Sitting of 20 June 1994

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

    Airport Privatisation
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, it is our policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports. East Midlands was sold last summer. The BAA has operated private sector airports very successfully in Scotland and the south-east since 1987.
    Mr. Coombs: Given the enormous success of the privatised British Airports Authority in running Heathrow and Gatwick, will my right hon. Friend encourage the privatisation of Birmingham airport, especially as it will need to attract additional private capital for the £400 million investment programme that it is planning for the next 10 years?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the success of the privatisation of the British Airports Authority. It has led—this is very relevant to his question—to a substantial increase in capital investment in
    2
    all its airports and to a great improvement in its services. It is much more enterprising and is now selling its services to countries overseas, which demonstrates the success of our policy.
    I understand that Birmingham airport has substantial capital investment plans. It is right that those should be taken forward in partnership with the private sector and I welcome the fact that Birmingham intends to do so.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will not my constituents, who last year received £800,000 for the local authority from Manchester airport's profits, lose while the Minister's friends in the City gain from that absurd policy?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no reason why they should lose. The fact of the matter is that everyone has gained from the privatisation of the BAA. The passenger has gained very substantially. Instead of paying for capital expenditure from public resources, we now receive tax in return from the British Airports Authority. All round, it has been a very successful policy and I believe that it would apply just as well in Manchester.

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning his proposals to reduce road accidents involving newly qualified drivers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: Since issuing the consultation document "New Driver Safety", we have received more than 500 representations supporting action in that area. Given that support, I am now taking forward four main proposals: retesting for serious traffic offenders among young drivers; a separate theory test; post-driver training linked to lower insurance premiums; and road safety education at 16-plus.
    Mr. Brandreth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we have the best record on traffic safety of almost anywhere in the world? Since records began in 1926, the statistics are better than ever, despite a 14-fold increase in the number of vehicles. New drivers remain a critically

    3
    important area, as about 20 per cent. of accidents are caused by about 10 per cent. of licence holders. Can he give us some idea of the date on which he will be introducing the important measures that he outlined, especially that relating to post-driver training and insurance premiums?
    Mr. MacGregor: I confirm that we have one of the best safety records in Europe and that the number of fatal accidents on the roads is lower than at any time than since accident statistics were first recorded in 1926. Given the huge increase in traffic, that is a substantial achievement. The greater proportion of accidents is among young drivers and new drivers generally. My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on that, as I have done. I hope to be able to introduce post-driver training linked to lower insurance premiums. Following my discussions with the major insurance societies during the past few months, I hope to be able to bring forward that scheme in the autumn.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Although I welcome what the Minister said with regard to newly qualified drivers, will he tell the House what he is doing—and of his concern—about the elderly driver? Recently, there have been a number of accidents involving drivers aged 70 and over. Is not it about time that we set an upper limit, so that such people are retired from driving because, in certain cases, they are also a hazard on the roads? [Interruption.]
    Mr. MacGregor: I heard an intervention from the Opposition Benches which suggested that the hon. Gentleman might take a different view once he reaches the age of 70. There is a much higher proportion of accidents among new drivers and that is why it is right to have special measures in that direction. The hon. Gentleman will know that retesting, medical certificates and so on are required for older drivers of a certain age and it would not be right to put a ceiling on those. Some people are capable of driving successfully and safely well beyond the age of 70.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and put it to him that it would be wise if the theory test were not too complicated? It should test obvious rather than arcane things, as there are a few simple causes for most traffic crashes.
    Mr. MacGregor: There has been a general welcome to the idea of having a theory test before new drivers go on to the practical test. We are developing the theory test now, working with the National Foundation for Education Research. The theory test certainly must be in place by 1996 and I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

