Sitting of 14 February 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
BILL PRESENTED
  RIGHT TO INFORMATION
  Mr. Robin Corbett, supported by Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Roy Hattersley, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mr. Stuart Randall, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, presented a Bill to establish a general right of access to official records for members of the public subject to certain exemptions; to provide for the correction of inaccurate records; to provide for individuals to be notified of the availability of benefits in certain circumstances; to provide for the enforcement of these provisions; to repeal the Official Secrets Act 1989 and replace it by new provisions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 February, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
Orders of the Day

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the promoter of the Bill, I must announce that, in view of the many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 11.30 and 1 pm. I hope that those who are called before and after that time will bear that limit in mind in fairness to their colleagues.
  Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for delaying the start of the Bill, but I wish to draw your attention to a printed lobbying card supplied and printed by the League Against Cruel Sports sent to me and many other hon. Members by constituents—a copy of which I have here. I received one such card which purported to come from my constituent, Mr. D. A. Marriot of 25 Hart street, Cleethorpes. The card asked me to be present today to support the Bill. I replied by letter to Mr. Marriot, advising him that although I would be present, I would be voting against the Bill.
  Mr. Marriot has written to me to say:
  "I am somewhat puzzled as to the circular you refer to. I have no knowledge of the said Bill and no recollection of placing my name on any circular, petition or form of any kind … I believe my name has been used without my consent, something I object to very strongly. I request a full explanation."
  I also want an explanation. It is clear that the card purporting to come from my constituent is a forgery of his name.
  It may be that other cards that I have received must also be forgeries. I think that hon. Members who have been persuaded by the number of cards they have received to support the Bill have also received forgeries. Is not it an outrageous and disgraceful abuse that the relationship between hon. Members and their constituents should be subject to such forgery and intimidation by the League Against Cruel Sports? Can something be done to get rid of such outrageous forgeries?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that all hon. Members, and even Mr. Speaker, receive many circulars, but we put less emphasis on them than on personal letters written by our constituents.
  Mr. Michael Stern: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, it is worth while drawing attention to the abuses that have gone on in the name of the League Against Cruel Sports. In addition to the incident mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), I have received an envelope containing 15 of those cards, all in the same handwriting, which purport to come from a number of different addresses in my constituency. Is there not some way that you, Mr. Speaker, can draw to the attention of the league, which claims, with every justification, to be a reputable organisation, what some of its organisers appear to have done?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but it can be raised during the debate. I am sure that the hon. Member's remarks will be noted by the league.
  9.37 am
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On the matter just raised by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown, I make one observation. If anybody is forging other people's names in the name of the League Against Cruel Sports, of which I am proud to be a vice-president, I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the matter directly to the police. That is a proper way in which to deal with the forgeries. The hon. Gentleman has the same police force as my own—the excellent Humberside police force—and I am sure that it will pursue any complaint about our constituents' names being wrongly used.
  At the outset, I thank my colleagues of all parties who have sponsored the Bill and have agreed, at considerable inconvenience, to make themselves available to vote on this important issue even though we are approaching a general election. I also apologise to the secretaries of hon. Members who do and who do not support the Bill for the amount of work that they have done in the past few weeks. One way to avoid more work in the future would be for the secretaries to persuade their Members to vote for the Bill.
  I thank the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA for their continued support on this issue and for the help that they have given me and many of my hon. Friends in preparing for this important debate. I also thank the British public as a whole for their wholehearted support for the principles contained in the Bill.
  I wish at the outset to explain what the Bill does not do. There is behind the measure no domino theory. Angling is not included. I have no intention whatever of interfering with anglers. J. R. Hartley can to to a second edition and Izaak Walton can rest safely in his grave; there is no need for him to toss or turn.
  The Bill does not concern shooting, but in case people feel that it might, I propose in Committee to move a new clause which will read:
  "A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1 if he shows that he was using an authorised firearm with the authority of the owner or occupier of the land, unless it is shown that he caused unnecessary suffering by using an inappropriate weapon which he knew was likely to cause such suffering."
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not give way at this stage, because I am explaining what is not in the Bill. I shall be happy to give way later, when explaining what is in it.
  The Bill contains provisions for licensing by authorities of necessary measures for pest control. I shall be happy once the Bill is in Committee to enter negotiations with the national conservancy bodies, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and authorities in Scotland on an approved method for dealing with particular animals and dealing with the general problem of pest control.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is prepared to use legislation to outlaw hunting for sport while at the time saying that he is in favour of the continuance of shooting for sport?
  Mr. McNamara: I shall deal with that as I go through the various provisions of the measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that his
  1216
  question will be answered. [Interruption.] I trust that hon. Members who are fortunate to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will make their own speeches in their own way. I shall make mine in my own way.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been closely associated with a Mr. John Bryant of the League Against Cruel Sports. I know that to be so, because a letter sent to the hon. Gentleman by a member of the public was passed to Mr. Bryant for reply. That seems a somewhat questionable practice.
  Apart from that, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that it is sensible that he and his Bill should be associated with someone who, writing in a book entitled "Fettered Kingdom", published in 1982, made it clear that he opposed not only hunting but shooting, fishing, eating meat, riding horses and even people keeping pets? Is it not clear—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd: Order. We are beginning the debate in the way that I intend it to continue. Interventions will be relevant, and they will be interventions and not speeches.
  Mr. Riddick: Is it not clear from what I have said that that gentleman is a fanatic and that the Bill is simply the thin end of the wedge?
  Mr. McNamara: If we are talking about fanatics, I refer hon. Members to the front page of The Times this morning, which shows a picture of a child of three holding a placard proclaiming, "Hunting is my future". If a child of three is to spend his time pulling foxes to pieces, using a hare as a rope for a tug of war between greyhounds and chasing pregnant hinds over cliffs, then, if people want to be associated with that, that is for them.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. McNamara: I have yet to come to the detail of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I will give way to one more hon. Member, and that will be it. I regret that that must be the case, but I would rather be questioned about the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. James Paice: The hon. Gentleman made an accusation about fanatics chasing pregnant hinds over cliffs. I assume that he is referring to a case that received widespread press coverage a few weeks ago. Is he aware that that hind was not driven over a cliff by hounds, as was suggested by the press? It was a steep slope and when the hunt had left, the hind was perfectly safe and able to find her own way out. The only time she fell was when she was frightened by the lights of the television cameras and the RSPCA.
  Mr. McNamara: It must have been the first case in recorded history of a hind deliberately committing suicide.
  My Bill has a very simple purpose. It seeks to correct the anomaly in the law that permits people wilfully to inflict on a wild mammal an act of cruelty which would be criminal if it were inflicted on a domestic animal. That is the broad principle of the Bill.
  The RSPCA has circulated details of gross cruelty inflicted on wild mammals such as foxes, deer and hedgehogs. They have involved sadistic and deliberately inflicted torture, but, regrettably, in the eyes of the law at present, they have been a perfectly legal—or innocent, in a legal sense—activity.

  1217
  For example, a gang of youths in Canterbury repeatedly shot a hedgehog with an air rifle, then played football with it and finally threw the animal, still alive, on to a bonfire. They admitted that the animal was still alive and screaming after their game had ended. The RSPCA attempted to prosecute, but the case failed, because the hedgehog could not be defined as a domestic or captive animal.
  Another case involved friends of hon. Members who oppose the Bill. Four terrier men attached a rope to a fox which they forced into a waterpipe. They then entered a terrier which attacked the fox for five minutes. When approached by a witness, they pulled out the fox, which was screeching in pain. It ran off, dragging its injured leg behind it.
  Similar abuses involving foxes, hedgehogs and squirrels have been dealt with by the RSPCA, but their efforts to prosecute have been frustrated because of the situation under the law. Parliament has failed to take the logical step of making cruelty to wild mammals a criminal offence.
  The idea of providing such protection is nothing new. In 1948, the Attlee Government set up a committee to inquire into cruelty to wild animals. The committee, otherwise known as the Scott Henderson Committee, reported in 1951. The first of its 63 recommendations said:
  "All wild animals should be brought within the provisions of the protection of animals Acts. This will make it possible for action to be taken against any person who causes or permits unnecessary suffering to a wild animal."
  Unfortunately, the majority of the committee was pro-hunting, including a master of foxhounds, a vet to two packs of hounds and others known to be field sports enthusiasts. There was not one animal welfare representative on that committee of inquiry. No doubt for that reason, the committee, having called for all wild animals to be protected from cruelty, went on to recommend that all field sports should be exempted from prosecution.
  That is old history and out of date. Parliament has already made some progress in the matter. Otter hunting and badger digging, both of which were protected by the Scott Henderson report, are now illegal. I do not believe that any reasonable person could vote against clause 1 of my Bill. Who but a sadist could argue in favour of people having the right wilfully to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal? Clause 1 therefore says:
  "If, save as permitted by this Act, a person wilfully inflicts unnecessary suffering on, or cruelly ill-treats a wild mammal, he shall be guilty of an offence."
  Opponents of the Bill have created much mischief by talking about its effects on shooting. I have already shown how I intend to deal with that. Nevertheless, most shooting for sport involves the shooting of birds or clay pigeons, neither of which can be described as mammals, so they are not covered by the Bill. No reasonable shooter raises his gun to shoot a rabbit, a deer or any other mammal with the intention of inflicting unnecessary suffering upon that animal.
  To obtain a conviction under clause 1, a court would have to accept, first, that there was proof of suffering, which would normally but not necessarily require veterinary evidence; secondly, that there was evidence that the suffering was unnecessary; and, finally, that the unnecessary suffering was wilfully inflicted. For a prosecution to succeed under clause 1, therefore, the case would need to be similar to the gruesome cases that I described earlier.
  1218
  I am prepared to make the necessary arrangements in Committee to deal with shooting. The Bill provides for licensing arrrangements to permit. if considered necessary, methods of taking or killing wild mammals that, without a licence, may lead to a prosecution.
  Clause 2 is causing the greatest controversy. It prohibits the use of dogs to take, kill, injure, pursue or attack wild mammals. I remind the House that the wilful use of dogs to attack other domestic animals is already an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and that my Bill seeks to elevate wild animals to the same status as domestic animals in respect of protection from cruelty.
  According to a Gallup poll taken last November, 80 per cent. of the public oppose fox hunting. At recent press conferences arranged by the Campaign for Hunting it was suggested that the figure had been obtained by the use of a loaded question. The quesion was very loaded—it said:
  "Do you approve or disapprove of foxhunting?"
  Far more important, the poll showed that that public disapproval is not merely some irrelevant, hypothetical objection to hunting. Gallup also asked:
  "Would you approve or disapprove if Parliament passed a law to ban foxhunting?"
  The result was that 79 per cent. would approve of such a ban. The poll showed that that view is held by the vast majority of the country, regardless of their political allegiance, geographical location, sex, age or demography.
  The opposition to the hunting of wild animals to death is also reflected in the votes to ban hunting by 130 local authorities, including 28 councils. The council of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and my county council of Humberside, and the New Forest district council are among those. Those are councils of all political persuasions.
  It is said that the hunting of foxes by hounds is necessary to control the fox population. However, according to a study carried out by Bristol university, fox hunting with hounds kills 12,000 to 13,000 foxes a year—a figure which was recently confirmed by the Government. The author of the Bristol university report, Dr. Stephen Harris, calculates that that represents about 2·5 per cent. of the fox population. He states:
  "It is clear that hunts play no significant role in the control of fox populations."
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I refer my hon. Friend to a letter that I received from a gentleman in Lincolnshire who say that the Blankney hunt
  "'imports' its foxes from a centre which breeds foxes for hunting".
  That runs contrary to the vermin argument. It makes no sense to import foxes—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is illegal."] If it is illegal, clearly that needs to be dealt with.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Some hunts deliberately create a situation in which foxes can breed so that they have foxes to hunt. It cannot be argued that fox hunting controls pests when hunts are producing those pests.
  Sir John Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—I do not think that he is—that, because one of the effects of clause 2 would be to ban hunting, within a month of the clause becoming law, up to 1 million horses will be put down? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] Up to 1 million horses will be slaughtered because there will be no further practical use for them.
  Mr. McNamara: That is interesting. That is the sort of figure that comes out of the Michael Howard school of accounting. There are only 800,000 horses in this country anyway, and fewer than 10 per cent. of those are used in hunting. In any event, there is no reason why people should not drive horses.
  That is the last intervention that I intend to allow, because I have timed my speech to take 25 minutes, and it is now 5 minutes to 10.
  It is well established that the density of fox populations is governed by the availability of food in a defended territory, as with all animals at the top of their food chain that do not suffer from natural predation. The fact that an animal does not have any natural predators does not mean that man has to cull its numbers. Badgers have no natural predators, yet the House has spent many long days providing for their total protection—not only from cruelty but from interference.
  Overseas studies in rabies control programmes demonstrate that, to reduce a fox population, a cull of about 70 per cent. would be necessary to overcome the effects of the rapid migration of other foxes into the vacant territories and increased reproduction among the survivors.
  Fox hunting with hounds is not fox control and was never designed to be. It was designed as a human entertainment and that is what it remains—a sport which not only kills foxes, but results in pet cats and dogs being killed by hounds, livestock being stampeded and killed, crops being damaged, fences and hedges damaged, and road and rail users being endangered.
  Fox hunting is a contrived sport. To ensure a long gallop for the riders and followers, the hunt employs people to go out into the countryside the night before a hunt to block up fox earths, drains and badger setts, to deny the fox a refuge from the hounds. Many hon. Members will recall our debates last year to overcome the problems caused to badgers due to fox hunters blocking setts with sacks of rubble, oil drums and other immovable objects.
  On the day of the hunt, when the hounds find a fox, it runs from blocked hole to blocked hole in an attempt to utilise its natural defence mechanism of hiding underground from danger. The hounds, of course, are bred for stamina rather than speed. The fox is a sprinter and is eventually beaten by the hounds' superior stamina. Finally, the fox is caught and bitten to death by the hounds. If the fox does find an underground refuge which the hunt's earth-stoppers have missed, terriers are usually sent in to either bolt the fox to suffer further hunting or engage it in battle until it can be dug out and killed, or released for further torment. We saw recently how the Quorn behaves.
  The underground battles between fox and terrier can go on for hours, with both combatants suffering terrible injuries. Sometimes the dogs are lost for days or even permanently. That brings me to another form of fox hunting which my Bill will abolish.
  While terrier work is a part of every hunt, separate gangs of men also go out for the gruesome sport of digging out foxes with the aid of terriers. Not for those people the pageantry of hunting with hounds. They have no interest in horses, the so-called thrill of the chase and watching hounds at work. Their fun comes from witnessing the life-and-death struggle of fox and terrier. A fox can often put up a stout defence against a single terrier, but
  1220
  eventually it is overcome by sheer weight of numbers or a blow from a spade. Many of those terrier men move on to badger digging.
  Every person ever convicted of badger-digging has been a self-confessed foxhunting terrier man. Therefore, the ending of terrier work will not only protect foxes from cruelty but serve to prevent the suffering of badgers and terriers.
  The fox remains the main sufferer at the hands of those who enjoy setting dogs on to wild animals, not for pest control but for the chase or the kill. There is no real evidence to suggest that foxes in general are a problem for farmers. In fact, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food describes fox predation as insignificant.
  Some farmers may dispute that, but I suggest that, even if there were evidence that the fox was a significant pest, the use of dogs would still be intolerable and inefficient because of the terror, suffering and pain that it inflicts. My Bill does not prohibit the killing of foxes; it seeks to outlaw the infliction of unnecessary suffering. Cage traps and shooting are available. If for some reason it is not possible to deal with a problem using such methods, anyone with a genuine need to kill foxes, hares or any other mammal will have the facility to seek a licence to use methods which otherwise might be unlawful.
  The disgusting sport of hare coursing, which even its proponents do not claim is a method of pest control, will be banned under my Bill, as will the hunting of deer with dogs. The use of dogs against deer is already unlawful in Scotland—the main stronghold of red deer—where shooting with a rifle is the general rule. The killing of deer in England and Wales for necessary culling is carried out mostly with the rifle. My Bill will stop only the barbarism of those few people who insist on chasing a deer with hounds for hours, until the terrified animal is too exhausted to continue to provide a chase for the riders. At the end of the chase, the deer should be shot, but eye witnesses and overwhelming photographic evidence— including videos—show that sometimes the hounds savage the deer before a gunman can catch up.
  The removal of that savagery is long overdue. The incident last month when the Quantock stag hounds chased a pregnant hind to its death over a quarry cliff has severed only to illustrate that such cruelty can no longer be permitted in a civilised society.
  My Bill provides sensible exemptions. A farmer whose dog chases rabbits or rodents will be exempt from prosecution. The weight ratio of a dog to a rabbit or rodent usually ensures that in the event of the dog's catching such animals, they are quickly dispatched, whereas larger mammals are likely to suffer significantly. Indeed, the use of ferrets and other similar creatures for rabbiting will also be permitted. Bill Owen may rest content.
  Using dogs to track animals which are wounded or suffering from disease will also be permitted and I shall favour a later amendment that will permit dogs on leashes to track wild animals that are known to have caused damage to livestock or may have escaped from a zoo or circus. Using dogs in such a way will enable full advantage to be taken of the dog's scenting abilities, without allowing it full rein to attack and injure or kill.
  Clause 3 outlaws the use of snares—except, of course, under special licence. Those wicked devices are designed to throttle an animal and hold it until the trapper—within 24 hours, it is to be hoped—returns to kill the animal. It is an

  1221
  offence of cruelty to set a snare for a domestic animal. If it is cruel to snare a cat or dog, it must be cruel to snare a fox. In 1981, we abolished the self-locking snare because it is a vicious instrument which inflicts injuries and death.
  It was the hunting lobby which thwarted our attempts to outlaw all snares, including the free-running snare. To be caught by any form of snare must be a terrifying experience for any free-living wild animal. To be held by the neck or body for up to twenty four hours—or longer, if the trapper cannot be bothered to check—must inflict great pain as the animal writhes and struggles to free itself. What is more, snares are unselective. The RSPCA reports that many domestic animals and livestock, as well as protected animals such as badgers, are caught in snares set for foxes and rabbits. That, then, is the purpose of my Bill —to outlaw forms of cruelty which, if inflicted on domestic animals, would be a criminal offence for which the perpetrators could be fined or even eventually sent to prison.
  One could argue that only clause 1 is necessary to establish the principle of legal protection for wild mammals. However, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 recognises that, as well as general protection, Parliament has the right to specify individual acts that it considers to be unnacceptable cruelty. For instance, under the 1911 Act, which applied only to domestic animals, beating, kicking, overriding, baiting and poisoning are all specific offences, as well as the general provision prohibiting the infliction of unnecessary suffering.
  One of the arguments put up by the hunting fraternity is that if hunting is banned, all hounds and horses will have to be destroyed and people will be thrown out of work. The Campaign for Hunting claims that 16,000 jobs will be lost—although recent newspaper reports of rallies have increased that estimate to 30,000. It is interesting that in 1983 the pro-hunting umbrella group the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports, published a report produced by independent resource consultants. The report stated that only 750 people were employed in hunting and that even when ancilliary trades were taken into account, only the equivalent of 2,300 full-time jobs depended on hunting. During the past decade—we are in a period of recession, with 2·5 million people unemployed—employment associated with hunts has been the only area of employment expansion. Perhaps I should be grateful for that.
  Richard Matson, a former master of hounds and chairman of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, wrote an article in "Horse and Hound" on 19 December, in which he stated that less than 7 per cent. of the nation's 600,000 horses are used in hunting. He said that most of those would find other occupations if hunting was banned.
  However, there is nothing in the Bill that makes even one hound, one horse or one huntsman redundant. There is nothing to prevent those who hunt with hounds from switching to drag hunting, as already practised by about a dozen packs in Britain and by many more overseas. Drag hunting involves the laying of an artificial trail for the hounds and riders to follow. The hunt can be made as fast or as slow as the riders wish and it avoids many of the appalling incidents where hounds have followed their desperate quarry over roads and railway lines and through growing crops, terrifying livestock, raiding gardens and killing pets.
  If the hunters wish to preserve their traditions, their hounds and their horses, drag hunting is available. We are
  1222
  told by the Campaign for Hunting that farmers would not tolerate hunts if they were not killing foxes. In fact, some of the existing drag hunts are run by farmers—including the Mid-Surrey Farmers Drag Hounds, and the Farmers Bloodhounds, which operate in the midlands. Of course, foxes are not a threat to dairy and arable farmers, who constitute the vast majority.
  Even if one believes the unsubstantiated argument that foxes are a continual serious threat to lambs, the last thing that a sheep farmer wants is a pack of hounds tearing around among his ewes and lambs at lambing time. That, no doubt is why the magazine Big Farm Weekly—"Big" as in large, not "Pig" as in porker—reported last year in its survey of farmers' hobbies and recreations, that hunting was 33rd in popularity, well behind that well-known country sport of snooker.
  Some hunters have declared that if the hunting of animals is banned they will not switch to drag hunting, which they say does not provide the same thrill as chasing an unpredictable wild animal and being present at the kill. That is up to them. If they would rather put their hounds to death and put the staff out of work than accept an alternative which would allow them to retain all the aspects of hunting except the kill, any job losses will be self-inflicted.
  In common with the vast majority of people today, I believe that human entertainment is not a sufficient justification for hounding an animal to exhaustion and death. Public opinion and pure logic demand that there is no longer any reason why the House should delay implementing the first recommendation of the Scott Henderson committee of 40 years ago and introduce legislation to outlaw the wilful infliction of unnecessary suffering on our persecuted mammals. Animals are there for the use of man, not the abuse of man.
  10.8 am
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I first spoke in the House almost exactly 32 years ago. A Bill on wildlife may provide an adequate opportunity for my swan song. I do not hunt. I never liked riding horses. When I was first asked to mount a pony I was told that after I had fallen off four times I would be a skilled horseman and that I had to persevere until then. I managed to fall off four times in the first hour and I have not been back on a horse since.
  Although I do not hunt, I defend the right of others to do as they wish for their sports and pastimes, subject to its being not without the public interest. We must look at the Bill in the light of what is in the public interest. Clearly, it is not the protection of human beings. We allow people to hunt, although it is a dangerous sport. We allow people to engage in motor cycle racing, hang gliding and many other dangerous sports. Therefore, the Bill does not seek to protect the human race; nor does it seek to look after the interests of neighbours, because it is in the public interest that what people do should not be offensive to others or to their neighbours and should not damage their interests.
  There is no way in which a hunt can cross land unless it is allowed to, and no one who does not want to hunt has to do so. In no sense is hunting damaging to the interests of those who do not do it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was quite clear that his case was based on cruelty to animals.

  1223
  I spent my entire childhood in the countryside and I remember once coming round a corner and hearing the most appalling screaming. It chilled me to listen to that suffering of a rabbit. When I got up to it, a stoat was dancing round it in circles. It was enjoying the agony of the rabbit and several minutes passed before it jumped on the rabbit's back and bit its neck to kill it. On another occasion, I watched a curlew's nest with the intention of ringing the chicks when they hatched. I knew which morning they were likely to hatch and I went there. As I approached the nest, I heard the most appalling, pitiful screaming of the curlew parents. There were no chicks or eggs in the nest, but a big fox jumped down and ran away. In terms of cruelty to animals, those are two of the many examples of what happens in the wild in nature's own way.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. I cannot understand how he equates natural life and existence in the countryside, where animals are under pressure and where there is cruelty, with human cruelty against defenceless animals.
  Mr. Ridley: That is exactly the point to which I am coming. I have first established that we are seeking to abolish not the cruelty of animals but cruelty by mankind. [Interruption.]
  Let us look at what man does to animals. I do not know why we tolerate the poisoning of rats, which are among the most intelligent of mammals and suffer most if poisoned or gassed. Clauses 5, 6 and 8 allow, with a licence or under exceptions, the very practices that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North says are cruel. If they are cruel in absolute terms, there should be no exemptions or exceptions or licences to permit practices that the Bill seeks to outlaw. It is not right for the Bill gaily to make exceptions for other forms of sporting activity which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has gone to some lengths to assure us do not apply in the Bill. I accept that.
  At the last election the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) proposed on behalf of the Labour party a ban on fox hunting if Labour won the election. It was discovered that that would not be popular in the Lake district where one or two Labour seats were at risk, and the hon. Gentleman made an exception for hunting in national parks. In the hon. Gentleman's terms, one could be cruel in a national park but not outside it. As my constituency is only an area of outstanding natural beauty and not a national park, I felt that we were severely disadvantaged by that selective approach.
  The Bill is about man enjoying killing animals, hunting with dogs, coursing and ferreting—what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North called "human entertainment". It is not cruelty of animals or cruelty by man to animals but human entertainment that the hon. Gentleman seeks to ban.
  The Bill recognises the need to control foxes. The hon. Gentleman repeated that when he said that it was perfectly all right to shoot a fox with the appropriate weapon. There is no question but that he would like to see the number of predators, the foxes, kept at a reasonable level, and there are only four methods by which that can be achieved. Foxes can be shot, hunted to death, trapped or poisoned
  1224
  or gassed. In my subjective judgment, the least cruel of those methods is to hunt foxes and the most cruel is to shoot and wound but not kill them.
  Mr. Paul Marland: My right hon. Friend speaks about the shooting of foxes. Does he agree that, sadly, many shooters are very poor shots and may badly injure a fox so that it creeps away to the bushes and dies an agonising death that is far worse than anything envisaged in hunting?
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend can speak for himself about his prowess as a shot. I plead guilty to not being at all certain that I could guarantee to kill a fox. As I say, shooting is probably the most cruel way of seeking to control the fox population.
  Mr. Stern: I am inclined to support many of the Bill's aims, but I find the matter about which my right hon. Friend speaks most difficult. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was very unclear on the point. The logical way to dispose of foxes, if hunting is not permitted, is by shooting. The last thing that my urban constituents want is an increase in the number of gun licences issued to ordinary members of the public, and that would be an inevitable result of the Bill.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to respond to one intervention before allowing another.
  Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). It is undesirable to pay such a price for killing in another way the foxes that are now killed by hunting. If I have a complaint against hunting, it is that it does not kill enough foxes.
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? It is not legal to gas or poison foxes. He said that the Bill was about ending entertainment, and I suppose that it is for those who think that hunting foxes and deer and ripping hares to pieces is entertainment. It seems a peculiar form of entertainment, but, of course, it was entertainment to engage in bear baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting. They were banned. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that they were entertainments which should not have been banned.
  Mr. Ridley: I merely canvassed the four possible ways in which to destroy foxes. As the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that gassing and poisoning are out, we are left with shooting, hunting and trapping.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I will not give way because I want to be quick.
  It is probably right to say that of the three remaining methods, hunting is the least cruel. I do not know how the Bill squares with that. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that the Bill concerned "entertainment".
  Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman said that.
  Mr. Ridley: I quoted the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who said that hunting was "human

  1225
  entertainment". If the motive of those who want to stop hunting is to do nothing other than to prevent a form of human entertainment, what sort of slippery slope is that? I know many forms of human entertainment of which I personally do not approve and in which I should not like to take part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I will tell the House. I do not like boxing or football crowds. I can think of many entertainments that are not attractive to other people, but I defend to the utmost the right of people to engage in those sports. Although I have an antipathy to some forms of human entertainment, I should never for a moment want to prevent others from enjoying them. The intrusion of people such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North into other people's lives to an extent that is far greater than is necessary for the public interest is one of the worst features of the modern Labour party and of those who support the Bill.
  A certain understanding, patience and tolerance are necessary if the life and freedom that we have cherished in this country for so long are not to be taken away by those who wish to impose their prejudices on others.
  10.21 am
  Mr. Tony Benn: If that is the last speech made in the House by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I can say only that it was a very appropriate one. Having advocated jungle economics for the past 31 years in the House, he now disposes of the matter by revealing his belief that cruelty to animals is a proper form of entertainment.
  I have been here for 41 years and I have never had more letters on a subject than the number that I have received on animal rights. Although Conservative Members may find one or two postcards that did not come from their constituencies, I am sure that they will confirm that there is enormous support for the Bill. That support does not come from those who wish to prevent farmers from enjoying themselves. The support comes from people young and old—it is not confined to the young, although it is very strong among them—who believe that cruelty to entertain is wrong, and I share that view.
  I remember a woman in her 50s with a bun and horn-rimmed spectacles coming to my surgery many years ago. She had worked all her life in a wool shop until her uncle left her some money. She told me that she had joined the hunt saboteurs. She had reflected when she had a little bit of freedom that her real wish was to stop the brutality against animals in the hunt. As a vegetarian and someone who has always supported animal rights, I feel that we have a duty in a representative assembly to reflect properly the feeling that exists.
  If I had any doubts about the matter, the interventions by Conservative Members would resolve them. When the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said that a million horses would be put down, that was a case for crime to avoid redundancy in the police force. If crime were abolished, the police would become redundant, so the House should endorse the continuation of crime—I have never heard such an absurd argument in my life and it carries no weight.
  The House would be very unwise to disregard the pressure that lies behind the Bill because it is part of a wider and growing concern that the human race has a duty
  1226
  to protect the planet and the other species that live on it. Whether one goes back to the book of Genesis where it describes the creation of the earth and how
  "God saw that it was good",
  whether one looks to the Levellers of the 17th century who said that the earth was
  "a Common Treasury, to preserve Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Man"
  or whether one goes to the modern statements, one discovers that young people realise that the human race cannot survive unless it is concerned about the rain forest, whales, elephants, badgers, foxes and everything else. I strongly share that feeling.
  I have read, as others may have done, a marvellous book written 40 years ago by a man called E. S. Turner which is entitled "Roads to Ruin". He went through all the reforms that had been advocated in the House and listed the arguments against them. A book was issued in favour of torture and was dedicated by permission to the Chief of the General Staff. Some argued for hanging, drawing and quartering. Some argued for chimney boys to prevent fires in stately homes. Samuel Plimsoll, who advocated a safety line to protect seamen, was described in the shipping gazette as a terrorist.
  The history of reform is simple. First, an argument for reform is brought forward, as in the Bill, and it is ignored. It is then denounced as mad and, after a pause, it is dangerous. There is then another pause after which one cannot find anyone who does not claim to have thought of it in the first place. When the Bill is on the statute book—as it will be before the end of the century, if not before the general election—people will look back and read the speech by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and the other speeches made by those who favour hunting. They will not be able to persuade their children that such arguments were put forward by civilised men and women. They will be right not to do so.
  10.26 am
  Dame Janet Fookes: It will not surprise hon. Members to know that, as a long-standing member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and of its council, I support the Bill and am a sponsor of it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. North (Mr. McNamara) on the breadth of his speech.
  I will deal with one or two general points of principle before I consider the Bill in more detail. One argument produced this morning is that, as we cannot prevent cruelty or suffering within the natural animal kingdom to some extent, we ourselves should not intervene to prevent cruelty by man against animals. I take the view that, although we may not be able to deal with all those things, there is a duty on us to ensure that there is no unnecessary cruelty or suffering. The word "unecessary" is very important. There may be occasions on which suffering is necessary in the greater good, but we should do our utmost to limit it as far as possible.
  It shocks me that, although there is the Protection of Animals Act 1911 for England, and similar legislation a year later for Scotland, which protect domestic or captive animals, there is no general body of law that does the same for wild animals. That loophole should long since have been dealt with and I am grateful that we have a Bill that

  1227
  goes some way towards dealing with that, although hon. Members will recognise that the Bill applies only to mammals.
  I turn now to the issue of the hunting of animals with hounds and coursing. We hear lurid stories about the death of the animals, although those who hunt insist that the death is instantaneous and reasonably painless. I suggest that the real cruelty comes from the exhaustion of the chase and from the extreme stress that that places on the animal concerned It is known that there is a condition that can caused deer, for example, to die from shock even if they are not caught. We have no right to inflict that sort of suffering.
  I am not interested in the entertainment issue. I am concerned only with the plight of the animals. If it is awful to hunt and to course, it is extremely cruel to snare animals. We know that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 certain types of snare are forbidden, and I believe that all snares should be forbidden. In this regard I would part slightly from the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North. I would not allow any exemptions to snaring such as are permitted in his Bill under licensing laws. That, however, is a matter which will be properly resolved in Committee. It is in a sense a minor point of difference but I want to set it on the record.
  Mr. John Townend: Would my hon. Friend say that her principles, which she obviously holds sincerely, apply equally to shooting and fishing?
  Dame Janet Fookes: Although my hon. Friend's question does not apply to the Bill, it is a fair one to ask. I believe that there is what I would call a scale of cruelty. It is—[Interruption.] Some people may laugh, but there are some forms of cruelty that are much worse than others. I would place hunting, snaring or torture of an animal much higher on the scale than shooting. As for my personal views, I would not seek to place on the statute book any legislation that dealt with either shooting or fishing, but one would certainly expect there to be a code of good practice for those who engage in those activities. Those are my views on the subject.
  I hope that I am realistic. I believe that there is general agreement on matters such as hunting, snaring and coursing, but I recognise that different views are held on the shooting of animals.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend has introduced an interesting element into the debate by referring to a scale of cruelty to wildlife. I appreciate that a deer or even a fox might be under considerable stress during a chase, but would not those same considerations apply to a salmon or a trout that is fighting desperately to avoid being caught by a fisherman?
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman would eat the salmon but not the fox.
  Dame Janet Fookes: I shall not go down that road, which is a diversion. It does not come within the contents of the Bill. I sought to help my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) by describing my general views, but we are debating a Bill on which we shall have to make up our minds at the end of the debate. I do not wish
  1228
  to be sidetracked. There is sufficient in the Bill to occupy us and to give us reason to fight for what is set out within it. Nothing else should intervene.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that it is suggested that hunting foxes is a form of pest control. That argument has already been dealt with effectively. During a year, about 12,500 foxes out of a population of 250,000 to 500,000 are killed in hunts. That cannot be regarded as efficient. Lest anyone dispute the figures, they are not mine; they were given by a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  I believe that hunting is extraordinarily inefficient as well as cruel. If it is necessary to deal with foxes, my preference would be for shooting in controlled circumstances, and I shall explain what I mean. I believe that such shooting should in the hands of those who are skilled and that they should use a proper weapon. I know that there is the question of licences, but shooting with a rifle by a skilled and responsible person is the most effective practice. It is possible to put out bait for a fox so that it will come to the person with a rifle. That offers a very good chance of getting a clean kill. There is one other method, about which I read with interest. It was described in an article that appeared in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine, I think. It was written by a gamekeeper, who suggested that it was better to "lamp" foxes. At night they can be made still by a powerful glare of light and then shot humanely, if it is necessary so to do.
  There is considerable evidence—not produced by animal welfare groups or extremists—from scientists of repute that suggests that much of the ill fame of the fox is extremely nebulous. In many instances, when it is believed that foxes have taken a live lamb, it transpires that they have taken a dead or dying lamb. I am not suggesting that that is always the case, but considerable evidence suggests that most is carrion rather than live. Where there is the problem of a rogue fox or foxes, I believe that it is proper to shoot it or them in the way that I described.
  There are other small wild mammals that have been treated cruelly. I shall not rehearse the examples that have been given, because I am aware of the pressure of time. It seems appalling that no organisation such as the inspectorate of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or the police is able to bring a case against somebody who tortures an animal for no reason other than to get some sadistic pleasure from doing so. Such a person cannot be caught by the law. We must close that atrocious loophole.
  I am aware that some of the opposition to the Bill is based less on what it contains than on the belief that it is the thin end of the wedge. I heard that expression used earlier. I do not believe that it is the thin end of the wedge. If the Bill is enacted, I believe that we shall do a great deal to end cruelty to animals and unnecessary suffering, and I stress the word "unnecessary".
  I hope that there will be good support for the Bill and that it will at least move into Committee, which will show the House and the public that these matters can no longer be left on one side but must be tackled quickly.
  10.48 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Like many people outside the House, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, (Mr.

  1229
  McNamara) for taking the opportunity, which comes rarely to any of us, to propose such an important piece of legislation. I am also grateful that he had the wisdom to ensure that people outside saw that the Bill had cross-party support and that he asked me to be a sponsor. I am very happy to be a sponsor of the Bill. For the record, the Bill has support from Members of four parties in the House representing many parts of Great Britain. It is an indisputable fact that it has also been shown to have overwhelming support among the public according to all records of British public opinion.
  The point made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in his point of order deserves to be dealt with quickly. There may be one or two people who have acted improperly in lobbying for or against the Bill. I know not. But I can tell the House that even in areas such as mine, where one might think that such issues do not exercise the minds of people as strongly as they do in the rural communities of Great Britain, subjects such as fox hunting are more important issues. I have checked on the electoral register everyone who has written to me. The overwhelming majority of a considerable correspondence in cards and letters from my constituents expresses support for the Bill. Only three letters from my constituents, which I have recorded specifically, expressed opposition to it. They represented a total of 14 people, 13 of whom opposed the Bill because they misunderstood its application to shooting. That left one constituent who opposed the Bill because he thought that the hunting of foxes with hounds was acceptable and that the Bill threatened things which he regarded as important.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the all-party support for the Bill. Will all his colleagues in his party vote in the same Lobby as him when it comes to a vote?
  Mr. Hughes: I suppose that it says something about the sequence in which I intended to make my points that the hon. Gentleman's point was the next one with which I intended to deal. My view is clear: I support the Bill and will vote for it. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), I hope that the Bill goes into Committee and proceeds as far as possible. We all recognise that it may not complete its stages because of the imminence of the general election. However, giving the Bill a Second Reading today will give a clear signal to the country. I shall come to the point about my colleagues in a moment.
  One reason why I support the Bill is that, although I represent an urban seat, I was brought up in the country and, after watching a hunt, I asked myself whether hunting was appropriate. When I was a teenager, the hunt met a mile from my home in south Wales on Boxing day and other days of the year. It had a superficial attraction. The hunt was entertainment and a spectacle. But one had to ask what were the implications of what was happening. It was from that time on that I formed a clear view that hunting was not an appropriate activity for civilised human beings.
  When I became a barrister, I prosecuted for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and was happy to do so. Coincidentally, I am now the Member of Parliament for the League Against Cruel Sports and I am very happy to be the Member for the constituency in which the league's headquarters is based.
  1230
  The Liberal Democrats have a party view that is opposed to hunting. That has been made clear at two conferences since the Liberal Democrats were formed by the merger of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party in 1988—one in March 1989 and the other last September. The party policy was remitted to an animal protection working group which is currently working on further detail. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has beaten us to it. I went to the last seminar of that working group. It will produce a full policy paper which will go into more detail on animal protection issues than our present policy. Unfortunately, that will not now be before the election. [Laughter.] I am being straightforward. We have a policy and I have said what it is. I have made it clear. However, further work will be done.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) asked how my colleagues would vote. Our position is the same as that of the Labour party and, as I understand it, that of the Conservative party—there is no party line on the way in which Liberal Democrat Members should vote on the Bill. My party has a free vote in every vote in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] No. All my hon. Friends will confirm that. Although there is a procedure for establishing a party line—[Laughter.]—every vote is a free vote. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may ask any of my colleagues. For us, every vote is a free vote. But, of course, on some issues there is a party line [Laughter.] It is an important point about the conscience of Members of Parliament which hon. Members might understand if they looked into political history. I should have thought that they understood anyway. The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Erdington is that for Liberal Democrats today there will be a free vote. If we introduced legislation, as I would wish us to do, there would be also a free vote on that. I understand that that is what the Conservative party and the Prime Minister have conceded should happen today and that the Labour party is also committed to a free vote.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: The hon. Gentleman has told the House something of great importance and use to us—that every vote is a free vote in his party. Does he accept that, in the previous Session, on more than 70 per cent. of occasions his party voted with the Labour party? Therefore, there will be no difference between voting Labour and voting Liberal in the next election.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, but it does not help us to make progress on the Bill.
  Mr. Hughes: If I were allowed, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would more fully answer that point. For now, I simply observe that Opposition parties normally vote against any Government more often than not.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No. Let me get on.
  I should add for the record that the most substantive legislation on preventing cruelty to animals—the Protection of Animals Act 1911—was enacted by a Liberal Government. The only reason why that Act did not contain the full panoply of powers to protect wild animals was that this issue was also controversial at that time. There was opposition to the Bill within our party as well

  1231
  as in other parties, so wild animals were not included. That Act is part of the Liberal party's record of which we are justly proud.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made the substantive and key principled point—that human beings have a duty the world over to be responsible towards and to look after those creatures that have no votes and are not human beings. That is why in Parliament we are rightly exercised about creatures abroad such as whales and the African elephant or, at home, badgers and otters. That is why increasingly over the years we have legislated to protect various creatures in Britain. The hon. Member for Drake made the valid point that we have generally failed to protect creatures in Britain, other than domestic animals, from cruelty in many forms because they were not included in the 1911 Act.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What about battery farming?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman raises another equally valid point. If there were general legislation against cruelty, many forms of cruelty such as inhumane conditions during the transmit of animals and factory farming would rightly also be outlawed.
  The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made a poor point about the principle behind the Bill. The principle governing cruelty to wild mammals is different from that relating to boxing and attending football matches. Human beings rightly have the choice whether to box or hunt. But in hunting the other party—the fox—has no choice. That is the fundamental difference between hunting and boxing and other forms of sport or entertainment that involve only human beings.
  The fundamental issue is cruelty against other creatures in our animal kingdom. It is the right to have a debate about what activities should or should not be permitted. Of course, we could have a debate about whether shooting or fishing should be acceptable. However, two fundamental points made this a different debate. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made one of those obvious points from a sedentary position. One factor which makes shooting and fishing for most purposes a different issue is that we often shoot and fish to eat; we do not hunt foxes to eat. The second factor is that the balance of the arguments on cruelty and conservation is substantially different in each of these activities.
  Let me make it abundantly clear for example, that I believe that, in certain circumstances, it is perfectly appropriate to shoot to conserve stock or to protect other creatures. The arguments for that are valid. I have met representatives of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and have been out with them, and I understand the issues. There are different arguments which justify fishing.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman has just said that we do not kill foxes to eat. We do, however, kill foxes to enable people to eat. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to an incident that occurred a couple of weeks ago in Ratby in my constituency, where an entire chicken coop was wiped out by a fox. In Leicestershire, the natural recourse is to turn to the fox hunt, which has always controlled foxes.
  Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly proper argument, but one has to decide the best way of dealing with the minority of foxes and other animals which are predators and destroy chickens and other animals which may also be potential food. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the statistics, which show overwhelmingly that, for all sorts of obvious practical reasons—not least that one cannot ride a horse to hounds and hounds through a chicken farm—hunting is not the best way to deal with foxes. If something needs to be done—the Bill accepts that principle—controlled shooting is preferable. The other argument against the hon. Gentleman's assertion is that the relationship between the number of foxes caught and killed by a hunt and such incidents is minimal.
  Most people go hunting for entertainment and exercise, and the House must ask itself whether in 1992, in a civilised country, it is appropriate to allow people to hunt and injure or kill foxes principally for entertainment and exercise. I believe that the answer to that is a resounding no.
  What are the arguments against the Bill? First, it is argued that it would produce 14,000 to 16,000 redundancies in the rural community. I do not accept that by preventing horses and hounds from being used for hunting, one prevents them from being used. That is not logical. Many people ride and keep hounds, and farriers and people who work in stables will continue to be needed. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) made an absolutely outlandish claim which I hope has already been rubbished by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. There is no logic in the argument that if one prevents hunting, people will suddenly kill horses. If people are concerned about animals—particularly horses—
  they will not kill them just because they cannot ride them to hounds. People who ride say that they do it because they love horses; they are hardly likely to turn on them and put them all to death. Moreover, there are all sorts of ways in which we could make up for any minimal reduction in work in the rural communities. I am happy to send the hon. Member for Harborough a copy of a cutting from the Hull Daily Mail—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will have seen it; it is from his own area—in which local farrier Baz Brashill, dealing with the question, "Would I lose my job?" was reported as saying:
  "They are saying my business will suffer if fox hunting is banned, but that is absolute rubbish. It would only affect me a tiny bit, if at all."
  That reflects the balance of work for nearly all our farriers.
  The second argument against the Bill is that hunting preserves much of Britain's rural heritage—hedges, fields, trees and so on. Again, all the evidence, including that from the Government, makes it clear that hunting and the other activities dealt with in the Bill make a minimal contribution to the preservation of the countryside.
  The third argument against the Bill is that it would destroy the best traditions and ways of the countryside. But many traditions either are no longer valid or never have been valid. Personally, I think that the unelected House of Lords is an invalid tradition. Moreover, one does not have to support something just because it is a tradition. One must ask oneself whether it is logical, principled and justifiable. Over the years, the case has been well demonstrated in Southwark. Southwark used to be the centre for bear baiting and cock fighting; they were traditions. People spent their free time engaged in such activities. Thank God, we are now a more civilised country

