to the Minister to hear that what I say today will be confined to green issues. I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, should mention the environment in his speech. A number of organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (which he mentioned), the National Trust and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, are worried about the potential effects that this Bill may have on land of national heritage value in respect of wildlife, landscape, history and general countryside amenity. I believe that it would be helpful if I explain their concerns this afternoon.
Many trust ports, as part of their harbour estate, hold an interest in land of national, ecological or amenity importance. They can develop that land for port-related purposes without having to apply for planning permission, being exempt under the permitted development provisions of the town and country planning general development orders. Furthermore, they are able to exercise certain statutory powers—for example, powers of dredging —over wider parts of their harbour area. Those activities can seriously affect the ecology or amenity of harbour areas.
Of the ports which are prime targets for privatisation, 10 of the top 14, in terms of annual turnover, own land or exercise statutory powers over areas which include sites of special scientific interest. These are the ports of London, Medway, Poole, Milford Haven, Clyde, Dundee, Forth, Tees and Hartlepool, Ipswich and Harwich. Some of them border on or exercise statutory rights over land which falls within areas of outstanding natural beauty. These statutory ports and many others, some of which are already private or not in line for privatisation, can quite legitimately go about their duty in a manner which damages those interests. There is no general duty laid upon those authorities to take account of the special interest of the land in question.
In recent years Parliament has seen fit to insert environmental clauses in other legislation. There has been a positive trend in that direction. The agriculture Acts of 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, the Water Act 1989 and the Coal Industry Act 1990 are examples. The United Kingdom also has duties and responsibilities towards the protection of the environment under various international agreements. In particular, we must act in keeping with the "wise use" provisions of the Ramsar Convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. We must also ensure that our actions comply with the requirements of EC Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds. Of the 10 ports just mentioned, nine harbour areas take in land which should receive special protection under Article 4 of that directive.
Ministers will be aware that they have no express reserve powers to intervene with a port authority to vary an operational scheme on nature conservation grounds alone. Given that those authorities are not subject to any general environmental duty, we do not
1318
even have the most basic cover in the event of litigation in the European Court of Justice for failure to apply the wild birds directive.
For those reasons I believe that an amendment to the Bill is needed to secure a general environmental duty which applies to existing port authorities, their successor bodies and Ministers. The example of water privatisation is instructive. No doubt many noble Lords will remember the Bill with affection. Section 152 of the Water Act 1989 pioneered a welcome safeguard for the transfer by existing statutory authorities of land of national and environmental significance and its subsequent disposal by their successor bodies. The section's purpose is to allow necessary ministerial intervention over the transfer of such land so that its environmental importance can be maintained.
The section establishes the need for an authorisation, specific or general, to be given by the appropriate Minister before disposal of relevant land. It empowers him to direct how that land is to be disposed of and to require prior consultation with the appropriate countryside agency. That sets an excellent precedent. Transfer of much of the land of special interest under the control of trust ports at the time of privatisation or its subsequent disposal for commercial gain would, in most cases, raise questions of national importance.
It would seem to be inconsistent and damaging to the national interest were trust ports to be treated differently from the old regional water authorities. I believe that it would be highly desirable for the Bill to be amended to incorporate similar provisions. I expect the Minister to say that that will be unnecessary. However, if he can respond today with some general comments, that will help me to decide what action to take at the Committee stage of the Bill.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Underhill: From the Dispatch Box, I too echo the appreciation and thanks that have been offered to the noble Lord, Lord Napier of Magdala, on his maiden speech. He demonstrated his complete grasp of the subject. I am certain that his knowledge will be valuable to us if he is able—as I hope he will be—to attend all further stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
I begin my remarks by asking: what are trust ports? No explanation is given in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, there is nothing in the Bill to indicate which ports are covered. I have a list—no doubt the Minister has it too—indicating four categories of trust port covering 116 ports. One might have expected some reference to the meaning of trust ports in the Bill and an indication as to which ports will be covered.
I am fortunate to have received a briefing from the British Ports Federation. After explaining how trust ports came into being through Acts of Parliament, it states that their purpose is to provide a service for import and export of goods by sea, to provide navigation conservancy, and to make the best use of their assets. It has been made perfectly clear by various noble Lords today that the motive of a trust port is not, in the ordinary sense of the words, personal

1319
private profit. It has to reinvest any surplus achieved or to use surpluses to reduce charges. Those are admirable objectives. It would be interesting to know the purpose of the Government in bringing the Bill forward. Is it because, to save parliamentary time and to expedite the position of those ports which wanted privatisation, they had to bring forward parliamentary Bills? Was it pressure from the Treasury? The figure given by my noble friend of about £500 million likely to be received from the sale of the ports is generally agreed.
What other incentives are there for the introduction of the Bill? Is there an incentive for the trust ports to carry out the aims to which I referred—that is, to provide services of import and export of goods by sea, to pro vide navigation conservancy and to make the best use of their assets? What attention has been given to preserving the local economy? The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the value of communities and the communities' problems in that respect.
It is agreed on this side of the House that there is nothing in the Bill which indicates any intention that the Bill shall be part of a national strategy for the ports industry. It is almost hit and miss. No consideration is given to ensure that ports, docks and waterways development is in line with any national economic development. There appears no intention that it shall be part. of a nationwide transport strategy.
I believe that it is generally understood that trust ports are not permitted to diversify. One claim for privatisation is that there will be scope for diversification. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, stated today that the fact that most trust ports have a fair amount of land available presents an excellent opportunity for diversification. It depends what one means by diversification. It can mean the opportunity for developers to develop areas completely free of real economic interest.
Who owns the trust ports? There is general agreement that, with the exception of the Port of London Authority, to which reference has been made, most trust ports have received little, if any, money from government grants. Yet a press notice from the Department of Transport of 17th January states that,
"Trust ports have no owners other than the state".
It is difficult to prove that the state is the owner. The Waterfront Partnership appears to support the Bil'ls intentions. In a briefing, it states:
"The Trust Ports share with the former Trustee Savings Bank the same obscurity about ownership".
The briefing received from the Waterfront Partnership and the British Ports Federation represents in general fair comment. It enables noble Lords to grasp some important points. As has been mentioned, The British Ports Federation lists no fewer than 14 trust ports which have an annual turnover of at least £5 million. Those are the ones as to which the Secretary of State may use compulsory powers for a privatisation scheme.
A group of those major ports which may be affected by the figure of £5 million is unhappy about the compulsion aspect of the Bill. It wishes any change to be at the discretion of the port. I refer to some of the major ports which believe in privatisation but oppose compulsion. That is also the view of the British Ports
1320
Federation. It agrees with the aims of the Bill but opposes completely any suggestion of compulsion. It believes that it ought to be left to the discretion of ports.
The Government and the British Ports Federation hold the view that there will be the benefits of competition for the successors of trust ports. However, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis stated, the General Council of British Shipping disagrees completely with that attitude. It is extremely worried about the effects of so-called competition. My noble friend referred to some of the statements that the general council had made and I repeat some of the questions to Government which it asked. First, what criteria will govern decisions on approval of the individual privatisation schemes? Secondly, will the Government ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to take a role in preventing over-concentration of ownership? Thirdly, how will the interests of captive port users be protected? They are worried that so-called competition may have a great effect on port users. Fourthly, what is the government view of how remedies against overcharging for conservancy or pilotage services might be improved? That is covered by Part III of the Bill. Those are four questions that the Government have to answer. If the Minister is able to do so today, I shall be grateful. If not, those points will be raised at Committee stage.
Noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, for making the general case for the interests of Poole as a trust port, and for the great support he gave to the tourist industry of Poole. I hope that noble Lords have received the document prepared by the Poole authority. I hope that they will read it carefully because it is important. Poole is a trust port which has an annual turnover in excess of £5 million; it is about £6.4 million. It strongly opposed the compensation and disliked the suggestion of privatisation.
I had intended to deal with certain points arising from the document but the noble Lord, Lord Murton, has covered it so fully that there is no need for me to do so. However, I wish to indicate the powers and composition of the Poole Harbour Commissioners. Their duties were to conserve, regulate and improve the port and harbour of Poole. There are 15 commissioners. The chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State. There is a chief executive. One member is appointed by the Dorset County Council, five by the Poole Borough Council; and one by the Purbeck District Council. Six are elected by the traders concerned; one represents yachting interests; one is appointed by the Transport and General Workers' Union; and one represents fishing interests. One could not find a body of commissioners with a wider spread of interests. They are opposed to the Bill and in particular to the suggestion of compulsion.
In his opening remarks the Minister said that there will be consultation with the port concerns when the scheme is discussed. Why did the Government reject amendments tabled in Committee in another place for greatly widening the degree of consultation? Surely the local authority should be consulted, as should the local users of the port, the trade unions and the