    Crossrail
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the future of crossrail.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We continue to support the crossrail project. We were disappointed by the Private Bill Committee's decision not to find the preamble to the Crossrail Bill proved. We are considering, with the Bill's promoters—London Underground Ltd. and British Rail—how best to proceed.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will expedite this matter as soon as possible, bearing in mind the considerable anxieties outside the House regarding the matter and the economic potential of the scheme in terms of creating jobs?
    Mr. Norris: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the scheme and, as I said, it is for the promoters to find a way forward. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport have made clear their support for the scheme and we are studying how best to take it forward.
    Mr. Lidington: Has my hon. Friend had time to study the representations from organisations representing business and commerce in London and the south-east, and the united view of local authorities across party-political lines, which remains firmly that crossrail is needed in the national interest and particularly in the interests of our capital city and the south-east?
    Mr. Norris: I have indeed, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the tremendous work that he has done in sponsoring the Bill in the House. We were disappointed that the Private Bill Committee did not find the preamble of the Bill proved and I know that that sense of disappointment was widely shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    It is a shame that, in examining how this condition might have been brought about, the role of the Liberal Democratic council in Tower Hamlets should have been so extraordinary. The Liberal Democrats' public national policy is to favour public transport and to be dreadfully anti-car, but it wants to make sure that those public transport schemes never come near a Liberal-controlled council.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister make a distinction between a link between crossrail and suburban, domestic services on Union Railways to Kent, and a link with a possible Stratford international station? Would not the latter provide useful links to international rail services from central and west London and add to the already 150-odd stations which would be directly linked to Stratford by fast rail services?
    Mr. Norris: I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the further development of Stratford. He rightly puts his finger on the considerable complexity which surrounds the linkage between crossrail, for example, and other rail systems such as a second rail link. In drawing attention to the difference between a straight link and the exchanges which might be possible in Stratford, the hon. Gentleman does the House a service. I cannot comment specifically on the proposals for intermediate stations or on the outline powers in relation to crossrail, because they are matters yet to be determined.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Crossrail Bill was scuppered by the votes of two Labour Members? Does he accept that he would have the gratitude of all the people of London if he undid the consequences of that unholy alliance between the Liberal Democratic party in Tower Hamlets and Labour Members?
    Mr. Norris: The whole House is aware that the Private Bill Committee procedure has served the House for many years. Many hon. Members, including myself, who have

    5
    considered private Bills have considered how to address the principles behind those Bills entirely objectively. I would not dream of suggesting that that was not the case on this occasion. That does not detract, however, from the general disappointment felt on both sides of the House at the decision on crossrail.
    Mr. Raynsford: The Minister will be well aware, even though he did not tell the House about it, of the extent of support from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Labour party for the principle of crossrail. We believe that the Bill should be recommitted. Having said that, serious concerns remain about the funding of crossrail, particularly if substantial works are deemed necessary to establish links at both ends of the route and to meet environmental concerns. Will the Minister therefore give an undertaking, on behalf of his Treasury colleagues, that any such works deemed necessary should not be prejudiced or sacrificed for lack of public finance?
    Mr. Norris: We have always insisted, quite rightly, that the scheme should be taken forward in conjunction with the private sector and we anticipated substantial private sector investment. I believe that that is the proper way to proceed. There are great merits in that process, riot least in terms of the value engineering that the private sector can bring to such large projects. The Government have made clear their commitment through the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time a couple of weeks ago and the many statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and me. Any alteration to the scheme would obviously be a matter for the promoters, because they would have to determine how it should be funded and taken forward.

    Freight
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage freight to be moved by rail rather than by road.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): We are encouraging rail freight in a number of ways. We have liberalised access to the rail network; facilitated the restructuring of British Rail's freight businesses prior to sale; improved the freight facilities grants scheme; introduced a new track access grant for marginal freight flows; and raised the maximum gross vehicle weight limit to 44 tonnes for combined road-rail transport.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rail strike, in which workers are demanding 11 per cent. for nothing whatever in return, will tip freight back on to the roads, which will be to the detriment of the environment and, of course, the long-suffering public?
    Mr. Freeman: I hope that everyone accepts that significant pay increases cannot be afforded without compensating improvements in productivity. If inflationary pay settlements are awarded, costs and prices go up and that means freight is tipped back on to the roads.
    Ms Jowell: Will the Minister urgently tell the director of Railtrack to undertake a study of alternative routes for freight other than through the centre of London? Does he accept that misery is caused to thousands of Londoners,
    6
    including my constituents, as a result of increased freight traffic? Does he also accept that 75 per cent. of freight traffic is intended for destinations outside London? Will he draw to Mr. Horton's attention the successful all-party lobby of Parliament today organised by the London Channel Tunnel Group as evidence of the extent of concern felt across London?
    Mr. Freeman: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is yes—we have instructed Railtrack to consider an alternative west-about route through Redhill and it will consider the costs involved.
    I understand the concerns of those who live by the west London line because of increased noise, particularly caused by the movement of freight at night. That traffic will be modest to begin with, but I will visit the line together with local Members of Parliament, Labour and Conservative, on 13 July.
    Mr. Dunn: The Minister will be aware that those of my constituents who use the A20 and the A2 want a better balance between rail and road for the dispatch of freight to and from the Kent coast to London. As long as there is uncertainty about the movement of freight, caused by regular railway strikes called by the RMT union, will not the effect be to keep freight on the road, ultimately damaging the environment of north-west Kent?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because, if one compares the rail freight and road haulage industries, he must be right. Every time a strike interrupts the supply of passenger or freight services, custom is lost. This strike, therefore, should be condemned by everyone with a real interest in supporting the rail industry.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Government have a cheek to attack railway people who go on strike for more pay, especially when the Government do not have the guts to introduce a pay policy and instead use a policy based on the dole queue? They have someone permanently present at those talks when they are supposed to be outside. In any case, if the boss of Railtrack can get £120,000 for three days a week, why should the Government condemn workers who are trying to get a living wage?
    Mr. Freeman: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made plain on a number of occasions over the past two years, there is widespread support in the country for the notion that one cannot afford to make inflationary pay increases of that significant size without compensatory improvements in productivity. We have been through this matter before. The days of something for nothing are finished.