  1233
  and those activities are now banned. Many local authorities of all political parties have now banned hunting on their land.
  The fourth argument against the Bill is that it would prevent any shooting of predators—that it is the thin edge of the wedge. First, an examination of the Bill does not support that assertion and, secondly, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and the sponsors of the Bill have made it clear that we are prepared to make it even more explicit in the Bill that shooting, as sport and for conservation purposes, would be perfectly permissible. The Bill is about the prevention of cruelty—to prevent cruelty to mammals, many of which are left maimed as opposed to dead—and unnecessary cruelty at that.
  Penultimately, it is argued that we must oppose the Bill if we are to protect mammals. That is a contradictory, argument. I ask those who really want to listen to the arguments for and against the Bill to examine those advanced by the hunting lobby. The first is that foxes are a pest and need to be culled and controlled. The second, contradictory, argument is that, without hunting, the foxes' habitats would disappear, leading to the decimation of the fox population. One cannot have it both ways. Either the fox is a menace poised to overrun rural areas or it is a species in danger. It cannot be both at the same time.
  One is left with the final argument as to whether hunting is a necessary alternative to shooting; other alternatives are not legal. The RSPCA has made it clear that of the 1,448 foxes collected by the inspectorate in 1981, none of the 983 sick and wounded foxes were suffering from gangrene as a result of shotgun wounds. They were suffering from injuries as a result of being hunted but not killed.
  Mr. Tony Banks: And snares.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, but not shotgun wounds.
  All things considered, it seems to me that the arguments are overwhelming and conclusive. The Bill is a matter of principle for the House to decide. The Bill permits exceptions but they do not invalidate the principle. There are also qualifications, which show that the promoter of the Bill and its sponsors are neither illogical nor unreasonable human beings. We have clearly said that the Bill is not about fishing or shooting. It is about the further protection of living creatures which we have not so far taken steps to protect. Civilised legislatures vote in favour of protecting those who have no voice. We ought to protect them tinder the present Bill and I hope that it will receive overwhelming support.
  10.57 am
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I have listened to the arguments advancesd advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The most ludicrous part of his speech was his attempt to differentiate between fox hunting on the one hand and shooting and fishing on the other by saying that, to use Oscar Wilde's term, foxes were the uneatable. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the largest group of people who indulge in such activities are the coarse fishermen, who catch fish that is, by definition, uneatable, so the hon. Gentleman's argument falls immediately.
  I begin by declaring my interest. The House knows that I am a farmer and, like the vast majority of farmers in Britain, I am happy for hounds to hunt over my farm—
  1234
  principally because I like to see them. I do not indulge in fox hunting and I am not connected with a hunt. I have never seen a coursing match or a stag hunt in my life, but I am most concerned about the Bill.
  I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said at the start of his speech. He said that he is prepared to enter negotiations in Committee with regard to pest control. I am not prepared to support a Bill that is as vague as this, on the undertaking that there will be some sort of negotiations at a later stage. I have serious anxieties about the ability of farmers in particular and of a number of other people in general, especially householders, to control pests. I understand that, as a result of the way that the Bill is framed, lawyers have questioned the future of rabbit shooting, because of the danger of those animals being wounded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Many farmers in the eastern part of the—
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the serious allegations of mismanagement of the insurance market at Lloyd's, allegations substantiated by Conservative Members, and in view of the importance of Lloyd's to our invisible balance of payments and the importance of London as a financial centre, can you clarify whether a Minister has considered the matter important enough to come to the House this morning to make a statement.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Lady that Mr. Speaker has not been informed that a Government Minister is seeking to make a statement.
  Sir Gerrard Neale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether Mr. Speaker has received any intimation from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that he wishes to make a statement regarding the details that have been published relating to a former research assistant. It is an important matter and it seems conceivable that he would be able to explain fully to the House exactly what happened. Given the incidence of political advisers being appointed by members of all parties—[Interruption.]—and the fact that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me hear the point of order.
  Sir Gerrard Neale: The incidence now of political advisers being appointed by all political parties seems potentially to give rise to the question of a conflict of loyalty and interest regarding the subsequent appointment of these people to civil service positions.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The point of order for me is whether Mr. Speaker has received a request from an hon. Member to make a statement. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker has not received any such request.
  Mr. Jopling: I was questioning the effect of the Bill as it stands on the ability of people to control pests. I think in particular of hares—a well-known scourge of sugar beet in the eastern counties of this country. That has nothing whatever to do with coursing. As for rats, the Bill as it stands leaves what is permissible very much open to doubt—whether it be shooting, poisoning or trapping.
  One suggestion has been made which, to begin with, I thought was absurd. However, as I read the Bill, I began to see that there was something in it. A lawyer had

  1235
  suggested that, as the Bill stands, it might be illegal to put a cat into a granary that had a plague of mice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Anyone who has seen a cat playing with a mouse will agree that that involves a good deal more cruelty than fox hunting. However, I shall deal with that point later.
  The Bill has serious shortcomings. Clause 8 provides for registration and for licences to carry out pest control in different ways. When agriculture is experiencing great difficulties, this is not the time to saddle farmers with new restrictions of this kind. It is no good to say that, under clause 8, farmers will be able to obtain licences to become self-employed destroyers of vermin.
  Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend has made an extremely valid point. Another point that has not been made thus far in the debate is that most of the hunting on the North Yorkshire moors is done on foot. Were we not to control the fox population by that method, since no other method is viable, the farmers in that part of the country would suffer serious consequences.
  Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend must be a thought reader. That was precisely the point to which I was about to turn. I am most concerned about the effects of the Bill on fox hunting.
  One point that has already been made in part, but which needs to be emphasised, is that the death of a fox by fox hunting—I refer to its death, not to the stress—is quicker and more certain if it is killed by hounds than if it is poisoned, wounded by shooting, or trapped. We start from that point of view.
  To come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the Labour party included in its manifesto at the last election the promise that it would ban fox hunting, but there was the exception to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) referred about national parks. My right hon. Friend made a cynical comment: that that may have been because the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), whose constituencies adjoin mine in Cumbria, have a large number of constituents who hunt on foot on the fells.
  I do not believe that it was due to political pressure on their part. I believe that the Labour party did that for perfectly good agricultural reasons: because it recognised that it was impossible to control foxes in upland areas without the use of hounds.
  The Bill is different from the Labour party's proposal in its last election manifesto, since that exception is not included. The Bill would ban fell fox hunting—foot hunting—which the Labour party would have exempted. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was kind enough to say that, in future, it will be possible for hounds to hunt foxes, provided the hounds are on leashes. I am sure that that will bring great comfort to the fell packs in the Lake district. The thought of those hounds hunting up and down the mountains on the end of leashes is just too ludicrous for words.
  My strong view is that sheep farming in our upland and mountainous areas would become impossible if there were no hunting by hounds. Last year, I had discussions with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)
  1236
  about the Badgers Bill. I made that point to him, and he sought to argue it with me. Therefore, I invited him to John Peel country, where my constituency is, to talk to the farmers so that they could explain to him how important hunting is if foxes are to be kept down in such areas.
  Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman, who kindly accepted the invitation, could not come at the last minute. It was a great disappointment. I do not blame him at all. I perfectly understand why he was unable to come. It was just a pity that he could not come. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Tony Banks: I was not going to rise, but from a sedentary position I heard somebody say that I was frit. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Sir M. Jopling) knows that that is not true. I do not know who said that, but the fact is that I am certainly not frit. My reasons were connected with the fact that my wife, who was coming with me, was too busy working in the hospital. Therefore, I had to pull out. I deeply regretted it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman might even contemplate renewing his invitation. I shall damn well make sure that I am there this time, and I shall take whoever said that with me.
  Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman knows that I did not criticise him for being unable to come. I merely expressed my disappointment. If he would like to come this year to the Lake district sheepdog trials, of which I hope I shall continue to be president, he will be most welcome.
  The basic argument is whether hunting by hounds is essential for sheep farming in these upland areas. Some people say that one cannot prove that it is essential. I believe that I can prove this morning that it is essential, and that I can give chapter and verse to demonstrate my point.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was formerly a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is he aware that studies into fox predation of sheep have shown that in Northern Ireland, where hunting is not so important, 95 per cent. of hill sheep farmers reported no loss of sheep? In addition, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has shown that fox hunting is an ineffective way to control foxes in the upland areas. When all those independent reports state that fox hunting is not effective, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is?
  Mr. Jopling: I was about to show, from a case history, that fox hunting is essential. If the hon. Gentleman visits the fell packs in the Lake district and on the North Yorkshire moors and talks to those who run the hounds, he will discover that farmers frequently contact the hunt and say, "I am losing lambs; please bring the hounds to control the foxes." The case law that demonstrates my point can be found in Hansard, at column 1522 on 16 October 1941.
  At the beginning of the war, a Mr. Harry Roberts was huntsman for the Plas Machynlleth hounds in west Wales. He was called up to the Army. Within two years, the foxes were so hopelessly out of control in that part of west Wales that large numbers of lambs and chickens were being taken. In the end, the War Agricultural Executive Committee petitioned the Government for the release of Mr. Roberts from the Army.
  The then Ministry of Agriculture, together with the local Members of Parliament—which included Mr.

  1237
  Clement Davies—who may or may not have been leader of the Liberal party at the time—pressed for the release of Mr. Roberts in the interest of the war effort. He was released from the Army, and questions about that were asked in the House. The issue was taken up by "Picture Post", which made a feature out of the return of Mr. Roberts to keep the foxes under control. That is the most compelling evidence to prove that hunting is absolutely essential in the upland areas.
  Sir Richard Body: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Roberts was not the only huntsman released for that purpose?
  Mr. Jopling: I was unaware of that, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doubling the strength of the evidence.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to this day in north-east Scotland, there is an itinerant pack of hounds that is called up by the farmers? It moves from place to place in a part of the country that has many keepers and others involved in the control and conservation of game. They need a pack of hounds to do the necessary work for them, because there is no other way to control the foxes.
  Mr. Jopling: That adds to the evidence, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his information.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I have listened with great interest and amusement to the right hon. Gentleman's half-century-old anecdote. The thrust of his argument is that, in the uplands, especially at lambing time, hounds are necessary to control the fox population. Presumably he is referring to the lambing period of late March, April and early May, when the problem of foxes is most acute. Can he explain why, at the very time that he claims that his evidence shows that there is a problem with foxes because the ewes are lambing, the hunts stop hunting and declare their close season?
  Mr. Jopling: The ewes are brought off the fells to have their lambs in the lowlands. After they have spent a few weeks there, they go back to the fells. That is when the foxes take the young lambs. It is perfectly simple.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Jopling: No, I have given way enough.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman did not take my point. At the very time that he asserts economic damage is done, the hunts declare their close season. They stop killing the foxes. Why is that?
  Mr. Jopling: The hunts operate at a time when there are lambs, and they deal with the foxes.
  If fox hunting is banned, I suspect that there will be a massive increase in the fox population in the upland areas, and that will cause even more damage to the sheep population. However, I think that the opposite will be true in the lowlands, where I suspect there will be fewer foxes.
  Sir Gerrard Neale: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jopling: No, I have given way more than anybody else.
  From our discussions this morning, I have the impression that some of the Bill's supporters—not all—are motivated as much by revulsion at the supporters and the followers of hunts as they are at any cruelty that might
  1238
  occur. There was an extraordinary article in "Horse and Hound" on 30 January. Mr. Richard Course, formerly a chairman of the League Against Cruel Sports, wrote:
  "The plain fact is that the abolition of foxhunting, or any other form of hunting with hounds, will not make a hap'orth of difference to animal welfare."
  That is a fundamental point, made by someone with great experience.
  Like other hon. Members, I have had letters from my constituents asking me to support the Bill. Some of those letters refer to those people who follow hounds—whether on foot, on horse or even by car—as bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters. I hope that the House will understand that nothing could be further from the truth about those thousands of country people who like to follow the hounds, although not necessarily on a horse. Indeed, as I have said, in many areas such as the Lake district there is little hunting. Those people are doing what their forbears have done for centuries and they are perplexed about why those activities should be in danger of becoming a criminal offence. I, too, do not understand why they should become a criminal offence. The Bill is a serious mistake and I oppose it.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Elliot Morley: There is a spread of opinion in any constituency. I represent a significant rural area. One of the arguments against those who oppose cruel sports is that they all come from urban parts. That does not apply to me or, indeed, many other hon. Members who support the Bill.
  Some of my local farmers support hunting. They do not try to justify the cruelty of fox hunting, but they have an attachment to the tradition of field sports. The letters have received and discussions that I have had with my constituent farmers have been conducted in a perfectly reasonable, logical and courteous way. I appreciate the points that they have made to me. When I say to them that the bottom line of all the arguments is how they can justify inflicting prolonged pain and stress on an animal for no reason other than the enjoyment of the human tormentors, even they accept that that is hard to do.
  I shall put to rest once and for all one or two of the issues raised in the debate. There is the question of cruelty. Some hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill have not taken into account, in considering various sports that involve killing animals, that here we are talking about the deliberate infliction of cruelty. That does not apply to sports such as shooting. Although it may be true that some birds could be winged and may not be killed outright, people who shoot do not go out with the purpose of inflicting deliberate cruelty. Therefore, the argument is not the same. Nor, indeed, is the argument the same for fishing. Fishermen do not set out to inflict deliberate cruelty. One or two hon. Members need biology lessons on the physiology and nervous system of fish compared with that of a medium-sized mammal such as a fox.
  We have debated the legal definition of cruelty. Not one hon. Member would dispute that if a bunch of yobbos set a pack of dogs on a cat, they would go to gaol. That is legally defined as cruelty. Yet the principle of setting dogs on a fox is no different from that of setting dogs on a cat or a sheep. The only difference is that cats and sheep are covered under the legal definition of cruelty and foxes are not. That is the very point which the Bill sets out to rectify.

  1239
  I certainly endorse what has been said about hedgehogs and other mammals. Naturally, cruel sports dominate the debate, but I know of cases of youths in my constituency who deliberately ride their motorbikes over hedgehogs and of people kicking hedgehogs around deliberately. Those serious issues need to be addressed.
  We heard the argument about jobs. The hon. Member who talked about a million horses being slaughtered completely discredited the argument about the impact on jobs. Indeed, the cruel sports lobby has exaggerated the impact. I would not deny that some jobs are directly associated with hunts, but they amount to hundreds rather than thousands.
  If people want to continue fox hunting as a sport, a tradition or a cultural, visual image, there is no reason why hunts cannot switch to drag hunting. It is not only better for the animals, but it is better for the horses as it is possible to ensure that a drag hunt goes over fences which constitute a reasonable jump for the horses. There is the further benefit that it is possible to keep the hounds away from houses. Many domestic pets and farm animals have been killed and many people's rights have been interfered with by hounds that have run amok.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: This morning, several hon. Members have raised the possibility of drag hunts. A drag hunt and a real hunt are not the same. A drag hunt is much more like a race. It is more akin to a point-to-point. It involves chasing round the countryside after a scented bag—so far, nobody has indicated who the scented bag is. Neverthless, a scented bag is drawn round the countryside first. I have been looking for an analogy to a drag hunt. Someone I know likened it to kissing one's sister, and he should know. [HON. MEMBERS" Oh."] There is no resemblance between drag hunting and proper hunting, and the hon. Gentleman should realise that.
  Mr. Morley: I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's sexual habits. Of course, a drag hunt and a fox hunt are different. One of the differences is the lack of cruelty. Many keen horse riders would not dream of joining a fox hunt, because of their objection to the cruelty involved, but they would be happy to join a drag hunt. If people are concerned about rural employment, the introduction of drag hunts could increase employment. That is a better argument than saying that drag hunts would undermine the pleasure of the hunt.
  Mr. Colvin: If that were so, there would be more drag hunts than there are. There are 10 drag hunts and many hundreds of proper hunts.
  Mr. Morley: In fact, there are 12 drag hunts—and there are quite a few on the continent.
  Is the only concern of those who follow fox hunts the blood, the cruelty and the killing? What sort of people are they if that is what is so important to them? We should look at the wider issue. I am concerned about the hon. Gentleman's point. If people want to keep fox hunts together, they can switch to drag hunting.
  Before I was Member of Parliament, I was involved in nature reserve management. On odd occasions, foxes cause a problem. The Bill would not eliminate the right of individuals to take action against foxes by killing them
  1240
  humanely, either by shooting or by humane trapping. Both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office Agriculture Department have commissioned studies into the scale of the problem. The studies found that there was no significant predation problem from foxes. Studies by Aberdeen university, Bristol university and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology have all confirmed that organised fox hunting does not contribute to fox control in any way. Therefore, the argument that fox hunts serve a useful purpose in fox control is not true. It is not backed up by independent scientific evidence.
  The habitat question has not featured much in our debate. Some of my farming constituents have made the valid point to me that many habitat features have been retained for the purpose of fox hunting. I think that that argument is somewhat exaggerated. Many copses are maintained more for shooting than for hunting. Moreover, when one considers the level of destruction of hedgerows, trees and so on, fox hunting does not seem to have done a good job in protecting them.
  All hon. Members know of the major changes and reforms of the common agricultural policy. The kind of agricultural support in future will undoubtedly be for habitat protection and retention. Indeed, it will be for improving the habitat by planting hedgerows and trees. It is not true to say that a ban on fox hunting would affect the habitat.
  Mr. Tredinnick: May I point out that the Quorn hunt in Leicestershire was given many coverts and woods specifically to save them from extinction? The Quorn meets and discusses how to protect that habitat. I think that there is a sub-committee specifically devoted to environmental protection of the woods in its hunt country.
  Mr. Morley: I do not think that the Quorn hunt is a good example to include in this debate. I am sure that people involved in cruel sports have a love for the countryside and a respect for its habitat and visual image. I do not believe that if hunting were banned they would suddenly go out and start chopping down trees and woods, and ripping up hedgerows. I just do not believe that that would happen. What kind of people would do that? There are financial advantages for farming not only in maintaining but in improving the existing habitat. Therefore, that argument need not be taken into account.
  I do not want to go on, as many hon. Members wish to speak. There is not one intellectual argument in favour of cruel sports such as fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing which can stand up to critical, independent and scientific examination. The bottom line is: can we justify the infliction of prolonged deliberate pain and stress on wild animals for fun—for the enjoyment of human tormentors?
  Fox hunting and other cruel sports belong to a different age—one of barbarity. We live in a modern society and many so-called traditional sports such as bear baiting, bull baiting and dog fights have been banned. There is no difference between those sports and that of fox hunting—except, perhaps, that they happened in Southwark rather than in the rolling shires. The Bill is long overdue and it is welcome to the vast majority of the country. I hope that the House will support it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Standing Order limiting speeches to 10 minutes now comes into operation until 1 o'clock.
  11.29 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I shall endeavour to contain my speech to less than 10 minutes. I agree with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, and I shall extend some of his arguments.
  I am saddened that the Bill is seen as an anti-fox hunting one. In common with many of my hon. Friends, I see it for what it is—the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill. However, it is abundantly clear that some have sought to turn this debate into one for and against fox hunting. For that reason, I shall address that specific issue.
  Those who are in favour of fox hunting argue that the Bill would damage conservation efforts. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe referred to that argument; I believe that he was the first hon. Member to do so. The hunt is held up as a shining example of conservation. However, according to the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, since the war, 97 per cent. of traditional hay meadows have been destroyed as well as 99 per cent. of lowland heaths, 80 per cent. of chalk downlands, 80 per cent. of limestone grasslands, 80 per cent. of fens and mires, 90 per cent. of lowland ponds, 50 per cent. of ancient lowland woods and 150,000 miles of hedgerows. Many of those features existed on land owned or covered by hunts.
  The Standing Conference on Countyside Sports has said that of all the reasons why landowners retain or plant woodland, creating fox coverts was the least significant. The chief motivating force was found to be the beauty of the landscape—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It was subsidies.
  Mr. Gale: As my hon. Friend says, there are now other compelling set-aside reasons. People's concern about conservation has nothing to do with the hunt, but is a genuine desire to conserve the beauty of the land, which is loved by many.
  It has been said that shooting is not an alternative form of controlling the fox population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) argued that foxes represent a major threat to farming. However, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, over which my right hon. Friend presided with great distinction for a number of years, has estimated that the loss of lambs to foxes does not constitute an economically significant loss to the national farming community.
  There has been much reference today to what are euphemistically regarded as the sporting connotations of fox hunting. The debate has been seen as one between town and country. I was brought up in rural Dorset and my family comes from Axminster in Devon. I have followed hounds on foot and many of my family have hunted in the past; some, I believe, still do. I do not believe that I am regarded by any of the farming community in my constituency as being either anti-farm or anti-countryside. I have come to the view—it is a considered one—that the time has come when the hunt must end. I studied the article that appeared in Big Farm Weekly, to which
  1242
  reference has been made, and I discovered that the farming community put hunting low down its list of entertainment and sporting priorities.
  I have discussed the Bill with farmers in my constituency. Some of them are keen rural sportsmen and, not surprisingly, they were concerned that I might lend my support to a Bill that they believed would signal the end to their favourite sports of shooting and fishing. I can see nothing in the Bill that takes a step towards such a ban. To advance that argument is about as sensible as saying that the 70 mph speed limit on the motorway is tantamount to declaring that there will be a ban on motor cars next. Neither is true—it is a question of degree.
  I am not opposed to shooting or fishing as long as they are subject to proper controls and conventions. I am, of course, opposed to bad shooting and bad fishing.
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: What is bad fishing?
  Mr. Gale: Bad fishing was practised by those fishermen against whom the House legislated. They used to use lead shot, which poisoned the water and swans. They also used to leave their line across the water, which strangled wild fowl. That is bad fishing. There is such a thing and I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend does not recognise that.
  Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend is worried about cruelty to animals. Does he agree that to put a hook in the mouth of a fish, to play with it and then remove that hook and throw the fish back, so that the torture can recommence, is just as cruel as hunting?
  Mr. Gale: I know that many people believe that. It would be naive not to suggest that some people who support the Bill also want to extend protection to fish and want an end to shooting and fishing. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), I do not want to see that happen. I do not believe that such a ban is envisaged in the Bill.
  Sir Charles Morrison: Has my hon. Friend considered the implications for commercial fishing?
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is not relevant to the Bill. It is out of order.
  Sir Charles Morrison: It is relevant to what my hon. Friend said about cruelty. In commercial fishing, the fish are dumped on a deck where they die slowly, out of their element. How does he justify that?
  Mr. Gale: I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in such matters and I should be happy to debate it with him either in the Tea Room or when we debate a Bill to control fishing.
  The Bill relates to cruelty to wild animals. Earlier this morning I heard Enoch Powell on the radio. I read with great interest his erudite article that appeared in Countryweek in which he said:
  "Nor do I wish to see the courts and the police mobilised to prevent pursuits which from my own experience I know can be the source of the greatest pleasure and the best friendship I have been blessed with.
  There are limits, of course. We have to restrain those who might otherwise present their neighbours with spectacles that revolt them."
  Imagine if two members of the National Union of Mineworkers, to be emotive, took a whippet and a Jack

  1243
  Russell and allowed them to chase a domestic cat down a sewer pipe. Imagine if they put the Jack Russell in that pipe to pull the cat out by its tail and they then threw the cat down the street so that a whippet could chase and kill it. That might just be the cause of revulsion to Conservative Members, as well as to others. I watched the video of the Quorn hunt and apart from the fact that the animal was a fox, not a cat, what I have just described was almost precisely what happened. I can only say to the House that having seen the video of the entire hunt I had just one word for those who practice such activities: contempt.
  It has been suggested that the film of that hunt, which was shown on television, was somehow strangely edited. The video runs for about an hour and a half with pictures of the Quorn so-called hunting. I did not see any acts of equestrian courage: I saw a great deal of brutality and sequences of infinite boredom. If any of my hon. Friends has not had the opportunity to see that entire video, I have it in my office and I shall make it available.
  There is an alternative to hunting, which has already been mentioned many times. I do not believe that it is necessary to end rural sports simply because we want to give protection to wild mammals. Nor do I believe that the Bill necessarily spells the end of riding and its associated industries—saddle making, the manufacture of riding clothes and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) referred to drag hunting and said that it was not the same as fox hunting. I agree; it is not. But there is at least one distinguished hon. Friend who has been a master of drag hounds and who, while he does not entirely share my view that fox hunting should now end, believes that drag hunting is a worthwhile sport which should, and could, be promoted instead.
  I have one minute left in which to speak and I have not even touched on the thrust of the Bill. The time has come when wild mammals must be given the same protection as the Protection of Animals Act 1911 gave domestic animals. We have extended that to cover otters and dormice as endangered species and some cover has been given in legislation to badgers. The time has come for us to go forward into the 21st century and recognise that fox hunting and associated so-called pleasures must end. I shall support the Bill and I hope that many of my hon. Friends will do likewise.
  11.40 am
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is a pleasure to speak following the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I agreed with every word of his speech, which proved that this issue does not divide the parties.
  From my point of view, the Bill is providing a good day's sport. Here we are gathered in our traditional hunting fashion—drab grey with accompanying gravy stains—apart from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) who struck a brilliant colour and made an equally brilliant speech.
  It is encouraging to note the way in which the argument is uniting hon. Members in all parts of the House. At a time of high political tension, it is refreshing to note that there are issues that unite us and cut across the party
  1244
  divide. The Bill has all-party support. As a sponsor of it, I thank Conservative Members who have sponsored or pledged support for it.
  Though unusual for me, I commend the article written by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, in The Guardian on Thursday, and I am glad to see him in his place. It was unfortunately entitled, "Closing in for the Kill," but I suppose that the hunters are realising what it is like to be hunted, and they do not like it. They are being hunted inside and outside the House and they can see that the opposition ranged against them is equally as formidable as a large pack of hounds, except that we do not intend to rip them to pieces at the end of the hunt.
  This is not an issue of unity within the Labour party even. I have received two letters, one of which has been referred to, the first having come from Councillor Richard Course, a Labour councillor, who I assume has written to all hon. Members. He describes himself as the Labour leader of the environment committee and leader of the planning sub-committee locally. I hope that he discussed the matter with his colleagues on those committees before sending out the letter, and I hope that Councillor Course has not used Enfield ratepayers' money for the purpose. I have no doubt that the matter will be taken up with the leader of the Labour group.
  I have also received a letter from Baroness Mallalieu, a Labour peer who has been telling my hon. Friends and I that she is
  "very concerned that we should be working together to win the election, not alienating the support that we have in rural areas, which we shall need in order to secure a good working majority."
  I am not impressed by that, particularly as it comes from someone who failed to convince the electorate that she was worthy to be elected to this place. In the circumstances, I do not have much time for the Baroness Mallalieu.
  The Bill is not just about fox hunting. It has been hijacked by a well-organised lobby outside working on behalf of the Field Sports Association, ably supported by some hon. Members. The Bill is about animal welfare and having respect for life forms other than our own. I suppose that in the end it is about morality, giving protection to wild animals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, it is about giving the protection that domestic animals currently enjoy. It is a matter of principle and it is wrong that the present loophole should exist. We must now plug that loophole.
  We are concerned with much more than just the activities of red-coated fools on horseback. The Bill is about the cruelty that other mammals have to suffer in the wild. I have before me some horrible evidence that has come to many hon. Members, though some has been sent specifically to me. One from Yorkshire is about hedgehogs being tortured to death. That involved schoolboys at Woldgate school in Yorkshire. It is disgusting what nasty little sadists can do. They should not be allowed to act in that way. So the Bill is not just about fox hunting.
  Another case appeared in the Daily Mail, not a paper I am often heard quoting with respect in this place. It is about a man who battered a hedgehog to death and who was cleared in the court—I will name him because I want him to be famous—because, the article said:
  "Mr. Campbell, of High Street, Herne Bay…said, 'This has been a nightmare. I couldn't believe anyone would be serious about charges."'

  1245
  It may have been a nightmare for Mr. Campbell in court. It was nothing compared with the nightmare experienced by the hedgehog when he was beating it to death with a stick, which is what he did
  "after a heavy drinking night … I realised what it was but to me a hedgehog is vermin."
  I must tell Mr. Campbell of Herne Bay that he is the vermin. I hope that one day somebody gives him a good thrashing with a stick, and we will see whether he enjoys it.
  Plenty of evidence is coming to us to show that the Bill will protect wildlife, and that is how and why we should be discussing it, rather than parts of the measure that would affect rural activities. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that it was about banning entertainment. I suppose it is—the point I tried to make in an intervention—if one considers hunting an animal to death to be entertainment. It is not the sort of entertainment in which civilised people should indulge. No doubt it was entertainment to watch bears being baited or to watch cocks or dogs fighting. We banned those and we should put this so-called sport in the same category. Or is the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury suggesting that we should not have banned bear baiting, cock fighting and the like? I do not think that even he would suggest that.
  It is suggested, as part of the argument for the need to control vermin, that foxes are vermin. I have given my definition of vermin, and it does not include foxes. Foxes are the largest predators of rats and rabbits, and certainly rats are considered to be vermin. In any event, if the argument is about controlling vermin, why are many hunts bringing foxes into their territories? I gather that there were no foxes on the Isle of Wight until they were introduced for hunting purposes. There were none in Australia, where they are now something of a menace, until they were introduced because people wanted to hunt them.
  I have with me a list of hunts that are bringing foxes into their areas. They are the Beaufort, the Heythrop, the Cheshire, the Puckeridge and Thurlow, the Essex, the Cumberland Farmers, the Isle of Wight and the Bicester with Whaldon Chase. How can it be argued that we are talking about controlling vermin and that foxes are vermin when foxes are being bought in to provide a day's sport? It makes no sense.
  In a land beset with unemployment, nobody would cheerfully commend anybody to the dole queue, but the numbers that have been thrown about, like the arguments of the hunting lobby, have been plucked out of the air. They do not bear examination and the idea that many thousands of people would be out of jobs is ridiculous, even in the light of the surveys carried out by the huntsmen.
  The 1983 standing conference representing country sports showed, after that organisation had commissioned an inquiry, that there were only about 750 full-time jobs involved. Drag hunting will become far more popular after the Bill becomes law. Whatever is said about the number of drag hunts, there will be many more, and that is the way in which people will be able to indulge in the good sport of riding to hounds, on a horse, through the countryside.
  I should like to do that—I do not get much chance to do it through the streets of Newham. I appreciate the attraction of that, and drag hunting will provide all of it. It will also provide the jobs, and the future for the million
  1246
  horses said to be involved. I do not know whether we have a million horses in this country, but either way, the horses that we have can be employed in drag hunting.
  All the arguments are on the side of those who support the Bill and I am delighted that they are coming from my political opponents on the Government Benches, for this issue unites the House and the country. I believe that there is a vast majority in the nation in favour of the Bill.
  The Bill will not get through the House because we shall have an election on 9 April—I pluck a date out of the air, perhaps with more accuracy than some of the arguments that Tory Members have plucked out of the air but whoever wins the election, a Bill will be introduced to do precisely the same as this Bill and I shall be in the Lobby to support it then, as I shall be today.
  11.50 am
  Mr. John Townend: I do not shoot, fish or hunt, but I strongly oppose the Bill. My principal reason is that I passionately believe in individual freedom. If someone does not want to do something, that is his right, but he should not try to stop everyone else doing it. The House and society have had an unfortunate tendency, in recent years, to be busybodies, looking into people's lives.
  I see the Bill in a wider context—as part of an orchestrated campaign to victimise a minority. I refer to the rural minority. Even in rural areas, most of the population are now from urban areas, commuters or retired. Hunting and other country sports are part of our traditional heritage and history. One has only to look at the wonderful paintings and etchings of the chase. The fact that those are minority pastimes is no argument for banning them.
  Over the centuries, this country has developed a justified reputation for tolerance. The Bill will inevitably reduce tolerance of the views of others. I cannot help feeling that a certain amount of good, old-fashioned left-wing class prejudice is coming to the surface— [Interruption.] If the hunting scene were part of the culture of an ethnic minority, anyone who tried to stop it would be strongly attacked by the Labour party.
  The Bill stinks of hypocrisy. If its supporters are so concerned about the sufferings of animals, why have they never brought in a Bill to ban ritual killings like halal, as practised in this country by some minorities? It involves suspending live animals by the legs and slaughtering them alive. The Opposition do not ban that, because they are petrified of losing votes. It is strange that left wingers oppose the complete integration of ethnic communities and call for the freedom to keep their traditions and cultures, yet try to prevent the countrymen of England from pursuing traditional country sports that have been followed by our forefathers for centuries.
  The Bill is only the first stage in a concerted effort by the so-called animal rights lobby to ban all field sports. We have already heard the League Against Cruel Sports and the anti-hunting lobby say that when hunting is banned, they will move on to campaign against shooting and fishing. The Labour party will not admit that that will happen, because several million people who fish vote Labour. Once we start to ban, where will it end? The antis have said that they will go on to campaigning against shooting and fishing. How long will it be before they move on to boxing and wrestling? This country will become like it was in the puritan age under Oliver Cromwell.

  1247
  Whatever Labour Members say, the Bill will have a significant effect on economic prosperity in the countryside. That is particularly dangerous when all our farmers are under pressure. Although the amount of employment lost through the banning of hunting may not be great, if shooting and fishing are also banned, the tourist industry will be enormously affected. To introduce such measures now is economic madness.
  The Bill is illogical. I do not know how anyone could support it on the ground of cruelty to animals and not answer the question why it does not include shooting and fishing. Why are mammals any different from birds or fish? It is surely more cruel to hook a fish, play with it, throw it back and repeat the torture than it is to hunt.
  Labour Members seek to raise the rights of animals to the level of the rights of human beings. They say that fox hunting must be banned because it is entertainment, but one of the greatest entertainments in life is enjoyed by the majority of the country and by many Opposition Front-Bench Members, including the deputy leader of the Labour party, and that is eating. If one believes in animal rights, what is more cruel than to breed animals and eat them for enjoyment? The only logical stance of the Bill's supporters is to oppose all those sports and, eventually, to oppose the rearing of animals for meat.
  I have no arguments with vegetarians, as their position is logical. The Bill, however, is illogical and hypocritical and, if it is passed, it will be another blow to individual freedoms. I hope that it is defeated.
  11.57 am
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It ill becomes Conservative Members to call the Labour party hypocritical. One of the arguments of the blood sports lobby is unemployment. Harking back to the memories of the great struggles of the past 15 years against unemployment in my constituency—the closures in the steel industry and the rundown of the mining industry—I cannot remember either of the two local hunts appearing on demonstrations or taking any part in the arguments against unemployment.
  A key issue in the debate has been the odd contribution by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who talked about the difference between the two forms of hunting. That is what this debate is all about. There is the alternative of drag hunting, which preserves all the lovely, attractive pageantry of the hunt; the social occasion; and the great joy that young people experience from the healthy exercise of riding horses through the countryside. Those can be preserved in a way that does not upset the majority of people in the country. Drag hunting is also safer, as many accidents occur when foxes are hunted in a live quarry, because of the uncertain route that is followed. They can be avoided if human intelligence has had a hand in plotting the route.
  The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside said that the difference between following a trail and following a live quarry is like kissing your sister. I have heard it expressed rather more graphically—that it is like making love without a climax. That is significant, because it points to what is behind the entertainment referred to by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). The whole purpose of hunting a live quarry is for
  1248
  people to get twisted and sordid pleasure out of killing an animal. That is the difference between the two sides in this debate. It is the only difference between those two methods of hunting.
  I received a letter from a constituent opposed to the Bill. She is involved in the hunting business. She invited me to watch, if the Bill is enacted, the destruction of the hounds. I have seen the kennels where the hounds are kept, but the hounds will not be destroyed. A plea must be made for the plight of the hounds, because they suffer over a long period. Their lives are now very brief and are ended after a short period. They do not enjoy the normal lifespan of a dog, which can be 10 or 12 years. They live for a maximum of four years if they are lucky, and their reward for years of service is a bullet in the head. Perhaps the worst aspect of the hunting ritual is cubbing, in which the hounds are trained to kill. They do not do it naturally; they have to be trained by using the young cubs to bring the instinct out.
  The nature of the foxhound is important—it is a creature bred to run more slowly than the fox. If it was as quick as the lurchers that are used for hare coursing, the hunt would be over in seconds. That might be a more efficient way of destroying the animal, but there would not be the fun and entertainment of the chase and the twisted —I would use the word "sadistic"—pleasure.
  There is a great difference between the groups of people in hunting and the groups of people who love horses and horse riding. One of the most touching aspects of the matter has been the floods of letters that I have had from children and young people. I have not had one letter from anyone whom I could identify as a schoolchild which opposed the Bill. The sensitivity of the children in Clytha school, who sent me lovely pictures, and the children in Bassaleg comprehensive school in my constituency shows that they understand the issue. All the decent, compassionate instincts come welling out when they see what is happening. There is a generation divide in the country between those who understand the brutality of hunting and those who over many years have become blind to it.
  The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) attempted to justify the continuation of hunting because of the destruction of lambs. That was a sad example of how desperate the threadbare argument is. He had to go back to Picture Post—back to the war. Even then, the story had other possible interpretations. In the war, many people, for understandable reasons, did not want to be at the front line. Many found pretexts for not going there, and excuses for coming back home.
  The argument of the opponents of the Bill must be threadbare when they offer a single anecdote from the war to counter-balance the studies that have been made. Detailed studies were made in Scotland over five years, and they found that 24 per cent. of lambs in the highlands would be lost through stillbirth, malnutrition and hypothermia. Only 1 per cent., if that, are lost to foxes. The fox's traditional function in the countryside is that of a scavenger. Foxes take lambs that have no chance of continued life and those that are already dead, such as those that have been aborted.
  A further three-year study of fox predation on lambs in Scotland found that leaving foxes in peace did not result in an increase in the number of lambs taken. We know that, in parts of the country where no fox hunting takes place, the number of foxes does not increase or decrease. The

  1249
  hunt is not a factor. There are whole countries in which fox hunting does not take place, and the number of foxes there are determined by the availability of the food supply.
  All the arguments against the Bill are false and threadbare. They will convince nobody. We have heard welling up from the country a huge demand from people saying, "Let us take this small step forward in the progress of our civilisation." The past has always been brutal and cruel and progress has been faltering and slow. Today we are recognising and seeing with a new clarity the sordid, gratuitous cruelty of hunting, which has been tolerated for far too long. We shall take a step forward by giving this Bill a Second Reading today—a step forward in our civilisation.
  12.3 pm
  Sir Charles Morrison: What strikes me as extraordinary about the debate is that, even if those who support the Bill have read it, they are not prepared to face its implications. None the less, I agree strongly with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the human race has a responsibility to look after wildlife.
  Indeed, the second remarkable aspect of the debate is the paradox that there is a great deal of common ground between those who support the Bill and those who are against it. Both sides are concerned with the well-being of wild mammals; the division between us concerns how best to achieve that end. The Bill's supporters believe that it can be done by more and more protection, whereas its opponents believe that it can be achieved only by management of wildlife.
  There is nothing new about the attitude of the opponents of the Bill. The British countryside is not a pristine environment. Its appearance, and the birds and wildlife within it, stem from the fact that man has intervened for the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. For the past two centuries, much of that intervention has been undertaken by people who have enjoyed field sports. If the ecosystem that we now have is to be maintained, man's active and positive participation will continue to be a necessity.
  That amounts to what the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has called conservation through wise use—a concept first promoted as a conservation tool by the world conservation strategy of 1980.
  I wonder whether, before the Bill was published, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) attempted to consult the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the Joint Nature Conservancy Council, English Heritage or Scottish National Heritage, or organisations such as the British Trust for Ornithology or the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust.
  We have heard about the Bill's implications for employment. There are now about 5 million participants in field sports and they support no fewer than 14,400 trade and service organisations. That represents a considerable amount of employment. Direct expenditure on countryside sports is about £1·4 billion. Indirect expenditure is about £1·2 billion. Much of that goes into the rural economy, which is quite impoverished enough without our taking any more out of it. Such is the extent of the participation, expenditure and employment that the sponsors of the Bill wish to destroy. That would be their achievement if it, or any similar successor, were ever to become law.
  1250
  We know that the Bill would ban hunting, but it would also be a disaster for shooting—whatever its supporters may say—and it will threaten fishing. Worst of all, it will have a devastating effect on conservation.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did not pay full attention to the Scott Henderson report, which said, among other things:
  "fox hunting makes an important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue."
  The hon. Gentleman poured scorn on that report, but I remind him that, since 1948, there have been several other Labour Governments. It would have been within their power to have another inquiry—although I have no doubt that such an inquiry would have come to a similar conclusion.
  It is a pity, too, that the sponsors did not attempt to pay attention to Richard Course, who has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). In Horse and Hound of 30 January, Mr. Course wrote:
  "When I became fully and objectively appraised of all the facts, and conversant with all related arguments, it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that the 'prosecution'—or the anti-Hunt case—would not advance 'fox welfare', and consequently it could not be justified."
  It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not consider the hypocrisy of saying that it is unacceptable to hunt foxes with hounds, which ultimately leads to the fox's sudden death or escape, while continuing to support the slow death of rats from warfarin, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that he wanted to elevate the position of wild animals to that of domestic animals. In reality, far from being the cuddly animal depicted by some people, the fox, although attractive, is a barbarous and opportunistic murderer.
  Hon. Members have spoken about hill farmers. One of my constituents, a farmer, wrote:
  "I have had many bad experiences with foxes at lambing … I had to go out every night at lambing with a high powered rifle. One night I saw seven foxes stalking lambs in the field."
  That shows the level of damage done by foxes.
  The Bill is a direct threat, albeit small, to fishing, because it sets out to protect mink. It is also an indirect threat, because if the Bill is enacted there is no doubt that before long we shall see anti-shooting and anti-fishing Bills.
  Mr. Denis Howell: No.
  Sir Charles Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman says no. He and some other hon. Members will not be here. It is naive to pretend that the League Against Cruel Sports will give up its battle against other field sports if the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman has been following sport with me for many years and I have never seen him make such an agitated speech. Whether I am here is immaterial. The Labour party in successive manifestos has made it plain not only that it will support angling but that it will take positive steps to clean up waters and give anglers much greater access to the countryside than they have been given by this Government.
  Sir Charles Morrison: Labour policy has often changed; on this occasion, it would be change for the

  1251
  worse. I have no doubt that Labour's attitude to field sports would change as a result of pressure from organisations thatsimply do not know the realities of conservation.
  The Bill would have a devastating effect on conservation. Foxes have a disastrous effect on wild birds. For example, research on Salisbury plain showed that up to 51 per cent. of hen partridges were killed every year. But the birds killed, a major loss to the partridge population, would not have formed even 1 per cent. of the annual diet of the foxes, which live mostly on rabbits and other such species.
  The same is true of a wide range of bird species. Salisbury plain is one of the last resorts of the rare stone curlew in southern England. Nationwide, there are only about 160 pairs of that species. Where a handful of breeding birds desperately hang on, they are under constant threat from foxes. The Red Data Bird Book states:
  "Foxes appear to cause heavy egg and chick losses, particularly on semi-natural grassland. The recent increase in fox numbers in southern Britain, particularly in East Anglia where gamekeepers formerly kept the population at a low level, may seriously reduce stone curlew productivity."
  The same is true of sea birds, and in a number of reserves, such as Scott head, Gibraltar point and the Ouse washes, foxes are controlled by wardens.
  The avocet is the emblem of the RSPB, as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is a member of the council of that society, knows. The society reports on the effects of fox control measures on the production of young avocets at Minsmere. Where foxes were controlled, each pair of avocets fledged four times as many young as where foxes were not controlled. Therefore, foxes must be controlled and short-sighted legislation would prevent the effective control of such predators.
  12.15 pm
  Sir Richard Body: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his success. I wholeheartedly support clause 1 of the Bill and agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about that. He and other hon. Members have sought to lift us to the peaks of the moral high grounds. Perhaps we should also come down to the foothills of practicality. I shall speak about drag hunting, because I think that I am the only Member present who has been a master of drag hounds that hunted human quarry.
  What I have heard in the debate about drag hunting amounts almost to nonsense.
  Sir Antony Buck: Naivety.
  Sir Richard Body: Thank you—that is the word.
  It is difficult to persuade 30 or 40 farmers to allow a drag hunt over their land. I can vouch for that, because I spent many days trying to persuade my fellow farmers to allow our hounds to hunt over their land. I understand the difficulty. Hounds go over my land, and it can be a nuisance when 100 horses gallop over turf after rainfall and cattle need to graze on the land.
  Several hon. Members will remember the late Reggie Paget who represented Northampton for many years. He
  1252
  had one simple test for any proposal on animal welfare: whether the proposal would cause the total amount of animal suffering to be more or less than at present. If it caused less suffering, he supported it, and if more he opposed it. He emphasised that one must have regard to the total amount of animal suffering and not just that inflicted on one species. That test enabled him to come down against shooting but to approve of hunting.
  Some hon. Members have criticised colleagues for speaking about the war years. About half a century ago, I took part in my one and only fox shoot and the memory of that event is still vivid. During the war, fox hunting was curtailed and the hounds went out on two days a week instead of three. In those days, every farm in our area had a flock of free-range poultry, and many others had a few laying hens. The destruction caused by the increase in the fox population was great, and a party went out one morning on an organised fox shoot. At that time, a lad of 12 or 13 could lawfully have a shotgun, which is not the case now, and I was a member of that party. The guns blazed away all day and the shoot was well organised. We shot two foxes, and they were the lucky ones.
  I was allowed by the farmers in the area to shoot rabbits over their land, and I was at liberty to roam over this large area of the fox shoot. Over the following two or three weeks, I saw six foxes that had died, unquestionably from gangrene. I regret to say that the fox is not a clean animal. If anyone is misguided enough to shoot a cat, the cat, being a clean animal, will lick its wounds and prevent the onset of gangrene. But a fox is not like that.
  I wish that the Bill's supporters who believe that shooting a fox is desirable could see what I saw—emaciated, wretched animals that had died five, six or more days after the fox shoot. They had suffered a lingering death, which must have been most painful. As a boy 50 years ago—I am sorry to go back 50 years, because I know that Labour Members do not like it—I resolved that, if I ever had control over land, I would never permit the shooting of foxes. I have held to that resolve.
  A few years ago, it was my turn to shut the chicken hut. Unfortunately, the Whips had changed the business of the House, and we had a vote at 7 pm. I got back late, and found a trail of feathers from the chicken house leading across the fields to a cover which told its own tale. I was rather angry, but when it was suggested the following morning that the fox should be shot, I composed myself sufficiently to say, "No, I think that the Whips should be shot."
  The other predator is the mink, about which hardly a word has been said. The River Pang, a tributary of the Thames, goes through my land, and alongside it there has always been a good deal of wildlife. About 30 years ago, I set aside an area to be left undisturbed to see what would happen. I discouraged anyone from going in, so that it was left alone. Some 15 years ago—I am sorry to go back again, but it is important on this occasion—we had a mink. It was a few days before we realised that a pair of mink had come into what my neighbours kindly call—I am not pretentious enough to call it this—a wildlife sanctuary.
  Once we realised that the mink were there, I got my son who was then aged 15 and a friend of his to shoot the two mink. It was three weeks before they were able to shoot one of them. There was a great deal of cover in the summer months, and it was difficult to get a shot at the mink. By the time the mink was shot—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may find that funny, but I do not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