1321
workforce. The environmental and conservation bodies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, should also be consulted. However, in Committee in another place the Government rejected all the amendments. The Minister has merely told this House that there will be consultation with the port concerns. I suggest that the consultation should be in two stages —the first when deciding whether a port should be privatised and the second when a scheme is being prepared and proceeded with. The bodies I have referred to should be included in the consultation at those two stages.
Part II of the Bill refers to the Port of London Authority. It is to be treated not only separately but also differently. The Minister said that one reason for that is the significant loans and grants made to the PLA for payments to dockers laid off as a result of the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme. The report of the Public Accounts Committee of another place has recently been published. I shall be interested to read what it has stated about the scheme. That may be a factor in our discussions about the Port of London Authority.
The Minister has confirmed that the Government will take all proceeds from the sale of the docks at Tilbury. However, the PLA will remain responsible for certain statutory duties. The British Council of Shipping is most anxious about those duties in respect of charging the various shipping interests. The PLA owns extensive land along the river frontage in London, Essex and Kent. Perhaps I may use the Minister's phrase and say that this is ripe for possible development; some would say that it is ripe for possible predators and that development will be encouraged.
We shall have an interesting Committee stage. There will be great differences of opinion. We on this side of the House will oppose the privatisation of these ports. However, our purpose will not be to oppose the Bill but to see how we can make it more tenable and realisable and remove the fear of compulsion. It was said this afternoon that we should avoid having a threat hanging over the ports concerned as a result of not knowing whether they will be compelled. We have had a useful debate. There will be differing views and we look forward to debating amendments in Committee.
2.5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the interesting and useful contributions which have been made to the debate today. These have ranged widely covering both particular aspects of the Bill before us and also its fundamental objectives. It is on those latter issues that I should like to respond first and to explain more fully some aspects of the Government's aims as expressed in the Bill.
As I made clear at the beginning of the debate, the Bill is intended primarily as an enabling measure. It is therefore cast in a form designed to allow individual ports to take the initiative towards privatisation. It is
1322
for each individual port, if it decides to do so, to form a company, to submit a scheme for the transfer of its undertaking to that company, and so on.
I am not surprised that several noble Lords—notably the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Murton—have expressed doubt as to how the reserve power of compulsion contained in Clause 10 fits within the basic framework of the Bill. For the Government's part, we do not see these different elements of the Bill as being incompatible. There is, if I may say so, a tendency to think of the trust ports, perhaps because of the connotations of the word "trust", almost as quasi-charitable bodies whose work is not, and should not be, subjected to any sort of commercial pressure. But that is not the case. These ports—or at any rate the larger ones among them—are substantial commercially-based enterprises operating in an industry more than half of which, in terms of total tonnage handled, is already within the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the Bill represents the doctrine of "Whitehall knows best" and that there is no place in it for the local communities. Many of the larger trust ports are national rather than local assets, as was said by my noble friend Lord Wade. Furthermore, the relationships between individual ports and their local authorities vary widely from one to another.
We recognise that it would make little sense for many of the large number of small ports around the coast to try to sell themselves into the private sector. But we believe that genuine market conditions and a fully competitive situation will be established in the ports industry only if the major ports are given the opportunities for development and access to equity capital which private sector companies have. We believe, therefore, that the right place for the major trust ports, taken as a whole, is within the private sector. There they will become properly accountable, which they are not at present; and they will be more fully exposed to the disciplines of the market place and able to take advantage of the opportunities which I have mentioned. Our abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme has opened the way for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, seemed to hanker back to the days of the scheme. I believe that the abolition of that scheme is one of the best measures which this Government have taken. If it cost a little more than we predicted, that has been money well spent.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, five times more.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it cost five times more. We should remember also that the ports put up half the cost of the redundancy payments. They thought it worthwhile, as did we.
We know that there are very important differences in the circumstances of each of the major trust ports. It is precisely for that reason that this Bill takes such an unusual form for a privatisation measure. The usual pattern for such a Bill is to privatise the whole of an industry or the whole of its public sector. We have deliberately avoided that by making the Bill

1323
primarily enabling in its operation and leaving it to be decided in individual cases whether a trust port which falls above our index-linked £5 million threshold should be privatised.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government changed course so substantially between 1988 and the present time as regards the threshold. That is a major change which has been unexplained.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not recall the original figure to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that was £10 million.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord referred to that figure, but I do not recall the earlier reference. I believe that the figure of £5 million has been in the Bill since its introduction. I appreciate that another figure may have been quoted at a different time but we are now dealing with a figure of £5 million. That seems to be a suitable figure and it is index-linked.
After the two-year interval, we should compel a port to privatise itself only after considering that port's situation in very close consultation with its board. That applies to Poole and Dover, which have been referred to in particular in today's debate. Poole is one of the ports where we shall look very closely at the arguments put before us prior to taking any decision.
It will be for individual ports to put forward their case against privatisation, if that is what they want to do, and it will be for Ministers to consider whether their arguments are valid. We have, as I explained in my opening speech in this debate, already included in the Bill measures to reassure those ports who are concerned about this issue of compulsion. Some of them were measures introduced during the Bill's consideration in another place specifically to meet the anxieties expressed by representatives of the ports. I have al ready said that I shall be bringing forward a further amendment in Committee which will prevent any move to compel privatisation of a port for a further five years once an initial decision has been made by the Government, after consultation, not to apply the reserve power.
I hope that the House will therefore recognize—as I believe did the noble Lord, Lord Greenway—that we have no intention, once the two years are up, to privatise en bloc all those ports which then fall above our £5 million threshold and which have not by then offered themselves for privatisation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that although the two-year period seems to have certain merits, in the case of ports such as Poole that could be a very uncertain period in which there is considerable doubt as to what policies should be adopted in continuing to oppose privatisation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no doubt during the two -year period a port will wish to review its
1324
policies and see what benefits, or otherwise, accrue to the ports which are privatised. I believe that to be a reasonable period of time.
This is too important a matter to leave entirely to those who have been appointed, for the time being, to the boards of those ports. I believe that the boards of the trust ports run their ports effectively and conscientiously, but some of them may be reluctant to expose their ports to the challenges which entry into the private sector will bring. They may not recognise the implications for their own port of bringing the ports industry as a whole onto a more fully competitive basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Napier, said in an excellent maiden speech, there is invariably more than one side to each story. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the importance which the Government place on the inclusion of the reserve power of compulsion in the Bill. Indeed, we see it as an integral part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, suggested that some ports may turn away business in order to stay below the £5 million limit. I hope that that will not happen. I am sure that most ports are too responsible to do that. Any port which adopted that policy would not deserve to survive as a commercially competitive port. The £5 million limit is of course index linked.
My noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne spoke strongly in support of the interests of Poole Harbour. I accept that Poole is a special case. However, all trust ports may claim to be special cases. We recognise that in bringing forward the Bill in this form. If we see Poole as a candidate for privatisation in two years' time we shall look carefully at its arguments against privatisation. I give my noble friend that reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested that one of the main purposes of the Bill was as a money-raising exercise for the Government in order, he suggested—not very appropriately —to bail them out of the troubles and expense of the poll tax. I cannot accept that. If the purpose of the Bill was to raise money for the Exchequer, first, we would have introduced a Bill to privatise the entire trust ports sector; secondly, we would have proposed keeping all the proceeds. The fact that the Bill is in its present form shows that it is not principally aimed at raising money for the Exchequer.
Noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Stockton, mentioned the views of the Select Committee of this House which reported against the Private Bill promoted by the Tees & Hartlepool Port Authority in February. The committee said that its overriding reason for reporting against the Bill was the existence of this Bill. It considered that the issues raised in the Tees & Hartlepool Bill should more properly be considered in the context of the Bill which we are now debating. I personally, as did my noble friend, regret that view which that committee took. The result is that the Tees & Hartlepool Authority now has to wait until this Bill is enacted before it can move forward to privatisation. I do not think that this is a just reward for the initiative that both it and the Clyde Port Authority showed and the expense and