    Rail Services (Competition)
    Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of competition on rail services.
    Mr. MacGregor: Evidence from previous transport privatisations shows that the introduction of competition encourages the development of better-quality services. I am confident that customers—passengers and freight—will benefit from more services of higher quality, improved efficiency and better value for money.
    Mr. Hawksley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. What effect will the industrial action by signalmen, who are asking for 11 per cent. without increased productivity and are supported by the Opposition, have on competition in the future?
    Mr. MacGregor: One must bear in mind the fact that the competition is road and air, so it is important that Railtrack and British Rail be thoroughly efficient and competitive. The demand for a no-strings increase of at least 11 per cent. in signalmen's basic pay is inflationary and will not help the competitive position of Railtrack or the railway services. On Monday, the Railtrack board offered a 2.5 per cent. annual pay increase, which is in line with many other pay offers in both the public and private sectors. It also offered, and is keen to have, talks on major reforms and restructuring of signalmen's terms and conditions. It is irresponsible and damaging to the railways for the unions to undertake a series of strikes on an 11 per cent., no-strings pay claim. It is important that the talks begin again and I am anxious that that should happen. The real question, however, is for the Opposition, who have been notable for their silence on this issue. Does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) approve of the strike for an 11 per cent., no-strings pay increase? Yes or no?
    Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister believe that potential bidders for the franchise to run trains on the south-west line have an accurate picture of what they are letting themselves in for, given the reliability figures compiled for the passengers charter? Is not the Minister concerned that as important a flagship of Government policy as the citizens charter should compute inaccurate figures and measure wrong times? Some of the punctual trains are recorded as having gone twice and some less punctual ones are recorded as never having arrived. Should not a search party be sent out for the passengers who are in official limbo and compensation be given to season ticket holders?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the figures be accurate. If they are not, we shall certainly look at the matter.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the commuters of Reading are completely fed up with the strike, as a result of which many are now climbing on buses that run from Reading to London, which is an efficient service at about two thirds the cost? Does he agree that commuters will not return to the railways unless the railways wake up to the problem?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. That is the danger for jobs in the railway industry of a pay increase of at least 11 per cent. without any productivity improvements. However, I emphasise again that the chairman of Railtrack has said that he wants to achieve a settlement on the restructuring—which is separate from the immediate pay offer—which rewards the signalmen for their skills and gives them a modern employment package. That restructuring must offer value for money, for the reason that my hon. Friend gives, but it is quite separate from an 11 per cent. demand with no strings attached. That is why I call on the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to condemn that demand and, above all, to condemn a strike that is damaging to the railways.
    Mr. Dobson: If, as the Secretary of State asserts, it would be inflationary to find the £5 million that it would cost to pay the 5.7 per cent. increase that was offered by Railtrack and later withdrawn, what does he think the £7 million that Railtrack has expended on refurbishing its offices is? Is that inflationary or is it deflationary?
    Was the offer withdrawn because the newly appointed bosses of Railtrack are incompetent, stupid and act in bad faith, or was it because the Secretary of State intervened and prevented them from making the offer, despite the fact that his departmental press office was lying and saying that there had been no ministerial interference?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have made my position clear every time that I have been asked. I have frequent discussions with the board of Railtrack and members of the board of British Rail about public sector pay policy and I shall continue to do so. People would expect me to have a clear view about the Government's general position on public sector pay policy.
    It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not establish the facts about Railtrack's premises. I understand that the actual cost of the premises is £1.8 million, which is a very modest arrangement for a very important body.
    The whole House will have noticed that, once again, the hon. Gentleman has not made clear his position on the strike. Once again, if he is silent, he is condoning a pay increase with no strings attached of at least 11 per cent., causing great discomfort to passengers and potential damage to the railways—a pay increase that few other people in the country in the public or private sector are receiving. I take it that he will now take the opportunity to condemn that strike as irresponsible.

    Road Traffic (Hastings and Rye)
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited Hastings and Rye to assess its road traffic needs.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): On 19 May, I travelled along the A259/A27 south coast route from Dymchurch to Lewes, passing through Hastings and Rye, to see for myself the road for which we have 11 major schemes programmed.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and ask him whether he has seen the mischievous article in The Observer yesterday, which said that there might be some falling back in the plans for the A259 through my constituency. Is he aware of the worry that that will cause the nearly 13 per cent. of my constituents who are unemployed and can he assure me that the economic development of my constituency, which is so vital, will proceed speedily with the continuation of those road plans?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I thought that it was mischievous, too. My hon. Friend is right about the economic importance of transport in her area. Much of the A259 is picturesque, but primitive to say the least. Rye certainly needs its bypass, although the tunnel is expensive. The biggest problem is the Winchelsea to Icklesham section and I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to reconsider the needs of the area. That landscape and heritage are not only spectacular but unique and I could not recommend to my right hon. Friend the construction of a new road in the Brede valley.