  1253
  I wish that they could understand what I am saying. By the end of three weeks, all the wildlife had gone. The fish had gone from the river, the kingfisher had been killed and the water voles—I call them water rats, which is often misunderstood; which are delightful animals and no relation to ordinary rats—had all gone. The mallard had gone, and that little area of land was dead. It took eight years for the wildlife to return.
  I ask those who support the Bill what advice they would give me if the mink returned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shoot them.") Where at my age am I to find another 15-year-old son who can stand waiting for three weeks in the summer holiday? That is ridiculous. That would not work anyway, because after three weeks, all the wildlife would have gone. It is an absurd suggestion.
  Apart from the cruelty of trapping, there is only one practical method, towards which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is edging his way. The only practical and humane way is to use hounds. The hunt for a mink is not long. The longest period is when the hounds work along the line of a mink for a mile or two. When the hounds get fairly close, the mink may try to escape down an earth and may have to be dug out, which is not a pleasant business, although it is done only when the owners of the land ask for it to be done. The mink is more likely to climb a tree and then, with a bit of luck, one can shoot it. That is a very humane end.
  If the Bill proceeds further in this Parliament or in the next, I hope that mink hunting will be removed from it. The case for mink hunting is overwhelming. I do not blame the mink, and I believe that it was a wretched. rotten individual who first brought the mink—
  Mr. Denis Howell rose—
  Hon. Members: No—there is no time.
  Mr. Howell: I am sorry.
  Sir Richard Body: I simply apply the test of the late Reggie Paget. I believe that the total amount of suffering in the animal kingdom will be not less but more if the Bill goes through in its present form.
  12.24 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) spoke with great sincerity which showed that this has been a civilised debate. We are all aware that there are strong pressures and feelings outside. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said earlier that he had received an anonymous postcard and I am sorry about that. I have received a few strong letters. I received one telling me that I was consorting with communists in supporting the Bill and another saying that I was supporting socialist crackpots. Another said that I was "a repulsive creep", whatever that is, and another said—the most serious charge of all—that I was a disgrace to the Monday club.
  Fox hunting is not an issue in which I had any real interest for many years. I took the view, shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, that if one had to control foxes, there was no harm in having that done by the hunt. It appeared to be an effective method which added some glamour and colour to the countryside. However, having visited a number of incidents involved with hunting and having studied the issue, I find that the
  1254
  case for fox hunting seems to fade away whenever it is exposed to any logical examination. There also seemed to be no doubt that the amount of cruelty involved, which is deliberate cruelty, is grotesque.
  One of the great arguments against the Bill is that it is a means by which the townies seek to impose their way on country folk and that the country folk are upset about that because they are united in supporting hunting. The evidence shows the contrary. In many of my visits to the countryside, I have found that the vast majority of the population regard the whole hunting business as basically offensive and wrong. If hon. Members doubt that, they should look at all the opinion polls, including a recent opinion poll in Exmoor which is a great centre of hunting. The poll showed that fewer than one fifth of the population there considered that hunting was acceptable.
  It has been said that some people see the Bill as a class business in which the upper class is being attacked by left-wing elements. Again, the opinion polls tell us clearly that more than two thirds of all Conservative voters are opposed to fox hunting and want it to be banned.
  The misleading impression is given that hunting makes a significant contribution to the control of foxes. Again, the figures are clear. The contribution made by fox hunting is so insignificant that if it disappeared tomorrow no one would notice. Only about 2·5 per cent. of foxes killed in a season are killed by fox hunting, which shows how insignificant hunting is.
  The most worrying group are those who suggest that hunting is part of the natural world of the countryside. We know that that is nonsense. The hounds have to be specially trained to go on the hunt because it is not part of their natural instincts. It has to be done through the appalling and grotesque procedure that is called cubbing, which I have observed. A group of young hounds are brought to a small group of trees where it is known that there is a family of young foxes. The hounds are then set to work, to try to encourage them to become involved in the business of fox hunting. In other words, it is not natural for hounds in any way.
  The idea that there is a quick kill and that there is no question of any cruelty is absolute rubbish. I think that most hon. Members appreciate that. The principle of hunting— especially in Exmoor, where deer are hunted as well as foxes—involves a situation in which there is the choice to extend the length of the hunt for the ponderous, slow hounds. It is not a matter of setting off a greyhound, when the hunt is over quickly—in a flash—and the fox is killed. Instead, there is a deliberate extension of the hunt, obviously for the purposes of entertainment and relaxation. Why should we say that it is not cruel when the principle of the hunt is deliberate and specific cruelty as a result of extending it? The hunt for a deer can be as long as 20 miles.
  We know that a fox tends to run extremely quickly but will be overtaken by the hounds over a long period. The hunt is deliberately prolonged and there is deliberate cruelty. There is the idea that the hounds come along and simply go pop, as it were, and that is the end of the fox. That is nonsensical. We know that almost every organisation that is committed to hunting in Britain has a group of terrier men. If, as often happens, the fox goes underground, they get to work their little terriers. For more than an hour there can be the most grotesque cruelty. The fox is eventually dug up and it is often shot or hit with a stave. In some instances—I am sure that this is not with

  1255
  the approval of the master of the foxhounds—the fox is thrown alive to the dogs. I say in all sincerity that I have received some appalling hate mail over this issue. The one person whom I exempt is the splendid Captain Wallace, who is the head of the master of foxhounds organisation. He has replied to my letters with great courtesy and respect, although he disagrees with me strongly.
  We must ask ourselves what the Bill is about. Basically, it is nothing to do with the control of foxes. The argument used to be advanced that poor chickens were torn to bits by ghastly foxes. That argument is now irrelevant because most poor chickens are now contained in ghastly cages as part of factory farming. The chickens can hardly turn round in the cages. Then there are the little lambs. All the scientific evidence and all the studies by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office and the universitites have shown that where lambs are taken they are usually dead or particularly weak ones which are about to die in any event. Even if I were wrong and the Ministry and the universities were wrong, the hunts do not constitute an attempt to wipe out the foxes who go for dear little lambs. Indeed, the hunts say that they want to keep a balanced population of foxes, so they do not have the protection that could be provided.
  My feeling is that there is no point in denying that fox hunting is a deliberately cruel sport. It is designed to involve great cruelty by extending the long period of a hunt. There is no point in trying to argue that there is a social purpose in fox hunting. The contribution made by fox hunters to the control of the fox population is so insigificant that it does not really matter at all.
  What about the slippery slope argument? Is there a danger that if fox hunting is made unlawful we shall move on to make everything else unlawful? I am sure that there are many who want to do lots of new things. For example, I should like to go much further in controlling factory farming, which in my view is the most cruel activity that one could have. Other Members may want to do many other things. Whether we want to go further or to stay where we are, we cannot run away from the fact that we are faced with a specific proposition that we must consider. I suggest that on the basis of logic and real arguments there is no case for fox hunting. We have the continuation of a practice of deliberate and grotesque cruelty. It should be banned and I hope that we shall start on that process today.
  12.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does not lose his membership of the Monday club. The club would be the poorer without him.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on bringing forward the measure, and on having the courage to do so. He has given the House an opportunity to debate an issue that may well feature in the Labour party's general election manifesto, unless it is prepared to have second thoughts about that. I refer to its commitment to end hunting.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did well in moving the Bill's Second Reading. I think that his performance—he is a Labour Front-Bench spokesman—
  1256
  will have been heard with great interest by the 5 million or so active field sportsmen in the country. On average, there are 7,000 per constituency. I have no doubt that they will be redoubling their efforts to ensure that a Labour Government are not elected.
  The hon. Gentleman could not have timed this measure better. He spent a great deal of his speech explaining what was not in the Bill. Perhaps I could address my remarks to some of the remarks that he made. I declare an interest not only as a countryman and a field sportsman but as chairman of the Council for Country Sports, which is the umbrella beneath which some 52 organisations representing field sportsmen and women unite to defend their freedom to participate in field sports. They range from horsemen to falconers and from coarse fishermen to pigeon shooters. They campaign together and their slogan, like that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is that an attack on one is perceived as an attack on all. All field sports seem to be under attack by the provisions of the Bill, which is no more than a trailblazer for the legislation that we might see from a Labour Government.
  Therefore, if Labour Members want to improve their chances of winning the general election, they have the time, with their manifesto not yet off to the printers, to remove any commitment to attack field sports. I hope and believe that many of them will have second thoughts and take the party politics out of field sports.
  The Bill's long title says that it makes
  "provision for the protection of wild mammals from cruelty; and for connected purposes."
  The Bill's aims are not based on compassion or conservation. Its main intention is simply to end hunting with hounds. The Bill is disguised as an animal welfare measure, but, if enacted, it would give protection to pests and do incalculable damage to other wildlife and to the countryside.
  Hon. Members cannot claim—although many have attempted to do so—that shooting is unaffected by the Bill. Certainly, the new clause that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North mentioned would not be worth much more than the paper that it is not yet written on, to judge by what he said about it.
  The Shooting Times and Country Magazine described as "baloney" the claim that the Bill is an animal welfare measure. The editor said that the Bill revealed the Labour party as the enemy of hunting, shooting and honesty. That is strong stuff, but perhaps it has some consistency with the survey of the views of Members of Parliament on country sports, which was carried out by The Field magazine last December. It showed that almost 50 per cent. of Labour Members who gave their view said that they would support a ban on shooting.
  I am sure that hon. Members will also have seen reports in this month's newspapers that the Hunt Saboteurs Association has said that it would target fishing and shooting next if hunting with hounds was banned. Mr. Ponton, its national spokesman, said that the progression was inevitable. He said:
  "We are starting a fundamental shift in orientation to take in shooting and fishing, particularly shooting."
  His views were echoed by Mr. Eric Staples, the national fund raising co-ordinator of the HSA, who said that
  "once hunting was banned it would move on to shooting and fishing.
  It is clear that not only hunting and shooting but angling is threatened by the Bill. The League Against Cruel Sports has said that it, too, would campaign against

  1257
  angling. It has said that, although as yet it has no policy on angling, the league will look at it in the near future. It believes that fish feel pain and, therefore, that fishing for entertainment inflicts unnecessary suffering on other living creatures. That exposes the hypocrisy of the Bill.
  The Campaign for the Abolition of Angling has already promoted direct action against anglers with its national anti-angling day. There have been physical attacks on anglers and angling shops. We do not want to see such action. It is the action of people who have lost the argument on hunting being extended to other field sports.
  There is even a political threat to angling. I give one example. Labour-controlled Plymouth city council has attempted to adopt an animal rights charter to include a ban on angling on council land. Yet the Labour party claims that it is not opposed to angling. Under pressure from the "Right to Roam" lobby, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) mentioned, Labour has agreed to give a right of public access to foreshores, rivers and canals together with their banks. Nothing could be more damaging to fishing. I remind the House that, in a recent poll conducted among hon. Members, nearly one third of Labour Members replied that they were merely neutral on the issue of angling, whereas hon. Members from other parties overwhelmingly supported the sport.
  I received a letter from the National Federation of Sea Anglers, which says:
  "We feel that if the 'Anti Brigade' manage to force this through the 'House', their next target will no doubt be the `Fishing Fraternity'."
  The federation asks us to oppose the Bill with vim and vigour, and that is what I am doing my best to do.
  Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can it be made clear that the Bill deals with specific matters and that there is no suggestion in it that we are attempting to ban the hunting of sea fish by dogs?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: As was made clear earlier by the occupant of the Chair, a wide debate is allowed on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is taking up the time allowed to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has the Floor.
  Mr. Colvin: Thank you for that defence, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Much has been said about the effect that a ban on hunting would have on employment. I do not want to rehearse the arguments about that, other than to say that all field sports create jobs and trade and contribute significantly to the conservation of the landscape and its livelihood. There has been some debate about the figures. According to a letter from the British Equestrian Trade Association,
  "Hunting contributes 16,500 jobs and £148 million of turnover to the British economy".
  That is a significant amount.
  There has been some discussion today about the Scott Henderson report, which—I know—was written a long time ago, in 1951. Giving evidence on the Scott Henderson report, the RSPCA said that, although it could not approve ethically of any form of hunting—that is written into the society's constitution—it regarded fox hunting as an effective and traditional method of control and felt that,
  1258
  if hunting were abolished, greater cruelty would be caused to foxes by the more widespread use of other methods. That is the nub of the argument today.
  That was the view expressed by the majority of members of the RSPCA at the time, although I know that others—a minority—wanted hunting prohibited. That is typical of the division of opinion among people who are genuinely concerned with the welfare of animals. Since then, through what is now described as entryism, the RSPCA has been taken over by people who seem to be more interested in politics than in the welfare of the animals for whose welfare they are constitutionally obliged to campaign.
  It became clear to the authors of the Scott Henderson report, as long ago as 1951, that the opposition of some people to fox hunting is based on considerations other than cruelty. Some of the evidence that was submitted to that committee left it in no doubt that there were many who objected to fox hunting only because of the widely held misconception that it existed solely for the pleasure of wealthy people. In the view of the authors of the report, that was quite untrue and I can tell the House that it remains untrue today.
  We are debating not only cruelty to animals but the rights and freedoms of individuals. In criticising Scott Henderson, hon. Members should take account of what the then Labour Minister said—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  12.43 pm
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: First, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports. I have received about 300 postcards from my constituents. I regret that a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), should have attempted to smear the League Against Cruel Sports as a result of one—or perhaps half a dozen—isolated forgeries. I checked every card that I received to find out whether its sender was on the electoral register. I have answered each one. No one has responded in any way other than to say that he or she sent those cards. It is disgraceful to take an individual case, or a handful of them, in an attempt to smear an organisation such as that.
  Mr. Michael Brown: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I had a letter from a constituent who said that he was appalled that I had sent him an unsolicited letter. I agree that all the cards I have received came from people on the electoral register. However, I must point out to my hon. Friend that if somebody has taken the trouble to forge a card for one of my constituents, it is more than probable that many other cards were similarly forged.
  Mr. Bowden: I accept my hon. Friend's withdrawal of his attack on the League Against Cruel Sports. What one individual does is an entirely different matter. The league did not need to forge cards; it sent out thousands and thousands because the vast majority of the people of this country are against hunting.
  There is another aspect to this smear campaign. Many hon. Members will have received a letter from the Campaign Against Animal Rights Terrorism.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What is the address?
  Mr. Bowden: There is no address on it.
  The letter says:
  "The Campaign Against Animal Rights Terrorism is calling for a number of animal rights groups to be proscribed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act."
  It lumps the League Against Cruel Sports with organisations such as the Hunt Saboteurs Association and the Animal Liberation Front. No hon. Member on either side of the House —there are patrons and vice-presidents of the league on both sides—would be associated with an organisation that indulged in illegal or criminal activities. That anyone should use any such argument to undermine or attack the league is disgraceful.
  It never ceases to amaze me that the pro-hunting lobby continually repeats that fox hunting is needed to control the number of foxes. We know that there are at least 300,000, and probably up to 500,000 foxes in this country. The hunts themselves admit that on average they kill only between 12,000 and 13,000 a year. We know that the fox population would continue to breed and exist if there were up to 70 per cent. culling of foxes in any given year, so hunting in the context of the control of foxes is completely irrelevant. It is not true to say that it controls the number—it does not control the number.
  Let us not forget that all measures that go on to the statute book—this is why fishing and shooting are irrelevant—have to be approved by the House. To say that because we pass one Bill we automatically pass another Bill to do something else is a futile argument. In its wisdom, Parliament decided, rightly, to ban the digging for and the baiting of badgers. To dig out a badger and to smash in its head with a spade was legal not so long ago. Why on earth, therefore, cannot we accept the argument that it should be as totally revolting and disgusting to do the same to a fox? That is what is happening, however, throughout the country.
  I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). I listen carefully to his comments on animal welfare. He has a proven track record and he has made a strong case regarding shooting. I have referred to the irrelevance of hunting the fox and he has talked about the dangers of shooting. Ought not we to examine whether there is a strong case for leaving the fox alone completely? Let nature take its course. The fox will breed only where there is food. Where there is a shortage of rabbits, rats and other vermin, foxes will disappear in great numbers. We know that hunting will not control the fox. We also know that there are great difficulties when it comes to shooting the fox.
  The objective of hunting foxes with hounds is not conservation; it is not to control numbers; it is not a quick chase and a swift kill. The objective is to provide a cheap thrill for sadistic entertainment. Hunting with hounds is an organised, deliberate and calculated act of cruelty. Like cock fighting, bear baiting, dog fighting and badger baiting, it will soon be condemned to the dustbin of history.
  12.50 pm
  Mr. Robert Banks: There has been a tendency in this debate to strike an abstract ring, almost as though the natural environment—nature itself—does not exist now as it has done over the centuries. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) brought some reality into the picture of the environment that we are discussing.
  1260
  I am against the Bill because I believe that it is right and natural for man to hunt, just as it is for animals to hunt and as has been the practice over the centuries. To disrupt nature and our traditional way of controlling the environment would upset nature's natural balance.
  Much has been said about shooting foxes. It is not an easy business. People should remember that one does not simply go out and shoot a fox to control the numbers. Foxes have to be found and dispatched swiftly and without accident. Controlling foxes by shooting raises the question whether they are shot and killed stone dead. What my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said about foxes suffering from gangrene after a missed shot shows that it is every bit as cruel and painful as hunting those foxes.
  Much has also been said about hedgehogs, and I would not disagree with clause 1. Indeed, if this were a one-clause Bill, it would have unanimous support. I wish that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) had dealt with that aspect of cruelty only, rather than widening it to encompass all hunting.
  Hunting is not necessarily about killing the fox or the hare—it is the chase which is so important. That is what it is all about, and that is where man's instincts come into play. The cruelty that a cat imposes on a mouse is every bit as bad. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North may well try to ban "Tom and Jerry" cartoon films, which show far greater cruelty. That is the next stage of the logic being propounded in the debate.
  There has been reference to jobs. It is important to recognise that many people living in the countryside love the environment and want to protect it, and it is their job to do just that. It could be trimming the hedges, being a gamekeeper, providing the weapons or the clothing or tending to the horses or the dogs that make up the whole panoply of the hunt. That involves a great number of people. We can speculate about the number of jobs at risk, but there will certainly be many.
  This is not a matter of Labour against Conservative. Those who follow and participate in the hunts come from all walks of life. There is an underlying sense in the anti-hunting lobby that wants an end to the sport because those people believe that a class element is involved. That cannot be denied. I know that there will be hon. Members in the Lobby today voting for the Bill because they believe that there is a class element in the sport. I am not a huntsman
  —I do not hunt—but I have attended coursing meetings and I take an interest in field sports. There is a great mixture of people who enjoy those sports and they come from every walk of life. There is no class element.
  The panacea for the debate must be to preserve country life and to allow it to go on as it has done over the centuries. To imagine that we now live in a different world and that we are more civilised even than the Romans is a myth. We must obey the reasonable instinct of mankind and allow the countryside to settle its own scores.
  12.54 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) does not seem to understand that his is the perfect argument for the reintroduction of practices that have been banned for the past 100 years. If his argument is that hunting is a valuable part of the

  1261
  tradition of the countryside, why does not he advocate the reintroduction of otter hunting, badger baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, bear baiting or bull baiting?
  Mr. Robert Banks rose—
  Mr. Davies: Those are rhetorical questions.
  Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I am afraid that time is tight. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech and I want to make mine.
  This morning we have had the strangest debate. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has put before the House a simple, practical proposition: that we should extend to wild mammals exactly the same consideration and freedom from ill treatment that we extend to other animals, such as those in our homes, on our farms, in our zoos and even in our abattoirs. All those animals are entitled to freedom from cruelty. The particular anomaly is that in the eyes of the law we cannot be guilty of cruelty to wild animals, and my hon. Friend seeks to redress that anomaly.
  All the opposition to the Bill has come from hon. Members who advocate hunting. What is strange is that not one of them has had the guts to stand up and defend the practice of hunting. They talked about the traditions of the countryside and jobs. We had the ludicrous assertion that a million horses would be put down. We had a dishonest speech from the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who said that behind the Bill was a hidden agenda, that it was opposed to shooting and would lead to the extinction of the deep-sea fishing fleet. Those were ludicrous assertions. My hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that the Bill must be taken at face value. All of us have made it clear that we have no hidden agenda and that the Bill does not affect shooting, fishing, falconry, ferreting or any of the other absurd propositions.
  Sir Charles Morrison: Surely what matters is not what the hon. Gentleman says, but what is in the Bill. What is in the Bill would be enormously detrimental to shooting.
  Mr. Davies: That is a legal matter. If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned for wildlife, he should support the principle of extending protection from cruelty to wildlife on Second Reading and make it clear that he wishes to seek improvements in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has said that he will move a new clause to address the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Why will not the hon. Gentleman accept my hon. Friend's guarantee at face value? Why will not he accept my hon. Friend's guarantee to include a new clause that exempts shooting from the Bill's provisions?
  Sir Charles Morrison: What about clause 1? The hon. Gentleman must consider clause 1. Counsel's opinion is that clause 1 could be enormously disadvantageous to shooting.
  Mr. Davies: I, too, have sought counsel's opinion. The opinion asserts that clause 1 states
  "a person wilfully inflicts unnecessary suffering on, or cruelly ill-treats a wild mammal"
  and that shooting clearly is not "wilfully" inflicting cruelty. The act of shooting is designed to kill an animal.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, let me deal with this point.
  I concede that if an individual attempts to shoot a mammal or even a bird—the Bill refers only to mammals—with a weapon or even at a distance that is inappropriate for the target, clearly, it is an act of cruelty and the individual should be brought to book. The Bill and the guarantee given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North should be enough to satisfy people of good intent. However, the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and his friends are not men of good intent. They wish to defeat the Bill because they wish to defend the practice of hunting, but they do not have the guts to stand up and do that.
  We have heard the absurd proposition that the Bill should be a matter of conscience. Have we ever heard anything so ridiculous? Do we say it is a matter of conscience if a farmer ill treats dairy cattle, his pigs or his lambs or whether a householder feeds his cat or dog? Of course we do not. We live in a civilised society and we have standards that we expect everyone to comply with. The hon. Gentleman and his friends want to exclude wild animals for the benefit of their entertainment, but they do not have the guts to tell us that.
  On the matter of conscience, last July we saw members of Quorn hunt exercise that by deliberately defying their own codes of practice by digging up a fox and releasing it to a pack of hounds. Members of that hunt did not protest and exercise their conscience. It was not until the action of the Quorn hunt was exposed that the master of the hunt was forced to resign. What happened then? A new master was appointed, but he was sacked in a ballot last month because he insisted on enforcing the rules of the hunt.
  Sir Charles Morrison indicated assent.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is nodding because he does not want the rules enforced. So much for leaving these matters to the conscience of individuals.
  There is a good defence of hunting, but it has not been expressed in the debate. Hunting is a good day out and people hunt because they like to dress up, appear well attired, be with their friends, get on their horses and gallop around the countryside early in the morning. Why do the defenders of hunting not say that? I do not believe that they are deliberately cruel or full of malevolent intent. The charge against them is that they are indifferent to the suffering that they cause. They set off in the morning, either on Saturday, Tuesday or Thursday, for their entertainment and to gallop across the countryside, but they do not need a live quarry in front of them to enjoy that. The fox, for this purpose, is a dispensable animal and they are indifferent to the suffering that they cause. Why do the supporters of hunting not give us their defence?
  The Masters of Foxhounds Association sent a letter to all of my hon. Friends. It states:
  "Rule 1 of The Masters of Foxhounds Association states: `Foxhunting as a sport is the hunting of the fox in his wild and natural state with a pack of Hounds'."
  The association asserts that that sport is a natural sport. Is it a sport for 50, 100 or 150 riders on horses with 15 to 20 couples of hounds to go to a wood, beat the sides of their horses to make the fox stay in and to send in the hounds to chase it round and round that wood with no possibility of escape? Is that a sport? Is that hunting the fox in its natural state?
  What happens if the fox manages to get away and breaks across the country to find refuge? Out comes the

  1263
  terrier man whose first objective is to flush the fox out. Is that hunting the fox in its natural state? When that fox makes its first escape from the hounds and riders, it is forced out again. If that fox will not bolt, it is left underground to fight the terriers. Is that hunting the fox in its natural state?
  If the terriers cannot drag the fox out, what happens then? The men with spades come along, dig it out and bash it over the head with their spades, or shoot it or just throw it to the hounds, as the Quorn hunt did. That is what the Master of Foxhounds Association describes as the sport of
  "hunting the fox in his wild and natural state."
  All those people with horses, hounds and men with terriers and spades, accompanied by Land-Rovers, are said to be indulging in a sport. I do not think it is much of a sport.
  Those who oppose the Bill talk mostly about foxes. They do not even attempt to justify stag hunting, hare coursing or hunting hares with harriers or beagles. They assert that the fox is a predator. Some of us have been accused of attributing human characteristics to animals, and the fox has been referred to as a cruel and barbaric murderer. Do those who advance that argument really believe that a fox wakes up in the morning full of ill-intent and says, "I could murder someone today"?
  The fox is, of course, a predator. It engages in its natural pattern of behaviour when it goes out gathering its fill of earthworms, beetles and fallen fruit, because that is its staple diet. If it comes across a nesting ground bird or a hare or rabbit, it will take it, and in the spring it will take a weak and sometimes even a strong lamb. But nobody has explained how fox hunting is an appropriate response to that problem. If one must deal with the problem by controlling the fox, an individual fox, not the total fox population, must be controlled.
  When the hunters go out in the morning, they do not say, "We must get that one fox that last night was after farmer Jones's lambs" or "We must get that fox that is preying on poultry." They chase the first fox that they come across. Nobody has suggested that that is an effective means of dealing with a predator.
  All who know about these issues are aware that if one wants to protect animals, birds or poultry from predation, it can be done in one or two ways. Either the individual predator must be shot at the point of its attack—that is recognised in the guidelines issued by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—or by lamping.
  The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) hit the target when he referred to his experience with poultry. If he lives in an area where there are foxes and he leaves his hen house open during the night, the fox will, of course, go in. What does he think will happen? If he is worried about his poultry, he should make arrangements to have the door locked at night. That is what I do, and only once—it happened in the middle of the last general election campaign—I left the door of my poultry house open, and the fox got in and killed all my chickens.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Or was it a Tory canvasser?
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend asks a good question.
  I make sure that my poultry house is locked. Every night the fox comes round. I could stay up every night and shoot whatever fox comes visiting. I could shoot one
  1264
  tonight and another tomorrow night. That could go on all week, and foxes would still be visiting my hen house. We have a resident fox population. Kill one, and another is waiting to fill that predator's space.
  The hon. Member for Holland with Boston also talked about mink. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had a problem with a pest in his constituency—the coypu—and the Ministry wanted to exterminate them because they were burrowing into the canal banks. The Ministry did not start coypu hunting or obtain some coypu hounds. It ordered a proper scientific evaluation of the problem, set traps and monitored the situation. Scientists were employed to deal with the problem, and the coypu were wiped out.
  If the hon. Gentleman is also worried about mink, he will be aware that every trout farmer and person with river interests trap mink, which are vulnerable to live trapping—
  Sir Richard Body indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davies:—and if the hon. Gentleman disbelieves me, I will tell him how it is done.
  Sir Richard Body: I appreciate what can be done by trapping. I see many mink traps and I think that is much more cruel to keep a mink in such a trap. Often, those traps are set and not looked at again for two or three days. That is extremely cruel—much more cruel than the method that I suggested.
  Mr. Davies: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is being highly irresponsible. He is either setting traps—
  Sir Richard Body: I do not set them.
  Mr. Davies: May I finish my point? If the hon. Gentleman is setting traps, he should exercise responsibility and visit them regularly. If he refers to other people setting traps, he should take it upon himself to ensure that those traps are properly inspected by referring them to the appropriate authorities. I am surprised that, with his long-standing record of support for animal welfare, the hon. Gentleman is so casual in his defence of the welfare conditions of mink.
  The Bill makes full provision for that in clause 8(1)(a), which allows for the proper licensing of the control of pests or predators where necessary.
  Earlier in the debate, I intervened on the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who spoke about the problem of lambs. The hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) assert that fox hunting is necessary to control the fox population because foxes kill nesting game birds such as partridge, pheasant and grouse. They are correct to say that foxes will take game birds and eggs. But why is there a closed season on fox hunting at the very time when those game birds are nesting? The problem exists in May and June, when foxes are not hunted. It is not a clever response to say, "All those foxes are killing our partridges, but never mind, we shall wait until October before we hunt them." Do they seriously believe that that is an acceptable argument? They then say that fox hunting is the best way to kill those predators.
  The hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside and for Devizes support snaring because that is what they do.

  1265
  They do not hunt foxes in May and June because that is when they put down snares. Their real interest is shooting game birds, which is why they want snaring.
  Mr. Paice: Is the hon. Gentleman honestly advocating that foxes should be controlled during their natural breeding season? It is traditional that any animal—pest or otherwise
  —are not hunted then. I do not refer simply to hunting. It would be wrong to shoot a vixen in April or May, or kill her in any other way, when a litter of cubs may be left in a hole to suffer from starvation. That cannot be what the hon. Gentleman is recommending.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman understands neither his brief nor the biology of the fox. Hunts go out during the very season when the vixen are whelped. They hunt in February, when the vixen has her cubs underground. The consequences are twofold: either the hunt will kill a vixen, leaving the cubs to die underground, or the hunt will kill a dog fox if it is above ground and he will be unable to provide for the vixen. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the current practice of hunting in February and March results in that happening.
  It has been asserted that hunting controls the fox population. All the scientific evidence available from universities, academic studies, field research and the examination of other predators that are top of their food chain shows beyond doubt that the factors that control the fox population are not predation from above but the ability of the habitat to sustain that population. It depends on whether there is sufficient habitat for individual animals to control and defend an adequate food supply to sustain them. If one tries to control the total fox population by culling, whether by hunting, snaring or shooting, one simply encourages foxes to breed more rapidly. Instead of our having a smaller fox population, we will simply have a younger one, because the young vixens will breed more. We should encourage research being done at the universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Bristol to determine the impact of the culling of foxes. I think that if it were not done, there would be fewer foxes. There would be an older fox population, and fewer vixens would breed. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) is laughing, but if he spoke to the farmers in his constituency, he would know that that is the case. Older vixens would breed less; they would have fewer litters. The population would come into equilibrium with the habitat. All the scientific evidence demonstrates that.
  The Bill establishes that individuals cannot be cruel to wild animals—a principle which no one can dispute. If it applies to captive and domestic animals, surely it must apply to wild animals. The hunting lobby opposes that principle. We should support the Bill, in defiance of the hunting lobby, for three reasons. The first is that the act of hunting is cruel and unnecessary. Secondly, if we accept the Bill we shall start a new chapter; we shall start to rewrite our relationship with animals, saying that although we use them, we must do so with respect.
  The third reason is that this country has no international moral authority when it negotiates on matters of animal welfare. That is why the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could not get his way in Iceland when he opposed the culling of whales. The Icelanders said, "Do not tell us how to cull whales humanely. At least we eat the whales that we kill. You practise fox hunting for fun."
  1266
  In the Council of Ministers, we cannot oppose the French practice of culling birds, or the Spaniards' of bull fighting and the other blood festivals. We must accept that there is now a European and international dimension. If we want to hold our heads up high in the councils of the world we must put our own house in order.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received any requests for a statement on today's sharp fall in the inflation figure? The Secretary of State for Employment should be brought to the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have received no such request.
  1.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I begin by offering my congatulations to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his good fortune in securing the debate today. We have had the opportunity for a full day's debate on an important matter, and we have debated it with passion, but also with good humour. The matter was last debated and voted on in 1949—that may be something of a record.
  The Bill's title describes it as a measure to provide protection for wild mammals. The Government have already given considerable priority to that aspect of the law, and I hope that the House will bear with me if I give a few details of what we have achieved. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it amounts to an impressive list of useful and effective measures.
  We have put the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on to the statute book. It established for the first time in this country a comprehensive framework protecting species and their habitats. I shall give the House three examples of the substantial advances that the Act has brought about.
  First, it protects 116 species of animals, including all our endangered mammals. Creatures such as the red squirrel, the otter and 15 species of bats found in Great Britain are now protected against killing, injuring and disturbance. We keep the list of species under regular review with our scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
  Secondly, the Act banned the use of the self-locking snare on any wild animal and protected a number of particular species, such as the badger and the red squirrel, from trapping and snaring in general. The United Kingdom is also acting against cruel trapping methods abroad. We were in the forefront in pressing for the EC regulation on the importation of certain furs. That regulation was adopted last November and will prohibit the use of the leg-hold trap, which has already been banned in this country for more than 30 years.
  Thirdly, the 1981 Act gives special protection to birds. The Act made it an offence to kill or take wild birds, damage their nests or take or destroy their eggs. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was also tightened up last year by making it an offence to cause or pennit another person to contravene those provisions of the Act which prohibit the use of cruel or indiscriminate methods of killing or taking wild birds or protected species. This will help to bring home to people who use or permit the use of illegal methods to kill wildlife that we are determined to

  1267
  do everything possible to meet our objectives for the protection of our natural heritage, and especially our endangered species.
  Clearly, the provision of protection for animals which are pests in the countryside motivates the Bill. However, pests are already subject to the law. It is a testimony to the British concern for animals that our pests, as well as our pets, are covered by the law. I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) that some areas are probably not yet protected.
  Quite apart from the Wildlife and Countryside Act, there is legislation governing the use of chemical products and spring traps to control pests. Before they can be approved for sale, products classified as pesticides undergo a thorough evaluation. This includes an assessment of whether the product is humane in its action. Similar criteria apply to the testing of spring traps, which must be approved by order in the House.
  I am a little disappointed by the Bill's provisions. The Bill is very wide ranging, in that it seeks to provide protection for any wild mammal and to protect them from a number of activities. It is obvious that the Bill is designed to provide the greatest possible protection to the greatest number of wild mammals. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, especially at the start of his speech, made no secret of the fact that one of the principal aims of the Bill is the prevention of fox hunting and other field sports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that central tenet is bound to be contradicted by those who see field sports as a proper and necessary part of maintaining the balance of nature. We have heard many such arguments in the debate. Nevertheless, this is the issue of principle at the heart of the debate.
  My personal view is that a simple Bill that tackled the issue of field sports on its own would have been a better way of achieving the purpose. We could then have had a debate that concentrated entirely on the issue of principle. As it is, the other provisions in the Bill will complicate today's debate and the consideration of the field sports question. It is, after all, the issue of principle which really interests the public.
  All hon. Members who have spoken and many others have reported full postbags on the central issue. The Bill's supporters claim that a substantial majority of the public are in favour of banning fox hunting. My straw poll on Wednesday among my Home Office colleagues, who represent a fairly good cross-section of constituencies, suggested that the division is nearer half and half. I share hon. Members' scepticism about the results of ordinary and straw polls.
  Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend speaks about the results of straw polls, which were mentioned by some hon. Members. A recent straw poll in the New Forest showed that a majority of people were in favour of a ban on hunting. On that result, the local Liberal Democrat council decided to pass a resolution calling on me to support such a ban. However, that straw poll was not consistent with a previous one which showed that 97 per cent. of New Forest people were in favour of hunting. Those who carry out straw polls probably get the results that they seek.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am not sure whether I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, as I carried out a straw poll among my Home Office colleagues.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that the Government have considerable reservations about the effect of the Bill both on farmers and on rural communities as a whole. The Bill would impose onerous obligations on everyone in rural communities, making it extremely difficult to control agricultural pests effectively. The licensing system in the Bill is the problem. I was glad to note that, when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North introdued the Bill he pointed to the possibility of reconsidering those provisions.
  I will explain our fears about what would happen in practice once a farmer had applied for a licence and it may become clear to the House why we have such concerns. The Bill provides only for the issue of licences to prevent serious damage, but licensing should be limited in application. Each application received would require an assessment of whether serious damage was occurring, probably involving site visits, as well as a decision about whether a particular type of control might cause unnecessary suffering. The likely number of such applications would mean a massive work load for those involved in the proposed licensing authorities, with huge resource implications. At the same time, normal agricultural practices would be severely disrupted. I really am concerned about the effect that the increased bureaucracy would have on the farmer, whom many would consider to be quite burdened enough already, with rules and regulations to follow and forms to fill in.
  The need for the farmer to protect his crops and livestock, and thus his livelihood, from pests is crucial and I fear that the Bill does not quite recognise that. This point is partly in reply to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Let us suppose that, quite unexpectedly, a farmer's lambs or chickens are attacked by a fox. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), in an excellent contribution to the debate, told us that that happens. What does the law-abiding farmer do? It is clear that the Bill would require him to put in for a licence to deal with any repetition of the situation by shooting or by some other method. How long would it take for that licence to come through? [HON. MEMBERS: "Years."] As I have already said—and as hon. Members have just pointed out—the men from the Ministry would have to visit to assess the seriousness of the damage to crops, land and poultry. They would then make a recommendation.
  Mr. McNamara: I do not think that the right hon. Lady wants to mislead the House. If a farmer were presented with the difficulty to which she refers, clause 5 would apply. It says:
  "A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2 above if he shows

  (a) that his action was necessary for the immediate protection of any domestic or captive animal which was being attacked by a wild animal; and

  (b) that he was the owner … or was acting"
  on his behalf.

  Mrs. Rumbold: I understand that point. I am addressing the central point of the Bill, which is that one expects licences to be gained by people who wish to protect their property.
  Mr. Robert Banks: My right hon. Friend has spoken about the cost of the licensing system if the Bill were enacted. Does she agree that the cost would bear as heavily on urban dwellers as on those who live in the countryside and who benefit from the control of vermin?
  Mrs. Rumbold: Exactly that effect would be felt, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I fear that Labour Members do not quite understand the extent to which licensing could cause a considerable problem. The man from the Ministry would have to make a recommendation and someone else would have to agree it. Eventually, there would have to be a licence in the post. However much one does not want to recognise that for the purposes of the Bill, in reality that is the way in which large bureaucracies work.
  I fear that it will be too late for many farmers. Of course licensing systems can work quickly, but the scale of operation proposed in the Bill would be massive. Staff and money would be required to provide the standard of service that would be needed. If the public are expected to foot the Bill, we wonder whether that would be acceptable to them. We wonder also whether it would have to be yet another burden for the farmers to undertake. In reality, the farmer would choose to protect his livestock by whatever method he favoured before his licence arrived. That is something that he would have to justify, but, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has said, he would clearly be able to do so.
  Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend said at the beginning of her speech that it is a long time since the House debated the principle of the subject now under discussion. I believe that there has not been an objective inquiry into these matters since the late 1940s. As it is clear from our constituency mail and from the debate that there is a wide variation of interpretation of the factual evidence, does my right hon. Friend see any merit in establishing an objective inquiry so that those who wish to proceed may do so on the basis of agreed evidence?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am interested in the notion that my hon. Friend puts forward. For the purposes of the Bill, however, several arguments have been advanced extremely clearly. I think that a high percentage of hon. Members understand the issues that we are debating.
  The problem that I have outlined would go beyond the countryside. The Bill would have implications for the statutory control of rats in urban area, for example. I make that point only to show that the comprehensiveness of the Bill means that it strays away from the hunt into areas which I believe would better have been avoided. These are not just technical points. The licensing system underpins the whole of the Bill and amounts to a serious flaw.
  Many of the arguments advanced on the question of hunting today were similarly advanced during the debate in 1949, although inevitably there have been changes in attitudes since then. Perhaps one of the more regrettable changes is that the issue tends these days not to be the subject of clear and well-argued debate alone. There are protests and demonstrations, some of which are far from peaceful, instead of rational and reasoned argument of the sort that we have had today.
  I cannot help feeling that there is an irony, and one which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will enjoy. The Minister
  1270
  who replied to the 1949 debate was the then Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who expressed his hope that the party that he represented, which I think was the same party as that which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North now represents, would not go down in history as the party that was anxious to abolish the pleasures of others. That was one of the many reasons which he adduced in support of the then Government's decision to oppose the then Bill.
  As hon. Members are well aware, the Government have consistently adopted a position of neutrality towards all legislation which touches on field sports. We take the view that participation in field sports is a matter of individual conscience. The Government will maintain this tradition of neutrality today. As I have said, however, much of the Bill— the licensing provisions and the implications for the control of pests—has little to do with the central issue. I must tell the House that if the Bill reaches Committee the Government will have to oppose those aspects.
  While the Government remain neutral—I shall not vote one way or the other today— we nevertheless think it right that all those Members who wish to express a view one way or another on Second Reading, including members of the Government, should be perfectly free to do so.
  1.33 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Either the Minister's heart was not in the speech that she just made or she has accidentally made a compelling case for giving the Bill a Second Reading. If that was the best argument that the Government could put up against the Bill of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I hope that the Bill will not only receive a Second Reading but do so by a huge majority.
  I especially congratulate my good and hon. Friend because this is one of the rare occasions when we are invited to do something which has the clear and overwhelming support of electors in both town and country: 80 out of every 100 people polled, not in a straw poll but in a national opinion poll in November 1991, said that they disapproved of fox hunting. Indeed, I can tell Conservative Members that 67 out of every 100 people who say that they intend to vote Conservative at the coming election are also opposed to fox hunting.
  Another poll, by NOP, found that 53 in every 100 rural residents disapproved of fox hunting, as against 69 per cent. of urban residents. On stag hunting, 79 per cent. of rural residents disapproved as against 81 per cent. of urban residents. On hare coursing 80 in every 100 disapproved, including 77 in every 100 in rural areas.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Corbett: So the enthusiasts for blood sports are in a clear minority. It has been argued that the fox is a pest that must be got rid of. But 70 in every 100 farmers say that foxes do not significantly harm their interests, and 36 per cent. say that foxes are useful in controlling rabbits and rodents. Two out of every three farmers say that they suffer no financial loss from fox damage.
  Indeed, we know that in areas where there are fox hunts—this has been said in today's debate—great care is taken

  1271
  by those who hunt to construct artificial earths and stick heaps for foxes to breed in and to feed and nurture foxes when the weather is hard.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Corbett: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me, too.
  Mr. George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot has been made of the point that if we vote for the Bill today it will be the thin edge of the wedge for angling? Does he agree that the two things are distinct and separate and that it is possible to support anglers and angling while voting for the Bill today?
  Mr. Corbett: I intend to come to that point later. My hon. Friend will be aware that sitting in front of him is my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who, when he was Minister for Sport and filled that office with such distinction, took the lead in setting up a national angling council to give anglers a unified national voice. My hon. Friend is, of course, right that the Bill has nothing to do with angling or shooting.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Corbett: In a moment.
  If, as the hunters argue, foxes are a vicious pest that must be driven from the face of the countryside, why all the tender loving care towards them? Most hunts know exactly where foxes live in their area and could easily dispatch them by shooting, if they chose to do so. If it is argued that shooting runs the risk of injuring rather than killing the fox, one wonders whether it is appropriate for such bad shots to hold a shotgun or firearms licence as they would appear to be a danger not only to wild animals but to themselves and other sporting shooters.
  Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Corbett: I wonder why groups of people seek pleasure in the cruel destruction of so much of the wildlife with which we share this planet. It is a shame and a stain on a society which calls itself civilised that the badger has no enemy but man. Despite the law, men still dig up badger setts in a brutal and senseless manner. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It is Of course it is illegal, but I hope that no one is suggesting that because it is illegal it does not happen. Those of us who have seen badgers at close hand marvel at their beauty and dignity.
  Some people—a minority—claim that it is perfectly all right to turn our countryside into the killing fields. There is no justification for any form of hunting with hounds in this day and age—if there ever was—and for such wanton cruelty to wildlife to continue under the name of sport. It is no such thing. It is the organised ritual destruction of wildlife, carried out in fancy dress amid great ceremony by those who pretend that they care for wildlife and its habitats. It degrades and disgraces the name of legitimate sport.
  1272
  Why cannot those who live in the countryside and those of us who visit it simply enjoy it, marvel at its beauty, rejoice in its variety, find solace in its silence and listen, relax and learn?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The country will be very interested to hear an official statement from the Labour Front Bench of the party's vitriolic hatred of people who pursue country sports. If the hon. Gentleman's case is that, because the opinion polls show that a large proportion of people are against hunting, the House should act against hunting, may I invite him to join me in the Lobby in support of capital punishment?
  Mr. Corbett: No, not at all.
  I also wonder what otherwise responsible parents feel they are doing when they encourage children as young as six or seven to see a fox, hare, stag or badger needlessly killed, and in some cases have those children blooded. What effect do they think that that has on a young mind, and what does killing for pleasure do to people who hunt over the years?
  I am aware of, and have seen at first hand, the care that estate owners and landowners take with the conservation and protection of the threatened environment in our countryside, but if the price of that is that much of our countryside has to be needlessly soaked with the blood of wild animals, it is too high a price to pay. Those who hunt seem to claim that, in return for looking after the countryside, they should have the unfettered right to slaughter the wild animals that live there. That is a claim without foundation. As citizens privileged to have private access to the land, it is their duty to treat it with respect on behalf of us all and on behalf of future generations, and they should not seek—nor should they have—
  any privilege in return.
  Some argue—although the polls show that it is not the case—that it is just us townies who oppose hunting with hounds. Although I help to represent a great city, I yield to no one in my devotion to, and concern for, the countryside, and I spend as much time as I can in it. To those who live in the countryside, I would also say that the environment is not just theirs—it belongs to each and every one of us.
  Ms. Mowlam: Will my hon. Friend clarify the point about our being opposed to the people who go hunting? We have no objection to people who go hunting and we have tried to explain—as the Bill explains—that drag hunting is another option. Apart from the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), no one has come up with a reason why drag hunting is not acceptable, and the hon. Gentleman's explanation is that it is like kissing one's sister. Does my hon. Friend have any view on that?
  Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Bill is about the protection of wild mammals, not the protection of people.
  Those who took part in yesterday's so-called farmers' protest at the Stoneleigh showground in Warwickshire were under close instruction to make themselves look more like a squad from "The Archers" than those engaged in bloodsports. The National Hunt Committee memo instructed:
  "There will be no hounds, no red coats, no top hats, no hunting horns. Banners should be made which state clearly the county you are from eg 'Gloucester farmers say this', 'Warwickshire farmers demand that' etc.".