1325
effort which they put into bringing forward their Bills. But of course the committee was entitled to take the view that it did.
Some of the other views which it expressed carry less weight, I believe, when one remembers that half of our ports industry is already in the hands of private sector companies and that this has not resulted in the dire consequences for the operation of its ports which the committee feared. I do not believe therefore that the views expressed by the Select Committee of this House should prevent noble Lords from considering the Bill now before us on its own merits.
One of the concerns expressed today was in regard to the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Norrie spoke particularly on that matter. The majority of trust ports, indeed ports of almost any description, were established in times when concern for the protection of the environment was less widely recognised than it is today. Therefore there is legitimate room for discussion about the environmental duties laid on ports generally. The safeguards certainly exist, as I shall explain in a moment.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade that to suggest that the Bill is the right place to impose additional environmental duties is to confuse the type of legislation with which we are dealing. It is essentially an enabling Bill, concerned in many respects with the technical complexities of providing for trust ports to turn themselves into private companies. Other legislation of a different type is used for privatising an entire nationalised industry and establishing new ground rules for carrying out its functions in the private sector. An obvious example of that is the Water Act 1989, to which my noble friend Lord Norrie referred. That is concerned not only with the privatisation of the water industry but with its detailed operations such as the laying of pipelines, the carrying out of works and so on. There is nothing similar in the present Bill and specific environmental provisions would not be appropriate in this case.
Finally, I see no case for applying environmental measures only to recently privatised trust ports within the ports sector. I am not aware, as my noble friend Lord Geddes was not aware, that there is evidence to suggest that company owned ports generally have a worse record than trust or municipal ports. All sectors of the industry should receive equal treatment on a matter such as this. Before placing environmental obligations on the ports industry as a whole we need to look very carefully at all the implications and consequences. That applies also to the conservancy powers in estuaries to which the noble Lord, Lord Napier, referred and particularly to the Mersey, where there are a number of different operators such as Associated British Ports, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Manchester Ship Canal. There is also the situation of Associated British Ports on the Humber. As the noble Lord said, conservancy powers lie with private companies and have not caused difficulties so far.
My noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Geddes asked about the potential monopoly situation and the
1326
possibility of foreign control. As regards monopolies the safeguards in the fair trading legislation will apply. The Director General of Fair Trading can refer merger cases to the MMC. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can also do so. As regards foreign control, I see no reason why foreign companies should not be able to bid for ports. We expect to agree objectives with the ports seeking privatisation for the sale of each of them. The ports will have regard to these objectives. They may include future continuity of port operations. I do not see any great risk of foreign companies gaining an undue level of control over our ports.
My noble friend Lord Geddes and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned the possibility of unreasonably high port charges being exercised. I remind noble Lords that the Harbours Act 1964 safeguards against excessive charges. That legislation will remain unaltered. There is nothing in the Bill to change that. The scope for appeals to the Secretary of State under that Act will remain intact. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that the General Council of British Shipping intends to propose improvements in the appeal procedure. We shall consider them because we know that the present procedures can be lengthy and cumbersome. They have been effective though slightly cumbersome. There have not been many complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, implied that the GCBS was opposed to the Bill. That is certainly not true. As he said, it has some concerns which my honourable friend the Minister for Shipping has discussed with the Council. In general the GCBS supports the broad thrust of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to marina charges. He has raised that subject in the past. It is a matter that I shall look at. It is not something which we need worry about in the context of this Bill.
The noble Lord also asked about various methods of privatisation which ports might adopt. The Government, and those trust ports intending early privatisation, have so far been thinking in terms of a trade sale of the successor companies. There will be nothing to rule out a full flotation on the Stock Exchange. However, such a process is expensive to organise and very demanding of management time for relatively modest-sized enterprises like the trust ports, as well as being an unsatisfactory vehicle for a management-employee buy-out. Therefore, it is unlikely to be a preferred option.
The noble Lord also asked about protection against predatory asset strippers. We expect to agree the objectives of the sale with each port. That may include objections concerning the future operations of the ports. The claw-back levy will also be relevant in that case. Guidance notes have been issued in draft about the procedures for the sale of ports. We are now considering the comments. If there is not a copy of the guidance notes already in the Library, I shall make certain that one is placed there.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Underhill, said that the Government had not issued any kind of definition as regards a trust port; nor had

1327
they issued a list setting out the ports to which the legislation applied. I believe that the definition of a "trust port" is in Clause I. However, if it is not, that clause contains all the other definitions.
In this legislation we are not concerned with the vast number of smaller ports. However, my right honour able friend made clear the ports falling above the £5 million threshold during the Second Reading in another place. Indeed, he gave a list of them. I could easily produce a copy of that list, although there is nothing secretive about it. In fact it is public knowledge.
I hope that what I have said covers most of the points which were raised in the debate. I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience. I have absolutely no doubt —indeed, noble Lords vindicated this—that we shall have the opportunity of considering many of those points in more detail in Committee. I hope that the speedy passage of the Bill will represent an important further step in the development of our ports. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Estate Agents (Undesirable Practices) (No. 2) Order-1991
2.27 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall take the two orders together.
These two orders result from a review of the operations of the Estate Agents Act 1979 by the Director General of Fair Trading and a review of estate agency practices by the Department of Trade and Industry. Both of the orders will extend the range of circumstances in which the Director General of Fair Trading can, acting under Section 3 of the Estate Agents Act 1979, prohibit unfit persons from doing estate agency work. Among the circumstances in which the director can at present take banning action is the case where a person has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or other dishonesty or violence and the case where a person has been convicted of an offence.under certain sections of the Estate Agents Act (for example, failure to keep client's money in separate client account).
The Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) Order 1991 specifies a number of additional offences as possible triggers for banning action. The offences specified are ones which do not necessarily involve dishonesty but may, nonetheless, reflect on the fitness of a person to engage in estate agency work.
The Estate Agents (Undesirable Practices) (No. 2) Order 1991 declares a number of practices to be undesirable in relation to estate agency work. If the Director General of Fair Trading is satisfied that a person has engaged in a practice which has been declare6 to be undesirable and that the person is unfit to carry on estate agency work, he can make a
1328
prohibition order. Alternatively, the director general can warn the person that repetition of the practice will lead to a prohibition.
I am confident that these orders, together with the Estate Agents (Provision of Information) Regulation 1991 which was laid in March will significantly improve standards in this important area. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the two orders. Like him, I shall deal with them together. Section 3(1) (d) of the Estate Agents Act 1979 to which the noble Lord referred confers the power on the Director General of Fair Trading to make an order under the section with respect to any person who has been, as has been said, convicted of various offences and discrimination and who,
"has engaged in a practice which, in relation to estate agency work, has been declared undesirable by an order made by the Secretary of State".
We believe that the extension of what is undesirable is right and proper. We are happy to support the Government in these orders.
However, I wish to raise two points. First, the Explanatory Note to the Estate Agents (Undesirable Practices) (No. 2) Order 1991 seems to imply that,
"the Director General of Fair Trading can, if satisfied that a person has engaged in it"—
an undesirable practice—
"and is unfit to carry on estate agency work, make an order prohibiting that person from carrying on estate agency work".
To my mind that does not seem to accord, although I am open to being convinced, with the provisions of the Act itself which would imply that for the "and" we should read "or". In other words, it is a clear power under the Act for the Director General of Fair Trading to disbar anyone who has engaged in a practice whether or not he is declared subsequently to be unfit for estate agency work. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that "and" should read "or". If I am wrong perhaps he can clarify exactly what the Estate Agents Act 1979 provides.
My second difficulty with the order—these are relatively minor difficulties—relates to Schedule 3 where the expression "recklessly" is used and to a certain extent is defined. In Scotland, where this legislation applies, the courts have taken a different view of the word "recklessly" from the courts in England and Wales. It is a matter for discussion as to whether the Scottish courts will interpret the word "recklessly" in their own manner. Will they interpret it differently from the way the English and Welsh courts have interpreted it? If so, what is the resolution? If this is meant to be a United Kingdom provision, who will win—other than eventually the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House?
It is made all the more important by the fact, as the Minister will be aware, that the estate agency business in Scotland is quite different in structure from the estate agency business in England and Wales. The estate agency business in Scotland is largely—I do not