    Rail Privatisation
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on passengers of the plans to privatise the railways.
    Mr. MacGregor: Our proposals will result in better, more attractive services being offered to rail passengers through the introduction of private sector skills, innovation and responsiveness to passengers' requirements.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that better services for rail passengers are what is required? Does he also agree that the present strike is causing a great deal of inconvenience to rail passengers? Is not he amazed that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) still has not condemned the strikers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the effect on some passengers deciding not to use the railways and I want it to be entirely the other way round. I want to build up more opportunities for railwaymen with a great many more people using the railways. Let me try it another way. I have said that I think that a strike on the basis of a pay claim of at least 11 per cent. with no strings attached is irresponsible in present circumstances. I have also said that the restructuring talks offer big opportunities to sort out the pay, terms and conditions of signalmen in a modern employment package. Might I therefore ask the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras whether he agrees that it would be desirable for the strike not to take place in order that the restructuring talks, to ensure value for money in any arrangements, may now take place? Perhaps he will make his position clear on that.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has the Secretary of State been in one of the modern signal boxes? If so, has not he observed the incredible technology and the responsibility that signalmen now have—just as much as air traffic controllers? Has the right hon. Gentleman actually seen a signal box in operation?
    Mr. MacGregor: These matters have been spelt out to me, and I know exactly what the issues are. That is why Railtrack is seeking a modern employment package for signalmen, with up-to-date terms and conditions, and I agree with Railtrack. That is precisely the point; separate discussions should continue on that, and the chairman of Railtrack has made it clear that he is keen to engage in such discussions. I support him, and hope that the strikes will be called off for that reason as well—to enable the talks to continue.
    Mr. Michael Brown: If my right hon. Friend has difficulty in hearing me, it is because I have not used my voice in the Chamber for the past year.
    Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the lesson that we learn from the experience of privatisation is that industrial disputes tend to be non-existent when we have privatised an industry? Is not the lesson of the current dispute that the sooner we put Railtrack into private hands, the better?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I never have any difficulty in hearing him. I have had no difficulty in hearing him to great effect during the past year, and now the whole House can do so again.
    We have made it clear that our aim is to privatise Railtrack in due course, at the appropriate time. The immediate need, however, is to ensure a modern
    10
    employment package for signalmen that is self-financing, offers value for money and is separate from the pay offer. I think that that should be done in a sensible way, without the threat of unnecessary strikes that damage the railway industry and, therefore, those employed in it. I repeat for the umpteenth time my request for the Opposition to make their position clear; and in doing so, I refer not only to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras but to the contenders for the party leadership, who have used fine phrases, but have run a mile from the first key issue that they faced.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail's signalling staff do extremely responsible jobs that are immensely important to everyone? Will he confirm that their representatives have been conducting negotiations about an improvement in their pay to reflect the improvement in productivity that has been taking place for several years? Will he confirm that the week before last those representatives believed that they had reached an interim agreement involving payment of 5.7 per cent. on account, and that that would be confirmed last week? Will he confirm that officials from his Department then summoned three members of the board of Railtrack and told them that it was not on, and that the boss of Railtrack had to be dragged back from his holiday—as did the chief negotiator, who had been holidaying in the West Indies?
    Finally, does the Secretary of State recognise that it takes two sides to have an industrial dispute? Will he condemn Railtrack for its incompetence and stupidity—or will he condemn himself for intervening?
    Mr. MacGregor: The Railtrack board made its offer last Monday afternoon. It was for a pay increase of 2.5 per cent.—exactly the same as the offer to British Rail, very similar to many other current public sector offers and, indeed, in excess of some private sector offers. The board also said that it was keen to undertake the restructuring talks as part of a separate exercise. The chairman of Railtrack has repeated that, and I strongly support him.
    I repeat that it would be greatly in the interests of our reaching a sensible conclusion to this matter if the hon. Gentleman would condemn a strike based on an 11 per cent., no-strings-attached demand. We have all noticed that, despite many attempts to get him to do that, he has so far refused.
    Sir David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if a further rail dispute is to be avoided, it will take all the skill of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, this evening and beyond it, to reach a solution? Does he further agree that, once the talks are under way, the threat of industrial action should be suspended and that management must show great patience in its talks with ACAS to try to work out a solution and to avoid another dispute?
    Mr. MacGregor: I certainly hope that the talks can take place without further strike action, which would be unjustified and would be of no benefit to the railway system. However, the details of the negotiations on restructuring are a matter for the Railtrack board.