  1273
  Why the modesty? If there is nothing to hide, if there is nothing to be ashamed of, why no hounds, why no red coats, why no top hats and why no hunting horns? Are they not all part of the ritual that hunters claim is their birthright? Why was there no bold assertion of that ancient right? The truth is that somewhere behind those who organised yesterday's demonstration was just plain shame—a shame which prevented them from literally demonstrating in their true colours and a shame which stains their sporting claims.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why a briefing note was sent to all his colleagues who feel as he does suggesting that they should refuse any invitations to go and talk to the hunts or to see how the hunts operate?
  Mr. Corbett: I have not seen such a note; I did not get one. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Nor did we."] I said earlier that there has been a bid by those who engage in blood sports to turn this into a townie-versus-villager issue. I shall read out a few random cuttings from a number of newspapers which circulate almost exclusively in rural areas. On 6 December 1991 the West Cumbria Evening News reported:
  "Cumbrian villagers are up in arms after claiming that fox hunters cause 'mayhem' in the countryside … Anne Watson, of Newcroft Kennels, Mawbray, said 'I was appalled at the mayhem they caused.'"
  The Western Daily Press on 23 December 1991 stated:
  "Angry businessman Joe Hughes yesterday rapped the Beaufort hunt—a favourite of the Royals—after hounds and riders galloped through a field of valuable young ponies… huntsmen cut through a padlocked chain to gain access to the private paddock."
  I do not doubt that those very same huntsmen would be quick to condemn those who indulge in violence and vandalism at football matches.
  The Shropshire Star of 8 December 1991 reported:
  "Residents in a Shropshire village were angered when hounds from a hunt poured into gardens hot on the scent of a fleeing fox … the incident upset a number of villagers in Sheriffhales, near Telford."
  My favourite newspaper, the Royston Crow, on 29 December 1991 reported:
  "A family looked on in horror as a fox was slaughtered in their garden by hounds from the Puckeridge and Thurlow Hunt."
  I have here similar reports from around the country and a list as long as my arm going back some years.
  No other group of people would be allowed to cause such unfettered mayhem and distress, annoyance and damage. In urban areas the police would rightly have charged them with public order offences before they could say "Tally-ho." We know from the polls that hunting with hounds upsets large numbers of people who live in the countryside. We also know that most people in the countryside are opposed to hunting with hounds. We know, too, that if it is claimed that foxes are such an expensive pest and menace, hunting them with hounds must be the most costly and inefficient method that anyone could possibly devise to deal with them. If the aim is to exercise some form of control, it would be better for the huntsmen to admit that that is a senseless ambition and turn to drag hunting.
  I like the comments of Miss J. E. Holland, whose address is Beech Hall, Depden, Suffolk. From the heart of rural England, and from an address which might suggest a political persuasion other than Labour, she says:
  "Whatever one's opinions of the morality of cub/fox hunting perhaps these alleged sportspeople should consider
  1274
  how they would feel if, for example, their homes were besieged by football fans with dogs. I can think of no other sport where such unruly and selfish behaviour is considered acceptable."
  Neither can I, nor can my right hon. and hon. Friends, and nor can a substantial number of Conservative Members of Parliament.
  There have been many comments about the Labour party's attitude towards angling and shooting —and indeed, to its animal welfare and wildlife policy generally. Among those who have questioned that is Jonathan Young, editor of the pro-hunting publication The Field. As a responsible editor, he should know that in 1978 the Labour party published a document called "Living Without Cruelty". It was the first major political party to publish such an animal welfare docment. It followed a decision by Labour's national executive committee to seek the abolition of all blood sports. That was reflected in our 1983 election manifesto, which stated:
  "Hare coursing, fox hunting and all forms of hunting with dogs will be made illegal."
  In 1987, our election manifesto pledged to
  "end all forms of organised hunting with hounds."
  In each of those documents, significant extra words followed those that I have quoted. I shall quote them now to rebut the false allegations made by those who hunt and by others in this House. The 1987 manifesto said that, following the pledge to ban all forms of hunting with hounds:
  "These changes will not affect shooting and fishing."
  I ask the House to accept that that is Labour's policy now, that it will be Labour's policy at the coming election, and that it will remain Labour's policy. When silly Jonathan Young of The Field asserted in the Daily Mail on Tuesday:
  "An attack on one field sport is an attack on all",
  he was talking through that part of his body which usually sits upon a saddle. I repeat that Labour has no intention of extending the ban on hunting with dogs to shooting or angling.
  The Bill gives the House the opportunity to respond to the public demand. By majority, people in town and countryside want an end to the needless slaughter. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading on an all-party basis. If it does not, the new Labour Government will introduce a Bill early in that Government's life.
  1.52 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I declare my interest—although it is well known to most hon. Members—as chairman of the British Field Sports Society, and I am a farmer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I can hear the cries of "Disgraceful" from the Labour Benches. That clearly gives away both the intention behind the Opposition's support of the Bill and what they intend the Bill to accomplish.
  Until the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) we had had a good debate, conducted in a fair and proper manner. The hon. Member for Erdington made one of the worst and most provocative speeches that I have heard in a long time. It was divisive—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is pleased with himself. He claimed that he was looking for all-party support, but in fact he managed to divide both the parties and the town and countryside communities.
  The hon. Gentleman's views, expressed as a representative of Birmingham, were clearly hostile to not only those who participate in field sports in the countryside but those who live and work the countryside. They were hostile to

  1275
  those who have the trust—that is the only word that he uttered with which I agree —of maintaining the countryside and improving it for future generations. That is the intention of those who live in the countryside. The consequences of Bills such as this, and the attitude of people like the hon. Member for Erdington, make their job more difficult and make it less likely that the countryside will be maintained for future generations in a way that those of us who live in it and work it try to achieve.
  Before the hon. Member for Erdington spoke, we had had an interesting and stimulating debate. Several issues were raised, and I wish to deal with them briefly. The first question is: what lies behind the Bill? It has two purposes. The first is to eliminate cruelty to wildlife. In so far as that is its intention, we on this side of the House and in the British Field Sports Society certainly agree with it. We supported the Badger Bill in the last Session, once it has been put into a state in which it genuinely protected badgers and no longer clandestinely threatened hunting. That was also a hidden agenda in that Bill in its original form.
  We would support any legislation that gave added protection to hedgehogs against being maltreated or to any wild animal against being beaten and cruelly ill treated deliberately by people who have no business to do so.
  Whether such a law would be effective is another matter. We have legislated on badgers yet, sadly, I read in my papers last week of a revolting attack on badgers during the past two weeks or so, in which one was impaled from head to tail by a stake. Such behaviour is disgusting. No hon. Member and few people in the country, other than the appalling perpetrators, would support it. Unfortunately, however effective we try to make the law, it cannot wholly prevent such activity from taking place. In so far as it does take place, it must be condemned. If an hon. Member introduced legislation to give hedgehogs the protection that has been given to badgers, of course I would support it.
  It is, however, not the main purpose of this Bill to give such protection in the countryside. As the hon. Member for Erdington made absolutely clear, the principal thrust of the Bill and the main intention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the supporters is undoubtedly to abolish fox hunting. The hon. Member for Erdington made clear his personal commitment to shooting and fishing. I should like to know how he justifies logically an attack on hunting on the ground of cruelty and distinguishes it from an attack on shooting or fishing on the same ground. There is no logical way of claiming that hunting is unnecessarily cruel while in the same breath saying that fishing is not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and others have expressed that point well.
  In any culling or killing operation, an element of cruelty is undoubtedly involved. That is true in slaughter houses. It is true in particular of the Halal system killing. I think that those of the Jewish faith have that system of slaughter before they are prepared to eat any meat. There are degrees of cruelty in any method of slaughter. It is the job of the House, rightly, to try to eliminate that element of cruelty in both wild and domestic situations. Again, in so far as we are trying to do that, the British Field Sports Society, all my colleagues and I would agree.
  1276
  The Bill is bad because that is not what it would do. It is picking on fox hunting for all the old, class-divisive reasons behind why the Labour party tried to do this before and it has no justification. It is not true that hunting is an activity that only toffs and very rich people enjoy. It is probably one of the best sports enjoyed by people of all walks of life.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I reinforce completely what my hon. Friend has just said. Indeed, a constituent of mine wrote to me, saying:
  "I am not a toff or a snob but a welder by trade and work in a local factory in a dirty and demanding job. The reason I feel so strongly about this issue it is down to the freedom of choice if I want to go I go, if not I don't go but these people who want the sport banned are telling me I should not go. So much for the freedom of choice."
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yes, it is about freedom of choice. The author of that letter expresses my precise point well. This sport is enjoyed by people from all walks of life. It is enjoyed by those who live in the town as well as those who live in the country. It has an important conservation role.
  The attack on fox hunting is misconceived and politically guided. I find it astonishing that, in the 1990s, the old Labour party and, I am sorry to say, one or two misguided members of my party, are still walking down that precarious path.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity today to dissociate himself from the activities of the Quorn hunt, as shown on film? Will he also condemn those who control that hunt for their lack of commitment to stop the barbaric actions that were vividly shown on television a few months ago?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I dissociate myself, the British Field Sports Society and the Masters of Foxhounds Association from the misconduct of those running the Quorn hunt on the day in question. That is why disciplinary action was taken against those masters and why the Masters of Foxhounds Association is now reviewing its rules. I hope that it will produce a code of conduct. That is why every step is being taken to ensure that such behaviour is not repeated.
  The hon. Gentleman must be aware that every walk of life, even this place, is not populated by saints. In every aspect of human activity some people behave as they should not. The hon. Gentleman, however, asked me to dissociate myself from the specific conduct of the Quorn hunt. I have done so and I will do so on any occasion should it be repeated.
  Mr. Budgen: Would my hon. Friend also concede that when that conduct occurred at the Quorn hunt it was dealt with effectively and quickly?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yes, it was. The disciplinary committee of the Masters of Foxhounds Association reviewed those activities as soon as they were brought to its attention. It took the necessary action as swiftly as possible.
  Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend should be aware that two votes have been taken in Leicestershire county council on whether hunting should be allowed on county council land. In 1982, the county council narrowly voted by a majority of four to allow such hunting. Another vote was taken after the Quorn incident and a decisive vote of 47 to 34—a majority of 13—found in favour of maintaining

  1277
  hunting on county council land. That suggests that my hon. Friend is winning the argument and it demonstrates to the House of Commons what an elected body in Leicestershire, the centre of hunting, feels about that issue.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is true that in Leicestershire and in many other counties this issue has been reviewed recently. In almost every case, the decision has been to continue with hunting across publicly owned land. That is welcome and it gives the lie to the point made by the hon. Member for Erdington about a huge lobby against field sports. Those who live in and have a duty to care for the countryside are, by a huge majority, in support of field sports. Because a large number of people have no knowledge of hunting and are susceptible to the cuddly bear image of the fox, which Beatrix Potter and others have managed to implant in people's minds, they are, on a superficial level, against fox hunting.
  I remind hon. Members that we went through all this in the late 1940s. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded us that the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams, a member of the Labour party, urged hon. Members on both sides of the House to support fox hunting. He tabled a motion in 1925 to abolish it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That was 40 years ago."] The reasons for supporting fox hunting are as valid now as they were then. In 1949 Mr. Williams argued his case on the issue of cruelty. It is on that issue that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is asking the House to support his Bill. Mr. Williams said:
  "the promoters of this Bill … regard hunting and cruelty as synonymous, thinking that to abolish the hunt is to abolish cruelty. On the contrary, they render rural recreation illegal, and do absolutely nothing towards abolishing or restraining cruelty".—[Official Report, 25 February 1949; Vol. 461, c. 2231.]
  That is the truth. We have today reviewed extensively the alternative ways in which foxes can be culled, and the only Member in the whole debate to suggest that they should not be culled at all was my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who at least followed his argument to its logical conclusion by saying that foxes should not be culled but should be allowed to breed on and on—never mind the farmer, one might say, or the poultry keeper or even the foxes, which might find that there were
  too many of them for their own health. It was an absurd argument, but at least my hon. Friend carried to a logical conclusion the idea that it is cruel to hunt. It is not. It is more cruel to kill the animals by other means.
  Mr. Marland: To add strength to my hon. Friend's argument, he will be interested to know that yet another local authority has voted to allow fox hunting to be carried on across its ground. Gloucestershire county council, having been heavily lobbied by all shades of opinion, has a substantial majority of councillors in favour of allowing fox hunting to continue on council-owned land. It is absolute nonsense to try to persuade us, as Labour Members do, that the majority of people are against fox hunting, when they are clearly not.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. When people consider the merits of the argument and focus on what is involved, they come down on the side of fox hunting.
  Mr. Roger Moate rose—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I do not want to delay the House much longer.
  There is no doubt that field sports, taken collectively, have always played an enormous role in the founding of the countryside as we enjoy it today. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North dissenting and, I think, making rude noises at me. That helps to show the ignorance of Labour Members in that they are unable to accept even that elementary point.
  On my small farm I have eight pieces of woodland. Four of them were planted by my grandfather, who was chairman of the local hunt, two were planted by my father because he was a keen shot, and I have planted two because I am a keen shot. If we did not have country sports, none of those small areas of woodland would have been planted or would be maintained.
  There is a glorious ignorance among Opposition Members about countryside matters. Indeed, the impression was given earlier that the trees were everlasting. Why would people take out woodland if fox hunting were abolished? That is a silly question to ask, because they would not take it out. But they would not renew it, either, and on reaching the end of its natural life, the woodland would not be replaced. Conservation and field sports and conservation and farming are synonymous. Sadly, Labour Members are unaware of that and they are careless about the future of the countryside and those who inhabit it.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Is my hon. Friend aware that a report in The Shropshire Star says that 4,000 people are against a ban on fox hunting and only 2,643 are in favour?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Every time an hon. Member intervenes, new facts in favour of the continuance of fox hunting are produced. The argument is clearly being won by the fox-hunting lobby.
  One of the saddest aspects of the measure is that unfortunately the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North does not understand what his Bill proposes to do. I say that with sadness because I know that his intention is honest and that he does not wish to mislead the House or the country. Yesterday, in a radio interview by Mr. Chris Stewart, the hon. Gentleman stated that the Bill covered all wilful cruelty to animals. He said that in the first part of his statement and repeated it a little later. The Bill does not mention "wilful" with regard to the cruelty aspect. Clause 1 states:
  "a person wilfully inflicts unnecessary suffering on, or cruelly ill-treats a wild mammal".
  The hon. Gentleman has clearly not taken on board the fact that "wilful" refers only to the first half of the sentence. He infers that if the cruelty is inflicted by the nature of an act, as opposed to by someone intending to be cruel, that would not be covered by the Bill. But it is covered. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman misled the people who listened to that radio programme about the precise terms of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman intervented when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was arguing that the only defence under the Bill is to obtain a licence. My right hon. Friend explained how appallingly cumbersome that procedure would be and what a burden it would be on the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman then intervened and referred to clauses 5 and 6. Howeever, those clauses refer only to clause 2, which relates to the use of a dog. Neither

  1279
  clause 5 nor clause 6 provides a defence for clause 3, which refers to snaring. Unless a person has a licence, he will be unable, for example, to snare a mole in his garden. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman's intention is to make someone whose garden has been ravaged by moles go to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for a licence to control moles—or rats and mice.
  The Bill covers a range of necessary innocuous activities that the hon. Gentleman does not intend it to cover. Indeed, he did not know that the Bill covered them when he accepted the draftsman's proposal for the Bill
  Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend is discussing defences and drawing attention to clause 5, which is meant to provide an exemption. It says that action can be taken, where necessary,
  "for the immediate protection of any domestic or captive animal which was being attacked by a wild mammal".
  Does not that mean that, to be effective, packs of foxhounds and walkie-talkie sets must be permanently on call? Clause 5 is totally ridiculous and unworkable.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Neither clause 5 nor clause 6 would protect farmers or people who live in the countryside, or even people with gardens in rural areas, from being accused of committing a criminal offence if they took the steps that were necessary to protect themselves or their property.
  There is no doubt that this is a remarkably bad Bill. It is a pity that the House has had to spend this Friday debating a party political issue that should have been dead and buried long ago—[Interruption.] I thought that some Opposition Members might find that amusing. The debate should never have taken place.
  May I close my remarks with a note of regret, as did Mr. Williams so long ago? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. The Bill would not even take effect in Northern Ireland, were it to be passed. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman did not find a better and more relevant cause to put before the House today. I echo the sentiment of Mr. Williams—a former Labour Minister—when he said, in 1949:
  'Would it not be better to discuss the million people in camps in the depressed areas of Europe? Would it not be better to discuss what an hon. Member opposite writes about so eloquently in 'The Tribune'—what is going on behind the iron curtain?"—[Official Report, 25 February 1949; Vol. 461, c. 2238.]
  Would not it be better to turn our attention to some of the serious issues facing the Government and the country today instead of wasting time by raking up, once again, the old, divisive socialist desire to abolish fox hunting?
  2.9 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I have been present throughout the debate, since 9.35 this morning. I find it most impressive that so many farmer-politicians have found time in their busy lives as farmers to take up their parliamentary duties on a Friday. in order to take part in a debate and vote on the important Bill before the House. Those of a more ungenerous nature than myself may suggest that vested interests are involved, because of the close association between farming and fox hunting, but I do not accept that calumny. I remain impressed by the devotion to duty shown by so many Tory farmers.
  1280
  However, I am less impressed by the arguments that they advance against the Bill. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who is a member of the Select Committee on Energy, said that he was worried about the Bill's impact on unemployment, and on the 16,000 workers in the British equestrian trade. I could take the hon. Gentleman's concern far more seriously if he had shown any such concern for the thousands of Scottish workers made redundant when British Steel ratted on Ravenscraig and on the Scottish steel industry, or if he had shown any concern for the 2·6 million people whom the Government have made unemployed. I do not take such arguments seriously from opponents of the Bill.
  It has been said that opponents of the Bill are just as concerned about the well-being of wild mammals as its supporters. They expect us to believe that, because of such concern, they continue to support the prolonged terrorising of foxes, which are wild mammals. They support the tearing apart of foxes by frenzied packs of hounds, and although they may convince themselves that by taking part in such barbaric practices they show their concern for the well-being of the fox, they would have a hard time convincing the fox of that—or, indeed, of convincing anyone whose view was less prejudiced than theirs.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) began the day with a point of order. Although it was not a bogus point of order, the information that he conveyed was bogus. The hon. Gentleman complained about the postcards distributed by the League Against Cruel Sports to its supporters, some of which have been passed on to hon. Members to try to persuade them to support the Bill. He gave an example of one of his constituents whose name had been used on a postcard without his knowledge or permission. On that shaky foundation the hon. Gentleman argued that the whole exercise conducted by the League Against Cruel Sports was bogus, that the names being sent to hon. Members were fake, and that support for the Bill outside the House was far less than was being claimed.
  The hon. Gentleman was eager to interpret in a different light the one example that he gave. However, opponents of the Bill, concerned about the massive support whipped up by the League Against Cruel Sports, may have decided to undermine that campaign by sending bogus postcards. I agree with the advice that has already been given to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to pass the matter to the Humberside police. I am sure that they will be able to get to the bottom of it and find out who is trying to kid whom.
  The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. N. Ridley) asked whether it was really in the public interest to ban fox hunting. He said that, after all, those who take part choose voluntarily to do so, and that the landowners on whose land hunting takes place give their permission. On that basis, he suggested that the public interest was in no way harmed.
  Such logic could be applied to all the other activities that the House has already banned, such as bear baiting, dog fighting and cock fighting. If landowners were prepared to allow people to bait bears on their land and people were prepared voluntarily to take part, would that make it all right? Would that mean that such activities were not against the public interest? Of course not. That

  1281
  was an especially weak argument and, given the high offices of state that the right hon. Gentleman has held, one would have thought that he would know better.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that shooting was a crueller way of dealing with foxes than fox hunting. He cited the example of bad shots, who may wound a fox, which leads to unnecessary cruelty and suffering being inflicted. But he could not give a single example of such a thing having happened. Only once during the debate has such an example been given. That was the only evidence that we have heard that such a thing has ever happened. Yet we know, from the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and other animal welfare bodies that there are countless examples of unnecessary cruelty and suffering being inflicted on foxes by the fox hunters. Given the balance between the two, it is essential that the House should support the Bill. Hon. Members who oppose the Bill will have a hard time convincing voters that it is less cruel to pursue a terrified animal for more than an hour and attack it with terriers or tear it apart with a pack of fierce and frenetic hounds. Nobody is convinced by such specious arguments.
  Perhaps the weakest argument was the one about pest control, which does not stand any examination. Opponents of the Bill say that they are concerned about pest control. Why do some hunts rear foxes with the intention of hunting them? No Conservative Member could answer that question. Hunting has nothing to do with pest control. Other hunts keep artificial earths to attract foxes into the area and then hunt them. I thought that the idea of pest control was to limit the number of foxes and not to attract them to an area so that they could then be hunted.
  It was said that it was right and natural for man to hunt—a call not so much to go back to the countryside as to the caves. It was said that killing the fox was not important. If it is not important how can it be argued that hunting is necessary to control pests? The Bill's opponents defeated their own arguments and cannot expect anyone to take them seriously. It was said that the chase was all important. What was meant was that the sport—the entertainment—was all important, and that is the kernel of the debate. The Bill's opponents say that it is justified, for reasons of entertainment and sport, to inflict suffering and cruelty on foxes and other wild mammals for the pleasure of men. That is unjustifiable and must be stopped.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McAllion: No. There is not enough time to give way.
  We heard the quite extraordinary case of Mr. Harry Roberts, a huntsman who in 1941 was called up to join the Army. As soon as he was called up, the foxes went wild and the number of lambs being killed by foxes shot up. It was said that that was proof positive that fox hunting was necessary to protect hill farming. Of course there are other interpretations, such as that that must have been the first case of draft dodging. If Dan Quayle had thought of such an ingenious device, I am sure that he would have used it in connection with Vietnam. The story proves nothing because there is no proof that fox hunting is necessary to keep pests under control.
  I should like to refer to a group called Animal Concern, which describes itself as a select committee of members
  1282
  representing countryside and conservation organisations. I received a letter from the organisation, as I am sure have other hon. Members. That letter does not name the countryside and conservation organisations. For all we know, it may be the Quorn hunt. How can we take seriously the representations of Animal Concern? It says that the real issue at stake in the Bill—
  Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that some hon. Members have been here throughout the debate and have not had an opportunity to speak. You will also note that two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have taken up an inordinate amount of time by using the subterfuge of speaking from the Back Benches. Will you inquire into that to see whether it is proper for Front-Bench spokesmen to move to the Back Benches and take up the time of the House? If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) continues to take up so much time, do we assume that he is trying to talk out the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing out of order has occurred so far.
  Mr. McNamara rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 3.

  Division No. 82]

  [2.25 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Darling, Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Atkinson, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Battle, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Flynn, Paul

  Benton, Joseph

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Foster, Derek

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fraser, John

  Blair, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Boateng, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Boyes, Roland

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Grist, Ian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cartwright, John

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clay, Bob

  Haynes, Frank

  Cohen, Harry

  Hayward, Robert

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, James

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cox, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  1283

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richardson, Jo

  Illsley, Eric

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfedder, James

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Sillars, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  McAllion, John

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Snape, Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stott, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Strang, Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Thorne, Neil

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Walley, Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Ward, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mudd, David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Nellist, Dave

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Norris, Steve

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Patchett, Terry

  Mr. Jerry Hayes and

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Tony Banks.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  NOES

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Mr. Paul Marland and

  Conway, Derek

  Mr. Nicholas Soames.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 187.

  Division No. 83]

  [2.35 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boateng, Paul

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

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

  Allen, Graham

  Boyes, Roland

  Amess, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Anderson, Donald

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Atkinson, David

  Bright, Graham

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barron, Kevin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Battle, John

  Cartwright, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

  clay, Bob

  Benton, Joseph

  Cohen, Harry

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cousins, Jim

  Blair, Tony

  Cox, Tom

  1284

  Crowther, Stan

  McCartney, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  McKelvey, William

  Cummings, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Madden, Max

  Darling, Alistair

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marek, Dr John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Dicks, Terry

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Doran, Frank

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Edwards, Huw

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mudd, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Flannery, Martin

  Nellist, Dave

  Flynn, Paul

  Norris, Steve

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Hara, Edward

  Foster, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Fraser, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Gale, Roger

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Galloway, George

  Prescott, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Redmond, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Gordon, Mildred

  Reid, Dr John

  Gould, Bryan

  Richardson, Jo

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Rogers, Allan

  Grist, Ian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hain, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hardy, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Haynes, Frank

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hayward, Robert

  Short, Clare

  Hill, James

  Sillars, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Snape, Peter

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hoyle, Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Illsley, Eric

  Turner, Dennis

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Vaz, Keith

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Walley, Joan

  Kilfedder, James

  Ward, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Leighton, Ron

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Lewis, Terry

  Wilson, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Livingstone, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Loyden, Eddie

  Mr. Tony Banks, and

  McAllion, John

  Mr. Jerry Hayes.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Allason, Rupert

  Beith, A. J.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amos, Alan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  1285

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclean, David

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

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Madel, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Marland, Paul

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Marlow, Tony

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Mates, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Carrington, Matthew

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Cash, William

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Churchill, Mr

  Mills, Iain

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Moate, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Colvin, Michael

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Critchley, Julian

  Needham, Richard

  Curry, David

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Dover, Den

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dunn, Bob

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Farr, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Pawsey, James

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Fry, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Gill, Christopher

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Riddick, Graham

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Rost, Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Rowe, Andrew

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hague, William

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Shepherd, Richard Aldridge)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Harris, David

  Sims, Roger

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Speed, Keith

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Steen, Anthony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stokes, Sir John

  Jackson, Robert

  Summerson, Hugo

  Janman, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Jessel, Toby

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Key, Robert

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Tracey, Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Trimble, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Trippier, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Latham, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Walden, George

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  1286

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. W. Benyon and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sir Charles Morrison.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  TIMESHARE CONTRACTS (TIME FOR RECONSIDERATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day? Not moved.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: On behalf of my hon. Friend, I move.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should be more alert than apparently he is. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Haynes: On behalf of my hon. Friend, Monday 21 February.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a Monday.
  Mr. Haynes: Friday 21 February, Sir.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 February.

  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [24 January].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: With the leave of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 13 March.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 13 March.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPPLY OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 February.

  TRAFFIC CALMING BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  HOUSING (FITNESS STANDARD) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Haynes: With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 21 February.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 February.

  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION (COSMETICS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Haynes: With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 21 February.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 February.

  CARAVAN SITES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not printed. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HOME RULE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [7 February].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 13 March.

  STILL-BIRTH DEFINITION BILL
  Order read for consideration in Committee.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  MEDICINAL PRODUCTS: PRESCRIPTION BY NURSES ETC. BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee).
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Consideration deferred till Friday 21 February.

  Computing
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  2.50 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is leaving the Chamber. I fear that if he were to oppose to what I have to say in such stentorian tones, I would not get very far.
  On the first occasion that I raised the question of computing in the House, I produced a microchip on which it was possible to see about four transistors—and on that I made some fairly far-fetched predictions. Today, it would not be possible to see the structure unless we had an electron microscope, and we all know that such visual aids are deplored by Mr. Speaker. I am saved the burden of elaborate descriptions by the timely publication of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report just before Christmas. It is the implications for the nation and for Parliament that I want to discuss today, and I am glad to have the opportunity to do so.
  It is not just the machine that I wish to discuss, prodigious though its capacity may be, but the institutions, processes and policies required for its effective use. It is not just an old mainframe, as they were called, multiplied by 1,000, 10,000 or even 100,000 times. The difference performance is both quantitative and qualitative. The problems that the new machines can address are those facing mankind, and they are of much the same order of magnitude. Some are known as the "grand challengers", and we all recognise their scale. For example, the data produced by a satellite measuring environmental change amounts to about 1 trillion signals per hour. That would require 40 Washington telephone books per day to store.
  I shall give two more illustrations. The human heart consists of millions of cells that communicate electrically in a most complex pattern. To understand how it works or fails, scientists have to construct models. Professor Dennis Noble of Oxford university presented a fascinating paper in Paris this week, pointing out that, even with the fastest existing IBM machine, at present the modelling of a few seconds of the heart's activity requires several minutes. On such a machine, modelling 100,000 cells of what is known as the sinus, let alone the hundreds of millions in the ventricle, is extremely expensive and impractical.
  The new type of machine, known as a massively parallel machine, makes that possible. Alas, Professor Noble has to use the United States army computing centre in Minnesota for his work. A new machine on the horizon enables him to envisage what he describes as a reconstruction of the electrical mechanisms of a heart attack. Such is the power of the teraflop machine which Columbia university aims to have developed by 1996.
  It is hardly surprising that the machine has been described as the
  "critical tool of the lifesciences in the 21st century".
  and an even more significant description is that it
  "provides the human race with its third scientific investigative technique after theory and experiment."
  It has immense powers of simulation, which enable us to detect similarities and differences where size and complexity are simply too vast for the unaided human mind.
  It is worth making one more point. The machine's technical rate of development is unprecedented for an

  1289
  artefact of such complexity. Its computational power feeds back rapidly into its own design, construction and manufacture.
  Why is this important to Parliament and the nation? There are several reasons. Senator Gore of the United States Senate summarised it in a statement he made on introducing a Bill recently:
  "The nation which most completely assimilates high performance computing into its economy will very likely emerge as the dominant intellectual, economic, and technological force in the next century."
  That is some claim, but it has evidently been fully accepted by Japan, the United States, Germany and France. I wish that I could say the same for ourselves.
  The Japanese Government have formally stated that the development of massively parallel high-performance computing is that country's
  "most important priority for the 90s and has allocated some £200 million for the development of what are known as 'neural networks'."
  In 1985, we and the Japanese each had four so-called super-computers. In the brief space of five years, the Japanese have acquired 176, most of which they make themselves, outstripping the United States, which has 162, western Europe, which has 101, and the United Kingdom, which has 21. Even more alarming, perhaps, is that Mexico now has more super-computer capacity than we have. All significant indices of growth and expenditure are in the POST report, which is available to Parliament, so I shall not weary the House by repeating them.
  Qualitative aspects are more significant. There is a virtuose circle of semiconductor capability and computing capability which the Japanese in particular have appreciated. They will design and make most things first, fastest and best, as the super-computer facilitates total quality control, among other things. That has particular significance for cars, aerospace, electronics of every kind, and therefore the worldwide pattern and distribution of employment. It is that realisation which has doubtless prompted the United States to set up a series of federally funded super-computer training centres, one of which, at Cornell university, is matched possibly only by that at Edinburgh. It has also prompted a series of United States policy responses, emanating primarily from Congress and the President. I shall describe them, as they are a template against which, I fear, we must judge our own parliamentary and Executive response.
  Since 1989, the United States Congress has introduced at least five major Bills, starting with the National High-performance Computing Technology Act. Its committees have conducted seven hearings. It has established a national advisory committee on semiconductors, which concluded recently that, unless the United States spent $1·2 billion per annum on research and development in this area, it would
  "not be a serious competitor in the coming information age."
  The President's Office of Science and Technology Policy proposed in 1989 that there should be a massive five-year programme for high-performance computing and networks. Expenditure over five years has doubled from $450 million to £1,000 million. Since 1976, as the OTA pointed out last year, federal funding has grown faster than for any other scientific discipline in the United States. Since their power is dependent on communication networks, the Administration has accepted a programme to raise the network capacity from the present 1·5 megabits to 45 megabits for 200 to 300 users this year and 1 to 3
  1290
  gigabits, increasing to the order of 1,000 for major research facilities from 1996, when 45 megabits will he available to 1,000 separate institutions.
  I now come to the western European and the United Kingdom response to the challenge. There is, I am sorry to say, only one word to describe our response in the United Kingdom. I had on my original draft the word "lamentable", but I thought that that was too harsh. It is a curate's egg—good in parts. Yesterday, I checked with the Library and discovered that, by comparison in the same period, we have had the subject mentioned in six questions in this House, in four in the Lords and in one early-day motion. In December 1990, there was a brief late-night debate on our contribution to the European framework, Jessi and Eureka programmes.
  We have, it is true, a £34 million massively parallel computing programme, since this is an area in which we as a nation excel intellectually, as it were. After the POST report, I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry increased its funding for our network, known as JANET, by some £10 million to upgrade it to SuperJANET.
  I further understand that the Cabinet Office has now set up a super-computing and networking team to consider the policy implications in the POST report. We have also agreed to take a third of a 25 per cent. share jointly with France and Germany in the European Community's megastream project. The other funds will be provided by the Community and Cable and Wireless.
  Rather more depressing is the information that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has recommended a bit more money for supercomputing over the next three years—the equivalent of £6 million, £7 million and £7·5 million. One must set that in the context of the £90 million spent per annum by Michigan university or any of the major Japanese producers or users. I fear that that will cause a powerful attack of dismay, which will overwhelm us and for which the rhetorical tranquillisers that we employ in this Chamber will prove no cure.
  I fear that Parliament must take its full share of the blame for this state of affairs. In the past 18 months, we have screamed at each other across the Floor about unemployment and heavens knows what else, oblivious of the fact that we are witnessing events of far greater significance, which are far more compressed in time, than the industrial revolution.
  The OECD, to which we all subscribe, is not unaware of those facts. In its report, "Interdependence and Co-operation in Tomorrow's World", there was a stark warning from Sir Ralf Dahrendorf,
  "There are those who argue that employment is but a passing problem … Growth plus training, they say, will deal with all but the most resistant unemployment and in any case there is enough work for all. Such views overlook the deeper issue which is at stake … Work, in the sense of paid employment (jobs) has been the key to the entitlement structures of modern societies and to their growth potential. At the same time social, economic and technical factors have conspired to reduce the role of work in people's lives … work has become scarce … and as a result work based on entitlement structures can no longer be sustained … Growth and employment are decoupled."
  I agree with that.
  The principal technical factor is information technology, which the worldwide motor car industry has been discovering for some time, as it responds to a competitor who made that discovery about 10 years before it. What is as clear as daylight is that, although there is every prospect

  1291
  of manufacturing output and world trade recovering, that recovery will not inevitably or necessarily produce a recovery in employment, especially not in the manufacturing industry. That industry is now following, rather more rapidly, the example set by agriculture, which, in the past few decades, has suffered a dramatic decline.
  For that reason I accept Sir Ralf's final conclusion:
  "Traditional big government cannot continue. It is financially non-viable and organisationally inefficient and fails to engender the degree of support that is a necessary condition of effectiveness … New entitlement issues are as much a result of old solutions as they are answered by them. Neither the new unemployment nor the new poverty can be remedied by the traditional instruments of the Welfare State."
  What are our policy responses? First the good news, as they say. I was informed only this morning that the United Kingdom has the largest single computerisation programme in western Europe. That is excellent, but with what is it concerned—wealth creation or wealth redistribution? Alas, it is the latter. Doubtless that is justifiable and necessary, but should it have come first?
  I am advised that the Science and Engineering Research Council, acting as agent for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils is considering the purchase of a large Cray vector machine and that the ABRC has recommended a modest increase in expenditure on this of £6 million, £7 million and £7·5 million over the next three years. That is extremely modest when one realises that the world's most powerful machine, the SX3 made by NEC in Japan costs between £10 and £15 million for a single output. The bad news is that, although that particular Cray offers between a threefold and a fourfold improvement in performance, a major single university in the United States is taking delivery of a Cray which offers a sixteenfold improvement.
  The main question for us is not whether it is too late for the United Kingdom or western Europe to compete with the Crays. It is worth remembering that Europe has not one single producer in this area. That round has been lost. The question is whether by appropriate policy decisions, we will be able to attain and maintain a satisfactory position in the massively parallel computers sector, based on the British transputer in which we and Europe have considerable strength and maintain the lead. Two of the five manufacturers in Europe are in the United Kingdom.
  The answer is yes, but there are some ifs. First, we must recognise that this is what is known as an enabling technology, which is crucial to the economic and industrial performance of western Europe. Secondly, whatever our political prejudices—I know how deep they run in the House—we in the United Kingdom will not succeed unless we recognise that if our competitors' programmes are based on a massive combined effort of state and private resources, we alone will not be able to do it without an injection of public money on a sufficient scale.
  Thirdly, we shall not succeed if we pitch the level of investment commitment just below that needed for success and withdraw support when the going gets rough. The Inmos story deserves a closer analysis than it has so far received, for yet again British innovation has formed the basis of a massive new industry and investment abroad. This morning's announcement by IBM that that large organisation was going for a massively huge parallel computer has great significance.
  1292
  In that context, we should consider carefully the recommendations of the Office of Science and Technology Policy's report to President Bush, since they apply to us. One says, for example:
  "Unless the nation acts immediately to promote its position in critical generic technologies, United States competitiveness will erode further with disastrous consequences for … jobs, economic growth and national security."
  Another says that the advanced technology programme is designed to provide support without picking winners and losers, and that that requires in turn
  "a fundamental change in the way United States industry competes in the market place."
  The enabling Bill enjoys bipartisan support. Congress has provided $289 million this year and $347 million next year.
  Fourthly, as a nation we need more thinking and analysis—with less ranting and raving—not least in this place. The whole profile of the science base, and science policy and its direction and priorities must achieve a much higher profile, and Parliament and Government together must do that. It cannot be done without an informed Parliament.
  Fifthly, we must accept that the age of automation has arrived and will not go away. It is not a question of whether and how we should revive manufacturing employment, but whether and how to maintain the wealth-creating capacity of the manufacturing system, which is now following the pattern set by agriculture.
  The concomitant question—how to restructure the whole of the entitlement apparatus previously attached to manufacturing employment—is far more difficult, and the sooner we start thinking about it the better. To do otherwise may afford political parties the illusion that they are shooting each other in the body, but in practice we shall all be shooting the nation in the foot.
  Sir Herman Bondi, the former master of Churchill college, said recently, in a brilliant paper on Isaac Newton, that the problems faced by society could be classified into three parts—that 80 per cent. were trivial, 19·5 per cent. were insoluble and it required a genius to identify and solve the remaining 0·5 per cent. We have the tools and we know the 0·5 per cent. We must now finish the job.
  3.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I wish at the outset to welcome the report on high performance computing prepared by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. As the House knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) is the distinguished chairman of that body. He is probably the leading advocate of science in the House, which is why we always listen with great care to what he has to say.
  We are indebted to my hon. Friend for bringing to our attention the main findings of the report. He always speaks with great knowledge. Indeed, the House of Commons is at its best when an hon. Member with such deep interest and knowledge of a subject speaks on it. We in government do our best to address the problems that we face. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he made his speech.
  The Government share my hon. Friend's view that high-performance computing is a vitally important and rapidly developing area of information technology. It is right that the House should devote time to discussing that

  1293
  important aspect of technology, which has far-reaching implications for research and development activities, in academia and in industry and commerce.
  There has been a great deal of discussion and activity in that area in many countries. The findings of the POST report will make a valuable contribution to the consideration that has been given by the Government to the priorities for the provision and application of high-performance computers in the United Kingdom.
  My Department and the Department of Education and Science have a particular interest in that, but other Departments are also involved; for example, the Department of the Environment has important commitments to supercomputing, for climate modelling research.
  My Department believes that it is important to emphasise the solutions which this high-performance can deliver and to promote the benefits that can be gained by industry and academia.
  As for the development of high-performance computers, as the POST report identifies, the highest performance supercomputers are currently built exclusively in the United States and Japan. My hon. Friend brought out that point in his speech. But the manufacturers of parallel computers are much more widely spread, and this country is particularly well represented in both the design and the development of those machines.
  The "Transputer"—a powerful "computer on a chip" especially suitable for parallel processing—was designed and built here, and a number of companies here have developed powerful machines based on that device.
  The "distributed array processor"—an alternative approach to parallel processing—was designed and built here, and it received the Queen's award for innovation in 1991.
  My Department and the Department of Education and Science, through the Science and Engineering Research Council, have given substantial support to research and development in the field of parallel architecture computers, through our joint framework for information technology; and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do so.
  The really large research and development activities that are necessary today to produce the next generations of parallel machines are now being supported by the Commission of the European Communities, under the Esprit programme. We believe that that is the right way ahead for our companies and academics, rather than concentrating on solely national initiatives. Only through such an approach can our companies access the world-size markets needed for commercial success.
  Our policy is—here as elsewhere—to ensure that the objectives of the European Commission's initiative are realistic and attainable, and that the expenditure plans are well judged and reflect appropriate priority for that among other areas within the Esprit framework.
  The availability of high-performance computers has also been raised. The POST report considers two aspects of availability: the provision of machines of the highest performance to researchers in the academic community; and their availability to industrial research workers.
  The provision of supercomputing facilities for academic research is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, through its Advisory Board for the Research Councils. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is made fully aware of the excellent points
  1294
  made by my hon. Friend today. That board now has responsibility for supporting the three academic super-computing centres at Manchester university, London university and the Rutherford Appleton laboratory of the Science and Engineering Research Council. My right hon. and learned Friend has recently made available the sum of £20 million over the next three years to enhance the provision of facilities for the research councils and the academic sector.
  Many other university departments have both advanced computing resources and a pool of skills in high-performance computing with parallel machines. I believe that all that activity must be taken into account when assessing how well our academic community is provided for in this vitally important area.
  To make the best use of the national high-performance computing resources, high-speed networks are required so that remote users can communicate with the machines and receive their results. To provide such facilities for the academic sector, I am pleased that the Department of Education and Science has been able to make additional capital funds available to the Universities Funding Council. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that. This will allow them to begin the development of a new, high-speed academic network, SuperJANET, that will offer many benefits in addition to improving access to high-performance computers. I was grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning SuperJANET in his speech.
  My Department welcomes this activity and wishes to explore ways in which industrial users could gain access to such a high-speed network. Both academic and industrial users will also need access to efficient high-speed networking across Europe and worldwide. We are supporting current European network programmes and further discussions that aim to extend that capability.
  Obviously, availability to industry is a matter of particular interest to me and, although my Department does not consider it appropriate to use public funds to make machines directly available for industry, we accept that there is a need for greater involvement by the industrial sector. We want to ensure that industry can make informed choices about the computing resources appropriate for particular applications.
  We are aware that few organisations have yet installed their own high-performance computers, but some are exploring the possibilities of such machines, using the resources available from academia. Still more organisations are collaborating in our new programme to demonstrate the development of real industrial applications on high-performance machines. It is the Government's role to address sluggish development in the marketplace, and to provide encouragement to industry to address its own problems, but, as I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, the commercial decisions must always remain with industry. I hope that my hon. Friend will note the point that I wish to emphasise—that it is indeed our role to address sluggish development in the marketplace. Therefore, the debate is timely. As one of the constraints to market development, the POST report identifies lack of software and difficult programming as barriers to the industrial take-up of the machines.
  My Department, with the Science and Engineering Research Council, has recently launched the parallel applications programme, to help to overcome those barriers. The programme has a total value of about £39 million, with £13 million of Government funding, and it is

  1295
  supporting four centres, chosen by competition, at Edinburgh, London, Oxford and—I am glad to say—Southampton. Those centres will collaborate with industrial partners to develop solutions to real industrial problems. Such applications will act as exemplars to other industrial organisations of what can be achieved with this technology. They should indeed then be able to offer the "one stop shop" support for parallel computing which the POST report recommends, based on the example of the university of Maryland super-computing centre.
  I am sure that the parallel applications centres will make a major impact on industrial competence and take-up in this vital area. My Department is also considering whether it is appropriate to mount additional initiatives.
  I have spoken about initiatives within academia, and the academic role in ensuring that academia has the skills and capabilities needed to prosecute its own research
  1296
  programmes. Academia has a role, too, in reducing the barriers to industrial take-up—by communicating new developments to industry in a way which is relevant and exciting, by seeking industrial involvement in appropriate projects, and especially by producing skilled graduates, who will move into their industrial careers and transfer that important technology with them.
  In conclusion, I welcome the POST report, and confirm that the Government are sympathetic to many of the views expressed therein. We do not propose sweeping or dramatic measures in the short term, but I am confident that, with the initiatives already under way and planned, and with the technical developments on the horizon, the United Kingdom is on course to be in a much stronger position in high-performance computing over the next few years. The debate will have brought that process ever closer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Dewsbury Rugby League Club
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement on the planning application by Dewsbury rugby league club at Owl lane, Dewsbury, Ref. GO/62/04666/82.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects to announce his decision about the planning application shortly.

  Toxic Wastes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the proposals put forward by the International Chetek Corporation to destroy toxic wastes through vaporisation by underground nuclear explosions.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have seen reports of the proposals but no approach has been made to us by the company about them and we do not know the details. However, we would expect to take a very cautious approach to the use of peaceful nuclear technology for waste disposal.

  Nuclear Waste Repository
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) of 7 February,Official Report, column 303, he will set out those organisations and individuals with whom UK Nirex Ltd. is consulting over its current proposals for an underground nuclear waste repository.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for UK Nirex Ltd.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Community Charge (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he intends to take to initiate proceedings to have Liverpool city council's city treasurer declared a vexatious litigant.

  The Attorney-General
  I have no plans to initiate proceedings of this kind.

  Housing Repossessions
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General how many orders for repossession were granted in favour of building societies, banks or the mortgage lenders by the county court covering Neath in 1979, 1990 and 1991.

  The Attorney-General
  The 1979 figures are not available. The total number of mortgage possession 646
  actions entered, suspended orders and orders made during 1990 and 1991 in each county court in England and Wales is contained in two lists which have been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all of the orders made will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession. At this stage the 1991 figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision in the future.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Circaprint NI Ltd
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost to public funds of grants paid towards site acquisition and construction of the former Circaprint NI complex at Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  The total grant paid by the Industrial Development Board to Circaprint (NI) Ltd towards the purchase of, and improvements to, the factory buildings at Monkstown amounted to £219,378.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Industrial Development Board or Department of Economic Development will receive any repayment of grants as a result of the sale of Circaprint NI Ltd. including all grant aided plant and equipment.

  Mr. Needham
  The Industrial Development Board has claimed sums repayable by Circaprint (NI) Ltd. To date no repayments have been made.

  Belfast Airport
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 521, which political parties have used the facilities now available at Belfast international airport.

  Mr. Needham
  The management of Belfast international airport is a matter for Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. However, I am advised by them that facilities at the airport have been hired by the Conservative party.

  Scientific Procedure Establishments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of inspectors employed to monitor scientific procedure establishments in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Three.

  Traffic Cameras
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many automatic cameras have been installed at traffic-light-controlled junctions; and how many more are planned this year.

  Mr. Needham
  Seventeen closed circuit television cameras have been installed for traffic signal control purposes. No additional cameras are planned this year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Regional Service Centre (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has reached a decision on the location of his Ministry's regional service centre for Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following a further study, I have concluded that Devon and Cornwall will be served by two centres. The regional service centre, with 72 regional administrative posts, will be at Exeter; and the region's capital grant work will be carried out by a unit of 20 posts at Truro. The decision to keep a unit in Cornwall reflects my conclusion that the Ministry's responsibilities for agriculture and the general health of the rural economy are best served by maintaining an administrative presence in this isolated and remote part of the country.