1329
say wholly—conducted by solicitors, whereas the estate agency business in England and Wales is largely conducted either by independent firms acting in their own right as estate agents or, more recently, by large banks and insurance companies. They bought estate agencies and, as we have learnt recently, some have now sold them at something of a loss.
The structure of the business in Scotland is quite different from the structure of the business in England and Wales. If I use the interpretation of the word "recklessly" in the Scottish courts as an example of this, I just wish to be satisfied that the Scottish Office has been fully consulted and is fully aware that things which may appear to the Minister who signed the order, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, as being perfectly adequate for England and Wales are also applicable, properly applicable and applicable pari passu, in Scotland as well.
In general we welcome the orders. They may well give rise to problems but we certainly do not wish to oppose them.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for the welcome that he has given to the orders. House purchases and sales involve large financial commitments and the public have a right to expect high standards of conduct from people who act as intermediaries in property transactions. That is the purpose of the orders.
The orders apply to Scotland, as the noble Lord said, where matters are handled rather differently. They only cover estate agency and to that extent they do not apply to solicitors. It may be that they do not cover the bulk of purchases. One would need to examine other measures to cover Scotland fully. The orders apply to Scotland in so far as there are estate agents in Scotland.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and no doubt the noble Lord will take advice on this as I speak. As I understand the Estate Agents Act 1979, it is the activity of estate agency. What is referred to in Section 3 is "estate agency work". It is not a matter of who is or who is not an estate agent by any definition, it is who does or does not engage in estate agency work. This seems to be an important distinction.
If I am right in thinking that the 1979 Act applies to those engaged in estate agency work, it would cover the Prudential Assurance Company which has just sold its estate agencies, to Lloyds Bank, and anyone else who is engaged in estate agency work. A fortiori, it would cover solicitors in Scotland who engage in what any court or any sensible human being would call estate agency work. With great respect to the noble Lord, it does not seem to be enough to say that the Act only applies to people who call themselves estate agents. I may be wrong and I am quite prepared to be corrected if the noble Lord receives advice to that effect.
While I am on the subject of estate agency work, are we quite clear that the courts have defined what estate
1330
agency work really is? Have there been any cases where an operation has been deemed by the court not to be estate agency work but something else? Are we clear that there was a substantive definition under the 1979 Act?
I hope that the noble Lord will soon be in a position to respond to my inquiry. It seems to me that a whole series of supplementary questions is raised if my contention is right and that of the noble Lord is wrong.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord apart from anything else for allowing time for me to obtain advice. Perhaps it would help if I told him that Section 1(2) disapplies the Act to,
"things done in the course of [a solicitor's] profession".
On the technical matter of drafting, the noble Lord asked whether the word "and" is correct, The Director General has to be satisfied as to the undesirability of the evidence before him. Section 3(2) requires the director to be satisfied of the agent's unfitness. To that extent, I am advised that the word "and" is therefore correct.
The word "recklessly" is defined in Schedule 3 of the order on undesirable practices as follows:
"misrepresentation is 'recklessly' made if it is made regardless of whether it is true or false, whether or not the estate agent had reasons for believing that it might be false".
The intention is that the word should have the same meaning in England as in Scotland.
The noble Lord asked whether the Scottish Office and the DTI's solicitor for Scotland had been consulted and are content. I can assure the noble Lord that they are. I hope that I have dealt with the questions raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has dealt entirely with the questions I raised. I believe there may be further information available shortly. I am afraid my reading of Section 3(1) of the Estate Agents Act 1979 is different to that of the Minister. Section 3(1) quite clearly states:
"The power of the Director General of Fair Trading … to make an order under this section with respect to any person shall not be exercisable unless the Director is satisfied"
on a number of matters. If he is so satisfied, he can make an order.
Section 3(2) states:
"Subject to subsection (1) above, if the Director is satisfied that any person is unfit to carry on estate agency work generally"
he can also make an order. On a layman's reading of the Act it seems to me—I do not wish to quarrel with the noble Lord—that the Director-General of Fair Trading is perfectly entitled to make an order either if someone has committed an undesirable act or if he is considered unfit generally to carry on estate agency work.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot give the definitive answer to that point. As regards the definition of estate agency work—the noble Lord asked about that earlier—there have been no court cases on the meaning of estate agency work. Therefore it is as defined in Section 1(1) of the Act. There are

1331
some outstanding matters to be resolved if the noble Lord is to be entirely satisfied. I hope he will allow me to look into those matters and write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) Order 1991
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 29th April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1991
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft regulations is to enable the Representation of the People Act 1990 to take effect. That Act simplifies the arrangements for granting an absent vote to people who have moved house to another electoral area.
Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, people who had moved house were able to apply for an absent vote at parliamentary and European Parliamentary elections, but not local government elections. This provision was, however, repealed by the Representation of the People Act 1985 which considerably broadened the qualifying criteria for absent votes at particular elections, entitling any elector, whose circumstances on polling day are such that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at his allotted polling station, to an absent vote at that particular election, including local government elections. We thought at the time that a person who had moved house to another electoral area, and who was therefore no longer close to the polling station allotted to him on the basis of his qualifying address, would have been quite able to conveniently apply, as and when necessary, under this provision. And so he can, but not really conveniently it has transpired, because he now has to do so each time there is an election. Previously, one application would have covered all elections occurring during the remaining life of the register. With the benefit of hindsight, it is perhaps not surprising that this change provoked an unfavourable response from all quarters: electoral registration staff, the political parties, and the electors themselves.
The 1990 Act provides that in future people who move house to another electoral area will have to make just one application to ensure they have an absent vote at all elections until they can go on to the electoral register at their new address. It will reduce the potential workload of electoral registration officers, and remove a bureaucratic burden from the electorate. The Act received all-party support both here and in another place.
The 1990 Act extends to the whole of Great Britain. Some of your Lordships may therefore ask why we are not also considering today draft regulations covering Northern Ireland, as would normally be the case. The reason is that those draft regulations have not yet been finalised, and we do not know when they will be ready to come before the House. Your Lordships will appreciate that there are particular problems in Northern Ireland relating to the possibility of fraudulent use of postal voting facilities, and it is those which have delayed the draft regulations.
The draft regulations now before us require an applicant for an absent vote who has moved house to another electoral area to supply the electoral registration officer with the new address where the applicant is resident at the date of the application. That information is needed to enable the electoral registration officer to confirm that the new address is not within the same electoral area, as defined in the 1990 Act, as the old qualifying address and so to decide that the applicant qualifies for an absent vote.
I commend the draft regulations to the House. They have been carefully scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and were approved earlier this week by a Standing Committee in another place. The new absent voting arrangements for those who have moved house will make life simpler for both the elector and the registration officer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th April be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of these three regulations. As he rightly said, when the 1990 Bill was before the House, it received general approval. That was also the case in another place. We welcome the provisions as common sense and a means of avoiding bureaucracy. They will be of great help to the electors as well as to the electoral machinery.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. While I was sitting down and listening to the noble Lord, I noted that there is a reference in the English and Scottish regulations which does not appear in the regulations covering European elections, namely:
"in spite of the reference to 'an indefinite period', the entitlement expires with the register of electors in relation to which the application was made".
That sentence does not appear in the regulations covering European elections.
I hope that I have not caught out the Minister with something for which he does not have an explanation. It is seldom that the elections office of the Home Office makes mistakes. I may be the one who has made a mistake. If the noble Lord can help, I should be very grateful. Otherwise, we give full support to the regulations.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his general welcome and support for the regulations. As he pointed out, they have received all-party support in another place. They ought to make life simpler for those who need to make use of the provisions when they move house. With regard to the question which the noble Lord raised about the