    Diesel Cars
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of new cars sold used diesel fuel in each year since 1990.
    Mr. Key: Six per cent., 9 per cent., 12 per cent. and 18 per cent. in 1993.
    Mr. Williams: Despite the rapid rise in the popularity of diesel cars, the Minister is aware that a report earlier this year by the quality of urban air review group highlighted environmental problems with diesel cars, especially particulates—tiny soot particles—that are associated with lung cancer. What are the Government doing to persuade the motor industry to clean up emissions from diesel cars?
    Mr. Key: Particulate emissions could prove a serious problem. However, on current levels of diesel penetration we expect particulate levels to decline. If diesel's share continues to increase rapidly, or if the Department of Health's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants demonstrates that there is a need for further reductions in particulates, the Government may need to consider a range of measures to reduce levels.
    Of course, further action on vehicles would need European Union agreement. The United Kingdom has supported European measures to cut emissions, which have been falling rapidly. Limits on particulates will be halved by 1996 and discussions have begun on further tightening. However, it is important to remember that diesels consume 23 per cent. less fuel, use less energy and produce 15 per cent. less carbon dioxide.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to diesel fuel. Can he confirm that, owing to price differentials, unleaded petrol accounts for 50 per cent. of the market?
    Mr. Key: I can so confirm, and it is a major advance brought about by this Government. Indeed, it has been a more rapid advance than in other Community countries. It is important to remember that catalytic converters have had a dramatic impact on the levels of emissions from those cars fitted with them.
    Ms Walley: Given the growth in traffic, is not it time that the Government paid more attention to the report from the
    Department of the Environment's quality of urban air review group? Should not there be some real action and should not we go back to the real reason why we have such problems—the fact that the current growth of traffic is unsustainable?
    Mr. Key: The forecast growth of traffic will not have the impact suggested by the hon. Lady. The rapid decline in emissions more than makes up for growth.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, over the past five years, the Government have made considerable strides in improving emissions from cars? Does he further agree that one of the problems is that many older cars that could be transferred to unleaded petrol are not being transferred? A further problem is that many diesel-engined cars are still dirty and more tests are required to ensure that they are cleaned up.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; however, the problem with older cars that cannot be fitted with converters will, self-evidently, run itself into the ground. On the question of smoky diesels, there is already a smoky diesel line. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we properly maintain our cars. If motorists maintained their
    12
    vehicles, both diesel and petrol, to the proper standards recommended by manufacturers, we would not have the current emission problem.

    Benzene Emissions
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the subject of benzene emissions from vehicle exhausts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: I have received several representations from hon. Members about the health effects of emissions, including benzene, from fuel. As a result of measures that we have already put in place, we are set to see a marked decline in all vehicle pollutants, including benzene, which will be sustained well into the next decade.
    Mr. Miller: I thank the Minister for that reply. Has his Department evaluated the difference between unleaded and super-unleaded fuels and the aromatic hydrocarbons emitted from them? If not, will he, as a matter of urgency, call on the relevant Government research laboratories to start work on that especially important environmental consideration?
    Mr. Key: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, not least because, of course, Associated Octel Ltd. is in his constituency.
    Mr. Miller: That has nothing to do with it.
    Mr. Key: I know that that has nothing to do with it, except that it means that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the matter; I am not for one moment imputing anything else. Yes, we have taken a great deal of interest in the problem of super-unleaded petrol, which has a higher octane factor than premium unleaded. It accounts for only 6 per cent. of the market, however, and the figure will decrease as more cars become capable of using premium unleaded. I am sure that this is just the first chapter in a long catalogue of matters that we need to address and are addressing through our professional advisers.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Health Service Trusts
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 February, Official Report, column 13, what progress has been made in the review of NHS trusts.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I understand that the National Audit Office expects to publish a review of Treasury management of national health service trusts in the autumn.
    Mr. Hughes: That was the part of the answer that I could predict. In his reply on 18 April, the right hon. Gentleman told me that the Comptroller and Auditor General would reply to my letter about Guy's hospital "shortly". May I ask him how long is "shortly" and how soon I will get the answer?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I understood that the hon. Gentleman had received a reply. If he has not, I will certainly see that he gets one and I apologise. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the decision on the

    13
    allocation of resources is a matter for the Department for Health. Once the decision has been made, it will be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General to study the matter if they see fit to do so.

    Comptroller and Auditor General
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when he next intends to discuss with the Secretary to the Cabinet the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I do not intend to do so. The powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General are matters for Parliament. They are set out in the Exchequer and Audit Department Acts, the National Audit Act 1983, and other legislation.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it in the interests of Parliament for the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, to be undermined by a Minister resisting an inquiry by the National Audit Office, as happened in the case of the call that I made for an inquiry into industrial training in the United Kingdom?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am not aware of the circumstances, but I should be very surprised if a Minister had resisted such an inquiry. In any event, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has discussed his allegations with the Comptroller and Auditor General and that the Comptroller and Auditor General has agreed to produce a public report in due course.