  This decision means that in total there will be 99 posts in Truro when account is taken of the ADAS state veterinary service and other MAFF posts which continue to be located there. The overall impact on jobs in the Truro office is minimal.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent information he has received about the decline in mink farming.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of mink farms in England and Wales has halved over the last three years.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date he received from the Council for Accreditation of Teachers in Education its report on the review of the training of teachers to teach reading; and when he proposes to make the report publicly available.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend received the report on 31 December. It will be issued in due course.

  Schools (Finance)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his announcement of 11 February, "More Capital for Popular Schools", if he will identify(a) any additional sums of money for this purpose and (b) the rule whereby voluntary-aided schools could be allowed to expand only where there were no spare places in county schools nearby.

  Mr. Fallon
  The decision on the additional resources to be set aside each year to enable popular schools to expand will be taken in the light of next year's public expenditure.

  It has hitherto been the policy of successive Governments not normally to make capital available to allow voluntary-aided schools to expand their capacity where there are spare school places in other maintained schools in the area.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state, in relation to his Department's survey of local education authority expenditure on adult education(a) how many authorities were contacted, (b) the names of the authorities, (c) the level of expenditure on further and adult education in each case, with the averages for the sample, (d) the level of expenditure identifiable as relating to adult education, with the average for the sample and (e) the definition of further and adult education employed; and if he will deposit the survey in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's survey related to all expenditure on further education colleges and adult education centres in the financial year 1989–90. It asked LEAs to divide this expenditure between education of the type set out in schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Bill[Lords] and other education. It was addressed to all LEAs in England except those in Inner London, which were not in existence in 1989–90, but were sent a copy of the survey for information. Responses have been received from over 70 LEAs but a consultant has been employed to seek out further responses and to examine the position in Inner London. The consultant's report is expected towards the end of this month and I will deposit a copy in the Library. However, it is not the practice to disclose individual responses to Government surveys.

  Business Sponsorship Scheme for Sport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the business sponsorship scheme for sport.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am happy to announce today further details of how the business sponsorship scheme for sport is to operate in England. We aim to start the scheme as soon as possible in the coming financial year. Its initial funding in England, where it will be run by the Institute of Sports Sponsorship, will be £3 million.

  The scheme will provide a much needed boost to business sponsorship of sport at the grass roots level, ensure that business gets better value for its sponsorship and promote partnership between sport and business at the local level. It will be aimed particularly at the inner cities and at promoting opportunities for young people. Since it is targeted at the grass roots, national events in the sporting calendar will be excluded and it will not cover sponsorship of individuals.

  Subject to the discretion of an indpendent panel, the awards will match first time sponsors pound for pound with a minimum of £1,000 and a maximum of £75,000. Existing sponsors seeking to renew their sponsorship of a grass roots event or project will also be eligible for pound for pound matching of any increase in their sponsorship.

  It will be open to either the sponsoring company or the sports body to apply for the award of matching finance. Each award will be used by the sports body to enhance the value of the sponsorship and offer the sponsor an even better deal. The award will be paid to the sports body once the sponsor had made his own contribution.

  There is no limit to the number of awards a business can receive. The scheme will be open to applicants throughout the year for any eligible sports events or projects, whatever the size of the sports body.
  649
  The scheme will be available throughout Great Britain. Details of how it will operate in Scotland and Wales will be announced later.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Hungary
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the United Kingdom has provided to Hungary to help her deal with refugees from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Community has so far contributed some 2 million ECU to the refugee problem in neighbour countries of the former Yugoslavia, mainly via UNHCR and ICRC. UNHCR has itself recently carried out a mission in Hungary and is now preparing a budget for this year's activities. This will enable it to continue helping the Hungarian authorities provide basic assistance and secure conditions in anticipation of early repatriation. We are major contributors in both the EC and UNHCR.

  Joint Funding Scheme
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of how the joint funding scheme of the Overseas Development Administration is monitored.

  Mrs. Chalker
  All agencies receiving funds through the joint funding scheme are required to provide annual audited accounts which separately identify the joint funding scheme grant.

  Five agencies to which we provide block grants to finance a number of projects are required to provide a project description for all new projects and, each quarter, to submit a statement of project expenditure showing the duration of the project and the total financial commitment. Each agency provides an annual report on all continuing projects. All other agencies supported under the scheme are required to submit financial reports on their projects at least every six months. Progress reports are required annually and a final report is called for on the completion of each project.

  Review visits to selected projects are carried out at least twice a year by advisers and officials. Evaluations of specific projects are carried out by professional advisers on an ad hoc basis.

  Overall expenditure is monitored throughout the year to ensure that the scheme's financial targets are met.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a full list of countries in which joint funding scheme projects were implemented, for the most recent year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A full list of countries in which the joint funding scheme projects were implemented in the last financial year is as follows:

  Afghanistan

  Angola

  Bangladesh

  Belize

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  650

  Brazil

  Burkina Faso

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Chad

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Dominica

  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Ethiopia

  Fiji

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Guinea Bissau

  Haiti

  Honduras

  India

  Indonesia

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Laos

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mali

  Mauritania

  Mexico

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Panama

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Rwanda

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  St. Lucia

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Togo

  Uganda

  Uruguay

  Vanuatu

  Vietnam

  West Bank

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Government assistance was provided to voluntary agencies through the joint funding scheme in each year from 1985 to 1990, in cash and real terms.
  651
  Mrs. Chalker
  The amount of Government assistance provided to voluntary agencies through the joint funding scheme in each year from 1985 to 1990 was as follows:

  Cash terms

  £ actual

  1985

  4,765,068

  1986

  5,367,279

  1987

  6,410,954

  1988

  9,790,591

  1989

  15,050,146

  1990

  19,786,309

  Real terms (1990–91 prices)

  £ actual

  1985

  6,382,427

  1986

  6,946,604

  1987

  7,904,414

  1988

  11,330,125

  1989

  16,285,327

  1990

  19,786,309

  Malawi
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all United Kingdom overseas aid which directly benefits Malawi in the current year; and if he will provide details of his present plans for 1992–93.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1990 (the latest year for which comprehensive figures are available), British bilateral aid to Malawi comprised the following:

  £ million

  Project aid

  12·0

  Technical co-operation

  6·6

  Programme aid (balance of payments support)

  9·6

  Aid and trade provision

  0·2

  Debt relief

  1·7

  Investments by the Commonwwealth Development Corporation

  7·1

  Total gross bilateral aid

  37·2

  In 1992–93, we shall continue our efforts to reorient the programme away from large-scale infrastructure projects and towards projects in the social sectors of more direct benefit to the most vulnerable social groups. We have meanwhile made clear to the Malawi Government that future levels of programme aid in particular will take account of performance on human rights issues.

  Renewable Natural Resources
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the renewable natural resources research strategy since April 1990.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on 19 December 1991 at column 232.

EMPLOYMENT

  Work Permits
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those countries where nationals need a work permit to gain employment in Britain.

  Mr. Forth
  Nationals of all countries, except member states of the European Community and Gibraltar, need a work permit to gain employment in Britain, unless the individual is covered by another provision of the immigration rules.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits have been issued over the past five years; and if he will list the countries of origin of those to whom permits have been granted.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of work permits issued over the past five years to 31 December 1991 is 111,478; the countries of origin of those to whom permits have been granted are as follows:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Andorra

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belize

  Benin

  Bermuda

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Burkina Faso

  Burma

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cape Verde

  Cayman Islands

  Chile

  Colombia

  Commonwealth of Dominica

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czechoslovakia

  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Estonia

  Esthiopia

  Fiji

  Finland

  Gabon

  Gambia

  653

  German Democratic Republic

  Ghana

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Hungary

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Iraq

  Israel

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Libyan Arab Republic

  Liechtenstein

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mali

  Malta

  Mauritania

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Monaco

  Mongolia

  Montserrat

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  New Zealand

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  North Korea

  Norway

  Oman

  Other Commonwealth

  Pakistan

  Panama

  Papua and New Guinea

  Paraquay

  Peoples Republic of China

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Puerta Rica

  Qatar

  Romania

  Rwanda

  San Marino

  Sao Tome and Prinicipe

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  654

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Somalia

  South Africa

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St Helena

  St Kitts and Nevis

  St Lucia

  St Vincent

  Sudan

  Suriname

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syrian Arab Republic

  Taiwan

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Tibet

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Uganda

  United Arab Emirates

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  USSR

  Venezuela

  Vietnam

  Virgin Islands

  Western Samoa

  Yemen Arab Republics

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Note:

  In addition, a number of permits were issued to stateless people.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether it is his intention to provide more industrial tribunal members and premises to cope with the increased workload following changes to training contracts to permit employers to recover training costs from employees who leave their employment.

  Mr. Forth
  Industrial tribunal membership and premises are always kept under review in the light of the tribunals' work load.

  Training Costs
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether it is his intention that employees who leave their employment prematurely because they feel they(a) are not being given enough responsibility or (b) are being denied promotion unfairly will have to pay their employer a proportion of their training costs;

  (2) whether it is his intention that employees who leave their employment prematurely because (a) their new job is

  655
  closer to home or (b) the hours in the new job are more convenient will have to pay the first employer a proportion of their training costs;

  (3) whether it is his intention that employees who leave their employment prematurely because they dislike the boss will have to pay a proportion of their training costs;

  (4) whether it is his intention that employees who leave their employment prematurely because (a) of sexual harassment, (b) they are being treated unfairly by a supervisor or (c) they are being denied equal pay for work of equal value in the first job will have to pay their employer a proportion of their training costs;

  (5) whether it is his intention that employees who leave their employment prematurely because (a) they prefer a workplace that is organised by a trade union or (b) they realise they will never find the particular job congenial will have to pay their employer a proportion of their training costs.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government's White Paper, "People Jobs and Opportunity" (cm. 1810) invited views on how the law relating to the enforceability of training contracts might be clarified, and the procedure for enforcing such contracts simplified. Such contracts between employer and employee are voluntarily entered into, and their terms a matter for the parties not for Government. We are not proposing to alter that position. The Government will take a decision on how to proceed on clarifying the law relating to their enforceability only when it has had the chance to consider the results of its consultation.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he proposes to make to ensure that the public sector compensates the NHS for the employment of staff trained by the NHS.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. The White Paper "People, Jobs and Opportunity" invites comments on how to clarify the law on the enforceability of training contracts. The terms of any such contracts are a matter for negotiation between individual employers and their employees.

  Foreign Nationals
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many foreign nationals are in full-time employment in the United Kingdom.

  Total revenue expenditure on services for persons with a learning disability (mental handicap)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Region

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1990–91 prices)

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1990–91 prices)

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1990–91 prices)

  £000 (cash)

  Northern

  23,148

  28,659

  27,332

  31,573

  28,474

  30,888

  30,281

  Yorkshire

  22,913

  28,369

  27,158

  31,373

  28,360

  30,765

  29,400

  Trent

  35,107

  43,466

  41,144

  47,530

  43,638

  47,339

  47,843

  East Anglian

  14,420

  17,854

  17,467

  20,178

  20,052

  21,752

  21,429

  North West Thames

  28,592

  35,400

  33,964

  39,236

  37,316

  40,481

  40,215

  North East Thames

  26,702

  33,060

  31,750

  36,678

  34,386

  37,302

  35,831

  South East Thames

  24,516

  30,354

  25,701

  29,690

  25,858

  28,051

  29,077

  South West Thames

  39,607

  49,038

  45,509

  52,572

  48,143

  52,226

  50,636

  Wessex

  21,686

  26,850

  27,132

  31,343

  29,312

  31,798

  31,669

  Oxford

  16,395

  20,299

  20,205

  23,340

  23,144

  25,107

  25,519

  South Western

  34,983

  43,313

  38,395

  44,354

  38,088

  41,317

  37,164

  West Midlands

  37,200

  46,057

  43,595

  50,361

  46,684

  50,643

  49,252

  Mersey

  16,530

  20,465

  18,302

  21,142

  18,826

  20,422

  19,137

  North Western

  32,203

  39,871

  37,140

  42,905

  38,666

  41,944

  41,444

  656
  Mr. Forth
  The available estimates from the Labour Force Survey show that in the spring of 1990 there were 768,000 foreign nationals in full-time employment in the United Kingdom.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received requesting the age limit to be raised in employment training programmes.

  Mr. Jackson
  We receive representations from time to time about the age limit in ET. The requirement that trainees enter training before their 60th birthday reflects our concern to ensure that participants are returning to the labour market for the longer, rather than the shorter term, and will justify the public expenditure incurred on their behalf.

HEALTH

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors' surgeries, (b) hospitals and (c) clinics he has visited in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Ministers and I regularly visit doctors' surgeries, hospitals and clinics in the course of our official duties.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the revenue expenditure of each regional health authority on health service facilities for patients with a mental handicap for each year since 1981, in cash terms and at 1991 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Prior to the adoption of the recommendations of the Sixth report of the Steering Group on Health Service Information (the Korner Committee) in 1987–88, the information collected for England was incomplete and unrepresentative of the total expenditure provision for people with a learning disability (ie mental handicap). Information derived from Korner annual financial returns for the years since 1987–88 is shown in the table. Those financial returns provide a more complete indication of total expenditure but exclude general services costs and do not capture all relevant direct costs incurred within community health services.
  657

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Region

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1990–91 prices)

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1990–91 prices)

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1990–91 prices)

  £000 (cash)

  374,005

  463,056

  434,794

  502,274

  460,946

  500,034

  488,897

  Source: Annual financial returns of district health authorities in England.

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1987–88 (the inaugural year for the Korner returns) need to be interpreted with caution and those for 1990–91 are provisional at this stage. The figures for prior years have been expressed at 1990–91 prices by the use of GDP deflators.

  2. The figures relate to hospital services revenue expenditure on the mental handicap specialty and to the cost of nursing services provided for persons with a learning disability within community health services (CHS). The hospital figures cover direct clinical and diagnostic costs only (i.e. they exclude expenditure on support and hotel services etc.). Additional pay and non-pay costs incurred within CHS which are not separately identifiable are similarly excluded.

  Cholesterol Testing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what conclusions he has reached on the need for cholesterol testing of high risk patients; what requirements he makes for statistics to be kept on such tests either by hospitals or general practitioners; and what pilot screening programmes on patients at high risk of coronary heart disease are under way.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Standing Medical Advisory Committee has reported on the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic cholesterol testing. The committee's report, issued for consultation, attracted a large number of wide-ranging responses. We have received further comment about this and related issues concerning the prevention of coronary heart disease as part of the consultation on the Green Paper "The Health of the Nation" (Cm. 1523), on which we hope to respond with a Government statement in the spring. No data are held or stipulated centrally concerning such testing or on any pilot screening programmes of patients at high risk of coronary heart disease.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current estimated number of 16 to 24-year-old males in Staffordshire and the west midlands.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates of the number of males aged between 16 and 24 years inclusive at mid-1990 are given in the table:

  Thousands

  Staffordshire

  69·0

  West Midlands county

  182·5

  West Midlands standard region

  358·6

  GPs (Night Visits)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by family health services authority the amount paid to the general practice with the highest claim for night visit payments in the most recent available period.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Foreign Nationals (NHS Treatment)
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foreign nationals have received free treatment under the national health service over the past three years; and what has been the cost to the NHS of this provision.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Anyone not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom has to pay for NHS hospital treatment unless he or she is covered by one of a number of specific exemptions.

  Traffic Accidents (Hospital Treatments)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by his Department to hospitals with regard to charging patients for treatment following road traffic accidents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department issued full guidance to health authorities in 1980 in a Health Notice (HN(80)7), a copy of which is available in the Library, about the basis for recovery charges under the the Road Traffic Act. This is still extant. Health authorities are notified periodically of increases in the charges.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount charged by each health authority for treatment given to patients following road traffic accidents for each of the last 10 years; and if he will give the comparable figures for NHS trusts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action will be taken following the failure of European Standing Committee B to support the Government's policy on a ban on Tobacco advertising.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government will put a motion to the House shortly.

  Cervical Cancer
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state for(a) each regional health authority and (b) each district health authority the number of women who died of cervical cancer for the most recent year available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  659
  The total number of deaths from cervical cancer in England and Wales in 1990 was 1,781. This represents a decrease in mortality of around 13 per cent. since 1980, when the total number of deaths was 2,068.

  Number of deaths from cancer of the cervix1 by regional and district health authority of usual residence for 1990

  Number

  England and Wales

  1,781

  Northern RHA

  119

  Hartlepool

  3

  North Tees

  7

  South Tees

  7

  East Cumbria

  10

  South Cumbria

  5

  West Cumbria

  9

  Darlington

  4

  Durham

  9

  North West Durham

  5

  South West Durham

  7

  Northumberland

  10

  Gateshead

  5

  Newcastle

  10

  North Tyneside

  12

  South Tyneside

  9

  Sunderland

  7

  Yorkshire RHA

  135

  Hull

  11

  East Yorks

  5

  Grimsby

  7

  Scunthorpe

  7

  Northallerton

  5

  York

  10

  Scarborough

  7

  Harrogate

  3

  Bradford

  20

  Airedale

  4

  Calderdale

  10

  Huddersfield

  4

  Dewsbury

  8

  Leeds Western

  11

  Leeds Eastern

  13

  Wakefield

  3

  Pontefract

  7

  Trent RHA

  160

  North Derbyshire

  14

  Southern Derbyshire

  17

  Leicestershire

  26

  North Lincolnshire

  6

  South Lincolnshire

  8

  Bassetlaw

  1

  Central Nottinghamshire

  13

  Nottingham

  25

  Barnsley

  11

  Doncaster

  14

  Rotherham

  13

  Sheffield

  12

  East Anglian RHA

  72

  Cambridge

  9

  Peterborough

  9

  West Suffolk

  8

  East Suffolk

  10

  Norwich

  18

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  10

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  7

  Huntingdon

  1

  North West Thames RHA

  97

  North Bedfordshire

  8

  South Bedfordshire

  9

  North Hertfordshire

  3

  East Hertfordshire

  9

  North West Hertfordshire

  9

  South West Hertfordshire

  2

  Barnet

  5

  660

  Number

  Harrow

  8

  Hillingdon

  1

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  11

  Ealing

  6

  Parkside

  16

  Riverside

  10

  North East Thames RHA

  97

  Basildon and Thurrock

  12

  Mid Essex

  5

  North East Essex

  8

  West Essex

  7

  Southend

  10

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  6

  Hampstead

  5

  Bloomsbury

  4

  Islington

  6

  City and Hackney

  8

  Newham

  5

  Tower Hamlets

  8

  Enfield

  8

  Haringey

  0

  Redbridge

  4

  Waltham Forest

  1

  South East Thames RHA

  117

  Brighton

  10

  Eastbourne

  10

  Hastings

  6

  South East Kent

  10

  Canterbury and Thanet

  8

  Dartford and Gravesham

  6

  Maidstone

  4

  Medway

  13

  Tunbridge Wells

  2

  Bexley

  7

  Greenwich

  5

  Bromley

  14

  West Lambeth

  5

  Camberwell

  7

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  10

  South West Thames RHA

  81

  North West Surrey

  6

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  8

  South West Surrey

  5

  Mid Surrey

  8

  East Surrey

  2

  Chichester

  3

  Mid Downs

  4

  Worthing

  8

  Croydon

  10

  Kingston and Esher

  5

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  6

  Wandsworth

  6

  Merton and Sutton

  10

  Wessex RHA

  99

  East Dorset

  14

  West Dorset

  3

  Portsmouth and south east Hampshire

  26

  Southampton and south west Hampshire

  16

  Winchester

  1

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  5

  Salisbury

  5

  Swindon

  7

  Bath

  17

  Isle of Wight

  5

  Oxford RHA

  56

  East Berkshire

  12

  West Berkshire

  12

  661

  Number

  Aylesbury Vale

  3

  Wycombe

  6

  Milton Keynes

  0

  Kettering

  7

  Northampton

  4

  Oxfordshire

  12

  South Western RHA

  114

  Bristol and Weston

  12

  Frenchay

  5

  Southmead

  7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  19

  Exeter

  14

  North Devon

  8

  Plymouth

  16

  Torbay

  6

  Cheltenham and District

  5

  Gloucester

  11

  Somerset

  11

  West Midlands RHA

  186

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  3

  Herefordshire

  12

  Kidderminster and District

  1

  Worcester and District

  8

  Shropshire

  9

  Mid Staffordshire

  6

  North Staffordshire

  22

  South East Staffordshire

  9

  Rugby

  1

  North Warwickshire

  4

  South Warwickshire

  9

  Central Birmingham

  4

  East Birmingham

  4

  North Birmingham

  4

  South Birmingham

  13

  West Birmingham

  10

  Coventry

  16

  Dudley

  15

  Sandwell

  12

  Solihull

  11

  Walsall

  8

  Wolverhampton

  5

  Mersey RHA

  123

  Chester

  11

  Crewe

  10

  Halton

  9

  Macclesfield

  5

  Warrington

  12

  Liverpool

  28

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  20

  Southport and Formby

  4

  South Sefton

  7

  Wirral

  17

  North Western RHA

  197

  Lancaster

  5

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  22

  Preston

  8

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble

  13

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  12

  West Lancashire

  7

  Chorley and South Ribble

  7

  Bolton

  11

  Bury

  6

  North Manchester

  11

  Central Manchester

  6

  South Manchester

  8

  Oldham

  15

  Rochdale

  8

  Salford

  11

  Stockport

  12

  Tameside and Glossop

  19

  Trafford

  9

  Wigan

  7

  662

  Number

  Wales

  124

  Clwyd

  22

  East Dyfed

  12

  Pembrokeshire

  4

  Gwent

  16

  Gwynedd

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  24

  Powys

  8

  South Glamorgan

  15

  West Glamorgan

  16

  1 International classification of disease code 180 ninth revision.

  Dental and Sight Checks
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has for the cost in 1992–93 of abolishing charges for dental check-ups and sight tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: £65 million is a provisional estimate of the full cost in 1992–93 of abolishing dental examination charges. No corresponding estimate exists for sight tests; there are no charges for NHS sight tests, which are available to approximately 40 per cent. of the population.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Foreign Nationals (Benefits)
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many foreign nationals and their dependants are in receipt of social security benefits; and what is the cost to the public purse.

  Mr. Jack
  Nationality is not one of the determining factors in deciding upon entitlement to social security benefits. Consequently the information requested is not available.

  Social Fund Inspectors
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications for review by a social fund inspector were outstanding for more than one month on 31 January;

  (2) how many social fund inspectors were employed on 31 January.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the Social Fund Commisioner that on 31 January 1992, there were 69 social fund inspectors employed and 3,246 review applications outstanding for more than one month.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect to receive a reply to his letter of 23 December 1991, to the Minister of State, concerning a constituent's referral to a regional medical officer for examination.

  Mr. Scott
  I replied to the hon. Member on 27 January 1992 and will arrange for a copy of that reply to be sent to the hon. Gentleman today.

  Select Committee Report
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish his response to the Social Security Committee's First Report of this session, HC 18, on public expenditure.

  Mr. Newton
  Yesterday we laid as Cm 1822, "Public Expenditure: Response by the Government to the First report from the Select Committee on Social Security Session 1991–92."

  Care Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate for likely expenditure on income support payments towards the cost of private or voluntary nursing or residential care during the current financial year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: The latest estimate for the 1991–92 financial year is £1,950 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  GATT Negotiations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the proposals made by the Vice-President of the United States of America on 9 February to link the outcome of the negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and European security commitments by the United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  Vice President Quayle has confirmed publicly that he sees no link between GATT and the United States commitment to European security. Vice President Quayle and I agreed that the success of the Uruguay round was of vital importance to the world economy and that the European Community and the United States must work urgently for a successful agreement.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he discussed the implementation of safeguards arrangements arising from South Africa's membership of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty during the recent visit of President de Klerk to the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  No. South Africa has signed an exemplary safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and preliminary IAEA inspections are already taking place.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Motor Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences of(a) taking a vehicle without the owner's consent and (b) theft of a motor vehicle were reported to the police for the years 1980 to 1991.

  Mr. John Patten
  Notifiable offences of theft of a motor vehicle include taking a vehicle without the owner's664
  consent. Figures for 1980–89 are published in table 2.12 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, 1989" and figures for 1990 are published in Home Office statistical bulletin 13/91; copies of both publications are available in the Library. Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his proposals to reduce the incidence of car crimes.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government are proposing a six-point action plan to tackle car crime.

  First, the prevention of car crime will be the central feature of our crime prevention campaign in 1992, which we have designated 'Car Crime Prevention Year'. The campaign, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 February, seeks to engage the whole community in a co-ordinated effort to tackle car crime. It comprises a broad programme of national and regional activities and is supported by an extensive Home Office funded advertising and promotional campaign that aims to increase public awareness of the cost of crime, the importance of individual and community action in combating this crime and the steps that should be taken to reduce vehicle risk.

  Secondly, the motor vehicle manufacturers have a most important role to play in reducing the opportunities for car crime. My right hon. Friend and I met the manufacturers three times last year to stress the importance of improved vehicle security. The progress being made is encouraging, but much more could be done. In particular, we have stressed the need for the general introduction of effective and safe vehicle immobilisation systems, dead locks, and visible vehicle identification numbers. We are to meet again with the manufacturers next month for a report on progress.

  Thirdly, it is also important that motorists should be encouraged to take vehicle security seriously, and rewarded when they do so—not just being penalised when they do not. My right hon. Friend has therefore asked the Association of British Insurers to consider further providing incentives, including reduced premiums, for owners who improve the security of their cars, and take care of them.

  Fourthly, we are active on the European front. Trevi, the body which represents EC Ministers responsible for policing, has accepted our suggestion that car theft should be added to its agenda. Experts from across the Community are to meet in London on 25 February to discuss cross-border aspects of car crime. We are also pressing for the British Standard on vehicle security to be adopted as a compulsory EC directive.

  Fifthly, the Government have already taken swift action to tackle the criminals who take cars. The Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill, which is being considered by the House of Lords, shows our determination to deal with the menace of those who take cars and cause damage, injury or death.

  Finally, the police have the Government's full support in their fight against car crime. Provision has been agreed for up to a further 1,000 police posts in 1992–93. The police cannot, however, be expected to take on the task of detecting criminals, maintaining order and protecting the public on their own. They need the full support of the whole community.
  665
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has received from chief officers of police for an extension of the vehicle watch scheme as pioneered in Newport, Gwent, to other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are now more than 20 vehicle watch schemes in operation in England and Wales. Some cover whole force areas, while others are limited to police divisions or sub-divisions.

  The chief officers of the Welsh forces agreed last year to extend the Gwent scheme, which had been operating for one year, to cover the whole of Wales; this was launched on 11 September 1991.

  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about the further extension of vehicle watch. That is a matter for chief officers to decide. Arrangements are, however, in train for vehicle watch to be evaluated during this year, with a view to it being encouraged throughout England, if it is shown to be succesful in reducing vehicle theft.

  Brixton Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were received into Brixton prison in the last week for which figures are available; and for what offences they were remanded.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information, which is given in the table, is based on the three weeks commencing 1 December 1991.

  Average number of prisoners received into Brixton prison per week on initial committal as a remand prisoner1: by offence

  Offence

  Number2

  Violence against the person

  8

  Rape

  —

  Other sexual offences

  —

  Burglary

  4

  Robbery

  3

  Theft and handling

  6

  Fraud and forgery

  1

  Drugs offences

  2

  Other offences

  3

  Not recorded

  12

  All offences

  39

  1 Untried or convicted unsentenced.

  2 Rounded figures.

  Crime
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of notifiable crimes committed in 1991; and what were the comparable figures for 1978.

  Mr. John Patten
  Notifiable offence statistics for 1978 are published in table 2.2 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, 1989". Figures for 1990 are published in Home Office statistical bulletin 13/91; copies of both publications are available in the Library. Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the figures for the percentage change in reported crime between 1979 and 1991 in(a) Neath, (b) south Wales and (c) the United Kingdom.
  666
  Mr. John Patten
  The available information shows that between 1979 and 1990 recorded crime increased by 94 per cent. in south Wales and 79 per cent. in England and Wales as a whole. Statistics are not collected centrally for Neath.

  The British crime survey provides a measure of reported crime as experienced by adults in England and Wales. The most recent available results show that there was a 30 per cent. increase in offences measured by the survey between 1981 and 1987, as against a 41 per cent. increase in comparable recorded offences. Estimates are not available for the change in Neath or south Wales.

  Figures for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Scotland, and figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of each police force in England as to what proportion of the clear-up rate for crime in his area in 1990–91 is accounted for by voluntary admissions by convicted criminals; how many detectives are employed to obtain these admissions; and when the practice ceased.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information for police forces in England on the number of offences cleared up by an interview of convicted offenders in custody is contained in the table below. Further information is not readily available.

  Offences cleared up by interview of a convicted prisoner in custody as a percentage of all offences cleared up

  England

  1989

  Force

  Percentage cleared up by interview of convicted prisoner

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  Bedfordshire

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  Cheshire

  25

  Cleveland

  9

  Cumbria

  10

  Derbyshire

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  7

  Dorset

  13

  Durham

  8

  Essex

  5

  Gloucestershire

  17

  Greater Manchester

  33

  Hampshire

  7

  Hertfordshire

  —

  Humberside

  8

  Kent

  4

  Lancashire

  10

  Leicestershire

  11

  Lincolnshire

  10

  London, City of

  6

  Merseyside

  44

  Metropolitan Police District

  1

  Norfolk

  19

  Northamptonshire

  19

  Northumbria

  29

  North Yorkshire

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  22

  Staffordshire

  18

  667

  Force

  Percentage cleared up by interview of convicted prisoner

  Suffolk

  1

  Surrey

  1

  Sussex

  1

  Thames Valley

  3

  Warwickshire

  15

  West Mercia

  18

  West Midlands

  34

  West Yorkshire

  20

  Wiltshire

  3

  ENGLAND

  16

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the clear-up rates for every police force in England and Wales during the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest available figures, for 1990, are published in Home Office statistical bulletin 4/91, which is available in the Library. They are annotated as provisional in the bulletin, but only south Wales's figure has since been revised, to 36 per cent. Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the powers of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons so that he can inspect police and court cells holding prisoners.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I do not believe that it would be right to seek to extend the functions of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons to include inspections of police and court cells. I am satisfied with the existing arrangements under which Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, in the course of his inspections of individual police forces, will take account of the standard of accommodation provided for prisoners and the general conditions in which they are held.

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-year-olds remanded into prison in each year since 1981 were subsequently found not guilty.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information is given in the table. Data for 1991 are not yet available.

  Persons aged 15 on initial reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales who were not found guilty1: by year of initial remand and sex

  Male

  Female

  1981

  3

  —

  1982

  7

  —

  1983

  11

  —

  1984

  6

  —

  1985

  8

  —

  1986

  14

  —

  1987

  20

  —

  1988

  17

  —

  1989

  15

  1

  1990

  3

  —

  668
  1 Charge withdrawn or dismissed, no evidence offered on prisoner acquitted or not tried. Separate figures are not available. The data are under recorded to some extent.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-year-old prisoners were put into strip conditions either as suicide prevention or as a punishment in 1990 and in 1991; and in which prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  An inmate who is violent or refractory may be termporarily confined in a special cell or an unfurnished cell if this is necessary to prevent him from injuring himself or others, damaging property or creating, a serious disturbance. No inmates may be placed in such accommodation as a punishment.

  In 1990, six prisoners aged 15 were confined in special cells; none was for the prevention of suicide. Information on the use of unfurnished cells was not collected centrally. Data for 1991 are not yet available.

  An inmate may be deprived of his clothing only if this essential to prevent him from injuring himself of others. In such cases, the inmate must be provided with a suit of protective clothing so that he can be decently dressed. No information on prisoners deprived of their clothing in this way is collected centrally.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been received into Feltham young offenders institution in the last week for which figures are available; and for what offences they were remanded or convicted.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information, which is given in the table, is based on the three weeks commencing 1 December 1991.

  Average number of prisoners received into Feltham remand centre per week on initial committal as a remand prisoner1 :by offence

  Offence

  Number2

  Violence against the person

  6

  Rape

  —

  Other sexual offences

  —

  Burglary

  15

  Robbery

  3

  Theft and handling

  14

  Fraud and forgery

  1

  Drugs offences

  —

  Other offences

  8

  Not recorded

  4

  ALL OFFENCES

  53

  1 Untried or convicted unsentenced.

  2 Rounded figures.

  Average number of prisoners received into Feltham remand centre or young offender institution per week on initial committal as a sentenced prisoner: by offence

  Number of prisoners1

  Offence

  Remand centre

  Young offender institution

  Violence against the person

  1

  1

  Rape

  —

  —

  Other sexual offences

  —

  —

  Burglary

  4

  1

  Robbery

  1

  2

  Theft and handling

  6

  2

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  669

  Offence

  Remand centre

  Young offender institution

  Drugs offences

  —

  —

  Other offences

  5

  1

  Not recorded

  2

  —

  ALL OFFENCES

  20

  7

  1 Rounded figures.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new project licences assessed as being of substantial severity were issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in each year since the Act came into force.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Project licences assessed as being of substantial severity account for a very small proportion of all project licences issued. More detailed information is contained in the annual reports of the animal procedures committee, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new project licences authorising scientific procedures on primates were issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in each year since the Act came into force.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Non-human primates receive special protection under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and may be used only where no other suitable species is available. Records held centrally on project licences issued do not identify those which authorise the use of non-human primates. Non-human primates accounted for 0·2 per cent. of animals used in scientific procedures started in 1990.

  Credit Reference Agencies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the relevant statutory provisions relating to the circumstances in which credit reference agencies may be used; and what uses are regarded by his Department as acceptable or worthy of encouragement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The relevant provisions are sections 157 to 160 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and various provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. The Government consider that the use of credit reference agencies for inquiring into creditworthiness and ability to repay, and thus to promote responsible lending, is to be encouraged.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards are available to protect individuals(a) in regard to information held about them by credit reference agencies and (b) the way in which any such information is released by such agencies to third parties.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Sections 158 and 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 give right of access and correction and various provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 give rights to data subjects. Various provisions of the Data Protection Act regulate disclosure; and the expectation of 670
  the office of Fair Trading, which licenses credit reference agencies, is that they will require subscribers not to make information available to third parties.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulation 41 poll tax committal hearings—means inquiries—have been held; and of these how many resulted in a suspended prison sentence.

  Mr. John Patten
  During the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1991, 11,259 means enquiries were held. No information is available on how many of these resulted in a suspended committal warrant.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available as to the number of poll tax liability orders granted by magistrates courts against people in receipt of poll tax rebates.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not separately collected.

  Sipho Mbete
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will be in a position to take a decision on the application by the UNHCR for asylum in the United Kingdom for Sipho Mbete before 14 February when the Zambian authorities have said that they will repatriate him to South Africa.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that Mr. Mbete has decided to withdraw his application and to return to South Africa. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is assisting in his return and has confirmed that his decision was made voluntarily.

  Hillsborough Family Support Group
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be in a position to reply to the letter from the Hillsborough family support group dated 22 October 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter sent to him on 22 October 1991 from the Hillsborough family support group in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A reply was sent to the Hillsborough family support group on 12 February 1992.

  Gwent Police
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out his reasons for deciding to increase the establishment of the Gwent police force by one uniformed policeman.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on increases in police establishments generally. A range of factors are taken into account in assessing a force's need for additional officers, such as police to population ratio, the incidence of crime, civilianisation and the effectiveness with which a force is
  671
  utilising its existing resources. These factors indicated that, for 1992–93, Gwent's need for manpower is not as great as other forces, but my right hon. Friend decided that there was a case for a modest increase in its police establishment.

  Tobacco Advertisements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek changes in legislation to require that, when advertisements for tobacco products are seen on television at sporting and other events, a health warning is also given in vision and sound.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. The broadcast coverage of tobacco company sponsored events, or events at which there is advertising for any tobacco company, is subject to a voluntary agreement reached between the Minister for Sport and the Tobacco Advisory Council in 1987.

  Receivership
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the rules regarding the level of legal costs which may be granted out of company funds to directors of companies in administration or receivership.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no such rules in the insolvency legislation. The receiver or administrator has discretion over which legal costs he should incur in the interests of carrying out his duties. Company directors in failed companies usually have to meet their own costs if legal action is taken against them.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the advice issued to liquidators and administrators in relation to finance allowed to directors of companies in administration/ liquidation or receivership.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the liquidator's or administrator's professional judgment and is not the subject of advice issued by my Department.

  In formal insolvency proceedings, a creditors committee may be established and may require information on those and other matters.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Credit and Home Owners
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in the amount of credit in each year since 1985; and how much of this was provided in the form of mortgages to home-owners for spending for other purposes.

  Mr. Maples
  Full information is not available in the form requested. However, figures for the increase in the amount of credit supplied each year since 1985 including loans for house purchase are contained in Financial Statistics table 9.3.

  North West Pensioners Liaison Forum
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from the chairman of the North West Pensioners' Liaison Forum; what reply he is sending; if there is any action that he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The chairman of the forum wrote to me last month. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary replied on 12 February.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the lower income tax threshold; and what is the marginal rate of income tax at that threshold, in each of the EC member states.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates based on the latest available information are given in the table. Unless otherwise stated the figures relate to 1991.

  The threshold is the amount of gross income below which no tax is payable; the mariginal rate is the rate of tax charged on the first unit of taxable income.

  Rates and thresholds relate to a single person, and to income from employment only. Standard deductions available to all employees have been taken into account.

  Thresholds have been converted from local currencies into £ sterling using the latest available OECD purchasing power parities.

  Country

  Threshold

  Marginal tax rate at threshold

  £

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  3,477

  125

  Denmark

  1,980

  152·8

  France

  5,339

  19

  Germany

  2,512

  19·7

  Greece

  2,502

  18

  Ireland (1991–92)

  2,438

  29

  Italy

  2,935

  10

  Luxembourg

  5,035

  10

  Netherlands

  1,173

  13

  Portugal

  2,836

  15

  Spain

  4,407

  25

  United Kingdom (1991–92)

  3,295

  25

  1 Includes local income tax.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many tax payers with gross earnings of £33,000 and above in 1992–93 will be entitled to a married couple's allowance.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that 760,000 tax payers with earnings from employment or self-employment over £33,000 will be entitled to the married couple's allowance in 1992£93 assuming statutory indexation.

  Tax Exemption Certificates
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many income tax exemption certificates were in force in each year since 1980(a) in total and (b) by industrial sector.

  Mr. Maude
  The numbers of Inland Revenue certificates in force at each year-end for self-employed
  673
  subcontractors, enabling them to receive payment from contractors without any deduction on accout of tax, are shown in the table. The scheme applies only in the construction industry.

  At 31 December

  Number

  1980

  234,180

  1981

  245,335

  1982

  269,460

  1983

  310,964

  1984

  348,083

  1985

  375,981

  1986

  413,268

  1987

  443,447

  1988

  487,765

  1989

  519,242

  1990

  520,715

  1991

  501,836

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of nominal exchange rate changes to date since the first quarter of 1991 on the trade-weighted Department of Trade and Industry and International Monetary Fund indices of relative export unit values for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 February 1992]: Competitiveness depends on a number of factors, in particular the effectiveness of United Kingdom producers in controlling their costs.

  Manufacturers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the elasticity of demand for United Kingdom exports and imports of manufactures in terms of price in 1973, 1979, 1986 and currently; and what is the implied effect in each case, in terms of the subsequent growth in the volume of imports and exports, of the increase in the real exchange rate measured in terms of(a) relative export prices and (b) of the terms of trade which has since taken place;

  (2) what is his current estimate of the elasticity of demand for United Kingdom imports and exports of manufacturers; and what is his estimate of the likely effect on the volume of imports and exports in each of the years 1993–95 of an increase in the rate of growth in each of those years (a) 1·5 per cent., (b) 2 per cent. and (c) 2·5 per cent. and of the effect on the balance of payments as a percentage of gross domestic product, and on output and employment.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: Precise estimates of the kind requested are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the numbers employed in manufacturing of the increase in the trade-weighted relative price of United Kingdom exports to imports of finished manufactures between the second half of 1973 and first quarter of 1991; and if he will give figures for the number and the percentage loss of jobs in manufacturing since 1973 in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) Japan.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: Precise estimates of the effect of such relative price changes on
  674
  numbers employed in manufacturing are not available. Comparable figures for changes in manufacturing employment in the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan are published in OECD Labour Force Statistics, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the numbers employed in manufacturing industry of the change in the trade-weighted relative price of United Kingdom exports of manufactures between the second half of 1973 and the first quarter of 1991; and if he will publish a table showing the change over the same period in the sterling price of exports of manufactures with (i) the United Kingdom ex-factory price of manufactured goods other than food, drink, tobacco, printing and publishing and (ii) the weighted average increase in the retail price of such goods compared to that of other components in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: Reliable estimates of the kind requested in the first part of the question are not available. The figures requested in the second part of the question could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the specific measures taken by his Department to enforce motorists' respect for pedestrian rights at zebra and pelican crossings.

  Mr. Chope
  Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police. It is the responsibility of individual motorists to comply with the law on pedestrian crossings, which is set out in the highway code. The Department issues publicity to improve drivers' compliance with the crossing regulations.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete his review of pedestrian crossing facilities.

  Mr. Chope
  I intend to make an announcement later this month; I shall write to the hon. Member then.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give annual figures for injuries for the last 10 years for which figures are available, including the number of(a) children and (b) adults who have been hit by cars on or near pedestrian crossings in (i) the Metropolitan police area of London and (ii) England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Child and adult pedestrians injured when hit by cars on or near pedestrian crossings in the Metropolitan police area of London, and England and Wales: 1981–1990

  London1

  England and Wales

  Child2

  Adult

  Child

  Adult

  1981

  On Crossing

  324

  808

  1,100

  1,928

  Within zig-zag lines3

  347

  773

  422

  878

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  —

  —

  643

  980

  675

  London1

  England and Wales

  Child2

  Adult

  Child

  Adult

  Total

  671

  1,581

  2,165

  3,786

  1982

  On Crossing

  381

  907

  1,198

  2,197

  Within zig-zag lines

  31

  66

  107

  184

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  349

  782

  1,023

  1,768

  Total

  761

  1,755

  2,328

  4,149

  1983

  On Crossing

  321

  953

  1,132

  2,263

  Within zig-zag lines

  38

  58

  119

  149

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  424

  1,000

  1,188

  2,222

  Total

  783

  2,011

  2,439

  4,634

  1984

  On Crossing

  383

  987

  1,270

  2,411

  Within zig-zag lines

  33

  54

  100

  144

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  461

  1,032

  1,192

  2,334

  Total

  877

  2,073

  2,562

  4,889

  1985

  On Crossing

  324

  904

  1,165

  2,368

  Within zig-zag lines

  27

  56

  100

  173

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  332

  1,077

  1,148

  2,334

  Total

  683

  2,037

  2,413

  4,875

  1986

  On Crossing

  340

  977

  1,150

  2,633

  Within zig-zag lines

  18

  57

  94

  163

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  344

  1,059

  1,144

  2,487

  Total

  702

  2,093

  2,388

  5,283

  1987

  On Crossing

  267

  909

  995

  2,374

  Within zig-zag lines

  13

  51

  83

  169

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  308

  996

  962

  2,452

  Total

  588

  1,956

  2,040

  4,995

  1988

  On Crossing

  270

  958

  1,048

  2,588

  Within zig-zag lines

  26

  41

  101

  239

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  301

  939

  988

  2,395

  Total

  597

  1,938

  2,137

  5,222

  1989

  On Crossing

  310

  967

  1,111

  2,610

  Within zig-zag lines

  17

  41

  151

  281

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  330

  973

  999

  2,482

  Total

  657

  1,981

  2,261

  5,373

  1990

  On Crossing

  333

  926

  1,122

  2,602

  Within zig-zag lines

  13

  44

  156

  285

  Elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing

  346

  851

  1,046

  2,272

  Total

  692

  1,821

  2,324

  5,159

  1 Metropolitan Police area

  2 Defined as aged 0 to 15

  3 These figures for the Metropolitan and some other areas include `elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing'.

  Traffic Cameras
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 63, how many automatic cameras have been installed at traffic-light-controlled junctions; and how many more are planned this year.

  Mr. Chope
  Installation of camera sites and deployment of traffic light cameras are primarily matters for highway authorities in conjunction with the police. Complete information is therefore not available centrally, but it is known that by the end of 1991, traffic light cameras were in use at over 100 sites in England and Wales.

  M25
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultations his Department had with representatives from local authorities over the decision to widen the M25;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the proposals to widen the M25;

  (3) what environmental considerations his Department took into account in the decision to widen the M25;

  (4) if he has met representatives of the London Boroughs Association over Government plans to widen the M25.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has consulted widely with local authorities about the proposals for the M25 and will continue to do so. Many representations have been received from the public and representative bodies and will be carefully considered. The full range of environmental considerations have been taken into account and environmental assessments will take place for every scheme. The London Boroughs Association has not been a formal consultee but representatives of some of its member authorities have participated in the discussions.

  Manchester Relief Road
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which agencies are contributing to the environmental impact assessment into the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road; and when this work commenced.

  Mr. Chope
  Consulting engineers and their associated landscape sub-consultants are carrying out environmental appraisals as part of the initial investigation of options. Representative environmental bodies have been consulted in confidence. The work began with the appointment of consultants in 1990.

  Mr. A. D. Lawrie
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first received correspondence relating to Mr. A. D. Lawrie of 79 Ninian road, Hemel Hempstead on the subject of the sale of car insurance by telephone; and when he expects to give a definitive answer to the points raised.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department first received correspondence from Mr. Lawrie on this subject on 19 February 1990. A substantive reply was sent on 20 April 1990. There has been later correspondence and I last wrote to my hon. Friend on the subject last September. I hope to send a further letter on outstanding points before the end of this month.

  Roads, Leicester
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those dual carriageway sections of the eastern district distributor road that have been completed in Leicester and not used; the total unused carriageway and the reason it has not been brought fully into use.

  Mr. Chope
  This is not a matter for my Department. The eastern district distributor is a local road for which Leicestershire county council, as the highway authority, is responsible.

  However, I understand that none of the eastern district distributor road has yet been completed, but that 0·4 miles of the contiguous single carriageway A46/A47 link have ben completed but are unused at present.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to public funds so far of the non-usage of city sections of the eastern district distributor road in Leicester; and what additional cost city ratepayers are to be required to meet in this respect.