1333
discrepancy between the regulations I am advised that the technical reason still applies. I do not know whether that answer satisfies the noble Lord. I hope that it may. In the absence of any further points, the noble Lord may wish to raise or any wish on his part to pursue the point further I commend the regulation to the House.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if that reply means what I think it means, then I welcome what the noble Lord said. I hope that that is what he really means.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1991
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have already spoken to the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th April be approved
[17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in History) (England) Order 1991
2.47 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order (S.I. 1991/681) be annulled.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will observe that I am speaking from the Back-Benches on this occasion, at my own request. I think that I speak for my noble friends when I say that we do not want what are essentially academic matters to become matters of party political argument. Where that can be avoided, it is a good thing.
I must also declare a considerable variety of interests. I speak as a vice-president of the Royal Historical Society, and as a member of the society's working group on the national curriculum, as a member of the Historical Association and as a supporter of the History in Universities Defence Group.
I know that noble Lords do not speak for outside interests. They speak for themselves. I may say one or two things with which those bodies do not agree, but I do not think that one can be blamed for agreeing with one's brief, particularly if on occasion one helped to write it.
I come to praise the national curriculum, not to bury it. There is a great deal in it which I think the Government have got right. Most of it consists of matters for which the credit goes to the working group, and particularly to its chairman, Commander Michael Saunders Watson. As I do not do it very often, I should perhaps offer praise to Mr. Kenneth Baker and congratulate him on what I think has proved to be a brilliant appointment.
On the argument that so often comes up in this House and in another place—knowledge versus imagination—they have justified what a member of the working group said to me; namely, that this deserves to be regarded as yesterday's war. They followed the formula offered to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, in her speech of 1st May last, going not for "either/or", but for "both/and". They have made a remarkably good job of it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will be happy with the standards of academic rigour that are demanded here. I have been over it a great many times and I certainly am. They have also done a good job with the difficult circle-squaring operation of combining flexibility and prescription. They have also succeeded in avoiding what is another yesterday's war, still being vigorously pursued by the historical profession in some other countries, between political and social history. The PESC formula that the report uses, dealing with the political, economic, social and cultural aspects of each period, is an extremely good one.
I am also pleased—here I must declare an interest in my professional capacity as an historian—that they have decided to treat British history as meaning precisely that: the history of all the separate kingdoms of Britain which, at least up to 1603, is not national history; it is international history. But even Homer nods and, in passing, I must take them to task for using the phrase "Tudor Britain". As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, would enjoy pointing out, that phrase is not only incorrect but also directly offensive on occasion north of the Border.
I shall not dwell on the subject of resources because I have done so before. However, I should like to say in passing that I am not sure whether the Government have taken on board how far British, as distinct from English, history is a new subject which, if it is to be taught as envisaged, will therefore demand a complete new stock of books, some of which are yet to be written. That will put a grave strain on schools' budgets. If that problem is not addressed, what is in principle an imaginative and good idea might easily go to waste.
Noble Lords will gather that, in general, I think that the Government almost got it right. What goes wrong becomes clear when we come to key stage 4 of the national curriculum. It is becoming increasingly clear that that should read "key stage 31/2". As a result of the time that is needed for doing GCSEs, there was not the time available to fit the fourth key stage into the framework, whereas we have a report from the working group which was specifically directed to

1335
prepare a report to fit four full key stages; yet four full key stages are not available. That has led us into two problems.
The first, raised in the Secretary of State's speech of 4th January, is about whether history comes to a full stop in the 1960s. That has caused very great offence among a number of my professional colleagues. It has also drawn attention to the problem of revision. If there a date when history comes to a full stop, that date will need to be revised and brought up to date quite frequently. Also, as the Historical Association pointed out, there are many schools which have been teaching that later period, which means that practically the whole of their stock of books has become redundant, with problems for school budgets which may be quite severe.
I shall admit—I do not speak for professional colleagues—to a sneaking sympathy with the Secretary of State's view that perhaps what happened so recently is to be separated from the type of history which exists when records are opened and living memory is not available. I should not go so far as to support my father's view; namely, that it is history up to the Battle of Waterloo and after that it is gossip. But anyone who listened on 30th April to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will appreciate just how far- back gossip can go.
But that does not mean that this subject should not be studied. If the 1960s are not conventionally "history", it does not mean that those years should be ignored. It is perfectly proper, as more and more people are doing, to study that period under the rubric of politics and not of history. But here one runs into the other problem of the national curriculum: flexibility. That is a problem which my noble friend the late Lord McNair called to the attention of this House many times. It is difficult to be flexible within the prescriptive framework laid down.
The other problem of key stage 4 which has emerged is the problem of the relationship between history and geography. Paragraph 8 of circular 491 states that:
"subject to consultation … all pupils at Key Stage 4 will study a full course of history or a full course of geography or a short course in both of these subjects".
It says that draft regulations to that effect,
"will be issued for consultation".
I believe that that indicates a mind open to the point of vacuity.
I am not at all happy about the attempts to blend history and geography into a single subject. I gather from today's Daily Telegraph that HM Inspectors are not happy either. I regret to say that I cannot quote the original document because, although it is published today it has not yet reached the Printed Paper Office. But according to the Daily Telegraph the inspectorate says that this is leading to:
"'fragmented and partial"' learning for pupils".
It is done:
"partly t 3 conceal shortages of specialist teachers … [and] … integrated subject lessons were often incoherent, leaving pupils with little clear idea of their purpose".
That is something with which my professional colleagues will be in full agreement. They are not
1336
happy about attempts to combine history and geography. They want history to retain its place as a single subject.
I do not blame the Secretary of State for what he said in his speech of 4th January. There was an urgent problem to which he had to find a solution. I blame the Department of Education and Science for the length of time it took to discover that key stage 4 and GCSE were incompatible. It would have been easy enough for the working group to compile a syllabus to fit three and a half key stages. In fact it was directed to compile it to fit four full ones.
The matter has been raised in this House before —in 1988 when the Education Reform Bill was discussed. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on 5th May and 22nd June and by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee, who divided the House without getting any response. On that occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, was convinced that there was no problem. She said that:
"there can be no question of the GCSE being incompatible with the requirements of the national curriculum … there will be ample opportunity for GCSE syllabuses to adapt before the formal requirements are introduced for the fourth key stage in any subject".—[Official Report,' 22/6/88, col. 818.]
It has not happened. She also advised the House to wait for the regulations. That is what the House has done. The regulations have arrived and it is too late to do anything. That is why I believe that the House should be wary in general of taking such advice from Ministers.
On 5th May the noble Baroness also stated that working parties would continue to consider what she called the subject interface between GCSE and the national curriculum. In the event, they were told not to do so. We therefore have a problem that was known and visible to the naked eye of the ordinary observer for three years before the Department of Education and Science woke up to it. No wonder it had to take emergency action. No wonder that emergency action is rather a mess. We cannot blame the department for making a mess at the last moment. We can blame it for not seeing the problem a great deal earlier.
What should be done now is the problem. I do not believe that the matter can be put right by amendment. We have a careful scheme which is designed with four key stages. I, and others who know more about the subject than I do, cannot envisage any way in which that scheme can be amended to fit tidily into three and a half key stages. It seems to be academic opinion that it is not a good idea to defer the start of the national curriculum in history. There is fairly strong feeling against that. Historians feel that their subject should not be left behind at the starting gate of the national curriculum. I therefore do not recommend deferment.
I believe that the only way to tackle the confusion over key stage 4 is by regular revision of the national curriculum. That is necessary anyway. History is a fast-moving subject. Any history syllabus will need regular revision. It is important that such revision should be on a regular and automatic schedule, partly because, in departments where something urgent is