    Overseas Development Administration
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been made available by the Public Accounts Commission to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of the Overseas Development Administration.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission approved the National Audit Office's most recent corporate plan in July 1993 and its estimate for 1994–95 in December. We plan to meet to consider the 1994 corporate plan on 5 July. The voted funds enable the NAO to audit the financial accounts of Government Departments, including the Overseas Development Administration, and also to deliver about 50 major value-for-money outputs to Parliament each year. Selection of topics for investigation is based on a systematic review of expenditure and value for money, including the ODA, but the final decision on whether to proceed with investigation is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Bayley: It has come to my notice that more than £500,000 from the ODA's budget is being spent on technical co-operation officers working to regulate tax havens in the Caribbean. That is in clear contradiction of the Government's stated policy of providing aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries. Why has not that been picked up by the Comptroller and Auditor General? Will the Chairman ensure that the Comptroller's; attention is directed to that matter to ensure that a proper evaluation
    14
    is made of whether Britain's overseas development technical co-operation programme is, indeed, delivering aid to poor people in poor countries?
    Sir Peter Hordern: Let me see what I can do and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend suggest that the PAC investigate the huge increase in British exports to Malaysia as a result of the Pergau dam contract and the consequences for British exports of the campaign against that contract that is being run by Opposition Members?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The PAC may wish to continue its inquiries into the Pergau dam, but that is a matter for the Chairman of the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General in consultation with each other.

  TRANSPORT

    Road Safety
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that road safety has improved in towns and villages which have recently been bypassed.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): Bypasses of towns and villages greatly improve road safety, but often need to be accompanied by traffic-calming measures within the towns bypassed. Measures such as road humps and chicanes slow local traffic down and can reduce casualties by up to 70 per cent.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, when a new bypass is considered, any further road improvements should be anticipated? Is he aware that, in the village of Landbeach in my constituency, his Department is proposing a second bypass? It is not wanted by the residents and is a complete mystery to the local transport department, which sees no need for it.
    Mr. Key: I had the pleasure of being in my hon. Friend's constituency only last week. Not surprisingly, the issue of the second bypass was raised with me then. I am aware of the questions raised by both the Landbeach and the Stretham bypasses, which, as local bypasses, are both priority 1 schemes. Consultants are now considering options around Landbeach and Stretham and the schemes are likely to become more in the way of on-line improvements than village bypasses. Against that background, and with the lack of local enthusiasm, which has been voiced by my hon. Friend so forthrightly, the consultants may need to consider the problems again.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Child Care
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on the results of the Commission's investigations into child care arrangements in Parliament.
    Mr. A.J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A survey of potential demand for child care arrangements has been carried out under the aegis of

    15
    the Administration Committee. Following the decision of that Committee not to issue the report of the survey or to take any further action, the Commission is considering how to proceed.
    Mr. Dowd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how disappointing most hon. Members will find that response? If he reads today's Order Paper, he will find that several of the questions tabled to him relate to this issue. That shows that there is widespread concern.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if a scheme were to be introduced tomorrow, it would benefit only the grandchildren of the staff in this place who raised this issue many years ago? If the problems are logistical and physical, will the right hon. Gentleman consider with the Commission the introduction of a child care allowance, perhaps through a voucher system, so that some immediate provision can be made pending the more long-term or permanent provision that is obviously so necessary?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should direct his disappointment at those of his hon. Friends and others who are members of the Administration Committee, and not at me, as I share a great deal of his disappointment. The provision of vouchers was one of the matters considered in the survey to which I referred. I hope that it will be possible to debate that and other issues, bearing in mind the fact that the Commission does not normally proceed to introduce a new service unless advised to do so by one of its Committees—in this instance, the Administration Committee—or following a debate in the Chamber as a result of which the House asks that the service be introduced.
    Mr. Rathbone: May I welcome the Commission's reinvestigation of the subject, which shows that things have come quite a long way since the first child was born to a serving Member of the House, which was when my mother bore my half sister?
    In thinking about child care in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the provision of nursery schooling as well as basic child care facilities? It seems to me that we have the most marvellous opportunity to provide that essential element of education for young people who happen to be children of Members of Parliamen't.
    Mr. Beith: As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman's personal connections are without parallel in the House. The issue that he has raised goes much wider than that of child care provision from the point of view of the staff of the House, in which the Commission is interested. It will be for the House more widely to consider whether a scheme of child care provision or of vouchers should extend to Members and their staff. It is the involvement of both the House staff and the staff of Members that makes this rather a complicated issue with which to deal.