  Mr. Chope
  This is not a matter for my Department. The eastern district distributor road is a local road for which Leicestershire county council, as the highway authority, is responsible.

  However, I understand that none of the eastern district distributor road has yet been constructed, but that the total cost of the unused section of the contiguous A46/A47 link to be of the order of £0·5 million of which the Department has provided 50 per cent through transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the pollution levels from the eastern district distribution roads that will affect the residents of Victoria Court flats, Oadby.

  Mr. Chope
  This is not a matter for my Department. The eastern district distributor road is a local road for which Leicestershire county council, as the highway authority, is responsible.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the eastern district distribution road will qualify for transport subsidy grant if it is a single carriageway throughout its length.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for Leicestershire county council to seek transport supplementary grant for this scheme. It would be assessed, in competition nationally, with schemes from other county councils irrespective of the proposed standard of the road.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will cost the Henwood proposals for the Leicester bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department's concern is with the strategic trunk road network and, in particular around Leicester, to provide continuity of this network for long-distance traffic by connecting the A46 north and the city with the A6 to the south-west. Various options are being considered within a broad corridor to the east of Leicester. The Henwood proposals go beyond this objective and would provide a southern bypass of the city. We will not, therefore, be costing the Henwood proposals.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent on funding research and development of air traffic control systems last year; and how much is planned for the next four years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Research and development of such systems is carried out by the Civil Aviation Authority, as the United Kingdom body directly concerned with air traffic control matters. In 1990–91 the authority's budgeted expenditure on air traffic services research and development was £9·7 million, and the budget for 1991–92 is £11·0 million. The budget for future years has not been finalised.

  In addition, the United Kingdom contributes to the expenditure of Eurocontrol, of which it is a member, and which has a substantial programme of research and development of air traffic control systems.

  School Crossing Patrols
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review his policy of disregarding parked cars in the vicinity as a criterion for deciding priority for school crossing patrols.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has not issued advice on criteria for deciding priority for school crossing patrols. This is a matter for local authorities other than in the Metropolitan police district of London where the responsibility falls to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand that local authority road safety officers have developed guidance on the establishment of school crossing patrol sites through the national school crossing patrol working party and that this guidance is used widely by local authorities.

  Skeffington Bypass
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the new Skeffington bypass, Leicestershire will be constructed to dual carriageway specification.

  Mr. Chope
  In common with all other trunk road improvement schemes the appropriate carriageway standard will be determined in accordance with our normal criteria which takes into account a number of factors including cost, value for money, traffic flow and environmental impact.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the Skeffington bypass proposed on the A47, Leicester to cover the whole length of road from the end of the Billesdon bypass to Tugby.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has no proposals at present to extend the Skeffington scheme which is planned to route traffic away from the village and improve the alignment of the A47 in that vicinity.

  A47, Leicestershire
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have been killed on the A47 between Houghton-on-the-Hill and Tugby in Leicestershire in the past six months.

  Mr. Chope
  Five. Two were killed on the Billesdon bypass in August 1991, one near Houghton-on-the-Hill in November 1991 and two near Skeffington in January 1992.
  679
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that all future improvements on the A47 should be of dual carriageway construction.

  Mr. Chope
  In common with all other trunk road improvement schemes, the appropriate carriageway standard will be determined in accordance with our normal criteria which takes into account a number of factors including cost, value for money, traffic flow and environmental impact.

  Traffic Flow Statistics
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will supply estimated traffic flow figures, in both directions, for the following sections of the Henwood proposals(a) the southern section from the Everards roundabout at the beginning of Soar Valley way to the A6 at Oadby, (b) from the A6 to the A47 and (c) from the A47 to the A46 Newark/Nottingham road.

  Mr. Chope
  These proposals have not been promoted or examined by my Department and I have no information on traffic flows along their length. We are assessing traffic flows generally in connection with the Leicester eastern bypass scheme. This assessment will take account of the effect of other roads in the area.

  Norsea
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why his Department's officials at Hull docks, supervising the trial of new lifeboat equipment on the passenger ferry Norsea on 5 February did not insist that the crewsmen testing the equipment wore life-jackets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine accident investigation bureau is investigating the incident referred to. Its report will address the use of life-jackets and it is not appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage except to state that the officials did not take a supervisory role.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members of his team reviewing the strategic and defence needs for British merchant shipping; when he expects this review to be completed; and if he will place copies of the review when complete in the Library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The defence need for merchant shipping is kept under regular review as part of normal planning. The ability of British merchant shipping to meet those needs is being considered inter Departmentally and a statement will be made in due course. There will not be a published report.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ambassadorial Limousines
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the original purchase price paid and the eventual disposal price obtained in the last three transactions involving Rolls-Royce motor cars belonging to Her Majesty's embassies sold out of service.
  680
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  For commercial reasons the terms of sale between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars are confidential.

  The proceeds of the last three sales of Rolls-Royce cars by missions overseas were:

  Date and Mission

  Price realised £

  12 May 1989

  British Embassy, Bonn

  37,931·08

  20 April 1990

  British High Commission, Canberra

  67,370·89

  27 June 1990

  United Kingdom Mission to United Nations, New York

  34,292·34

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number, location and all relevant criteria considered in deciding which of Her Majesty's embassies warrant the use of a Rolls-Royce motor car.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Eight Rolls-Royce motor cars have been provided in recent years for the use of our representatives in Bonn, Canberra, Moscow, United Nations (New York), Paris, Pretoria, Tokyo and Washington. The criteria considered includes the importance of these capitals to British interests generally and to Rolls-Royce Motor Cars in particular, operational requirements, initial purchase price, availability of servicing facilities, local conditions, running costs and potential re-sale value.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning migrant workers in Gibraltar; what representations he has made to the administration of Gibraltar about migrant workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Transport and General Workers Union has recently written to me drawing to my attention the report on the position of Moroccan workers in Gibraltar produced by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. We are considering the report with the Gibraltar Government. We have not received any other representations about migrant workers in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain a copy of the report by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, entitled "Between a Rock and a Hard Place," for his departmental library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A copy will be obtained as required.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Morocco to Her Majesty's Government and to the Gibraltar Administration about the treatment of its nationals in Gibraltar; and what response has been made.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I have not received any such representations from the Government of Morocco, nor so far as I am aware have the Gibraltar Government.

  Israel
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom and the European Community arms embargoes on Israel, introduced after the invasion of the Lebanon in 1982, remain in force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our restrictions on the sale of defence equipment to Israel remains in place. There was never a formal EC arms embargo on Israel.

  CFE Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made to date in the implementation of the conventional forces in Europe treaty in Hungary, the Cezech and Slovak republics, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 22 states of the North Atlantic Alliance and the Warsaw Pact signed the conventional forces in Europe treaty on 19 November 1990. The United Kingdom ratified the treaty on 19 November 1991. Thirteen other states have also ratified, including the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Poland.

  The treaty will not enter into force until all signatory states have ratified. The main obstacle to entry into force is uncertainty over the application to the armed forces of the former Soviet Union of treaty provisions on equipment holdings.

  NATO and other CFE signatories have together established a high level working group to address these problems. The British Government are committed to early entry into force of the CFE treaty, which we regard as a cornerstone of stability in the new Europe.

  Pakistan (Nuclear Development)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Government of Pakistan following Pakistan's announcement that it has the know-how and technology to explode a nuclear warhead.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Yes. We have noted the Pakistani Government's subsequent assurances of their commitment to non-proliferation and have urged them once again to formalise this by accession to the NPT.

  Singapore
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite the Prime Minister of Japan to attend a commemorative service on the 50th anniversary of the Japanese invasion of Singapore; if he will seek compensation for allied military and civil prisoners of war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no plans to extend such an invitation. Nevertheless, we recognise the poignancy of the anniversary and honour the sacrifice of those who fought and died in south east Asia during the second world war. We shall never forget that great debt, nor the terrible sufferings of so many in Japanese prison camps. We consider, however, that the question of compensation was settled in the 1951 peace treaty.

  Soviet Nuclear Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the study "Controlling Soviet Nuclear Exports; The New Proliferation Challenge".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Yes.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Indonesia's occupation of East Timor was discussed during the recent visit of his Indonesian counterpart to London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  East Timor was discussed during the visit. We welcomed the interest of the United Nations Secretary-General. The Indonesians are well aware that the United Kingdom does not recognise de jure the annexation and occupation of East Timor.

  UN Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals will be made by Her Majesty's Government to the annual conference of the United Nations Human Rights Commission this month.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In my speech to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on 30 January, I reaffirmed the British Government's commitment to human rights, and urged the Commission to focus on the issue of holding human rights abusers accountable for their actions. Our delegation to the Commission will also support the extension of the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs and work towards resolutions on several country situations including Burma and Iraq.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cross-Solent Ferry Services
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the cross-Solent ferry services.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend published the report on 12 February.

  Red Mercury
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what security controls are in place to monitor the international sales of red mercury.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am advised that the substance known as red mercury has long been incorrectly associated with capabilities in nuclear weapons development. Neither mercury oxide nor mercury sulphide, whether or not in the form which gives them their red colour, are subject to export control from the United Kingdom. If "red mercury" is a code name for enriched uranium, then controls apply.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investment credits have been made available to Indonesia in each year since 1979; and if he will give details in each case.

  Mr. Redwood
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to publish the details of the Export Credits Guarantee Departments support for business transacted on individual markets for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

SCOTLAND

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many motorists have been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of assault against (i) pedestrians, (ii) cyclists and (iii) other motorists, in each year since 1981.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the existing Scottish work force has vocational qualifications.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Information relating to the qualifications held by those who are of working age, and economically active, is available from the labour force survey. In 1990, the proportion of this group holding one or more qualifications was 72 per cent. It is not possible to distinguish academic and vocational qualifications because only the highest qualification held is recorded.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to the trust hospitals concerning the appointment of senior staff, advertising of posts, equal opportunities and salary levels.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: Terms and conditions of trust employees are essentially matters for the trust board but as "NHS Trusts: A Working Guide" makes clear trusts will be required to follow proper procedures as set out in employment legislation; to demonstrate a positive commitment to equal opportunities; and to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination. Trusts are also aware of the need to ensure that salaries are set at levels which properly reflect the responsibilities involved and secure value for money.

WALES

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage change in the value of farming incomes in Wales after taking inflation into account in each year since 1987.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:684

  Current prices £000

  Real terms (1986=100)£000

  Percentage change

  1986

  46,957

  46,957

  51·6

  1987

  55,482

  53,297

  13·5

  1988

  73,380

  67,167

  26·0

  1989

  61,455

  52,178

  -22·3

  1990

  40,045

  31,055

  -40·5

  1991

  46,018

  33,715

  8·6

  Crickhowell-Abergavenny Bypass
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the Crickhowell-Abergavenny bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are two separate bypass proposals—the A40 Crickhowell bypass and the A40/ A465 Abergavenny western bypass.

  Over 700 representations have been received on proposals for Crickhowell. Careful consideration is being given to the views expressed before a decision is made about any bypass for the town.

  The preferred route for the Abergavenny western bypass was announced in 1988. Draft orders for the proposed scheme are expected to be published later this year.

  Vehicle Watch Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will detail his reason for rejecting an application for urban aid to support the vehicle watch scheme pioneered in Newport.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The urban programme is a competitive scheme. In the 1992–93 programme, priority was given to strategy-based projects and projects targeted at the most deprived wards in Wales, as identified under the 1991 ward-based index of deprivation. Beyond this, we continue to give the highest priority to major economic and environmental projects and to voluntary sector inspired schemes.

  The vehicle watch project was not successful because, in urban programme terms, other projects were regarded as having a higher priority under the above criteria.

  I was, however, pleased to support the launch of Vehicle Watch Wales with a grant of £7,000 towards the cost of producing bilingual literature.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Gwent police authority concerning the financing of its vehicle watch scheme; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The clerk of Gwent police authority wrote to the Department on 11 February. The letter is under consideration and a reply will be issued shortly. I was pleased to support the launch of Vehicle Watch Wales with a grant of £7,000 towards the cost of producing bilingual literature.

  Tobacco Advertisements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he intends to make to the decision of European Standing Committee B on 5 February and the observation of Heartbeat Wales on the desirability of banning tobacco advertisements.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Government continue to believe that the best way to control tobacco advertising is by means of a voluntary agreement. Since 1971, there has been a system of voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry which provides control over the advertising and promotion of cigarettes. A new, tougher voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry has recently come into force and strong new health warnings are now appearing on advertisements.

  Data are emerging from those countries which have advertising laws and the Government are studying the figures with interest.

  Gwent Health Authority
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the implications for the funding of the NHS of the decision by Gwent area health authority not to employ 10 midwives who completed their training this week at the Royal Gwent hospital.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I understand that offers of employment will be made by the authority to those of the group who have qualified and wish to remain in Gwent.

  Expenditure on education and training is of course a long-term investment and there is invariably a certain amount of mobility among newly qualified staff. Staffing levels are set in the light of local working practices and changing needs and priorities and employing authorities have never been able to give guarantees that posts will be offered to all nurses and midwives on completion of their training.

  It is a measure of the success of the new grading structure for clinical nurses and midwives and the attractiveness of the salaries paid to qualified staff that

  District Health Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £

  £

  £

  £

  At outturn prices

  Clwyd

  1,150,026

  1,326,628

  1,296,447

  1,407,373

  East Dyfed

  583,854

  834,948

  1,001,426

  1,154,741

  Gwent

  3,403,610

  3,879,016

  3,645,650

  3,840,020

  Gwynedd

  2,686,428

  3,166,632

  3,398,161

  3,492,023

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,815,668

  6,436,055

  6,494,660

  6,897,613

  Pembrokeshire

  428,257

  435,605

  459,992

  551,486

  Powys

  2,496,041

  2,799,763

  3,026,368

  3,394,234

  South Glamorgan

  3,766,849

  4,610,337

  5,207,693

  5,456,161

  West Glamorgan

  857,899

  1,211,904

  1,061,263

  1,075,431

  Total

  21,188,632

  24,700,888

  25,591,590

  27,269,082

  At 1990–91 prices

  Clwyd

  1,423,916

  1,532,522

  1,406,445

  1,407,373

  East Dyfed

  722,905

  964,533

  1,086,393

  1,154,741

  Gwent

  4,214,214

  4,481,044

  3,954,968

  3,840,020

  Gwynedd

  3,326,228

  3,658,098

  3,686,481

  3,492,023

  Mid Glamorgan

  7,200,728

  7,434,939

  7,045,704

  6,897,613

  Pembrokeshire

  530,251

  503,212

  498,944

  551,486

  Powys

  3,090,498

  3,234,290

  3,283,143

  3,394,234

  South Glamorgan

  4,663,962

  5,325,867

  5,649,544

  5,456,161

  West Glamorgan

  1,062,216

  1,399,993

  1,151,307

  1,075,431

  Total

  26,234,918

  28,534,498

  27,762,929

  27,269,082

  686
  there has been a general improvement in retention rates throughout Wales, particularly in the more senior grades. In Gwent, the turn-over rate for midwives has reduced very significantly over the past two years and projected vacancies have not materialised. The NHS in Wales has made considerable progress in the area of manpower planning and the Department is working closely with the service—through the manpower resource group—to monitor and strengthen the planning process to ensure that the training and supply of professional staff correlates closely to predicted staffing requirements.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the revenue expenditure of each regional health authority on health service facilities for patients with a mental handicap for each year since 1981, in cash terms and at 1991 prices.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: Planning and expenditure on mental handicap services in Wales is done jointly by health and social services authorities in county joint planning teams. The latest total expenditure figures, at outturn prices, are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1987–88

  47,779,730

  1988–89

  57,290,027

  1989–90

  65,737,589

  Welsh Office additional funds are included in these figures and have grown from £9·6 million in 1987–88 to £34·5 million in 1991–92.

  Prior to 1987–88, the expenditure data which were collected on hospital and community health services in Wales for patients with a mental handicap were incomplete and therefore unrepresentative of total provision. Spending on these service since 1987–88 has been as follows:
  687
  Notes:

  1. The figures presented for 1990–91 are provisional at this stage.

  2. The figures relate to hospital services' expenditure and community health services' expenditure, where this can be separately identified. The hospital services' figures relate only to direct clinical and diagnostic services to patients and therefore do not include any attribution of expenditure in respect of general services such as administration, transport, hotel services or estate management. Similarly, the community health services' figures relate only to the nursing element of community services for those with a mental handicap.

  Source:

  District Health Authorities.

  Financial Returns.

  All Wales Mental Handicap Strategy Annual Report 1988–89—1989–90.

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy initiatives he proposes to advance community care in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: We continue our programme of wide-ranging measures to imlement the reforms set out in the "Caring for People" White Paper (Cm 849) which will improve community care.

  This includes:
  Comprehensive guidance on assessment and care management, and centrally financed pilot projects in each county.
  Guidance on the preparation of fully joint social care plans, which are being prepared under the leadership of social services authorities working with health, family health service and housing authorities, and in full consultation with user and carer interests. These are to be published by 1 April.
  A requirement that social services authorities and their partners should publish readily understandable guides for users and carers setting out arrangements for assessment and care management, standards of services, and for complaints and other representations if services do not live up to those published standards.
  A unique central funding scheme to encourage the development of more flexible forms of community care for elderly people and people with physical or sensory disabilities, under which 46 projects are already being supported, with more to follow next year.
  Central funding for a training support programme to help prepare front-line staff. Further resources will be available in the coming year.

  In introducing these measures, we have built upon the experience gained in Wales from our unique mental handicap and mental illness strategies which continue. My right hon. Friend will announce shortly his proposals for the development of the mental handicap strategy from April 1993.

  On top of the record levels of resources we are providing to health and social services authorities for their discretionary use within our policies and programmes, we are providing nearly £43 million of direct grant for community care. We will announce soon additional resources for 1992–93.

  Rail Crossings
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications he estimates will be made in Wales in the five years following the coming into operation of the provisions in schedule 2 of the Transport and Works Bill for(a) rail crossing diversion orders in respect of bridleways, (b) rail crossing extinguishment orders in respect of bridleways, (c) rail crossing diversion orders in respect of footpaths and (d) rail crossing extinguishment orders in respect of footpaths.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for railway operators, primarily British Rail, but I understand that no comprehensive forecasts are currently available.

DEFENCE

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many senior officials in the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive have had previous long-term experience of working in the defence industry or any other manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Nineteen.

  RAF Raynham
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to transfer the land and/or buildings at RAF Raynham to local authorities, or any other organisation, for housing or community purposes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to do so at present.

  RAF Coltishall
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to close RAF Coltishall.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are continuing to examine the scope for further rationalisation in RAF support. Any decisions will be announced as they are made.

  Earthmoving Equipment (Iraq)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has received that earthmoving equipment supplied by United Kingdom companies was used by Iraqi forces in military operations during the period 1989 to 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no evidence that earth-moving equipment supplied by the United Kingdom was used for military operations by Iraq.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what types of aircraft will be deployed to Goose bay, Canada, for low flying training in 1992; what are the planned dates of deployment; and how many sorties the RAF expects to fly from Goose bay during 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is planned that nine Tornado GR1 and eight Tornado F3 aircraft will be deployed to Goose bay in 1992. Tornado GR1s will be deployed initially between 2 and 7 April and thereafter from 22 May to 25 September. It is planned that they will carry out some 1,350 low level training sorties. Tornado F3s will be deployed from 26 May to 7 July and will carry out some 350 sorties, each of which will include an element at low
  689
  level. C130 Hercules aircraft undertaking routine resupply tasks to Goose bay will also carry out a small number of low-level training sorties.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what enhancements of existing facilities have been made since 1989 in order to achieve a more even distribution of low flying throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Government's policy of spreading low flying as widely as possible has been pursued through a continuous review of the low-flying system. We expect the distribution of low flying to be further improved in future by a fast-jet turn round facility which is being established at RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low flying in each of the years 1986 to 1990 came from addresses located within Low Flying Area 18.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The numbers of inquiries or complaints about low-flying training which my Department received in each of the years 1986 to 1990 from addresses located within low-flying area 18 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986

  374

  1987

  237

  1988

  276

  1989

  264

  1990

  184

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was his Department's contribution to the economy of Gibraltar, in cash and kind, in the current and previous financial years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We do not make any assessment of this Department's contribution to the economy of Gibraltar. In the current financial year my Department expects to spend approximately £60 million in maintaining our interests in Gibraltar. Figures for previous financial years are not readily available.

  Military Equipment Sales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value in pounds sterling of all military equipment sold by the United Kingdom to overseas Governments in 1990 and 1991; and how much was allocated to Third world countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991, volume 2, table 2.7, for the information for 1990. Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Guard Service
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to provide the MOD guard service with constabulary powers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to equip the MOD guard service with firearms.
  690
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the MOD police complementing criteria will be affected by the introduction of the MOD guard service.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, columns 683-84, in which year he intends to place an order for the design and build of the first of class of a further class of nuclear-powered fleet submarines.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There is nothing further I can add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) gave the hon. Gentleman on 29 November 1991,Official Report, columns 683-84.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has told the management of VSEL in which year he intends to place an order for the design and build of the first of class of a further class of nuclear-powered fleet submarines.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The company has been provided with the planning information required to conduct the design studies contract without commitment to further orders. No decisions on the order date have yet been taken.

  Housing Task Force
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many announcements have been made regarding the work of the housing task force since it was established.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The work of the housing task force has been referred to in the defence debate of 15 October and in response to parliamentary questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence hopes to make a further announcement shortly.

  Air-to-Air Missile
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now in a position to state the date on which he will make a decision about the tender evaluation for the advanced short-range air-to-air missile; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20 January,Official Report, column 32.

  Missiles
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many batteries of Rapier field standard C missile systems he intends to bring into service in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, and (c) 1994–95.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We currently plan to deploy by the mid-1990s two batteries of Rapier field standard C with the Army and three squadrons with the RAF.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which year he envisages the European fighter aircraft will complete its development programme.
  691
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The industrial programme for the development of the European fighter aircraft has a completion date of 1999.

  C130 Transport Aircraft
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which years he envisages that(a) the development programme and (b) the production programme of the replacement for the current C130 transport aircraft will begin.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is our intention to procure replacement aircraft for the RAF transport fleet around the turn of the century. We have no plans to participate in a development programme for such an aircraft.

  MOD Police
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to expand the MOD police.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We expect there to he a small increase in the short term. In the long term the numbers will reflect the size of the defence estate and the ability of the MOD guard service to perform some tasks which do not require police powers or the use of firearms. No final figure for the size of the force can be given at this stage.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to provide the proposed MOD guard service with similar training to the MOD police.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The two-week MOD guard service basic course is designed to provide the necessary skills and knowledge for their security-oriented duties; it is dissimilar from the MOD police recruit course which lasts 13 weeks based on the standard police training given to recruits to Home Department police forces.

  Military Training
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his practice to provide information on military assistance or training given to named countries by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of training provided for overseas military personnel are not normally disclosed as they are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments concerned. There are no plans to change this practice.

  Regiment Establishments
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the number of serving officers and other ranks in(a) the 2 Battalion, the Queen's Regiment, (b) the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, (c) the 1 Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment and (d) the Royal Hampshire Regiment, expressed as a percentage increase or deficit above or below their respective peacetime establishments;

  (2) what is the projected number of serving officers and other ranks in the 1 Battalion, the Staffordshire Regiment on 1 May, expressed as a percentage increase or deficit above or below its peacetime establishment;

  (3) what was the number of serving officers and other ranks in the 1 Battalion, the Staffordshire Regiment on 11 February, expressed as a percentage increase or deficit above or below its peacetime establishment.
  692
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimated number of 16 to 24-year-old males in the recruiting areas of(a) the Queen's Regiment, (b) the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, (c) the Royal Anglian Regiment and (d) the Royal Hampshire Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information is not available in the precise form requested, as no regiment recruits exclusively within a particular geographical area. The table shows the total population in the 16 to 24-year-old age group in the following Army districts in 1990:

  Population in the 16 to 24-year-old group

  Army district

  1 1990

  South East

  538·5

  London

  456·5

  North West

  461·3

  Eastern

  624·9

  1Population (thousands).

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Menzies-Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what heritable property his Department(a) acquired and (b) leased in Scotland in each year since 1986;

  (2) if he will list by region the heritable property other than that owned or leased over which his Department has the right to carry out military training in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors determine whether his Department acquires or obtains the lease of land in Scotland for military training purposes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The military requirement for short or long-term use, cost and the commercial preference of the owner.

  Military Estate
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether, as part of "Options for Change", a review has been carried out of the military estate in Scotland;

  (2) if he will conduct a review of the land presently owned or leased by his Department in Scotland for military training purposes with a view to disposing of any that is surplus to requirements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The size of the defence estate is kept under constant review.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions and on what dates in the last five years for which information is available military training has taken place in Tentsmuir forest.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.
  693
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, when his Department leases land from the Forestry Commission in Scotland, a market value rent is paid.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the terms of the agreement between his Department and the Forestry Commission for the use of Tentsmuir forest for military training purposes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No formal agreement exists. Tentsmuir forest is used on an occasional basis and terms are negotiated for each period of use.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by region the heritable property(a) owned or (b) leased by his Department in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 1 April 1991, the total area, in hectares, of land and foreshore owned or leased by the Ministry of Defence in Scotland by region was:

  Hectares

  Highland

  5,210

  Strathclyde

  5,200

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,209

  Grampian

  2,207

  Tayside

  1,454

  Western Isles

  1,339

  Fife

  1,328

  Lothian

  1,160

  Central

  80

  Shetland Islands

  46

  694

  Hectares

  Orkney Islands

  5

  Borders

  —

  All areas of leased land included in the totals are subject to leases of three years or more; those of shorter duration are regarded as temporary and not recorded centrally. Totals exclude areas over which the Ministry of Defence has occasional training rights.

  Local Area Missile System
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Spanish Government gave notice of their intention to withdraw from the local area missile system programme; what are the implications for the future of the programme; and how much has been spent by his Department to date on the programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Spain gave notice of its intention to withdraw on 4 December 1991. The project definition phase of this programme will continue. To date, my Department has spent £700,000.

  Soviet Nuclear Brain Drain
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the report "Coping with the Soviet Nuclear Brain Drain: An Environmental Approach".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence library has a copy of this report on order.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Bishop of St. Albans.

Small Businesses: Condition
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent surveys showing rising redundancies and economic hardship among small businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, redundancies and economic hardship in businesses of any size are to be regretted. Training and enterprise councils (TECs) and local enterprise companies (LECs) in Scotland, working in partnership with other relevant agencies, continue to reinforce the progress that the Government have made in supporting and developing small firms. The level of business start-ups remains buoyant. Insolvencies still represent only 2 per cent. of all businesses. All the essential ingredients for recovery are now in place: low inflation and lower interest rates. The Government are proud to have one of the most favourable tax regimes for small firms in Europe.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the research that went into that reply. However, it is a pity that he left out some vital features; for example, the fact that the chairman of CBI Small Companies has said that the past four months have been really dreadful, that the CBI itself says that there is no hope for recovery and that some of our primary economists, especially the Oxford economists, say that at this rate, and with the Government's policy, we shall have almost 3 million unemployed by 1993.
Why do the Government not take notice of such factors? We do not wish to keep harping on such matters, but we shall continue to do so because we have to; indeed, this sort of Question is a very suitable instrument. Perhaps the Government will start listening to what we have to say. If we did not wish to see recovery in the country, then both sides of the House would be totally irresponsible. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that we must listen to one another's argument.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is important to show the dynamism in the economy. I believe that there is a great deal of it. Since 1979, there have been over 2 million new registrations for VAT. In 1991, the National Westminster Bank estimates that there was a total of 460,000 new business starts; that is only slightly fewer than the half million in 1990. Moreover, throughout 1991, around 1,000 new starts have taken
928
place each week under the enterprise allowance. That shows that people are not afraid of starting up in business.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the encouraging point about what my noble friend has just said is the fact that a very large number of people seem to judge the situation appropriate for starting a small or, indeed, a large business. Will my noble friend continue to give them such encouragement?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend makes an important point. I believe that it is also important to note that the number of self-employed has risen by over 70 per cent. since 1979. That is a great encouragement.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that there is growing exasperation with the Government's complacent attitude? The state of small businesses and their prospects depend upon the general condition of the economy. What are the Government going to do about a situation in which investment in manufacturing industry dropped by 15 per cent. in 1991? That is the largest drop for 10 years. Is that not grave news for the whole economy of the nation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if there is a fall from an all-time record, one is bound to show a drop. It is important to get the economic situation right. Bearing down on inflation, and the use of interest rates to do so, has proved to be successful.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not be possible for the Government to stimulate the domestic economy? I have in mind small businesses such as building firms. Can they not be stimulated by releasing the funds that are available to local government for the purpose of more housebuilding? That would stimulate the domestic economy. With the so-called world recession, there is no chance of an export-led recovery from the recession. Therefore, the domestic economy must be encouraged.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the situation as regards such receipts is being carefully looked into. However, I am sure the noble Lord realises that councils have amassed a considerable amount of debt which also has to be paid by the taxpayer and the charge payer.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not clear from the answer that my noble friend has already given that there are thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—more small businesses in operation and solvent now compared with 1979? Does my noble friend have any figure which indicates the present number of such businesses compared with the situation in 1979?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not think that I have the number at my fingertips. However, I shall endeavour to find out the information and write to my noble friend. The most important thing to which he referred is that the impression is always given that every small business is in debt. It is right to say that at least half of them are in credit at the bank.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, if everything is going so well—I must confess that I thought the Minister was speaking about another part of the world—why are there shops closed in Oxford Street, Regent Street and the New Kings Road? That is something that I have never seen in my lifetime. Why are they closed? Are those businesses doing so well that they are able to close their shops?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not think, from this Dispatch Box, that I can give reasons for shop closures in any particular area. However, there is no doubting the fact that businesses are doing well in all sorts of areas, although there are temporary problems with the recession.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister—
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords,—
Noble Lords: Front Bench!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I believe that the convention of the House requires that my noble friend should have the opportunity to speak next.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, when writing to my noble friend Lord Renton, will my noble friend the Minister take steps to make his reply more widely available so that we may all know these happy figures?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have now found the figure for which I was searching. Since 1979 there have been over 2 million new registrations for VAT. That indicates the size of the increase in the number of small businesses.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the 1980s a very large number of people invested redundancy payments in starting up small businesses because they were tempted into the enterprise culture? A large number of those businesses have failed. Can something not be done to assist people in that situation? For example, can the banks not assist through schemes like the small business loan guarantee scheme? Those people are in a worse situation now than they would have been if they had never attempted to start small businesses.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. The noble Baroness mentioned the banks. The banks are taking a very responsible attitude towards assisting small businesses. Only today I saw an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph for a small business guide which is available, free of charge, from Barclays Bank. The guide explains the ins and outs of profit and loss accounts, cash flow forecasts and business plans. Not only the Government, but the banks also are assisting enormously with small businesses.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government should consider the appalling social effects of what we have been talking about on ordinary people? We realise that repossessions are now increasing simply because the breadwinner is out of work. We acknowledge that the increase in National Health Service prescription charges is going
930
to hit the family when the breadwinner is out of work. Those are some of the effects of the disastrous policy this Government are following. It is about time they considered the ordinary people of this country.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government are being quiet on that. We have paid over £600 million in 1991 for mortgage interest through income support. Three hundred and ten thousand mortgages were helped in that way. The increase in repossessions is now slowing down significantly. All the measures taken together, including the measures taken by the building societies, will save some 40,000 repossessions this year.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among the small businesses that have disappeared is Jarrolds of Knightsbridge, in the Brompton Arcade? It has disappeared with a great number of photographs which I left there to be framed, and other people's pictures—wedding photographs, and so on. What can be done to get those photographs back? What is my noble friend prepared to do about it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I deeply regret the obvious sadness that my noble friend has experienced in that disappearance. I shall take steps to see what I can do.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I appreciate what the enterprise groups are doing in Scotland and England. Is the Minister aware that their efforts are being totally frustrated by the general state of the economy? Following the point made my noble friend Lord Hooson that a stimulation is needed, does he agree that small businesses do not need a penny off income tax or anything like that. What they need is the ability to pay income tax—in other words, to make a profit. A stimulation in the economy is the only way that they will get out of the mess.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, conquering inflation remains the Government's priority. High inflation is far more damaging to the profits of small firms than high interest rates. The stimulation will return within the next months and small businesses will be greatly assisted by that.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, if affairs in this country are as bad as noble Lords opposite would have us believe, why are the Japanese able to invest here? They are finding the climate good for investment. For example, their Nissan company is not only manufacturing new cars over here, but selling them at a profit. Can the Government also confirm that Nissan is producing more cars per man hour than other car manufacturers in this country?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. The investment demonstrates the ability of the workforce in this country to produce a good product. The United Kingdom remains a favourite location for inward investment. More than half of the inward investment into the European Community was received during 1990. I now understand that it is the favourite location for German investment as well.

Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
11.21 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill implements the commitments made by the Government in The Citizen's Charter White Paper which was published last July to strengthen the position of the customers of the former state-owned utilities.
It will give a better deal to 25 million customers. In future customers can be confident that all the regulators will have the toughest powers held by any of them today to set standard. They will have the right to be told what those standards are; they will be told clearly what redress they have if those standards are not met; and if they have a dispute with a utilitity, they will be able to ask a regulator to resolve it.
This Bill is the fruit of privatisation which has made competition and regulation possible. When the utilities were publicly owned, neither competition nor independent regulators existed. No one was specifically charged to protect the consumer. Still less was any independent body equipped with statutory powers to uphold the customer's interest. There was no one to cap prices; no one to set standards; no one to ensure compensation or to resolve disputes. The result was poor services and high prices. Ten years ago, when British Telecom was still nationalised, more than 250,000 customers were waiting over two months—many for far longer—for a new telephone to be installed. Waiting lists will not be found today. If BT is late by even one working day, the customer is entitled to compensation. Before privatisation of BT, there was virtually no choice of handset. Today the choice is huge—over 13,000 pieces of equipment have been approved since 1981.
In the five years before privatisation, domestic gas prices increased by 2 per cent. a year in real terms. In the five years since British Gas was privatised, prices have fallen by 2 per cent. a year in real terms. From April, British Gas will be required to do even better and cut its prices by 5 per cent. a year in real terms.
Likewise BT has seen its price cap tightened successively from 3 per cent. below inflation to 4.5 per cent. below, and now 6.25 per cent. below inflation. Given that inflation is running at around 4 per cent. that means that prices will have to be cut in money terms. All in all, telephone users have seen their prices fall by 27 per cent. since privatisation in real terms.
As far as concerns electricity prices, domestic prices have fallen over the past seven years by 2 per cent. in real terms, whereas they rose between 1974 and 1979 by 22 per cent. in real terms. Under the current price cap formula domestic electricity prices are pegged to the Retail Prices Index until 1993. Industrial electricity prices are now lower in real terms than at any time since 1970.
Domestic electricity disconnections are at their lowest recorded level and are continuing to decline.
932
The most recent figures available, for the period July to September 1991, show a 28 per cent. reduction on the same period in the previous year. Regional electricity companies are now required to produce codes of practice protecting customers against disconnection.
British Gas has halved the number of disconnections since privatisation, and they are now at their lowest recorded level ever.
Ofgas—the gas regulator—has recently agreed with British Gas a comprehensive new package of key standards which will come into force in April 1992. It includes compensation for individual customers, if, for example, British Gas fails to keep an appointment.
The regulators have sought to ensure that the quality of service offered by the utilities matches what would be provided in a competitive market. As a result, all the utilities operate consumer service guarantee schemes. Domestic consumers are now entitled to compensation of one month's line rental charge for each day that BT falls short of its target for the installation and repair of telephones.
New service standards for the electricity companies came into force in July last year. Failure to comply with those standards will result in compensation of between £10 and £50 for individual customers. In the water industry a scheme has been agreed setting out customers' rights on appointments, account queries, complaints and interruptions to water supply. It is accompanied by a quick compensation scheme.
As my right honourable friend told the other place at Second Reading, the regulators have accomplished their achievements by a mixture of using their powers under primary legislation, licence conditions and informal arm-twisting.
The immeasurable improvement in services that has resulted from privatisation can best be illustrated by comparisons in telecommunications, both because that utility has been privatised longest and because it offers its customers the widest range of services. At the time of privatisation 75 per cent. of call boxes were working; today 96 per cent. are. In 1984 86 per cent. of faults were cleared in one day, today 95 per cent. are. The level of calls failing through congestion is only a fifth of that in 1984.
Then there is investment. £20 billion has been invested by the telecommunications industry since privatisation. In real terms, current levels of investment are over 40 per cent. higher than 10 years ago.
The water industry is investing no less. The water companies will be spending £28 billion before the turn of the century—more than £5,000 a minute—on rebuilding the water industry's infrastructure, and constructing new sewage treatment works and reservoirs—in short, in catching up on the years when water was a state-owned utility and a low priority among all the other claims for Treasury finance.
It is hardly surprising that a recent survey carried out on behalf of the National Consumer Council found that consumer satisfaction with telecommunications, gas, electricity and water was noticeably greater than with those utilities still in the public sector.

933
The Bill sets out to build on these achievements. As The Citizen's Charter announced, we intend to bring the powers of all regulators up to the level of the strongest. In most respects it is the electricity regulator —the last to be established—which has the strongest powers. So Part I of the Bill sets out to bring the powers of the telecommunications, gas and water regulators up to the level of the electricity regulator. In addition, all the regulators will be given new powers with respect to complaints handling procedures and dispute resolution.
As a result of the Bill, all the regulators will have power to set guaranteed service standards for individuals; set overall performance standards; establish compensation schemes where individual service falls below the standards set; ensure that utilities establish and publicise complaints procedures; resolve disputes over standards; and, where my right honourable friend the Secretary of State provides, resolve disputes over billing.
So far as concerns the setting of guaranteed service standards for individuals, these are already set for electricity and water under provisions in their privatisation legislation. The Bill will provide a statutory basis for such standards in the case of telecommunications and gas. Guaranteed standards might include a requirement to repair a fault on a customer's telephone line within one working day; to restore a failed power supply within 24 hours; to reply to a customer's letter within 10 days; and to keep an appointment to visit on a certain day, even at a particular time of day.
Overall performance standards are complementary to guaranteed service standards for individuals in that they apply to a utility's performance as a whole. Since they are measured across the whole company, they can cover aspects of service which would not fall within the individual standards. So, for example, there could be a requirement that a certain percentage of telephone boxes should be working at any given time. Overall standards can also seek to place an incentive on the utility to out-perform the individual standards. For example, whereas an individual customer might be able to claim compensation for a power cut which lasted more than one day, the electricity company could be subject to an overall standard requiring it to restore supply to 80 per cent. of its customers within three hours.
Where guaranteed service standards are not met, the Bill provides that the telecommunications and gas customer is entitled to compensation, just as under existing legislation the electricity and water customers are so entitled. The amount of compensation and the manner in which it is paid are for the regulators to decide and set out in their regulations.
There will be a duty on the regulator to collect and publish information on the levels of performance achieved and the compensation paid for failures to meet guaranteed standards. There will also be a new duty on the utilities to publish overall performance standards and their achievement against those standards.
934
The Bill extends to all utilities the requirement currently imposed in detail on electricity companies only to establish a complaints procedure which has been approved by the director general. Before establishing their complaints procedure, utilities will have first to consult representative consumer bodies.
The Bill also confers new powers on the regulators to determine disputes between the customer and the utility over terms of supply. Those powers are modelled on those in the Electricity Act. Examples of the different types of dispute might be: the size of the deposit demanded before a telephone connection is made; the reasonableness of an estimate given by a water company for the cost of connecting a property to a water main; or a dispute over the amount of security required by a gas company before it will start laying a service pipe to a property. Where a dispute over the terms arises before a customer has received a supply of gas or electricity, the regulator will have powers to require the customer to be supplied, pending his decision on the dispute. In the case of telephone services, the Bill will ensure that deposits are assessed according to criteria approved by the director general. Those measures will help to redress the balance of power between the customer and the supplier which could otherwise abuse its monopoly position.
Another area covered is that of disputes over billing. In telecommunications, disputed accounts remain the most frequent source of complaint to OFTEL. The Bill will enable the Government to make regulations authorising the regulators to resolve such disputes over the accuracy of bills. We intend to trigger those powers for the Director General of Telecommunications soon after Royal Assent.
The Bill empowers Ofgas to set standards of performance for gas suppliers on the promotion of the efficient use of gas by consumers. The electricity regulator already has those powers.
The sort of standards which might be set by the director general could include a requirement to make available, by a certain date, an energy efficiency adviser in every gas or electricity showroom, the publication of guidance booklets or the provision of a free telephone information service. As with the other standards I have described, it will be for the regulator to decide what the standards themselves should be. We have put those powers into the Bill because we recognise that improving energy efficiency is the quickest and most cost effective way of contributing to a reduction in CO2 emissions.
Part II of the Bill introduces new possibilities for competition. In telecommunications, competition is already being progressively introduced and will be extended further following last year's duopoly review. In electricity supply the monopoly element of the industry is to be reduced in stages with the 1MW monopoly threshold being reduced to a tenth of that size in 1994 and abolished altogether in 1998. So the Bill is confined to extending competition in the gas and water industries.
I shall begin with the gas competition provisions. At present only British Gas has the right to supply householders and small firms who use 25,000 therms

935
a year or less and are within 25 yards of a gas main. Yet customers at or below the 25,000 therms threshold account for two-thirds of the total gas market.
The Bill gives the Government powers to end that monopoly which we intend to reduce by stages. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in another place, we should expect the initial reduction to be to a level not lower than 2,500 therms, and to take place in the next Parliament.
Such a reduction would open up to competition about 7 per cent. of British Gas's market, giving some 200,000 businesses, like the big firms, the right to buy gas from anyone, with the possibility of obtaining better terms and lower prices. After that, the next stage will be a review in 1996 to determine the date at which the monopoly will end, opening the rest of the market to competition.
The statutory rights of small customers to a supply of gas at a non-discriminatory price will remain so long as competition is limited. We shall consider lifting British Gas's statutory obligation to supply only once there are enough competitors to provide all customers with a viable alternative.
The Bill also increases the scope for competition in water services. There are technical limitations on the scope for competition in water, not least among them being the problem of pumping water or sewage across long distances in order to compete in another area. The costs of overcoming such problems pose very high barriers to new entrants to the market. As a result of those limitations, when we privatised water, we introduced the concept of comparative competition, in which the regulator uses the performance of the most efficient water companies as a yardstick to set standards for the others. However, despite that, we have found that there are possibilities to extend direct competition further.
There are three areas in which we consider direct competition should be made possible. The first is where a water user is situated close to the boundary between two water companies, or undertakers as they are known. The Bill will enable such a customer demand water and drainage services from any supplier rather than the one appointed to serve his area. A neighbouring supplier's mains may be more conveniently situated to serve that particular customer. The other two prospects that we have identified for competition are areas where currently no customer is connected to the services of an existing undertaker, and single large users; that is to say, those whose annual use of water is at least 250 megalitres. Those cases are covered by one provision, for "inset appointments". An inset appointment gives an undertaker the right to serve an area within the appointed area of another undertaker.
The regulator will also be able to require an existing undertaker to provide a bulk supply of water to an intending competitor who might otherwise be deprived of a means to serve his own customers. A new provision is also made for the transfer for treatment of sewage from one undertaker to another.
Of the miscellaneous provisions of the Bill, I shall mention one only. Provision is already made in the
936
Electricity Act to ensure that a public electricity supplier does not make a charge to disabled customers who need to have their meters moved to a more convenient position. Since disabled people may also need to read their gas or water meters, it seems right that they should be able to ask for those meters also to be moved free of charge. The Bill therefore makes provision to prohibit gas and water companies from charging their disabled customers for that service.
To sum up, then, the Bill has two themes: service to customers, and competition. Our aim is to ensure that customers of the regulated utilities will enjoy higher standards of service than they do now, and have clear rights of redress. Service to customers is a fundamental tenet of The Citizen's Charter. Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the standards they can and should expect from the utilities, and their expectations are rising. I have already demonstrated how some of the standards set out in The Citizen's Charter are already being achieved by the utilities, often voluntarily. The Bill significantly strengthens the regulators' powers to ensure, by setting standards, that the utilities respond to their customers' needs and requirements.
We are also removing barriers to competition in the supply of gas, water and sewerage services. Competition is the greatest of all spurs to efficiency and we believe that its disciplines should be encouraged even in industries which used to be considered "natural monopolies". The Bill therefore takes forward the possibilities which we have identified for increasing competition in those industries. We hope to see a growing number of competitors entering those markets and taking up the opportunities which will become available as a result of the Bill. Eventually, competition may develop to a point where the powers of the regulator can be diminished. Meanwhile, we believe our dual approach is the right one. The Bill will add to the ways in which the customers of the regulated utilities will have more choice, enjoy better standards of service, be better informed about the standards they can expect, and enjoy a means of redress in cases where they are not met. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Lord Reay.)
11.38 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill.
I have to say that it is one of the most extraordinary Bills with which I have had to deal in your Lordships' House, being, as it is, devoted entirely to correcting past mistakes. Clauses 1 to 10, for instance, amend the Telecommunications Act; Clauses 11 to 19 amend the Gas Act; Clauses 20 to 25 amend the Electricity Act; and Clauses 25 to 33 amend the Water Industry Act. Those are all Acts put forward by the Government and which went through both Houses of Parliament. They are now found, as was predicted at the time, to have some serious flaws. Those serious flaws arise from the very nature of privatising monopolies: when one privatises a monopoly, one is bound to have the type of trouble with which the Bill is designed to deal.