1337
always happening, revision is easily put on to a back-burner and partly because we do not wish the demand for revision to be politicised.
I believe—and there is general agreement on this view—that the proper interval for regular revision ought to be five years. There should be automatic machinery to do that. I do not see such machinery at present. Having recently read the first report of your Lordships' Procedure Committee, I envisage a way to supply one. According to paragraphs 9 to 11 of the report, it is perfectly in order for any Member of this House to put down a Motion asking the Government to withdraw regulations and to bring them back amended. I believe that the Government themselves should do that after five years. I shall give them a period of grace. However, after seven years—that is, at the end of the Easter Recess 1998—if I am alive, in good health and in this country, I shall put down a Motion asking the Government to withdraw the regulations and to refer them to the National Curriculum Council for revision. If that Motion is not accepted, I shall put it to the vote. That may be the longest notice of a Division which has ever been given in this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order (S.I 1991/752) be annulled.—(Earl Russell.)
3.4 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is interesting even at this late hour on a Friday to be summoned to consider a matter of such vast national importance. I only regret that the three distinguished professional historians who normally sit on these Benches have for different reasons been unable to take part. However, as the noble Earl said, it is not a Party matter.
I do not share altogether the enthusiasm which the noble Earl has expressed regarding the working group whose labours eventually produced the document that we have before us. It began with a preference for an abstract notion of what children might be expected to learn in their history lessons. The working group considerably amended the original draft and improved it a great deal as a result of pressure from critics within the historical profession and the Secretary of State. I now agree that we have a method that can be looked at in operation to see how we fare. In particular the accent on British history and to a limited extent—I believe an insufficient extent—on the continuity of English and subsequently British history is where it ought to be.
The noble Earl somewhat misled the House by saying that the debate which resulted in the improvements to which I have alluded was between facts and imagination. That is not how it was presented. The question was whether facts or the skills of the historian should be in the forefront. How far were children to be taught that Alfred burned the cakes? How far were they to be taught to assess the evidence that we have for believing that Alfred burned the cakes? How far should we consider the consequences to the national history of this country of his burning of the cakes? The difference between the
1338
idea that one should teach subjects because children should know what happened and the idea that one should teach them in a way that would help to explain how historians operate is a problem, and I am not happy that it has been solved.
I do not believe that the writers of the curriculum, its critics or supporters, have sufficiently understood the grave difficulty that the modern child has in assessing the fact that he lives in an historical continuum. Some of their beliefs can be gauged from the illustration that they suggest what might usefully be taught. The writers talk as though a large part of our population lives in villages or market towns where the evidence for past communities is all around. However, in the great cities children live in an environment that has changed within our own lifetime perhaps more considerably and emphatically than in any previous period. They are cut off by bricks and mortar—perhaps one should now say by concrete—from the historical past. The effort to implant the notion that things were different is now harder than it was a generation, let alone a century, ago.
Furthermore, the writers do not face what I believe is one of the most important aspects of historical teaching at any level in schools—they do not distinguish between fact and fiction. Fiction is presented to children, through television, to a greater extent than it was presented to previous generations. How does one get children to distinguish between, for example, an old news film on television showing Hitler or Churchill and a factitious presentation in dramatic form of something which may or may not have happened and, if it did happen, may not have happened in the way shown? There is a constant danger of confusion. I believe that the makers of this curriculum have not faced that altogether satisfactorily.
What I find much more difficult to decide, having had no experience of teaching small children and taking the illustrations given, is whether a great deal too much is being expected of them. Some of the subjects which are suggested as illustrations are matters upon which the historical profession is still divided. To ask children to explore the causes of the French Revolution or the fall of the Roman Empire seems to me to be asking them to understand matters which may be appropriate for undergraduates but which are not appropriate for seven or even 14 year-olds. I believe that if people study the document they will hope that while teachers are obviously bound by the national curriculum to pay attention to its overall concepts, they will not believe to be binding suggestions for particular topics, which are non-statutory. We must wait to see how it works out in practice.
Although there were teachers on the group which devised the curriculum, it was always more likely that teachers at any level would be carried away by their own enthusiasms. They do not pause to think whether their enthusiasms can easily be shared with younger children. It is all rather too difficult, too professional and too remote from the experience of many of the pupils or the experience which they bring to it.

1339
Again, I am not sure to what extent the problem of continuity is addressed. It is not addressed for young children because it is proposed that there should be a jump from the 11th century to the 15th century—a period in which they are. supposed to believe that nothing happened. It is part of the reluctance to be interested in learning matters by heart. I believe that the memorising of the names and dates of the kings and queens of England should figure in the early stage of the national curriculum. Slightly older pupils should not have to worry about whether they resemble Mrs. Disraeli who, as noble Lords will remember, could never remember who came first: the Greeks or the Romans.
As far as I remember—and I am now trying to think back over 70 years—I was taught to make time charts on rolls. I still think of history in terms of unrolling a chart and coming to this century or that century, this civilisation or that civilisation. Somehow the notion that it all took a very long time and happened a long time ago was implanted in my mind. Instead of that, children should now know how to use an IT database. I would not know an IT database if it came riding on a bicycle round Old Palace Yard. I do not sec why children learning history should be bothered at such an early stage with that sort of modern technology.
Another difficulty is that explored by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. While one would hope, and was led to expect, that one of the merits of the curriculum was that history would be a compulsory subject up to the age Of 16, the inability to work out a timetable, and in particular the conflict with the interests of geographers, has led to the possibility that many children might cease studying history at the age of 14. That is exactly the age at which some of the more interesting questions often come alive for them. For that reason I agree entirely with the noble Earl that it is essential that the system should be examined from time to time to see how it is working out.
The illustrations are not exhaustive. It is a little worrying to find that a document which has been examined by so many distinguished people—the Historical Association and all the bodies to which the noble Earl referred—contained at least two errors. First, among the subjects suggested as topics for non-British history are Mesopotamia and Assyria. To the best of my knowledge Assyria is in Mesopotamia, at least that is what Saddam Hussein believes and on that I a n prepared to take his word.
Secondly, it is suggested that Indian history, in which I have a particular interest, should be taught from the arrival of the Moguls to the arrival of the British. But the British and the Moguls arrived very close together in time; indeed, the history of Britain's relation; with India, up to the middle of the last century, is a history of its relations with, first, an expanding and then a declining Mogul raj. Once again, it may be that they did not want to include dates and instead included an inaccurate description. I do not wish to make too much of that. However, intellectual rigour was mentioned by the noble Earl and than is a piece of rigour for the people who wrote the document.
1340
Noble Lords would not wish me to prolong the discussion. I could take them page by page through the document but we are not supposed to sit late on a Friday. I imagine people will begin to be impatient, if they are not so already. I say only that, should I be around in 1998—although it is unlikely—I shall be in the Division Lobby with the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having put my name down to speak in the gap I find myself in an embarrassing situation, most of what I wished to say having been covered already by speakers far more eloquent than myself. However, I should like to say that the debate on history is one that will continue because the subject will continue. We must examine the need for a continual flow in history for the simple reason that, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—and I say this as someone who has just finished history at university level—it is virtually impossible to jump between two blocks of history several centuries apart in relation to the same country. We need to ask, "How did these objects get here?" or "Why in Britain did the Church change in those two periods?". There must be a flow and the subject must be approached as a continuum.
When we consider the cross-referencing of subjects and whether two subjects overlap we should look at the way they fit together. The conflict on this occasion appears to be between geography and history. However, ultimately at various points history overlaps virtually all other subjects. For instance, when we discuss the 19th century the Romantic movement comes into it, which is probably something that owes more to the literary movement and its initiation than to history. I could go on and on. The further we enter the realms of economic history and its relationship to the political sphere—a debate which, as the noble Lord said, we hope is over—the more we realise that the two are connected. In my experience it is virtually impossible to disconnect them. How on earth can the subject be removed from economics or the study of mathematics?
I admit that the IT database left me cold, as it did others. I came across it when I studied economic history. It was suggested that I should work out my own statistics. Needless to say that particular brand of history I gave up very rapidly after I was forced to study it. But ultimately a degree of mathematical knowledge will be essential to that kind of approach. I support my noble friend purely on the ground that I agree that the issue has nothing to do with party politics. We should at least review on a regular basis this subject, if not all others.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I contribute briefly to this matter. I am slightly perturbed because I am extremely keen on the document History in the National Curriculum. I hope that the Minister does not let me down and that he also agrees with it. Then it can be the Front Benches against the remainder so far as I am concerned. I have been through the document and I can only say that I wish I had been taught history in