    Electronic Information System
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what consideration the Finance and Services Committee is giving to the report by the Information Committee on the provision of a Parliamentary data and video network, HC 237.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans the Committee has to make provision for the introduction of an electronic information system for hon. Members and their staff.
    Mr. Paul Channon (on behalf of the Finance and Services Committee): The Committee has already begun to consider the report from the Information Committee on the proposed network and it hopes to complete its consideration shortly.
    Mr. Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much has been spent to date on developing the network? Can he assure me that the House will have an opportunity to debate the report before the recess so that progress can be made and so that hon. Members may have access to the network when they return in October?
    Mr. Channon: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question concerns a matter that is extremely complicated; if he will allow me to do so, I will therefore write to him. On the second part of his question, I assure him that the House would have to have a debate before it proceeded to implement the report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already indicated that he hopes to hold such a debate before the summer recess.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the rest of the country and the world are talking about information super-highways, we in this place are still limping along a muddy footpath? Such a system could save the House a great deal of money. It could improve the way we do things in the House and would act as a beacon to encourage the rest of the country and the world to use information technology. Can my right hon. Friend give us a better idea when the network will be in place and when a decision will be taken, so that every hon. Member may have an appropriate piece of equipment to link into the network?
    Mr. Channon: I will ensure that the views of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) are made known to my Committee when it meets tomorrow to discuss the matter. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) would like to take part in the debate when it occurs. If the House decides in principle to proceed with the recommendations of the Information Committee, we shall of course also look at ways of speeding the process up.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will authorise the expenditure necessary for a line of route for disabled persons to be created using the lift next to the Members' entrance; and what consideration he is giving to the structural consequences of the building and installing of new equipment to facilitate disabled access.
    Mr. Beith: I understand that the Accommodation and Works Committee's inquiry into ways of improving access for disabled persons visiting the palace gives full consideration to the structural implications of any proposed modifications. I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman's other comments to be brought to the Committee's attention.
    Mr. Dalyell: As with all old, venerable and distinguished buildings, is not there a danger, in making structural alterations to this place, of really harming that which people have come to visit and to see? Given the understandable and correct demand that disabled people should have access, however, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would take very little imagination to use the lifts from New Palace Yard and, for that matter, from the other end, where Members of the other place have lift access to the main floor?
    Mr. Beith: It is precisely the difficulty of accommodating changes to help the disabled in an historic structure which has meant that it has taken some time and very careful study to bring forward proposals to meet this pressing need. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are entrances that have lift access at each end of the building. The entrance at the other end of the building is probably more usable from the point of view of the size of the lift than the entrance at this end of the building. However, those considerations are very much in the Committee's mind and I am sure that the Committee will be glad of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

    Child Care
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will publish the results of the survey on child care in the parliamentary estate.
    Mr. Beith: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave earlier.
    Mrs. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the parliamentary nursery campaign which, for 25 years, has advocated facilities for children in this place? Does he also agree that that matter affects not only female staff or female hon. Members but male staff and male hon. Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that he publishes the results of the survey, which will show quite clearly the huge need to have such facilities in place as soon as possible?
    Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Lady's opening comments. I also agree that the debate which I feel will need to take place in the House should be informed by the results of the survey.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What is the cost to the taxpayer of the survey and the related inquiries?
    Mr. Beith: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the figure.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what plans the Commission has to make public the information contained in the recent survey on child care in the parliamentary estate.
    Mr. Beith: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mrs. Campbell: Did the right hon. Gentleman read in yesterday's issue of The Independent on Sunday about the case of Julia Rainsbury, a catering assistant in the House who earns £154 a week and has to fork out £60 ;a week in
    18
    child care expenses? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not fair that Ms Rainsbury does not receive any subsidy towards her child care costs while all right hon. and hon. Members receive a subsidy in the form of free parking?
    Mr. Beith: My own view is in favour of help with child care costs. I have spoken in the House in favour of tax relief on them, too. Direct child care costs do not attract tax relief at present, but those of a workplace nursery do. Important issues such as that came up in our debates. I thought that members of our staff put their case before the Committee with great dignity.

    Sitting Hours
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress is being made towards reforming the sitting hours of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the hours of working of the House.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to implement the Jopling report.
    Mr. Channon: To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he is making with implementing the Jopling report.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I am currently engaged in constructive discussions with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). Our aim is to find ways of enabling the House to conduct its business in more sensible ways and with more sensible hours, without unacceptably reducing either the Government's capacity to carry out their programme or the Opposition's flexibility in deploying and pressing their case. It is my hope—I think that I can say "our hope"—that those discussions will enable us to map a way forward before the summer recess.
    Mr. Pickthall: I am grateful to the Lord President of the Council for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that at least part of the low esteem in which the House is held by the general public stems from the barmy hours that we keep? Will he ensure that, in the discussions that he described, despite the recommendation of the Select Committee, he will consider bringing forward sittings into the mornings so that we might have something resembling a normal working day in which we could pursue a full-time single job as we were elected to do?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that I would wish at this stage to hold out a significant prospect of going beyond the proposals in the report concerning the exchange, as it were, of some Wednesday mornings for some Fridays, but that is clearly one of the subjects of the discussion between the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and myself. As for what the hon. Gentleman called barmy hours, of course I should like to see further progress in avoiding late-night sittings, but I hope that he will not underestimate the extent to which we have already made progress on that front over the past decade or so.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: After considering the Select Committee's report, does my right hon. Friend agree that