937
It is particularly absurd that this Bill should come before us amending no fewer than four different Acts without any apology from the Government for the mistakes that they have made. There is something very odd about dressing it all up as what is called the Citizen's Charter—some White Paper that was issued on services apparently.
We approve the principle of the Bill. We would like to see the regulatory mechanisms of the privatised monopolies strengthened. We would like to see service to the customer much better than it is. If there is a possibility of competition—I shall come to that when I deal with Part II of the Bill—we would like to see that competition. When I say that we approve the principle of the Bill, that does not mean to say that we approve of the Bill in all its detail. When we reach the Committee stage we shall be seeking to amend the Bill in a number of different ways; in particular we shall seek to strengthen the regulatory powers to a greater degree than the Bill does as at present drafted.
The particular improvements that are needed are, first, that the consumer must have a greater voice in deciding what he or she wishes to see by way of service. At the moment only in the Gas Consumers Council is that voice strong: none of the other privatised monopolies has a council similar in status and power to the Gas Consumers Council. Why not? Why should there not be that kind of arrangement for others?
What about the non-domestic consumer? The domestic consumer may have a voice through consumer associations, but we have recently had a barrage of complaints from non-domestic consumers; for instance, as regards electricity. Customers find their prices going up well above the prices that their competitors on the Continent of Europe are paying. What rights of redress has industry got when that happens?
The second area where we wish to amend the Bill is in what I call the area of "vulnerable consumers". I refer to disabled and elderly people. The matter of performance standards and what is to be the proper measure of performance for disabled and elderly consumers of these services must be carefully spelt out. For instance, we cannot have disconnections without proper notice. We cannot have demands for deposits for connections or unrealistic repayment schedules for those who are in arrears and are hard up. We must have an assurance concerning the interests of those who are unable, either physically or mentally or who are too old, to be able to enjoy the normal standards of service and benefit from them. We must have an assurance that special arrangements will be made for them.
The third area where we shall seek to amend the Bill is in the application of these performance standards. I do not wish to criticise consumer representative bodies. It is important that we should know precisely what the consumer himself or herself feels rather than what, say, the National Consumer Council or the Consumers' Association feel. I am not saying that these bodies are not representative in some form for the customer, but direct access through market
938
research to what the customer really wants as opposed to what others believe the customer really wants would be a sensible way of going about solving the problems.
When the performance standards are set, to my mind there is only one sanction which makes sense and that is the price sanction. If utilities do not meet their performance standards they must be hit in their profit and loss account. That is the only thing that matters. I would like to say that directors' salaries should also be hit. If that can be achieved that would be a bonus. However, let us leave it to the profit and loss account for the time being.
The fourth area where we shall seek to improve the Bill is on the performance of the regulators themselves. Regulators have serious conflicts of interest. They have to have regard for the interests of the industry which they are regulating and for the interests of the consumer. That is in the nature of regulation of a monopoly. They cannot go too far either way. But who will regulate the regulators to make sure that they strike the right balance and do not simply go overboard one way or another? The Government have not addressed that problem. Will the regulators be answerable to Parliament? How can we achieve accountability of the regulators? Will there be an ombudsman who will look after the problems that I have described and decide on them? How can we set that up? All these are questions which we shall be wanting to debate in Committee.
The fifth area concerns disputes about billing. As your Lordships know, British Telecom has a contract direct between the company and the customer. There is no independent check on BT bills. There is no independent check on the meters that it uses. Anyone who has looked carefully at a detailed British Telecom bill will always have found mistakes. I have found plenty in my time.
Secondly, as regards billing, the regulator, if he is allowed to determine disputes, must, for goodness sake, give the reasons why he decides one way or the other. Simply to issue a fiat saying "I decide that the company is right" or, as the case may be, "The customer is right" is not good enough. We must have something better than that.
I now turn to the question of competition which, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, is dealt with in Part II of the Bill. We will have to see how the breaking of the monopoly in gas supply works. There are good reasons for that monopoly, not least the safety reason. When that monopoly is broken or diminished there will be certain safety problems that the Government will have to face because it will no longer be the responsibility of British Gas to ensure safety when its monopoly is broken. That is as I understand it and no doubt if I am wrong the noble Lord will reassure me in his reply.
As regards water firms, the competition measures in the Bill are hardly worth talking about. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, one cannot have water companies competing with one another. The nature of the industry does not allow it. I remember taking part in a debate in your Lordships' House on a White Paper which was produced on the water industry

939
before privatisation. The only serious proposal for competition among water companies was that they would send plumbers into each other's territories. Therefore, plumbers would cross from the Welsh Water area into the Severn Trent area and compete with the plumbers of that area. That is the farcical nature of the White Paper that was produced and it is also the farcical nature of how stupid one can get when one speaks about competition among water authorities or companies.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, my experience is that it is extremely difficult to get a plumber in the area in which you reside.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I do not know where my noble friend resides. I understand that BT has a service which has been advertised widely. It is known as the Yellow Pages. If he looks through those pages he might be able to find himself a plumber.
The Bill is a series of what I regard as fairly minor measures. It needs to be strengthened. It has been cobbled together without an overall review of the regulating function in privatised monopolies. The Minister claimed that privatisation had been popular, disagree. All the polls show that privatisation has on balance been unpopular. People have noticed the rise in directors' salaries. People have noticed heavy price increases. People have noticed the large profits that privatised monopolies have made. People have also noticed that the privatised industries have become homes for Cabinet Ministers who have lost their jobs or perhaps I should say have been liberated.
The Bill goes nowhere near far enough to straighten out the mess that ill-considered privatisation has left. In Committee we shall attempt to toughen it up. I am quite clear that a proper resolution of the problem will have to await a new government.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, explained, the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the position of customers of the privatised utilities. That is to be achieved by increasing the powers of the regulators in certain respects. The Bill also aims to increase competition in the gas and water supplies industries to some degree.
The four sectors concerned—telecommunications, gas, water and electricity—were all privatised between 1984 and 1989. In view of that, a more thorough-going review might have been expected than is contained in the Bill. I concur entirely with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. So far as it goes, the Bill contains desirable provisions. Customers' rights in regard to standards of performance, complaints procedures and the settlement of disputes are all strengthened. In each case the regulator is given powers to ensure that those new consumer safeguards are applied. I should find it helpful if, when he replies, the Minister could elucidate one or two points.
The obligation of the utilities to comply with the standards laid down by the regulator seems to be rather more loosely worded for gas and electricity than for telecommunications. Is there any reason for that? Secondly, while the regulator is given powers to
940
determine billing disputes, he is apparently not expected to give any reasons for his determination —a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Would it not be desirable to correct that and make sure that the regulator gives reasons for his determination? Thirdly, is enough being done to safeguard the interests of disabled people? That is another matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the citizens' advice bureaux are concerned that the Bill does not sufficiently ensure that disabled people have adequate and affordable access to essential services from the utilities. An amendment safeguarding the interests of disabled people was introduced in another place but withdrawn because the Government contended that it was unnecessary. Will the Minister please elucidate that point, which is of considerable concern to Members of this House?
The Bill raises some wider issues. One relates to the role of the regulators—another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The question has been asked whether there should be a more clearly defined separation of the economic regulation function on the one hand and the consumer protection function on the other. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, stated, gas is the only utility with some independent consumer representation. The view of the Consumers' Association is that there should be,
"properly resourced consumer representation bodies for all the utilities, separate from the regulator, or, at least with semi-independent status within the regulatory body".
I shall be glad to know the Minister's opinion on that proposition, with which I concur.
Although the word "competition" looms large in the title of the Bill, the issue is touched on in only a limited way. In Part II provision is made for the Secretary of State to modify or remove the 25,000 therm limit in relation to the Gas Act 1986. The Minister has indicated that a new limit of 2,500 therms will in due course be imposed. That is certainly a desirable extension of competition. In the case of water, Clauses 34 to 41 increase the possibility of competition between the water companies but, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, emphasised, it will have only little impact.
Therefore, welcome as the moves are, they are of a very limited nature. The fundamental issue in relation to the privatised utilities is that when they were transferred into the private sector, they were left in a largely monopolistic situation. Hence the continued increase in the powers of the regulator to counterbalance that monopolistic power. Surely a more fundamental reappraisal of the competitive aspect is called for. The key issue is whether competition can really come in those sectors until there has been a major restructuring of the dominant enterprises. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government have in mind to consider that wider issue?
Finally, I wish to refer to the question of energy efficiency as it relates to the gas and electricity industries. While the regulators were given broad powers to promote energy efficiency in the privatisation legislation, in the opinion of many noble Lords

941
who participated in the debates, those did not go far enough. Some additional powers for the promotion of the efficient use of gas are covered in Clause 15 of the Bill. However, in view of the overriding importance of energy efficiency, especially in connection with environmental issues, that is surely another matter which should be reviewed at greater depth. If the CO2 emissions standards as laid down by the Government are to be achieved, the gas and electricity industries will have a much greater role to play than is presently envisaged. That has not been sufficiently identified in legislation, even as amended by the present Bill.
11.57 a.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, in the course of the years I have had a good deal of experience of legislation. I begin by echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that it is perhaps the most remarkable Bill that I have ever come across. It is not until one reaches Clause 50 that one finds a clause that stands on its own. The first 49 clauses amend or add to existing statutes. If the reader wishes therefore to understand them he has to sit surrounded by tomes containing a number of other Acts of Parliament to find out what is really happening. It must be something of a record to amend or add to legislation on that scale.
Listening to the Minister's introduction, I was much struck by the rather lengthy panegyric that he outlined of all the marvellous things already achieved, not all of which I confess are visible to the naked eye. I began to wonder why we needed the Bill. However, it is quite a pleasure to be able to welcome a move designed to strengthen the position of the consumer in relation to privatised utilities. I can only hope that officials are sharpening their pencils to be ready for the next customers in line, especially British Rail. I say that with particular feeling since, in the course of what should have been a half hour's journey up to London this morning, I managed to sit in two trains which broke down.
It is some comfort to find the needs of consumers being increasingly recognised in the Community as well as in this country as, for instance, in the draft directive on unfair contract terms. Although the Bill is in general to be applauded, there are some grounds for unease. It struck me that there is no provision for regulating the regulators. However, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has already taken that point and I need not pursue it further. Both previous speakers have shown that the consumer will not necessarily end up having representation in the other utilities of the standard already achieved in the gas industry.
Three points seem to me candidates for examination at a later stage. They are important in view of the possible time factor. The Government may welcome the opportunity of hearing about them and considering appropriate amendments so as to avoid possible trouble at later stages of the Bill.
The first point relates to the powers of the telecommunications regulator to determine arguments about billing. As the Minister explained, this area accounts for a high percentage of disputes. The
942
Consumers' Association tells me that it has many cases on its books of consumers meeting stalemate with BT; for example, about calls made when the owners of a house were on holiday and the house was shut up. Such disputes tend to be resolved in the end simply by the subscriber paying up in order to avoid the sanction of disconnection. I doubt whether any subscriber goes through BT's detailed contract before signing up and even if he does he would hardly be likely to quarrel with the provision that BT is entitled to recover payment for all calls which its equipment shows have been made on a particular line. However, there is the difficulty that the network cannot claim to be completely secure.
I gather that if a number of lines go into a block of flats it is quite possible, if someone knows how, to rig the system so that calls on line A are registered on line B. That is not such a rarity. I also understand that the increasing use of mobile telephones is tending to add to the risks and to the number of disputes. When the point about the block of flats was raised in another place, the Government's answer was based on hope rather than assurance. It seemed to be suggested that it could be left to the director general to help, but it appears to me that he has no power at present to challenge a charge to which the operator can claim to be entitled under the contract. What I am suggesting therefore is that it would be right to make a significant extension of his powers in the Bill so that he would not be strictly bound by the terms of the contract but would have the power to determine a dispute according to what, in the circumstances, was fair and reasonable.
My second point relates to the provisions, welcome as they are, about compensation schemes where the utility fails to meet guaranteed service standards. So far, so good! But there will be instances where the customer suffers financial loss falling outside the scope of compensation schemes as envisaged at present. To go to BT again, although comparable difficulties have arisen with other utilities, buried in its contract is an exclusion clause which states that BT accepts no responsibility for the consequence of events beyond its reasonable control. The Bill, as I read it, will still leave it to BT to determine whether a particular problem is indeed beyond its reasonable control.
When the Scarborough telephone exchange was put out of action for a week by a fire in 1989 and people and businesses were cut off, BT carried out an internal inquiry which concluded that the spread of the fire was not its fault. In consequence it limited compensation to a not very generous payment in respect of the loss of the line rental for the missing week. BT may have been perfectly right in its conclusion. But who was to know? There was no outside judgment; it was decided by BT alone. The consumer is in a pretty weak position to take legal proceedings against the utility. There is much to be said for extending the power of the regulator to determine a dispute of that kind to enable him to make his own inquiry and to ensure that the operator is not sheltering behind the exclusion clause to avoid the payment of compensation.
My third and final point can be made briefly because it has already been dealt with by the noble

943
Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Ezra. It is a plea for those who are both poor and elderly or disabled. For some of them, the telephone, with its access to support services, can make all the difference to whether it is possible to continue a reasonable existence. These people are not in the habit of ringing up Los Angeles or Tokyo and benefiting from the low charges for those calls but they face what we understand are the highest charges in the Community for their local calls. Their real problem of course can be that of getting a telephone at all.
Although deposits, I understand, are now limited to £150, that can be a formidable sum for the kind of people we are talking about. I hope that it may be possible to make some provision on the face of the Bill to help them. That would be in entire accord with the community care policy of enabling the elderly and the disabled to lead as normal lives as possible. We may be told that the solution is for local authorities to help by using their powers under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. But the criteria for help under that Act are very tightly drawn, and local authorities, with their financial problems, are tending to look even more narrowly at applications for help. In the same context, although there has been a great improvement over disconnections for gas and electricity, things still do go wrong. There should be a specific requirement for performance standards in relation to the poor and disabled or elderly, covering, to take one example out of many, the need to increase the availability of tokens for the token meter. I could go on to urge that all telephones should be fitted with an inductive coupler to help the millions who wear a hearing aid. The suggestion might receive a particular welcome in this House. But I had better stop there.
I realise that the points I have been making could be said to be matters of detail. But they are important. In a sense the whole Bill is an accumulation of points of detail. It would be an even better Bill if it included provisions on the issues I have touched on.
12.8 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, the Bill seems to be producing quite strong reactions from all parts of the House. I have a strong reaction to it as well. I welcome it as another step in a process that started in this country, pretty well alone in the world, of privatising services that had up until that point been state monopolies. Most of them were running at appalling losses. They had bad relations with their workforces, who had little to be proud of because they were employed by organisations which did not contribute value added as in many cases they do now. There was a lack of self-respect generated by being part of organisations which did not contribute to the service of the nation.
I believe that the Bill is totally justified, three or four years after the deregulation of the services. It breaks new ground. Certain aspects of regulation have to be adjusted. That justifies the wide scope of the Bill in covering the four services. It is timely. However, as other speakers have said today, care must be taken regarding the new role of the regulator and the development of his role in the four services covered by
944
the Bill. I do not think that we can do more than see how matters develop but we must be very careful that in all cases the vested interests of the various players are carefully defined.
I shall make only a small contribution this morning, specifically in relation to the telecommunciations area. I declare an interest, in that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Telecommunications Managers Association and a director of a firm of technology consultants whose interests are in energy and information technology. I also have an interest, as do all of us in this House, as a consumer.
One of the points I should like to make relates to the detail of the Bill and the extent to which it covers consumers, both domestic and small businesses. I believe that the restriction to only one line needs to be reconsidered in this modern world of communications. I ask my noble friend to consider again—I know that the matter has been discussed in another place —whether restricting the individuals and premises covered by the Bill to those with a single line is satisfactory. I believe that today even domestic consumers need two lines—one out, one in—and perhaps even a third line for the children. Possibly one needs a fourth for the burglar alarm and a fifth for the fax machine. This is an age of communications. Although we pay for them, the advantages of rapid communications are enormous. A small business which is restricted to one line will lose a lot of trade because customers will find it difficult to contact the firm. BT now offer a call waiting service but very few people use that service. Surely there is a justification for including businesses with two or more lines. At later stages of the Bill I may well push for up to five lines.
I also believe that the range of services should be extended to cover data transmission. We do not understand, as perhaps our children do, the opportunities for new uses of communications between computers and other more sophisticated uses of the telephone system. That aspect could be covered by only a simple addition to the Bill.
The other point I should like to make relates to the fact that the Bill applies only to telecommunications providers with a 25 per cent. or greater share of services. The matter was raised by my honourable friend Mr. Ian Bruce in Committee in the other place, to some effect. Instead of promoting competition that restriction would probably give British Telecom the opportunity to advertise that only its services were regulated by OFTEL and could therefore be trusted. That provision should be reviewed and perhaps extended to cover service providers having a 25 per cent. share in a particular area. That would cover the new cable companies which are now being set up. In certain areas those companies will in a very short time account for 25 per cent. of the available services. Therefore they should come under the Bill. Such companies will want to compete. They will want to compete on the basis of standards and of standards of service. Therefore I believe that they would not be averse to being brought into the protection of the Bill.
For the reasons I have given I wish the Bill success. There are one or two minor amendments to be made

945
to it, but I believe that it is justified to continue what the UK alone in Europe is doing in establishing standards of privatisation and standards of commercialisation for our great national services in a way that is good for the country and good for the consumer.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps I should begin my words to your Lordships by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and any other noble Lord who may have been disturbed by the commotion just now on these Benches. A few minutes ago the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was on fire. It was only as a result of the fire-fighting exercise conducted by the Cross-Benchers that the flames, sparks and smoke from the noble Lord's left-hand hip pocket were extinguished. Therefore, in your Lordships' House we should be grateful for the utility of our water.
Nobody would quarrel with the premise that the providers of utility services should be subject to certain disciplines, particularly since they have until very recently operated as monopolies. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, argues that they still operate chiefly as monopolies, a proposition with which I disagree. Be this as it may, there is no quarrel that the providers of utility services should be subject to certain disciplines.
Nobody, therefore, would argue that there should not be an independent champion of customers' rights. Nobody would argue with the principle that there should be published quality standards and targets for the providers of utility services. Nobody would argue with the principle that the customers of those services should be compensated when the providers fall below those standards. Nor would anybody quarrel with the proposal for independent procedures for the resolution of disputes and handling of complaints.
The purpose of my intervention is to raise three points of specific concern and one point of general concern and then return in more detail to those points at Committee. Those anxieties have been put to me principally by British Telecommunications plc, so in that sense I hope that I am balancing the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
I turn first to the enforcement of standards of performance. In the provisions of the Bill concerning the gas and electricity industries, there is a standard of reasonableness applied concerning the enforcement of standards. I refer specifically to Clause 12 in relation to the gas industry and the new proposed Section 33C(3) of the Gas Act 1986, to Clause 23 relating to electricity and the new proposed subsection (3) to Section 40 of the Electricity Act 1989. But with regard to the provision of telecommunication services, the test of reasonableness has not been applied. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would consider that point. I should certainly like to return to it at Committee.
My second point of concern relates to the independent procedures for resolving disputes. I suggest that there are two lacunae. First, there is no obligation on the Director-General of Oftel (or the
946
other directors-general) to state their reasons for their adjudications. Secondly, it follows that there is a limitation to due process of law; in other words, a limitation on the parties who are not satisfied with the adjudication to take the point to a court of law as a matter of judicial review.
My third point concerns the complaints procedures referred to in Clause 4—the new proposed Section 27E(2) (b) of the Telecommunications Act 1984. Before any modification in complaints procedures can be accepted it has to be approved by the director-general. That gives the regulator a significant degree of day-to-day responsibility for the running of what should be a private company operating in a competitive market.
That brings me to my general point. Have the Government hit the right balance between the freedom of competition and the imposition of a regulatory regime? When the Minister opened the debate, it was noticeable that he contrasted the operation of all the main industries affected by this Bill before and after privatisation. He indicated that there had been a substantial improvement in the quality of service. As the Minister argues, that comes out of the new competition regime and the benefits of that regime.
It is clear from the example I cited that it is a matter of concern that the regulatory regime in the provisions of this Bill could bite across the freedom of competition and hence prove a brake upon it. Those are the only observations that I have to make. I shall return to the matter in more detail in Committee.
12.24 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I have considerable interest in those parts of the Bill which deal with both electricity and gas. However, like every consumer, I am also interested in British Telecom. I therefore intend to say a few brief words on that subject.
As I am sure have many noble Lords, I have received much correspondence from all sides. In its communication British Telecom made a good point. It said:
"Natural justice would suggest that a company should not have a liability for matters beyond its control—for instance, the inevitable, short term deterioration in maintenance performance following the extensive damage done to our overhead cabling in the hurricane of 1987".
British Telecom goes on to say that as the Bill is worded at the moment it is silent on practicality. That is important in terms not only of a natural disaster such as a hurricane but of industrial activity which deliberately sets out to destroy the effectiveness of the system. I am thinking of the glass that was put into baby food. That was deliberately designed to interrupt the industry. What would be the situation if someone deliberately took action to vandalise or put out of action a number of pay phones, where a high percentage is required for their standard of operation.
With regard to the pay phones I have a small personal complaint. When a British Telecom card is used—card operation is a marvellous thing—it costs lop for every section. Just as one is about to finish a brief conversation, the next portion of 10p clicks over.

947
However, with Mercury the card only clicks over 1p at a time. That seems to me to be much fairer. Moreover, why is it that in every government building there are only British Telecom pay phones and none from Mercury? There is no choice or competition. Is that deliberate government policy or is it just by chance that old BT telephones were converted into BT pay phones and card phones? It is certainly an irritation for people.
Also irritating is that the very useful and effective itemised bills are not available in country areas, such as where 1 live. It is simply not possible to have them. From one quarter to the next my bill increased from £20 to over £100. When I asked for an itemised bill I was told that they were not yet available in the area. I hope that changes will take place.
With regard to the entirely different issue of electricity, the problem is that the consultation paper brought out by Professor Littlechild, following the government amendment introduced in the other place, proposed very advanced procedures such as telephonic scanning. By that means the meter can be read from a central station. In the years when I served on the London Electricity Board the aim was to have such operation. Initially the idea was to have someone driving up and down one's street in a van to do it, but eventually it was aimed to do it from a telephone. Now, reorganising a pacemaker can be done over the telephone. Such advances are coming. However, it would be very unwise to impose such conditions at such speed that people cannot possibly keep up with them.
Another area of concern is meter fraud. Under the Bill I understand that one will be able to have one's own meter. That has always caused great difficulty. Fraudulent use of electricity is widespread. Those who have seen the black museum of meters which have been adapted or changed—some have been adapted to run backwards—know how important it is for the supplier to be able to test and assess the meter. If it is found that the meter has been tampered with, a right to replace that meter will be needed. For every person who gets free electricity, it costs every other person who pays his bill a little bit more. That is quite unjust. Therefore there are a number of amendments which should be brought forward on behalf of the electricity industry.
Another point concerns blocking proceedings for 28 days. If someone were paying on instalments, that might create complications. This is not the moment to go into detail and I shall return to that point later.
With regard to the Gas Consumers Council, on which I served as a member in the North Thames area for some time, one must be careful to protect the good things that we already have. It has been pointed out by the Consumers' Association, and indeed most of us know it, that the Gas Consumers Council is unique and eminently satisfactory.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said this Bill had been drawn up to correct past mistakes. I wish to ensure it does not create new ones. I shall table amendments in Committee to ensure that the Gas Consumers Council retains its strong and
948
unique position. I take a tiny bit of personal credit for that in that I was involved in persuading the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to accept—
Lord Ezra: My Lords, why does the noble Baroness want the council to remain in a unique position? Why could the good example set in the gas industry not be applied elsewhere?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I take that point. From the point of view of consumers it would be desirable to set up such bodies in other utilities. I have no view on the matter of whether this Bill is the correct vehicle in which to set up such new bodies. However, I certainly do not wish the Bill to destroy any such bodies. As long as one satisfactory precedent exists, there is the possibility that others may follow in due course.
The structure of the gas industry is an important factor here. The gas industry comprises one central system as compared with the electricity industry which comprises a number of different bodies in different regions. I acknowledge there is scope to set up similar consumer organisations in the other utilities. I shall not spell out the kind of amendments I intend to table in Committee but they will be simple amendments. They will seek merely to insert the word "council". That word was used in the gas legislation to determine the Gas Consumers Council. Ofgas has a responsibility for all aspects of the gas supply up to a consumer's meter. Everything on the other side of the meter inside one's property comes under the jurisdiction of the Gas Consumers Council. The Gas Consumers Council works well with the gas companies and has been able to smooth out many thousands of potentially difficult complaints.
A manager of one of the regional gas boards said to me recently that every time a minor complaint was received by Ofgas it became a major complaint and was time consuming to resolve. However, the Gas Consumers Council and the gas companies can sort out people's problems much more directly. I want to see that valuable link retained. I believe the Government would not wish to see any harm done to a body that is proving so successful. If the Government wish to establish more consumer bodies —the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that—that would be welcome. However, I shall table amendments to ensure that the Gas Consumers Council retains its unique position and retains the right to be consulted on consumer issues.
12.33 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, as is customary I declare an interest. I am president of the Water Companies' Association and chairman of two water supply companies in the north east of England. I speak for the association of which I am president and for the Water Services Association, which has approached me as it is concerned about an aspect of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for speaking briefly about a matter which is mainly technical, but which is of great consequence to the

949
water industry in England and Wales and to the quality of service that companies provide to their customers.
Water undertakers have for many years been able to require as a condition of connection to a water main that a separate service pipe is provided to each house or building on the premises in question. The control which this has given them over the water supply system has resulted in much benefit to their customers. The alternative to separate supply pipes is common supply pipes—that is, a single pipe providing a common supply to all houses or buildings in a development. In this situation responsibility for maintenance of a customer's pipework and for mending leaks is difficult to identify and enforce. This can result in poor supplies and waste of water—in some cases a great deal of water may be wasted—and, on occasion, pressure on water resources. Separate supply pipes have thus formed an important part of the water industry's strategy for improving standards of service.
Clause 46(3) of the Bill seeks to restrict to cases where they would otherwise have difficulty in discharging their statutory obligations the ability of water undertakers to require separate service pipes. The industry understands that the impetus for this change has to come from the Office of Water Services, which believes that for certain developments such as blocks of flats it may not be wholly reasonable to insist on separate supply pipes because of the cost involved. This may well be so and some curb upon water industry powers might therefore be appropriate. However, the wording goes much wider than what is necessary to accommodate the point made by the Office of Water Services. The view of the water industry is that the wording is so wide as seriously to dilute its powers to require separate supply pipes. If the clause is enacted as it stands, a significant increase in common supply pipes, and a consequent reduction in the quality of service, is considered by the industry to be inevitable. This surely cannot be the intention of the Government.
The reasons for this are as follows. The clause refers to water undertakers' statutory obligations. These are, however, comparatively few—although they are important—being confined to the supply of water of sufficient quantity, pressure, and quality. The circumstances where the discharge of these obligations would justifiably require the installation of separate service pipes are limited in the extreme. Thus there has been an inevitable increase in common supplies. It is really, however, in the discharge of their functions to improve and maintain services to customers that separate service pipes are very much desired by companies. Perhaps in that lies a clue as to how the clause should have been phrased. I must remark in passing that it is a matter of regret that there was no prior consultation with the water industry before the introduction of the Bill in another place about the practical effect of this clause as presently worded.
I therefore submit that Clause 46(3) does not at the moment make good operational sense. This is the view of the water industry and it is certainly my view as
950
chairman of two water supply companies. I hope in consequence that my noble friend will take full note of the points I have made.
12.38 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I wish to make only a brief intervention in this debate to raise the issue of premium rate telephone services, sometimes known as "chatlines" or "0898 numbers". This Bill claims to be about increased protection for consumers and there are many aspects of the Bill that I welcome, especially the new arrangements for those who have a dispute about their telephone bill. But the Bill wholly fails to address what the chairman of British Telecom once called a "blight on the industry". The Government have missed the opportunity provided by this Bill to do anything about the problem of chatlines.
Let me make clear that I am all for technological advance. Since 1984 we have seen many welcome innovations in telephone services such as greater competition, more reliable pay phones and the advent of the fax machine. Indeed the basic concept of premium rate services is a helpful one, allowing much useful information—for example, stock exchange prices, weather forecasts and cricket scores—to be obtained by telephone.
The difficulties arise because, as with so many industries, there are cowboys who want to make a quick buck, especially through providing sleazy pornographic services. Sadly, people get addicted to such services and huge telephone bills result. Quarterly bills of £500 or £1,000 are not uncommon and in some cases, quarterly bills of £4,000 have been recorded. Who makes such calls? It is often teenagers, the lonely and the unemployed. It is often people who are not telephone subscribers and who, therefore, will not be faced with the bill.
I can predict the Government's response to my anxieties because I know what was said in another place. They will say that enough is being done. I know about the existence of ICSTIS—the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services—call-barring and codes of practice. I ask how it can be said that enough is being done when you can walk a few yards from this House and buy a so-called newspaper advertising thousands of services with titles like "Sex Slave", "Talking Dirty" and "Willing Housewives".
Instead of widespread exploitation, we need sensible controls. Instead of ICSTIS we need a statutory committee. Instead of call-barring (opting out from such services) we need to be able to opt in in the same way that you can only obtain an adult channel on cable TV if it is specifically requested. Surely this Bill needs to be amended to include those further controls. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will give an indication as to what may be the Government's reaction to those suggestions. If he does that, the House will be greatly in his debt.
12.41 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it surprises me that the parties opposite have cavilled at the provisions of this Bill. I greatly support the Bill. The

951
Government have innovated the privatisation of utilities in this country, as my noble friend Lord Renwick said. They have increased the popularity, efficiency and profitability of those utilities. Do the parties opposite wish us to return to the days of failing public utilities which have to be supported by ever-increasing levels of taxation?
That is enough of that. I now turn to the Bill. It extends significantly the powers of the directors general and, in key areas, it changes the nature of those powers. Hitherto, they have acted as regulators in accordance with specific duties laid down in primary legislation. Now they are being asked to act as adjudicators. They are asked to decide, on the basis of evidence presented by two parties, whether bills are properly to be paid, whether individual service standards have been met, and so on. Those are very different functions. The Minister explained that that is the intention of the Bill.
I take telecommunications as an example although similar arguments apply to all industries affected by the Bill. Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 specifies that the director must, among other things, ensure the provision of services. That section which defines and limits the role of the regulator does not and cannot apply when the director general is adjudicating a dispute between a service company and its customers. However, the Bill does not provide any alternative framework defining the powers and duties of the director in this area. I suggest that that may be a weakness.
The Government indicated in another place on 16th January (col. 1174 of Hansard) that they were considering applying the Tribunals and Inquiries Act to adjudications under this legislation. I welcome that suggestion, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is to happen.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, it is particularly worrying that under the powers for dispute resolution there is no obligation to follow "due process". That point has been covered by noble Lords on both sides of the House. The insertion of a clear and binding requirement for the director or his appointees to give reasons and for either party to the dispute to be able to appeal on a point of law would improve the legislation and would enable both sides of the dispute to understand how and why they were wrong.
The Bill gives wide powers to the directors general to ordain overall standards and—with the consent of the Secretary of State—standards applying to individual customers. That is manifestly right and to be welcomed. If a company fails its customers, it should compensate them. However, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has clearly pointed out that the Bill does not make exceptions for natural disasters and that is an anomaly which should be put right by this Bill.
The Bill creates an absolute duty for telecommunication companies to meet overall standards even if circumstances mean that it is not practical to meet those standards. The gas and electricity undertakers have the lesser duty of conducting their business in a way that can reasonably be expected to lead to
952
achieving such standards. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned that. It seems contradictory that there should be a different obligation for the gas and electricity utilities. Surely the obligations as regards telecommunications should be brought into line with those for gas and electricity.
Another anomaly concerns the degree of required compliance with a licence condition. The director general of telecommunications has a duty to make a licence enforcement order following a licence breach even if the offending party is taking satisfactory steps to eliminate the cause of the breach. Indeed, Clause 44 of the Bill specifically excludes gas companies but does not exclude the telecommunications companies. Given the Government's expressed intention to standardise the powers of regulators, it seems odd that those matters have not been brought into line.
I hope that the Minister will accept my congratulations on his introduction of the Bill. Perhaps he will be able to give some information as regards whether the director should give due process for his reasons in cases of arbitration and there should be no liability for causes outside the licensees' power and control and that the application of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act should apply to this Bill.
12.47 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as a non-executive director of British Gas. Secondly, I must apologise to the House for my late arrival this morning. As a non-executive director I was helping to launch a campaign to encourage more girls and women into science and engineering. My honourable friend Virginia Bottomley, the Minister for Health, had agreed to speak and I could not let her down as I had promised to chair the meeting. However, I shall read with particular attention in Hansard the earlier part of the debate.
The Bill sets out to increase competition among the utilities, a principle of which I greatly approve, as they should serve the customer better. I have now been a member of the British Gas board for nearly three years. It is five years since privatisation. During that time I have seen a considerable increase in its competitive spirit both in this country and abroad and especially in terms of a more customer-oriented approach within the UK.
British Gas welcomes the increase in competition and has agreed to the principal recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading, the more competitive tariff formula and the original Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendations of a few years ago. It has carried those out in practice and in good faith.
All that is good news in the light of the Bill. In the coming year the distribution system will be hived off into a separate division which will mean transparency in costs and more competitors. From April of this year British Gas has voluntarily agreed to reduce the tariff threshold from £25,000 to £10,000. Thus, competition will develop, and we have agreed to help it.
There are one or two points I wish to make to show the other side of the penny. I was one of those who, perhaps like many of your Lordships, bought shares in

953
the company at Sid's behest long before I had any connection with it. The legitimate interests of many small shareholders must be safeguarded and they must feel fairly treated in terms of value for money originally paid for the shares. That is particularly so as we want to encourage more people to become shareholders in the United Kingdom.
Part of that value for money will depend on British Gas thrusting into foreign markets for business. It is already doing so in terms of exploration, production, distribution and sales in developing a successful global gas company. However, a successful overseas company is heavily dependent on expertise and profitable business in the UK. It will be difficult to build on a weak national base; yet its international success will be a considerable boost to the prosperity not only of its shareholders and employees but of UK Limited.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s the coalgas industry was going downhill. By now it would have been out of business had it not been for the experimentation and introduction of natural gas by the company operating in those days. Today it is a thriving business with a strong domestic market. However, it is easy to forget the tremendous initiative of those days; setting up a whole new transmission system and changing everybody's fittings to accommodate the new gas. It has a much higher calorific value and can be transmitted at higher pressures.
Gas is hazardous and safety has always been high on the list of priorities at British Gas. That must be so for all distributors. British Gas has not skimped on research to improve safety. The intelligent pig which tests the pipelines for leaks internally was developed by British Gas and is now being sold internationally. Much development has been carried out to make the installation and repair of pipelines less likely to require the holes in the road that cause disruption to traffic. That kind of research and development and insistence on safety costs money. In encouraging competition, such safety and development must not be jeopardised. It could easily be forgotten by those outside the business.
One of the strengths of our British political system is that it evolves, developing checks and balances to ensure that too much power is not concentrated with one group or individual. To an extent the privatisation of the major utilities sought to achieve a balance by appointing regulators to oversee the conduct of the privatised companies. But little attention has been given to the issue of the accountability of the regulators themselves.
While some of the respective Secretaries of State have certain powers over the regulators they are fairly limited. But this Bill gives a whole new set of powers to the regulators with few supervisory powers residing with the Secretaries of State. The Bill increases the powers of the regulators without a corresponding increase in accountability.
Examples of the additional powers being granted to the regulatory directors can be seen in Clause 11. At line 21 on page 13 of the Bill, Clause 11 reads:
954
"The Director may, after consulting … from time to time—
(a) determine such standards of overall performance in connection with the provision of gas supply services by public gas suppliers as, in his opinion, ought to be achieved by them…
(2) Different standards may be determined for different public gas suppliers.
(3) It shall be the duty of every public gas supplier to conduct his business in such a way as can reasonably be expected to lead to his achieving the standards set under this section".
As a result of the way in which the overall clause is currently drafted we are in danger of having a director as lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner with no court of appeal. My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam referred in particular to that extension of powers. I question whether this is really the kind of structure that Parliament wants to have put in place. One way of plugging the gap would be to make amendments so that the power to make regulations should rest with the Secretary of State and not be placed upon the director. I hope that serious consideration will be given to that suggestion.
I wish to make clear the fact that I am not seeking to reduce the present powers of the regulators. My concerns are about the additional powers being given to the regulators in the Bill and how future regulators may build upon those powers. As the Bill stands the directors general will be able to make regulations to suit their own purposes and preferences. Although for the most part the present regulators may have performed well, the system could be abused. These powers and the decisions taken are not open to challenge unless legally incorrect. The process of judicial review could be considered but legal opinions question whether the process is really suited for overseeing the way in which powers are being exercised by regulators.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, refer to the need for a statement of reasons by the regulator, which has great merit. If there is a major dispute between the regulators and the companies which they control it may be said that there is the opportunity to put the issue to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. But that is a lengthy and cumbersome method to use and at too high a level.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner about the work of the Gas Consumers' Council, particularly in relation to minor matters. However, I am now referring to major matters. There has also been the suggestion of involving the Council on Tribunals. Perhaps we shall hear that more can be done through that route. It seems to me that we need either a tribunal or a larger, specially-appointed committee, perhaps composed of Privy Counsellors who will make objective judgments on utility regulation. I am not laying down how the committee should be composed because that is a matter for the Government. It might be a Select Committee composed only of Members of both Houses or it might include other people with judicial and commercial experience relevant to the kind of decisions that they would need to make. The main purpose of the Select Committee would be to ensure that there is a proper balance within the framework in

955
which the privatised utilities operate. They supply services to virtually every household and citizen in the land.
We must make sure that there are effective methods for the complaints and suggestions of those customers to be heard. We must also make sure that the privatised companies are not interfered with unduly to the detriment of their shareholders, employees and future customers. There should be a channel for any relevant body to air what it may see as major grievances. There could also be advantage in giving the regulators themselves the opportunity to make their case on issues and to state the reasons for their decisions through the procedures of the committee.
I hope that my noble friend will discuss with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the possibility of setting up such an independent, objective group of Members of both Houses of Parliament, some of whom would need long-standing experience in the commercial world. In that way there would be a proper channel of appeal on major matters of policy from customers, shareholders, all the privatised utility companies and their regulators. Nobody could feel that their legitimate interests had not been given a fair hearing. Indeed, I have seen that idea mooted in the press. It is the kind of proper parliamentary check and balance that we normally create in our democracy in this country in order to make clear that justice will be achieved between conflicting demands.
Without such a channel of appeal on major matters, power is concentrated too much in the hands of one person. However reasonable such a person is, too much concentration of power can easily lead down the slippery slope to unreasonableness in the exercise of that power. The utility companies accept that they must help to encourage competition. However, if there is no fair right of independent appeal, commercial success on behalf of shareholders may suffer. That is no way of encouraging a shareholders' democracy. Objective justice must be seen to be done.
1 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the Bill before us is, by and large, a set of corrigenda; indeed, the longest list of corrigenda that I have seen compared to previous Bills. We are making corrections, amending in various places and pointing out parts which could have been better drafted. As my noble friend Lord Williams pointed out, perhaps a bit of forethought might have been used at the original point of forming the legislation or perhaps the warnings given should have been heeded, whereas they were not.
Before I turn to the detailed matters mentioned by noble Lords, I should like to put forward some general principles which could have been followed when privatisation was first undertaken. Since the days of Adam Smith economists have seen no great virtue in either private or public ownership of natural monopolies. It is very much a matter of circumstances, tastes and institutions as to whether one or the other solution would be appropriate.
When privatisation was undertaken, I believe that there was a muddle in the minds of many people;
956
namely, that somehow, if you privatise a natural monopoly, it is possible to improve performance by something called "competition". As my noble friend Lord Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords pointed out, there are natural monopolies in which competition cannot be introduced because of the nature of the product. The water service is one example. It is not possible to think of competition in regard to the water services.
Therefore, one has to fall back on a different way of guaranteeing the two aspects outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra: first, the economic regulation of the monopoly so that the monopoly power is not abused, and, secondly, consumer protection. However, if we are to do that we must have a proper regulatory mechanism. The present Bill arises from the fact that a proper regulatory mechanism was not thought of initially over the five years during which various Bills were introduced. Now we have to correct such legislation in many places.
One inescapable conclusion arises from the remarks made by many speakers. Once again, I believe that the Bill will prove to be too timid. I believe that it will have to be corrected in many places and we may still have to return to it at a later stage to deal with certain problems. Moreover, as has already been implied, it is rather late in the day to start dealing with some of these matters which should have been dealt with long ago.
Basically, so far as concerns noble Lords on this side of the House, there are one or two points of absolute importance. As regards natural monopolies, because they cover utilities, it is absolutely essential that we think of consumers as being entitled to good services rather than just thinking of a service as something which can be contracted. That is an important point. It is not enough to say that 95 per cent. of the people are satisfied with the service. The small minorities are most important; for example, the disabled, the poor and the elderly. It is small groups of people here and there with special problems who must be looked after. It is not good enough just to look after the majority. Everyone has to be looked after, because some of the services are vital to the health and sometimes the lives of people. Therefore, the first principle is that we must ensure that special groups of people are catered for by the natural monopolies.
Secondly, it is most important that we have direct consultation with consumers over and above consumer councils. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said what a good job the Gas Consumers' Council had done and suggested that the concept should be extended to other natural monopolies. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Williams who said that it is not just representatives of consumers who have been elected in some way or a consumer association which it is important to consult; it is very important to consult consumers directly by methods of market research, opinion polls, and so on. I say that because the individual consumer is often not adequately represented in such matters.
Thirdly, I believe that it is most important—and many noble Lords have drawn attention to this fact

957
—to regulate the regulators. It is not only important that regulators should have adequate powers to carry out their task, but we must also have a framework whereby the regulators are accountable to publicly-elected bodies. There must be supervision to ensure that regulatory powers are not misused and that regulators do not get into collusion; in other words, that there should be no producer culture of regulation.
When privatisation was undertaken it is somewhat astonishing that we did not follow the good example of the United States, which has for a long time held the opinion that, although utilities are privately owned, they should be very properly and publicly regulated. There is much literature on the fact that public regulation of private monopolies is the way forward. As noble Lords know, the public regulators in the United States can be very tough. That is an example which we ought to be following.
A further matter which ought to be mentioned is the fact that there seems to be some asymmetry here; that is, some rules which apply to water and gas do not seem to apply to telecommunications. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred to this in his speech. We should be given a reason as to why in some matters, especially telecommunications, certain utilities seem to be treated differentially more favourably than water or gas.
It is important to remember that large profits represent efficiency on the part of competitive firms; they just represent market power on the part of monopolies. Therefore we must always bear in mind the twin aspects involved: economic regulation of the natural monopolies and consumer protection. Both of those aspects must be simultaneously looked after so that private monopolies operate efficiently but also in the public interest.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes his speech, perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that, although noble Lords opposite have referred to "corrections" as regards the Bill, when I mentioned the word I was quoting something said by a Member of the other side of the House. I should prefer to use the word "improvements".
Further, does the noble Lord agree that many of the improvements are matters which could not have been envisaged at the time of drafting? Although we have discussed such improvements today, it is very much easier with hindsight to see where things could have been better in such Bills. However, such issues have come to light only as time has progressed.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. As regards the first point she made, I agree: we on this side of the House believe them to be corrections. The noble Baroness may wish to think that they are improvements, but that is a matter of perception. In reply to her second point, I should stress that I was not a Member of the House at the time when such Bills were discussed. But as an academic economist I can tell the noble Baroness that many of us anticipated such problems.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene because I was present during some of those debates.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, yes indeed; I have no objection.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and myself—I remember it well—put forward many such points during the passage of the Telecommunications Act, the Gas Act and the Electricity Act. Indeed, I put forward all of them from this Dispatch Box.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, quite a number of points have been raised during the course of an interesting debate. I know that in some cases this is advance warning of intended amendments. Nevertheless, I shall try and treat them as if answers are required—at least to as many points on which I think I can throw any light.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, began with a complaint that the Bill showed that nothing previously had worked, and that all the Government were doing was seeking to amend previous legislation. We are benefiting from experience that we have gained during the course of the privatisation of the utilities. As I explained in my opening speech, OFFER is the most recent regulator and generally has the strongest statutory powers. The Bill aims to bring the level of the other regulators' powers up to the level of OFFER's generally speaking. The biggest changes are for OFTEL and Ofgas which were set up earlier.
The noble Lord said that no competition was possible for water. He overstated that. I made it plain that there are difficulties in introducing competition into water, but we consider that it is possible to some degree, particularly where customers can have a choice between different suppliers because of their geographical situation and in the case of single large users, which under the Bill will be treated as inset appointments. That could include new green-field sites, possibly new towns and large companies. For example, large chemical works or pulp paperworks could be covered under the provisions.
The noble Lord raised the matter of consumer councils and suggested that the other utilities should have something equivalent to the Gas Consumers' Council. There are customer representative committees for all utilities which have evolved in the form which is most appropriate to each of those utilities. We do not see a need to replicate the Gas Consumers' Council for electricity, water and telecommunications.
The representative committees vary. For electricity, there are 12 committees matching the regional companies; in the case of water there are 10 committees, each covering a geographical area; in telecommunications there are four territorial committees, plus two specialist committees representing small business and the disabled; and there are over 160 local committees. Those committees have gained expertise in their different fields and they provide customers with valuable sources of advice. We think that to change from this existing structure would be a