1341
this way. I should have benefited enormously and I expect that other noble Lords would have done so too. That is not to say that one cannot find criticisms, but, if this is what history is to be in our schools, then I very much approve. One can disagree with some of the details but on the whole I think this is really rather good. I very rarely find any words to support the present Secretary of State, but I hope that he does not back down from this because it is a very good document.
The order itself defines the material in History in the National Curriculum as "the document". Once the order is carried I take it that the document will become statutory. In other words, it will become what must happen and after today history in our schools will be based on this document until another order is carried. That is important, because my experience of schools and school teachers is that many of them do not appreciate what the national curriculum means in terms of what has to be done once orders of this kind have been carried.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised an important related matter; namely the GCSE. The history taught in key stage 4 will be the history that was taught in schools for the GCSE. I am interested to know whether in some sense this document now defines what the GCSE has to be and in particular determines the examination, or whether the procedure is the other way round. I want to know whether within the provision there is a system for accommodating what the GCSE examiners want.
In terms of content, the three-method logical section of attainment targets 1, 2 and 3 are excellent. We are preparing our young people for the world of the future and for history which has not yet happened, so to speak. Of course they will have to learn to use databases and all the factors that go hand in hand with that. It may be that our great country is in permanent decline, but I still strive mightily to make sure that it is not. The future for them will become the future of databases and that kind of thing. We cannot have our young people not knowing about such matters even if we do not.
I agree with the document on that point. I have emphasised to noble Lords in the past that I am particularly keen for our young people to be taught that different events are interpreted differently by different people. I have on occasion strongly recommended to noble Lords that they read a French history text book about the battle of Waterloo or an American history text book on the American war of independence. To say the least, that is a mind-opening exercise and a very worthwhile one. I believe that it is that kind of approach that this document wants our young people to take. I favour the British-centred view of history, but that is no great limitation. Throughout most of our history Britain has been an outward-going country connected with the rest of the world, so in choosing Britain as an initial focus one is not in any way neglecting the history of the rest of the world. Therefore, I do not think that there is a major problem in that respect.
1342
I turn now to the question which seems to have exercised almost everyone's mind —where does history end and current affairs or politics begin? This is not a matter which I regard as being the essence of the subject. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others pointed out, it is an interesting question. However, I would not die in the last ditch for this or any other line.
Nevertheless, I must confess that I am a little concerned about one aspect. I can remember my youngest child telling me that he was studying the Korean War. I cannot remember whether it was in connection with an 0-level or an A-level course. I said,"I didn't know you were doing current affairs". He replied, "I'm not, I'm doing history". I then said, "Well, it may be history to you but it was certainly current affairs to me". However, it is interesting to note that the key question of who invaded first seemed to remain an argument just as it had been when I was a student at LSE arguing left, right and centre on that very issue.
Therefore, there is a sense in which the dividing line is irrelevant. Indeed, only a few weeks ago noble Lords realised how up to date the Parliament Act 1911 really is, what it meant and what its intention was. We discussed it last week as a matter of current affairs, yet it is also considered to be part of history. So I am not as exercised about that line as others.
I should like to draw attention to the wording of the document History in the National Curriculum (England). I assume that other speakers have studied it. On page 51, which deals with key stage 4, the expression "circa 20 years ago" occurs twice. Assuming that it becomes a statutory document, "20 years ago" is a moving period; in other words, it increases by one year every year. In that sense the problem outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will not occur. I say that because it will automatically be brought up to date. For example, in seven years' time, "20 years ago" will take us back into the 1970s, verging on the 1980s. Therefore, that is another reason why I am less worried—unless I have totally misinterpreted the meaning of the words "circa 20 years ago".
I am totally in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I wish that this debate had taken place at a more convenient time when we could have discussed the subject in more detail. There are many fascinating issues involved. Indeed, if more time had been available I should have intruded more of my layman's ignorant views, at least to keep myself amused. However, my main contribution today is to say that, although we could argue on detail, broadly speaking this is quite a good start and not one that I wish to oppose.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this is the first time that I have been involved in a Prayer to annul. I must say that I was daunted by the thought of such a very negative term. However, it has been a most positive debate. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I especially thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the positive aspects of

1343
the national curriculum which he highlighted. Like him, I acknowledge the work of the working groups. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his support.
History is one of the key subjects among the 10 in England and 11 in Wales which make up the national curriculum. None of us will be in any doubt of its importance in the education of young people in helping them to make sense of the world in which we live. It is also a splendid discipline for developing the mind. I believe that this Government can take credit for including history in the national curriculum and for making the orders which we are debating today.
I am sure that we can all agree on the need for action to raise standards in the teaching of history. The evidence about what happens now is not encouraging. Her Majesty's Inspectors have found standards of work in primary school history generally weak. Moreover, in secondary schools, HMI has found that the humanities approach adopted by some schools fails to recognise or deliver the distinctive nature and discipline of each of the contributory subjects such as history or geography.
The orders for history in England and Wales should remedy this as they provide a proper basis for the historical knowledge, understanding and skills which all children ought to have. The national curriculum will ensure that all pupils will follow a thorough and rigorous course of study in the subject. They will of course be tested on what they have learnt at each of the four key stages.
Up to the age of 14 all pupils will study both subjects. For 14 to 16 year-olds the Government believe that it is right to allow more choice. Many anxieties have been expressed to us by head teachers and others about the difficulty of fitting everything into the school day if older pupils have to take every one of the national curriculum subjects. Many are concerned about the squeeze this would put on other valuable studies—a second modern foreign language or a vocational subject, to give just two examples.
That is why the Government announced in January a number of steps to help ensure that 14 to 16 year-olds are able to choose a curriculum that allows for the development of their individual aptitudes, interests and career aspirations, while still pursuing a broad and balanced course of studies.
One measure which is particularly relevant today, and on which the Government will shortly be making the statutory proposals, is to allow a pupil taking a full geography course—the GCSE course—to drop history after 14 and vice versa. As an alternative to doing either GCSE history or GCSE geography, pupils would also be able to satisfy national curriculum requirements by doing shorter courses in both subjects.
I emphasise that these are minimum requirements. Many pupils will choose to do more than the minimum and we shall expect the great majority of schools to provide for that. We also believe that the degree of choice to be offered will encourage more pupils than would otherwise be able to do so to study history or geography in the depth required by GCSE.
1344
And of course every pupil will have followed a full and rigorous course in both subjects from five to 14: a great improvement on what happens now.
Of all the national curriculum subjects, history has proved the most controversial. This was only to be expected, since it is a subject that arouses strong feelings and disagreements. The debate has been lively, open and prolonged. There has been extensive consultation—more than for any other national curriculum subject.
This has been a healthy process which has shown the value of the consultative safeguards in the Act and given the lie to the charge that governments will misuse their powers to impose a politically determined curriculum. No one in your Lordships' House has attempted to raise that matter, but it has happened elsewhere. Of course the outcome will not satisfy everybody: no outcome could. The History Working Group recognised this in its final report, which concluded that it was neither desirable nor possible to search for a formula which would please everyone. But I believe that we have at last reached a broad consensus on what school history should be like, which is reflected in both the history orders.
The programmes of study in each order cover what has been generally agreed to be a balanced and sensible selection of historical periods and themes. The selection is quite properly different in the separate orders, to allow pupils in Wales and England to learn about the particular developments that helped to shape the societies in which they live. They are also the product of different preparatory and consultation processes.
I am glad that the history orders have been generally very well received. Only one aspect has attracted criticism; the decision that the final stage of the course should make some distinctions between history and current affairs. Let me make it clear that it is not and never has been the Government's intention to prevent teachers from dealing with contemporary issues in the classroom if and when they feel it is appropriate to do so.
I have no doubt that many will continue to illustrate their subject by highlighting the parallels and distinctions between past and present times. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to that point. To allow teachers the discretion to do this is one matter; to require them by law to do so is quite another. Moreover, to require them to test their pupils' understanding of contemporary events and personalities, however topical or controversial, as part of the national curriculum assessment arrangements is wholly inappropriate.
For the purpose of defining the legal requirements to be imposed on schools by the national curriculum, we therefore believe it is essential to draw some distinction between history and current affairs. Teachers will face a considerable challenge in covering the wide range of topics already set out in key stage 4 of the history orders for 14 to 16 year-olds. A requirement to be fully up-to-date on world history, let alone British history, to the present day could prove the last straw.