959
confusion for customers, and it would be some while before any new consumer committees could acquire the expertise to be effective.
The noble Lord asked me what the safety provisions would be once the gas threshold was removed. There are safeguards which apply to all gas suppliers. Under Section 4 of the Gas Act the Secretary of State and the director general have a duty to protect the public from dangers arising from the distribution, transmission and supply of gas. Under Section 18 of the Gas Act, transmission, distribution, use and supply of gas through pipes are brought within the scope of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. Those statutory requirements will remain when the threshold is lowered.
The noble Lord suggested that the regulators should he able to consult consumers directly, rather than through the medium of representative bodies. They will certainly be able to conduct market research, for example, if they consider that to be a useful exercise.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the regulation of the regulators. The regulators are already accountable. They operate within a statutory framework; they are required to make an annual report to the Secretary of State. That report must be presented to Parliament. They are also subject to the scrutiny of the appropriate Select Committee, and their decisions can be subject to judicial review. So we do not see them as being unregulated.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who was joined by my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam, raised the issue of regulators allegedly not being required to give reasons for their decisions. In all cases, regulators must give reasons for their decisions, otherwise they run the risk of being judicially reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said the Bill did not go far enough, in his opinion, on energy efficiency. That is his view. I said that under the Bill we would consider the promotion of energy efficiency to be a highly important matter. Energy efficiency improvements are pursued by the Government through other means. They have helped the United Kingdom achieve a 25 per cent. increase in GDP over the past 10 years with virtually no change in energy consumption and the Energy Efficiency Office's budget for 1992–93 will be 40 per cent. greater than for this year. There are many initiatives that we are taking.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that the Bill did not sufficiently address the interests of the disabled. Director generals all have a responsibility to take account of the interests of the disabled under their general duties in all of the four Acts. Those general duties will cover the provisions in Part I of the Bill and will be reflected in the way in which the directors use their new powers in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who was joined again by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, raised the matter of differences on the duty to comply with overall performance standards between the utilities. There is a power for all regulators to take enforcement action by making statutory orders, and there is an obligation
960
on all the utilities to meet the standards set. The difference that exists is based on a different approach which has developed in the different industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and suggested that the criteria under the Act were too stringent. The criteria, I understand, are for the individual local authorities to decide. He registered a complaint—if that is not too strong a word—that I was annunciating all sorts of advantages of privatisation which he claimed were not visible to the naked eye. Of course, not everything is visible to the naked eye—or to anyone's naked eye—for example, electricity or gas. Neither of them of course are visible. If it is the case that not everyone is sufficiently aware of the advantages of privatisation, then I do not think that he can complain that I should have repeated them to your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, also raised the question of the problem posed by people tapping into other people's telephone lines and having to pay for the illegal use of their telephones. If a telephone line is tampered with—and that occurs outside the customer's premises,—then British Telecom is only entitled to the cost of calls that have been legally made. He raised the matter of hearing-aid users, and he talked about inductive couplers. It is a condition of British Telecom's licence that it must meet all the reasonable demands for telephones capable of being inductively coupled. Telephones in lifts and in public call boxes must be capable of being inductively coupled. BT also make available portable couplers. That is described in the booklet, BT's Guide for the Disabled which was published this year and is generally available. I recommend that the noble Lord consults that.
The noble Lord referred to problems that were outside BT's control. In setting standards for the utilities, it would be for the director general to decide whether there should be any exemptions from paying compensation for certain circumstances.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for the news that he and his colleagues had ensured that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was not prematurely removed from our midst by fire. Perhaps that event came as a portent to show that even the Fire Service should no longer be a monopoly.
My noble friend Lord Renwick raised the matter of the Telecom section and its application to a wider number of customers and a wider group of operations. I should like to point out that the restriction to single line premises only applies to business premises. Residential customers can have any number of lines, and the Bill will still apply. The Bill should be restricted to operators who enjoy a virtual monopoly—that is to say, BT in Kingston. Where competition applies, the Bill should not do so. The Bill implements The Citizen's Charter, and therefore in our view should not cover large business. A single line restriction will cover the majority of small business customers. I hope that that goes some way to dealing with my noble friend's anxiety.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes complained that itemised telephone bills were not

961
always available. The situation with itemised billing is that it is now available to 79 per cent. of BT's customers and 100 per cent. of Mercury's and it should be available to 90 per cent. of BT's customers by the end of 1993.
My noble friend also feels that the Bill does not adequately recognise the Gas Consumers' Council. The Bill in no way attempts to downgrade the role of the Gas Consumers' Council. We consider that it plays a most useful role. Clause 18 sets this out in relation to the new powers in the Bill for the Director General of Gas Supply to determine disputes over the terms of supply and individual service standards. The clause also covers the role of the Gas Consumers' Council should the Secretary of State give the director general powers to determine billing disputes.
On the suggestion that the Bill should specify that the Gas Consumers' Council be consulted over standards, a number of the clauses require the Director General of Gas Supply to consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected. This enables him to consult the most appropriate organisations, including, for example, the National Consumer Council and Age Concern. In any case the Gas Consumers' Council is so clearly the most representative of these interests that the director general will inevitably consult it.
My noble friend thought that there was no power to provide for exceptions for guaranteed service standards and therefore an obligation to provide compensation. I may have answered this, but perhaps I should more fully say that the new Section 27A(3) (c) enables the Director General of Telecommunications to provide for exceptions for guaranteed service standards and therefore for the obligation to provide compensation.
My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth spoke about Clause 46. I am aware that water companies are worried that Clause 46(3) will seriously restrict their ability to require separate service pipes to premises. I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining these worries so clearly and fully. I wish to give further thought to what he said before we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne expressed his horror at certain premium rate services and made a proposal that there should be opting in. This was a matter which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission considered in 1988 and it rejected the idea of opting in as not being in the public interest. It recommended a range of safeguards which are now in place. The safeguards have been successful. Many services have been cut off by BT and Mercury on the recommendation of ICSIS and OFTEL. In 1990 over £200,000 was paid in compensation to subscribers whose telephones had been used to phone chat lines and one-to-one services without their authority.
The market is changing in response to the safeguards that are in place. Only about 20 per cent. of premium rate services are now what could be called adult services and chat lines which my noble friend described. So in our view the regulatory framework has worked.
962
I believe that I have dealt with most of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam. He asked what progress is being made on the matter of the Council on Tribunals. My department has begun discussions with OFTEL about the possibility of the Council on Tribunals having supervision over the dispute powers given to the Director General of Telecommunications under the Bill. The role of the council in relation to the other regulators' powers is, however, a matter for the respective departments.
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle raised matters relating to British Gas. The timetable which we envisage for ending the gas monopoly will allow competition to develop progressively and give British Gas time to adjust to changes in the market. This would ensure that customers benefit from competition while recognising the interests of shareholders. Sir James McKinnon, the Director General of Gas Supply, has already advised British Gas that it will not suffer financial damage in the tariff market as a result of the change in the monopoly threshold.
My noble friend suggested that there could be greater checks on the powers of the Director General of Gas Supply. Ministers are satisfied that the current balance of power between the regulators and the utilities is correct. There is a system of checks and balances in place. For example, each regulator reports annually to the Secretary of State and, as I said, these reports are presented to Parliament. Regulators can be called before a Select Committee and their decisions are subject to the discipline of judicial review.
In the case of gas, this system has worked well since privatisation, with the regulator and British Gas together providing an impressive performance with reduced gas prices, improved standards and the lowest ever level of disconnections.
In conclusion, when we published The Citizen's Charter last July we promised to strengthen the powers of the four regulators of the privatised utilities. This Bill delivers the promises we made by giving the regulators strong and flexible powers to require high standards of service for the utilities' customers. In addition, it tackles some barriers to competition in gas and water services.
Customers' expectations are rising. They will no longer accept the poor service, the delays and the general inconvenience when dealing with the utilities which they had to put up with during the dark ages of state ownership. But that era is behind us. The age of enlightenment has now dawned. The public will not, I believe, easily be lured back to accept the tenets of the discredited religion of state ownership, despite the wiles of its surviving priesthood. This Bill rings in the new age. I unhesitatingly commend it to your Lordships and ask you to give it a Second Reading.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would be grateful if he could deal with two points that I raised in my speech. If he is unable to deal with them now, perhaps he could write to me before the Committee stage.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I give the noble Lord an undertaking to read Hansard and reply in writing to any matters with which I have not dealt.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I wanted to save the Minister from dealing now with the more general points I raised. One concerned the enforcement of standards of performance and the reasonable test that is applied with the gas and electricity industries but not with the telecommunications industry. The other point was that I did not understand the Minister's reply on the reasons and the reasonable tests. I should be grateful if he could also deal with that in correspondence.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Prison Security Bill
1.27 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
The primary purpose of the Prison Security Bill is to create a new criminal offence of prison mutiny. It is directed at the kind of serious misconduct which, whatever form it takes, has as its intention the overthrow of lawful authority in a prison. The Bill is a direct response to the very serious disturbances at Strangeways Prison and a number of other prisons in April 1990. These led the previous Home Secretary to appoint an inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Woolf to examine the disturbances and to announce that the Government would introduce legislation to create a new offence of prison mutiny.
I am sure that noble Lords will need little reminding of the scenes we witnessed in our prisons in April 1990. The governor and his staff lost control of Strangeways Prison for 25 days. The interior of the prison was wrecked. Almost 200 prisoners and staff were injured and the damage caused will cost around £60 million to repair.
The conduct that led to wholesale destruction there and elsewhere is simply unacceptable. Its consequences are still with us. There is a shortage of prison places in North-West England which is causing prisoners to be kept in police cells. That is not good for the prisoners and nor is it good for the police. The experience of the disturbances also profoundly affected the prison service staff who were involved. Some of them are still suffering from the consequences of that experience.
Some might say that these disturbances were provoked by crowded and insanitary conditions. The Government do not accept that the conditions could justify the conduct which we saw and of which we heard. They accept that in some prisons conditions must be improved; and in a moment I shall relate briefly some of the measures we have in hand to improve those conditions. But poor conditions will not explain the further serious disturbances we saw last year at new prisons such as Moorland and Brinsford, where the conditions were good and the regime was not oppressive.
Since the 1990 disturbances, Lord Justice Woolf has reported and the Government have issued a White Paper in response to his report. That proposes improvements to regimes and conditions, and also in
964
the field of security and control. The two are linked. We hope that making prisons more decent places in which to live will help to reduce tensions and to prevent a climate in which mutinous behaviour could develop. Prisons with good regimes and fair treatment for prisoners are more likely to be stable and safe. Similarly, improving security and control will enable staff to work constructively with inmates in the knowledge that if there is a breakdown of order, it can more easily be contained.
We are improving sanitation in our older prisons. We remain on course to end the degrading practice of slopping out by the end of 1994. We have agreed to appoint an independent complaints adjudicator this year. We have also begun work on developing a code of standards to help bring about humane and decent conditions in all our prisons. That will cover, among other things, physical conditions and access to work and visits.
Through our prison building programme, we provided 2,500 additional places last year. Another 2,000 will be provided by May this year, and 550 new places are being added at existing establishments. All of those have access to integral sanitation and are built to a better, more modern design.
We are also taking measures to improve security and control in our prisons to make it harder for a mutiny to begin or develop. In the current financial year we are spending £16 million on measures to improve physical security, including the installation of x-ray machines in prisons holding Category A prisoners. That will make it harder to smuggle in weapons that could be used in a mutiny.
We have also issued a new contingency planning manual and a new security manual, which take account of many of the security proposals in the Woolf Report. All those measures will help to contain serious incidents or to deal with them when they arise.
The Prison Security Bill complements those measures. We are improving our prisons, but we need also to deter prisoners from wrecking them. The new offence of prison mutiny, which is designed specifically to deter serious disturbances in our prisons, will bring home to prisoners more clearly than before the severe consequences of mutinous conduct.
There is, of course, a range of other measures which can be used to deal with prisoners involved in disturbances. Those include bringing prosecutions for criminal damage, offences against the person, and the offences in the Public Order Act. There are a number of disciplinary offences too. But those have not stemmed the flow of serious disturbances in our prisons. We have come to the view that something else is needed.
The maximum penalty that a governor may impose for a disciplinary offence is 28 days' loss of remission. That penalty is severe enough to deal with the great majority of prisoners who cause trouble, but it is insufficient to deal with very serious disturbances of the kind to which I have already referred. Moreover, disciplinary penalties will have no effect if the prisoner is discharged before his case can be heard.
The penalties provided by the law for the criminal offences that I have mentioned are adequate, but the

965
offences themselves are not tailor-made for the sort of behaviour that might constitute mutiny in a prison. They do not directly address the most serious problem which this Bill seeks to address, which arises from the formation of a common purpose to overthrow lawful authority in the prison. They may be applied to the behaviour which follows that, but, if that behaviour takes place behind the closed doors of a prison, it may not be possible to determine who committed the offences. What is more, the instigators may not be at the forefront of the action and may escape prosecution under the existing law.
I turn now to the Bill itself. The new offence of prison mutiny is contained in Clause 1. That makes it an offence for two or more prisoners to take part in a prison mutiny. If convicted, such prisoners face a penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment. The case must be tried in the Crown court and only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Clause 1 defines what is meant by a mutiny. We could have left that undefined, or relied on a dictionary definition. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (Fourth Edition) defines mutiny as the refusal of a body of persons under discipline to obey orders, and it helpfully cites the example of the mutiny of the Bengal native troops in 1857. Prisoners, of course, are not soldiers, but they are subject to the lawful requirements of the governor and his officers. We have therefore looked elsewhere for an appropriate definition.
We have followed the recommendation of the Prior Committee in its 1985 report on the prison disciplinary system. The Bill provides that a prison mutiny occurs when two or more prisoners engage in conduct intended to further a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in a prison.
When the Bill was introduced in another place, the definition of mutiny was somewhat wider. It also included —again as recommended by the Prior Committee—collective disobedience to lawful authority in such circumstances as to subvert order in a prison. That provision was perceived in another place as going too wide, and capable of penalising any disobedience by prisoners, no matter how trivial. That was never the Government's intention. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, on consideration, decided that the narrower definition in the Bill now before your Lordships would not only meet the Government's needs, but would make their intentions clearer on the face of the Bill.
The offence of mutiny as now drafted is intended for the most serious disturbances in our prisons. The test in Clause 1(2) is a strict one. It will not penalise minor acts of disobedience, nor passive protests about a particular aspect of the regime, but it will be available for the serious disorder we have witnessed in some prisons in the past two years, so long as it can be proved that at least two prisoners had a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in the prison.
There was also some anxiety in another place that a minimum of two prisoners was too low a number to trigger an offence of prison mutiny. The Government
966
considered raising the minimum, but in the end decided to leave it as it was. Any number higher than two is arbitrary. Two was the minimum recommended by the Prior Committee. It is also the number required in the Army Act definition of mutiny, which the Prior Committee took as a model. It would no doubt be a very rare occurrence for the conduct of two prisoners only to get out of control. But, in prison, two prisoners determined to overthrow authority can easily set off a serious disturbance which can quickly escalate to involve others who join in the mayhem. The Bill provides that only two of those involved in a disturbance need have a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority. That puts a realistic burden on the prosecution and seems right in principle and in practice.
The Bill provides that the intentions and common purpose of prisoners may be inferred from the form and circumstances of their conduct. That is a commonsense provision which is also found in the Public Order Act 1986.
"Taking part" in a mutiny will include both active and passive participation. Prisoners may be drawn towards the scene of a disturbance: to offer moral support, out of curiosity or simply to watch. Their presence adds to the problems of control. Under the Bill, if they are given a reasonable opportunity to leave the scene in safety and fail without reasonable excuse to do so, they will be regarded as taking part in the mutiny itself.
I turn now to Clause 2 leaving behind the issue of mutiny in a prison. Clause 2 deals with the related security issue of assisting escapes. It does several things. First, it widens the scope of the offence in Section 39 of the Prison Act 1952. Under Section 39, it is an offence to convey anything into a prison with intent to facilitate an escape. We looked at this offence carefully in the aftermath of the escape of two IRA remand prisoners from Brixton prison last year. It is doubtful whether it is an offence at present to send anything into a prison by post with intent to facilitate an escape. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that it should clearly be an offence, and Clause 2 makes it so.
Secondly, Clause 2 increases the penalties for two escape-related offences. The first is the offence of assisting a prisoner to escape which I have just mentioned. The maximum penalty rises from five to 10 years' imprisonment. The second is the offence in the Criminal Justice Act 1961 of harbouring an escaped prisoner. Here the maximum rises from two years to 10 years.
The purpose of raising these penalties is partly to reinforce society's disapproval of this conduct and partly to correct an anomaly in the law. The maximum penalty for the related offence under the Criminal Law Act 1967 of impeding the apprehension of a person believed to be guilty of an arrestable offence is 10 years' imprisonment. We are taking this opportunity to align the penalties and remove this anomaly. The new penalties in Clause 2 will not apply retrospectively; that is to say, to offences committed before the commencement of the Act.

967
Finally, Clause 3 provides for the Bill's short title, commencement and extent. We want the offence to be available as soon as possible; that is, two months after Royal Assent. The provisions do not extend beyond England and Wales. There was some concern in another place that the Bill should also extend to Northern Ireland. In view of this, perhaps I could explain that the extent of the Bill was decided by Ministers collectively, taking into account the view of my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland that, because of the differing legal provisions and other circumstances in those other parts of Great Britain, the Bill should not extend beyond England and Wales.
This Bill is a direct response to the scenes of destruction which we witnessed in a number of our prisons in April 1990 and which we have seen since then in other prisons, notably Moorland and Brinsford last year. For whatever reason, a number of prisoners in England and Wales have been determined to cause as much destruction as possible. This Bill is aimed directly at such behaviour. It signals our disapproval and will act as a clear warning to those who act in such a way in future. It is a specific response to a specific situation.
I am advised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that a similar situation does not exist in the Province. Although there have undoubtedly been some very serious incidents in prisons in Northern Ireland, their prisoners are not in a state of mutiny as some of ours undoubtedly have been in the past two years. This may owe something to the constructive atmosphere generated by the strategy document promulgated by the Northern Ireland Prison Department. A criminal offence of mutiny is not needed in the Province. To introduce one without the background of the disturbances we have had would only damage the confidence of the community in the prison system in Northern Ireland. Mutiny is already a disciplinary offence under the Northern Ireland prison rules carrying a maximum penalty of 180 days' loss of remission, in other words the equivalent of a 12-month sentence.
As far as escape-related offences in Clause 2 are concerned, there are already many differences in the legislation governing these offences in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. Some offences in the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) do not appear in the Prison Act 1952. Of those which do appear, some are differently formulated. There are also many differences in penalties. For example, offences of escape, rescue and prison breach are all dealt with under the common law in England and Wales. There is therefore no maximum penalty. In Northern Ireland, those matters are all statutory offences with fixed maximum penalties of three, seven and seven years respectively.
It would not be right to make piecemeal amendments to the Northern Ireland legislation in this Bill. There is no advantage in seeking parity between the jurisdictions for its own sake. Decisions for Northern Ireland must be made on the basis of what is needed for the Province.
968
That completes my description of this short but, I hope, useful measure. When it has received Royal Assent prisoners will be told of it when they first enter prison. We hope that it will deter the kind of conduct to which it is addressed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hesketh.)
1.44 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having introduced this Bill and I also congratulate him on having risen so splendidly to the occasion of taking on these extra responsibilities. As he said, the Bill came into being as a response to the serious disturbances in our prisons last year, in particular in Strangeways, when there were unprecedented acts of disorder and violence.
As noble Lords will remember, Lord Justice Woolf was asked to set up an inquiry. His recommendations were welcomed by all those concerned with penal issues. I believe it is generally thought that, if his recommendations and those of Judge Stephen Tumim, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, were implemented, our prison system would be immensely improved.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord outlining the measures by which the Government plan to improve the prison regime. I was also glad that he stressed the importance of that. However, I did not agree with him so much when he said that this Bill complemented the measures that were to be taken to improve the prisons. We seriously question whether the provisions contained in the Bill will have the effect of remedying the crisis in our prisons.
We believe that the new offence created is unnecessary and will do nothing to reduce the likelihood of prison riots. Prisoners involved in violence, damage and disorder can already be charged with a wide range of serious criminal offences. If the severe penalties available for these existing offences do not deter rioters, neither will a new offence. Moreover, it must be remembered that Lord Justice Woolf rejected a special measure to deal with prison riots and disturbances and decided that there was no call for the creation of a specific offence of prison mutiny. Therefore, it is difficult to understand exactly who wanted this Bill.
We know that there is a consensus among prison reform groups that the new offence is unnecessary and that in their view it has the sole objective of placating the public after Strangeways and related riots. The Minister mentioned the Public Order Act 1986 which in our view makes the new offence unnecessary. That Act provides, first, for a statutory offence of riot defined as 12 people or more; secondly, for an offence of violent disorder which consists of three people or more; thirdly, for an offence of affray; and, fourthly, for a summary offence of threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour—all of which can be committed in prison.
The Government's White Paper The Prison Disciplinary System of England and Wales was published in response to the Prior Committee's report,

969
which did recommend a special offence. The White Paper came out a year after the Prior Committee's report and there had been a change of mind by that time. The White Paper commented:
"All of these four offences (under the Public Order Act) may be committed inside a prison service establishment. Accordingly the use or threat of violence in connection with a prison mutiny can be dealt with under the general criminal law. Given the restructuring of public order offences in the Public Order Bill, the Government's view is that there is no need for a further specific offence of prison mutiny".
On the debate on the gracious Speech my noble friend Lord Richard made that point when commenting on this Bill. He said:
"It is difficult to think of an example of a mutiny for which the offence is needed".—[Official Report, 6/11/91; col. 230.]
As we all know, the real problems which are so clearly indicated by Lord Justice Woolf are that our prisons are overcrowded, insanitary and a disgrace to a modern civilised nation. The Woolf Report revealed that at the time of the disturbances, Strangeways had certified normal accommodation for 970 prisoners but in effect it held as many as 1,647. The report concluded that that,
"would make it difficult to provide a constructive regime which would have helped to alleviate the dehumanising effects of the insanitary physical conditions within the prison".
That comment was in Lord Justice Woolf s report.
In our view the Bill does nothing to change the disgraceful conditions which exist in our prisons. The disgraceful conditions do not excuse riots, as the noble Lord said, but they certainly, to a great extent, lead to disturbances in prisons.
Considering the provisions of the Bill, and Clause I in particular, we are happy that my right honourable and honourable friends in another place succeeded in persuading the Government to make fundamental changes in the drafting. As it was originally drafted, the offence of prison mutiny could have been committed where no violence or even threatened violence took place. However, Clause 1(2) states that,
"For the purposes of this section there is a prison mutiny where two or more prisoners, while on the premises of any prison, engage in conduct which is intended to further a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison".
That is a great improvement. If the change had not been made, the Bill would have encompassed a wide range of non-violent protests for which the draconian penalty of 10 years' imprisonment would have been totally inappropriate.
However, Clause 1(2) contains a provision which gives us considerable concern; namely, that under the Bill as drafted the offence of prison mutiny can be committed by just two people. My colleagues in another place argued that the number was too low and moved an amendment in Committee raising it to 12. The amendment was rejected by the Government. The Minister admitted that there had been forceful arguments in favour of a higher number than the one in the Bill and said that she would reconsider the matter. However, in the end she failed to be persuaded when at Report stage the compromise of six people was put forward. We shall certainly return to the issue in Committee here. We believe that the notion that
970
two people can commit the kind of incident in a prison which we are all concerned to tackle seems far-fetched in the extreme.
We also believe that the number of people who can commit mutiny must be higher than the number of people who can live in one cell. It would be quite wrong for behaviour that takes place in a cell to be caught by the legislation and carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Surely, three men sharing the cramped conditions of a single cell might give rise to many interactions but they should not fall foul of this legislation.
Clause 1(4) also contains a disturbing proposal. The provision makes it possible to convict prisoners of prison mutiny even when the prosecution has not proved an intention or common purpose to overthrow legitimate authority and the prisoners have not used or threatened violence or criminal damage. The clause states:
"Where there is a prison mutiny, a prisoner who has or is given a reasonable opportunity of submitting to lawful authority and fails, without reasonable excuse, to do so shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as taking part in the mutiny".
It is a worrying provision reminiscent of the old Riot Act. Provided that a general order had been given for prisoners to surrender to the authorities, it would make it possible to charge prisoners, who were present during a "mutiny" but not actively taking part in the action, with a serious criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. That seems both draconian and unnecessary. Everyone accepts that the prison authorities must have powers to discipline such prisoners. Rule 47(19) of the prison rules which makes it a disciplinary offence for a prisoner to disobey any lawful order gives such powers. Ten years seems a long time to serve for simply having hung around rather a long time on the fringe of, say, a protest about food.
The Minister explained Clause 2 which, as he so rightly said, has a completely different purpose. He explained the new penalties. At Committee stage we may wish to question him as to the length of penalties. It seems a large increase from five years to 10 years for assisting an escape. Even more striking is the increase from two years to 10 years—five times as long—for harbouring or assisting an escaped prisoner. We may wish to return to the lengthy increases in the new penalties.
In conclusion, we find it significant that in Lord Justice Woolf s exhaustive report containing 204 recommendations designed to prevent future prison riots he did not consider it necessary to propose the creation of the offence of prison mutiny. He made it clear instead that the best deterrent of rioting would be the reform of our antiquated, overcrowded prison system. Prisoners with reasonable conditions have a greater incentive to refrain from destroying them. Indeed, if we look around the world we see that riots are much rarer in prison systems which have civilised conditions, active regimes and a greater emphasis on prisoners' rights.
For that and other reasons that I have given, we do not believe that the Bill is necessary. We believe that it will do nothing to deal with the real problems faced

971
by prison governors and prison officers. It merely dwells on the surface of matters and completely fails to get to the heart of what is wrong with our prison system. At best the Bill will do little harm, but there is no reason for adding unnecessary legislation to an already overburdened statute book. If this morning's press reports of the demise of the much decried Asylum Bill are anything to go by, then wasting parliamentary time is surely another consideration.
1.57 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in offering my congratulations to a popular Chief Whip for having broken the custom of this House. I have attended the House for 25 years and I have never before seen a Chief Whip come down to the arena and face the public—even though it is not a large public today—in the courageous and powerful way in which the noble Lord has done.
Turning to the less important business, the Bill itself, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness said. As it is a harmless and not very important Bill, it is important that I do not repeat what she said, although it is difficult to resist the temptation. That gives me the opportunity to speak briefly.
I have little to add. I had sought to envisage a situation in which the Bill would be effective and the Public Order Act 1986 would not. I suppose that if three prisoners sat in a cell conspiring to begin a mutiny and were eavesdropped upon, it might be desirable to arrest them for conspiring before they tried to involve others or made any threats. But it is a most unlikely situation. In my humble opinion no judge would give a 10-year sentence for the use of words alone. As soon as any action took place, the 1986 Act would apply. However, as window dressing, the Bill may give some reassurance to the public. As a deterrent—the noble Lord expressed quite strong hopes that it would be effective as a deterrent—it may make prisoners more careful in what they say to one another in case they are overheard conspiring. Any two or three prisoners who are overheard talking about anything are likely to be seen as conspiring about a general revolt; they very often are.
In another place my honourable friend Mr. Maclennan said that he had asked the Prison Governors' Association for its opinion. It told him that it was against the Bill. The right honourable lady the Minister said that she had not at that stage heard from the association. Can the noble Lord tell us whether an answer has yet been obtained from the Prison Governors Association? For the moment I stick to the view that it disapproves of the Bill. That is rather important, because the association's members are the people who will have to operate the Bill when it comes into force.
As regards Clause 2, I think there is a need for more severe sentences to be available for elaborate interventions from outside. It is the type of clause which, if it had been added to a more important Bill, we should have been quite happy to support. By "elaborate interventions from outside" I have in mind the use of helicopters. Such attempts have been planned once or twice and stopped once or twice. On
972
one or two occasions they have succeeded. I have in mind also the sending in of firearms or explosives. Terrorist efforts of this kind are bound to continue and will probably become more ingenious and worse. They deserve more serious sanctions. I am entirely in favour of such sanctions. I hope, however, that they will not extend to what we used to call the ordinary decent criminal—the ODC, as we used to call him in Northern Ireland, as opposed to the terrorist—the man who gives his pal a leg-up over the wall or a mother who gives her runaway son a bed. Surely the present penalties are severe enough for people who behave in that way, even though there have to be penalties which must be firmly applied. What I think most of us who are unenthusiastic about the Bill feel is that there is so much urgent work to be done by the Home Office, the prison department and all those concerned to improve what everyone, Government included, regards as the appalling condition of our prisons that it is a serious misapplication of effort to have diverted overworked staff into the quite unnecessary preparation of a Bill of this kind.
One could say a good deal about the details of the Bill but my noble friend on the Labour Front Bench has said most of it. I shall say no more. I entirely agree that Northern Ireland should be left to itself and should not have various changes slipped in through a Bill of this kind. I am happy that we are not adding anything through the Bill to the Northern Ireland arrangements. The Bill is a great disappointment to us all. There is so much that ought to have been done and so much that is not being done. I have not worked out the time between the publication of the Woolf Report and the White Paper. We have not had a word about it in the House and as we now have an election coming on we probably shall not. This is part of the whole putting-off process. It is an effort to satisfy the public which amounts to next to nothing. I cannot thank the noble Lord very much for the Bill, though I think his presentation of it was admirable.
2.3 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I have not been in the House for long enough to know that it is unprecedented for a Chief Whip to take the steps and the actions that the noble Lord has taken today. However, from the short time I have been here I have been able to form the view of him that he is well capable of taking care of himself if he descends into the arena; and so his performance has shown.
What I have to say will be brief because I am bound to echo what has been said by those who have spoken before me. The Bill does not seem to merit any prolonged discussion. It is an almost wholly unnecessary little measure. To relate the history of its birth really says it all. In their White Paper of 1986 the Government considered that the use or threat of violence in connection with prison mutiny could be dealt with quite adequately under the general criminal law, and in particular under the Public Order Act. Then came the prison riots of 1990 and the enlightened appointment of Lord Justice Woolf and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim to prepare a report. The result was, I think it is fair to say, a

973
masterpiece, a comprehensive study of the events, an analysis of the causes of those disturbances and 204 recommendations to improve our prison conditions and prison security for the future. One recommendation which the Woolf Report did not consider it necessary to make was for a measure of this nature.
I welcome what the noble Lord has said about the progress being made to implement some of the Woolf proposals. I am sorry that they appear to be taking so long and I am also sorry that a large number of those proposals have not found favour in the Government's White Paper. Instead of setting out to prepare for a comprehensive overhaul of the prison system, including prison discipline, with planned resources, planned rectification of the defects and, in particular, immediate action on the overcrowding which the Woolf Report identified as at the heart of our prison system problem, the Government have instead elected to produce this cosmetic little Bill. The reason is perhaps obvious to us all: a pending election in which the Government want to be seen to be doing something but lack the will or determination to take the steps which need to be taken for the future of the penal system. Their view of this whole subject appears to extend no further than this spring, which may perhaps be a realistic assessment of their tenure of office.
So they have produced a Bill which no one wants; not the Prison Governors Association, not the Prison Reform Trust, not the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. No one wants it except for Mr. Baker and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. The Bill is in effect the Government's sop to the public. They wish to be seen to be doing something about disturbances in prison but they lack the courage, the inclination and the strength to tackle the problems. So they have produced a measure to deal with the consequences and not with the causes. In fact it is hard to think of a situation when the provisions of Clause I would be appropriate which is not covered adequately by other legislation.
If a prisoner is violent, or threatens violence, the present law can deal with him. If there is insufficient evidence to convict him under the present law, there will be insufficient evidence under this Bill too. It seems clear that there must be some overt act for a conviction. If he is non-violent—if he sits down, or refuses to obey the instructions of a prison officer or uses dumb insolence—existing prison discipline can surely deal with the matter without resorting to the criminal law, without getting the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to do so, as the Bill requires, and certainly without threatening him with a maximum term of 10 years' imprisonment.
It may be said, and indeed it was said by the noble Lord, that this legislation will not be used for minor offences. If so, what on earth is it to be used for? Officers can no doubt deal with internal prison discipline. If violence follows, as this Government themselves said six years ago, the criminal law is adequate to deal with those offences. Nothing has changed.
974
Clause 2, which could perhaps be described as the "file in the cake" clause, surprises me. The noble Lord said that he doubted whether somebody sending something into a prison by post to assist an offender to escape would be committing an offence. He may be right, but I am surprised that that conduct is not already covered by the existing provisions of the Prison Act. If there is a loophole in the law in that respect it may be that it needs to be filled. It may also be that the penalties for assisting someone to escape may need strengthening.
However, in my view, there are objectionable features, to which my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs has already drawn attention, in Clauses 1(2) and 1(4). The noble Lord said when he introduced the Bill that it was a specific measure to deal with a specific problem. He indicated that that problem essentially was the type of rioting which we saw in 1990. That was certainly not rioting which involved two people. The provisions of the Bill go much further than the scope which he outlined.
What saddens me is that the Government should have chosen to take up parliamentary time with a measure such as this when the prison system is crying out for a proper, comprehensive and far-reaching programme of legislation to bring our prisons out of the mid-1850s into this century. From this proposal and the way in which the Government reacted to the Woolf Report, it looks as if that programme will have to wait until the next government.
2.10 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, although I intervene from these Benches the views which I express are my own. I intervene with some trepidation following the speeches of so many legal luminaries and others with much more experience of the matter. In my 30 years in this House I have never served on the Front Bench, in shadow or in substance, and I am not likely to do so now.
I intervene for one particular reason. My wife was a magistrate for nearly 25 years and is now on the supplementary list of magistrates. As part of her training she visited a number of top security prisons. That experience and what she saw depressed her enormously. The present regime of slopping out and being locked up in cells for 23 hours a day in some instances, particularly in a hot summer, obviously has a tinderbox effect.
We have all read about and seen on television the dreadful incidents not only at Strangeways prison but also at Lindholme prison, the new prison in Yorkshire. Although the Bill does not apply to Scotland, as my noble friend the Minister—whom I congratulate on his very enlightened speech—explained, for legal reasons which I do not fully understand although I come from Scotland, it should be borne in mind by your Lordships that the riots at Peterhead prison in particular, in which several prison officers were severely injured, and at Perth prison, which is near my grandparents' family home, also caused a great deal of disturbance.
It is my understanding that these are discretionary penalties. It is not intended that every time there is a

975
prison disturbance those responsible will be sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Bill gives the Crown Court discretion to impose heavier maximum penalties. I believe that the general public will welcome that. Whatever their political persuasion and whatever their walk of life, the public have become sick and tired of such prolonged disturbances and the injuries to prison staff. Prison officers have to be considered as well as the prison governors and the inmates of those establishments.
There are two points which worry me. The first relates to Clause 1(5), which reads:
"Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be brought except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions".
Even to a non-lawyer that makes sense.
I have not had time to give my noble friend notice of this question, but I hope that he will do his best to ensure that prosecutions are brought quickly. All too often prosecutions come very slowly and it is a matter of many months before the defendant is brought before the court, in particular the Crown Court. That is not in the interests of the community as a whole, the prison service, prison staff or indeed the inmates themselves. Therefore I hope that that matter will be looked into.
Another anxiety is that 1994 has been designated as the optimum time when these improvements to prison conditions will have had to be carried out. The Government have an impressive record for new prison building. All governments wish to give and indeed have given the closest attention, within financial constraints, to improving our prisons. I do not agree with some noble Lords opposite that this is a piecemeal Bill or an electioneering Bill. It is a very sad commentary that a Bill of this kind has to be introduced in a civilised country. It is a sad commentary on our times that parliamentary time, whether or not we are near to an election, has to be used for measures of this kind.
I hope that the Government—whichever government is in office after the election takes place—will take very serious note of the Woolf Report, and expedite with extreme urgency the provisions for prisoners in one cell and with proper sanitation. I agree with the noble Baroness that lack of such conditions exacerbates matters. However there was trouble in the new prison in Lanarkshire where there was one prisoner to a cell, and as I said the same happened in the new prison in Yorkshire. I do not believe therefore that it is entirely the old system of three to a cell which creates the problems.
I give a general if rather reluctant welcome to the Bill. It is a great pity that it has to be introduced. However, if the Government had done nothing, they would have been accused of apathy. I hope that, whatever the election brings, the Woolf Report will be implemented as a matter of urgency and that we shall be able to debate it. In the meantime, I give a reluctant welcome to the Bill. I say rather cynically that it is a necessary evil.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on the principles of the Bill and I have listened carefully to the points made by noble
976
Lords from all sides of the House. I thank noble Lords for the very nice remarks that they made, which had little to do with the Bill. As the discussion proceeded on Second Reading following my remarks, I began on occasion to feel at something of a disadvantage in this particular subject. However, I hope that I shall be able to respond satisfactorily. I feel that the remarks of my noble friend behind me provide some support and hope that I am not quite as lonely as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, insisted that I should be.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Ewart-Biggs and Lady Mallalieu, raised the point that the Government had changed their position from that given in the response to the Prior Report. I must make entirely clear that they did so on the basis of the reports of the rioting in 1990 and rioting that has taken place since then. That material factor is the reason why they changed their view. I have no reason to believe that they were not right to do so.
All noble Lords, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, drew attention to factors other than those which I mentioned in my opening remarks, in particular with regard to the Strangeways riot and the matter of overcrowding. I remind noble Lords that four new prisons opened in 1991, providing a further 2,500 places. Four more are due to open by May of this year providing a further 2,000 places. In addition, a further 550 places will be added to existing establishments. I am sure all noble Lords will say that is not the only answer to the problem. I shall not respond to that as it would draw us into a far wider debate than the debate on the issues covered by the small Bill that we are discussing today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and other speakers asked why the Bill is necessary. We believe that the public order offences of riot and violent disorder and affray require the use or threat of unlawful violence and conduct which could cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety. Those elements may be present in a mutiny, but that is not necessarily the case. They might apply to some but not all of the mutineers. That is why we have chosen a different formulation made up not of these but of other elements which I mentioned at the start of the debate. I hope that when she reads my remarks in Hansard, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, will be satisfied. If that is not the case, I am sure that she will table what she considers to be a satisfactory amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for generally supporting Clause 2 of the Bill. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the sentence of 10 years. It is important to remember that 10 years is the maximum sentence. The judge who will conduct a trial will consider any mitigating circumstances. That brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, as regards prisoners who are engaged in an ordinary line of crime, as it were, rather than terrorism. The noble Lord referred to the case of a mother providing refuge to a son who may have stolen

977
a motor car. I am sure that case would be covered by the concept of mitigating circumstances in regard to the period of 10 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, also said he was pleased we had not extended the realm of this piece of legislation to Northern Ireland. I am particularly grateful to hear that in view of the extensive ministerial experience the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has had in Northern Ireland. His remarks were the high point of my day.
It appears to me that the Public Order Act provokes far more disagreement than the Bill we are discussing. The advantage of this Bill is that specific acts of violence do not have to be proved against individual prisoners. It catches instigators who are not at the forefront of the action. Those are areas that are not covered under present legislation. We believe those provisions will act as a deterrent.
All noble Lords who have spoken today drew attention to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Woolf. Noble Lords also said the Government had not gone far enough and this was a small and paltry piece of legislation when compared with what the Government should be doing. However, we believe this Bill is part of a comprehensive response to the 1990 disturbances. The White Paper indicates that our response is not limited to the many constructive suggestions made by Lord Justice Woolf. I am sure all noble Lords are aware that if we tried to provide a conclusive piece of legislation, we would have to produce a document that would probably weigh heavily on our hands.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, asked whether prison governors had responded to the Bill. In last September's White Paper we invited comments on this matter. The text of the Bill has been available since November but the Prison Governors Association has not yet told us what it thinks of the Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, that means that we can rely on the information of my honourable friend Mr. Maclennan that the association disagrees with it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can only rely on the information which I have to hand. That rather conflicts with the information of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
My noble friend Lord Auckland referred to the speed at which it is intended to introduce the carrying out of prosecutions. I noted on a piece of paper that my response would be that I would bring his comments to the attention of my right honourable friend. Having received rather better advice, I shall draw his comments to the attention of my noble friend the Lord Chancellor so that he is aware of my noble friend's anxieties.
I shall read Hansard carefully and if I have not covered certain points, I shall respond to noble Lords by way of written communication in order to clarify any matters which have not been satisfactorily covered. We believe that the Bill forms part of a balanced package of reform. Our general aim is to
978
improve both security and control on the one hand and the regimes and conditions in our prisons on the other. In that context, we are seeking to provide a more effective means of dealing with prisoners who destroy prisons and also to deter them from such behaviour in future. We believe that the Prison Security Bill will make a contribution to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested that only my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I would believe that this Bill has the value which we think it has. I received some support from my noble friend Lord Auckland and I believe that noble Lords will give to the Bill careful and close scrutiny in Committee. I look forward to resuming our discussions at that time. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
2.27 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is supported across party lines and the importance of its provisions for the licensed trade and licensed hoards and the absence of any political content mean that I am glad to promote in this House a Bill which has been ably steered through another place by a Member of a different political persuasion.
Although there is no opposition to the Second Reading, it is right that I should put on record the reasons why the Bill has been presented and what are its purposes.
The Bill seeks to remove problems experienced by licence holders and prospective licence holders alike in the transfer of liquor licences under the procedures laid down by Section 25 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The transfer system was amended by Section 51 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 in the light of a consultative review which took place in 1986. In response to that review anxiety was expressed by certain business interests that the need for a transfer of a licence to take place at quarterly meetings of a licensing board had the effect in certain circumstances that trading on the licence had to stop until the licensing board had reached its decision on transfer of the licence.
In a genuine and reasonable attempt to resolve that problem, Section 51 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act introduced a two-stage procedure which permitted prospective licensees to apply for a temporary licence at any time and trade on that basis until the temporary transfer had been confirmed as permanent at the following quarterly board meeting.
That method, known as a two-stage transfer, entailing as it does a mandatory temporary transfer in all cases has been found to be unworkable by those involved in the licensing trade. Solicitors, clients and the licensing boards are encountering grave difficulties in interpreting the Act as amended.

979
In particular there is widespread anxiety about the effect of the two-stage transfer on the conveyancing and financing of licensed premises. Prospective purchasers of licensed premises were encountering problems in securing a loan from financiers when they held only a temporary licence since permanent transfer of the licence depended upon the subsequent decision of the licensing board, which could by no means be guaranteed.
The two-stage transfer has given rise to those practical problems. Since January 1991 representations have been received from the licensing boards, the licensing trade and the licensing practitioners about the practical difficulties experienced in the conveyancing of licensed premises and the financing of their sale or purchase.
It has been argued that prospective purchasers of licensed premises need to be assured before making a firm offer for the premises in question that the relevant licence would automatically continue to be valid under their ownership. Banks, breweries and other financiers have indicated some reluctance to lend to a purchaser who holds only a temporary transfer since it is possible that the licensing board might subsequently refuse permanent transfer. Though some clerks to licensing boards have adopted a flexible interpretation of these provisions which permitted their boards to hear applications for both temporary and permanent transfer on the same day, this approach has recently been held to be ultra vires by the Court of Session.
The Government accept that the two-stage transfer procedure is the source of genuine difficulties and therefore they support the Bill. The Bill reinstates the original one-step permanent transfer but retains temporary transfer as an option should anyone wish to take that approach.
Perhaps I may explain briefly the purposes of the various clauses. Clause 1(1) (a) deletes the word "temporarily" from Section 25(1) of the 1976 Act which was inserted by Section 51(2) (a) of the 1990 Act; the effect of this change is to reinstate the one-stage permanent transfer originally provided for by the 1976 Act.
Clause 1(1) (b) substitutes new subsections (1A) to (1C) for subsections (1A) to (1C) of Section 25 of the 1976 Act which were inserted by Section 51(3) of the 1990 Act. The effect of new subsections (1A) to (1C) is to retain as an available option the temporary transfer of a liquor licence at any time provided that the licensing board approves the temporary transfer as permanent at the next appropriate meeting.
New subsection (1A) permits a licensing board to transfer a liquor licence on a temporary basis. The licence so transferred is to have effect until the next meeting of the board or, where the temporary transfer is made within six weeks before the first day of the next meeting, the next following meeting of the board. The temporary transfer of a licence may be made under delegated arrangements (for example, by the clerk rather than the full licensing board) by virtue of Section 5(1) of the 1976 Act.
New subsection (1B) requires that, where an application has been made for the permanent transfer
980
of a licence already temporarily transferred under new subsection (1A), the licensing board shall make a decision on the permanent transfer of the licence at the next appropriate meeting.
New subsection (1C) provides that where a licensing board refuses an application for the permanent transfer of a licence which has been temporarily transferred the licence transferred temporarily has effect until the conclusion of any appeal against the board's decision.
Subsection (1) (c) amends the definition of permanent transfer in Section 25(7) of the 1976 Act as inserted by Section 51(6) of the 1990 Act. The effect of this amendment is that permanent transfers are to be construed both as references to permanent transfers under the one-stage procedure reinstated by the Bill and to temporary transfers made permanent under new subsections.
Subsection (2) amends Section 19(1) of the 1976 Act which prohibits canvassing of the licensing board by an applicant for the grant, renewal or permanent transfer of a licence. The effect of subsection (2) is to extend the prohibition to applications for the temporary transfer of a licence under new subsection (1A) and to applications for confirmation of transfer under Section 25(4) of the 1976 Act, as inserted by Section 51(4) of the 1990 Act.
Subsection (3) repeals Section 51(2) (a) and (3) of the 1990 Act in consequence of the revised provisions introduced by subsection 1(a) and (b) of Clause 1. Clause 2(1) contains the Short Title of the Bill and describes its extent and subsection (2) provides that Section 1 of the legislation shall come into effect,
"on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order",
and that the commencement order may contain any,
"incidental and transitional provisions and savings as appear to him to be necessary or expedient".
I am sorry to bore your Lordships with such details. But I believe it is right that if people wish to know why the Bill has gone through your Lordships' House they should at least be able to read the details and understand the reasons for the Bill's introduction. There is wide agreement that the only effective solution to the difficulties that I have outlined lies in amending legislation. Accordingly, the Bill reintroduces the original one-step permanent transfer, but retains the option of a temporary transfer if circumstances demand it.
In conclusion—as I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear—I should mention that the Bill enjoys the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the licensed trade and especially the Law Society of Scotland, which have campaigned on its behalf. It is in the interests of all that the Bill should have a trouble-free and certain passage so that current constraints on the sale and purchase of licensed premises can be resolved during the life of this Parliament.
I should point out that the licensed trade is in severe trouble at present. Many hotels and pubs are for sale. Therefore, in order to get things moving, I think that the Bill will help to give the market—to use a terrible phrase—a kick-start. I am sure we all hope that that will happen. On that basis, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.

981
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
2.35 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm to the House that the essential measure in the Bill enjoys the full support of the Government. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, for agreeing to sponsor the Bill in this House. His willingness to do so clearly indicates the cross-party support which the measure has attracted and the widespread desire which exists to remove unnecessary
982
and troublesome constraints currently experienced by the licensed trade in Scotland as regards the sale or purchase of licensed premises.
As the noble Lord indicated, the measure enjoys the support of the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and has received unanimous support in another place. In the Government's view, the Bill satisfactorily addresses the key concern which is the absence of a one-stage permanent transfer and is designed to ensure that that defect can be speedily resolved.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before three o'clock.

  SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE RECORDS: RETENTION
  SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE RECORDS: RETENTION