1345
But a more important objection to bringing history up to the present day is one of principle. History is a valuable training for the future citizens of a democracy. The essence of this training is respect for evidence and commitment to objectivity. The study of the shifting sands of contemporary events cannot instil these qualities, because those events cannot be coolly and calmly observed through an historical perspective. That obviously requires detachment in time. Of course history did not end 20 years ago but we cannot hope to consider and describe events of more recent vintage with a realistic claim to historical objectivity. That may well be said of many events before 1970, but there must be a reasonable rule of thumb. The Government are prepared to defend the one on which the history orders are based.
I am quite sure that we misjudge our children and young people if we assume that we can engage their attention only with the contemporary. It is our job and the responsibility of education to lead them to understand and appreciate our great cultural inheritance. We shall not succeed in this if we are coy, defensive and oblique about it or if we allow their perceptions of history to be distorted by the preoccupation with events of the past few years.
I believe that I have answered at least one or two of the points raised. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of three and a half key stages. The order provides expressly for pupils to study history in key stage 4 but not to GCSE. That is a reduced course, the model 1 course in key stage 4, the core study unit on 20th century history. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the document is statutory.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the Minister answer one question on that? Is the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to understand that the effect would be that in GCSE it will not be possible to ask questions about what happened in the past 20 years? Is that the force of the rolling 20-year requirement, that it will affect what can and cannot be set in an examination?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not sure that I know the answer. The document is statutory. It becomes law on 1st August. It is effectively for pupils starting key stages 1, 2 and 3 this autumn; 14 year-olds will not start on key stage 4, however, until 1994, when GCSE syllabuses must be in line with the order.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord on the point which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised. GCSE, as I understand it, is separate. That is the whole problem. I am not pressing the noble Lord to answer the complicated matter which has been with us for some time as to how GCSE, which stands on its own two feet, relates to the national curriculum. I hope he agrees with what has been said, that this ought to be clarified not just for history but for other subjects in due time. That is my point.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, my Lords, I have had advice that GCSE will not cover events of the past 20 years.
Lord Peston: I find that interesting. I do not say that I have a view on it yet. It is a new piece of information for me.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I also find it rather interesting. I shall leave the speech of my noble friend Lord Beloff unchallenged. It will remain on the record as part of the endless debate about history, together with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, since he did not ask any questions.
The great point that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made concerned review. It is certainly our intention that the orders will be reviewed at intervals and if amendments seem desirable they will be made. Since the orders allow a good measure of flexibility and choice, it will be possible for teachers to tailor programmes of study to the changing needs of their pupils.
I do not believe that frequent changes to the order would do much to promote the successful implementation of the national curriculum for history or the objective of raising standards in the subject. I make a distinction between keeping something under review and a commitment to revise. The noble Earl may pick me up on this. We will revise regularly, within a stated period, and will review certainly. The National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales have a duty to do so and to advise the Secretaries of State. We reject the suggestion of regular revision. We must let the proposals bed down. To judge by the light of experience, it would not inspire confidence if the national curriculum for history started life under a sentence of being replaced within a certain number of years.
The Secretary of State has demonstrated his willingness to make changes. Earlier this week he published revised proposals for maths and science. However, I take note that the noble Earl has issued quite an alarming moratorium on this matter with a parliamentary device. I am sure that my right honourable friend will wish to take note of that threat.
I again thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate. Even if complete agreement cannot be reached among us this afternoon, these orders should be generally welcomed by your Lordships in so far as the subject of history will once more be prominent, as it deserves to be, in the classrooms of Wales and of England.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for that reply. I also wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. If it has proved nothing else, it has proved that history is a subject which generates a lively and very general interest.
I think I would have been justified in initiating the debate for no other reason than that it provoked the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is a speech about which I shall be thinking for a good many years to come. I am not sure how many of the noble Lord's points I agreed with and how many I did not agree with, but I shall certainly continue to think about his speech. If he will forgive me, I wish to take up one small point that he made about the lack of continuity. I agree with the noble Lord on that point.

1347
Where I think the noble Lord does not quite have the matter right is the motive he imputed to the working group—a reluctance to be involved in learning by heart. It so happens that I know a little about this matter because some of the members of the working group discussed the difficulty with me. They feel about continuity as the noble Lord and I feel. However, they were faced with pressure to include a great many things without overloading the system. Somewhere one has to say that one cannot have everything. It was the simple difficulty of getting a quart into a pint pot that produced that effect. As regards the working group having a reluctance to ask people to learn things by heart, I must say that one of the original members of that group was my undergraduate tutor. From my own certain memory he had no reluctance about that whatsoever.
The key point is clearly the question of review. The Minister dwelt on that. I agree with him that we do not want frequent changes. On the other hand we do not want to have a situation where in order to trigger a review it is necessary to build up a great body of dissatisfaction with the curriculum as it exists and to complain in all directions. That is the advantage of an automatic procedure. It was not my intention that that
1348
automatic procedure should necessarily result in change. However, I believe there should be an automatic time at which the thing gets looked at without controversy, fuss or complaint just to see whether change is needed.
I was also a little uncomfortable about what the noble Lord said about ceasing to do history after the age of 14. If that had been envisaged when the working party commenced its work, it would have produced a syllabus in a very different pattern. There are a lot of things in key stage 4 which we do not wish to have left out. If that were to become the norm, we would again receive a body of complaints that no one is doing X or Y in school. That would refuel some of the discontent which has led to the setting up of the national curriculum in the first place, which would be a pity. I am certain these points will continue to be considered.
There is nothing more that can usefully be said tonight. This has been a good debate. I am grateful for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before four o'clock.

  FILM COMMISSION
  FILM COMMISSION
  TURKISH SETTLEMENTS IN CYPRUS
  TURKISH SETTLEMENTS IN CYPRUS
  VICTIMS OF SOVIET INTERNAL REPRESSION
  VICTIMS OF SOVIET INTERNAL REPRESSION
  YUGOSLAVIA: CSCE CONSIDERATION
  YUGOSLAVIA: CSCE CONSIDERATION
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  TIBET: FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF CHINESE OCCUPATION
  TIBET: FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF CHINESE OCCUPATION
  IRAQI REFUGEES: RED CROSS ROLE
  IRAQI REFUGEES: RED CROSS ROLE