    19
    time in this House could be more effectively spent if debates on the Floor of the House were properly timetabled and if Committee timetables were agreed in advance? One could then see whether it was feasible to serve on a Committee because one would know when it would finish. Will my right hon. Friend urgently pursue the Select Committee's recommendations and see whether the matter can be brought forward?
    Mr. Newton: I am sure that there will be much sympathy with those thoughts among hon. Members on both sides of the House, although I detected the usual hostile muttering from the Opposition Benches below the Gangway. Of course, the very matters to which my hon. Friend refers are among those being discussed in general terms by myself and the Opposition.
    Mr. Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will never be unanimity about any proposals to reform the working of the House and that the present proposals represent the best compromise—unanimously supported—that has come forward for many years? Will he please make as speedy progress as possible? Did I hear him say that he hopes to have a debate before the summer recess—and if not, why not?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly accept that they are constructive and worthwhile proposals, and they are bringing a constructive and worthwhile response. I do not think that I can go beyond that at the moment. If, as I hope, we are in a position to map a way forward before the summer recess, I would expect to seek an opportunity for debate on that map.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Lord President recognise that the idea that office hours should pertain in the House will have little impact on hon. Members who live outwith Greater London? What is essential is a pattern of sittings in the House like that in the European Parliament, which would enable us to balance our parliamentary, constituency and family responsibilities—along with a pattern of decentralisation to Scotland and Wales, of course.
    Mr. Newton: Apart from the predictable but somewhat more tendentious last part of that question, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady's point. We must strike a realistic balance between the different duties of Members of Parliament. I accept that greater certainty about the pattern of business is one of the prizes.

    Prime Minister's Questions
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received over the format for Prime Minister's questions.
    Mr. Newton: The matter has been raised in a number of recent exchanges in the House, including some at business questions. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Procedure Committee decided last week to seek ideas on possible options from myself and from the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I shall seek to respond—as, no doubt, will they.
    Mr. Winnick: Although the Prime Minister may have his reasons for wanting a change, will not Prime Minister's Question Time always be the subject of highly controversial matters? Without the open way in which we now put questions, hon. Members' questions on given subjects could be passed on to other Departments, placing Back Benchers at a vast disadvantage. The present system may have its faults, but the alternative seems to be worse.
    Mr. Newton: In view of the all-too-characteristic aggression with which the hon. Gentleman asked his question, I should say that I understand that the matter was raised in the House not by the Prime Minister but by other hon. Members, who expressed concern about the format. No one is seeking to avoid proper questioning, let alone controversy. The question is whether the present format is best organised to achieve its aims in a satisfactory way.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In recent months, you will have noticed that, at each Question Time, Ministers are asking Opposition spokesmen questions. Would it be in order for an Opposition spokesman to answer a question at the Dispatch Box? If an Opposition spokesman were to answer, would you then rule that he or she was out of order?
Madam Speaker: Many of these questions are rhetorical, but I remind the entire House that "Erskine May", which I am not quoting precisely, states that Question Time is there for Members to seek information from the Government and to press the Government for action. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are, as we are always reminded, a United Kingdom Parliament. As there has been no statement, will you tell us whether there is any way in which the House can express its concern about, and our sympathy for the victims of, the massacre of six innocent people in Northern Ireland? All they were doing was watching a football match on television and they were gunned down by murderous psychopaths.
Although I understand why we do not always have a statement after massacres, whether they are, as on Saturday, of Catholics or, as at other times, of Protestants, is not it necessary for us to show that we are not indifferent, that we deeply deplore what occurred and that we hope that those responsible for the massacre will be brought to justice?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order. We seldom have Government statements following a terrorist attack, but there are opportunities during Northern Ireland questions to raise security matters of that nature.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Reverting to the issue—
Madam Speaker: Order. There will be no reverting to any issue.
Mr. Hughes: It is a separate—
Madam Speaker: Order. There will be no reversion to the original issue. The hon. Gentleman will remember my words very clearly. I made it quite clear that it is for Members to seek information from the Executive and to press for action. I have said enough. That is the end of that point of order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you agree that the simplest way of resolving the problem—I know that it places you in some difficulty—is for the Government to call a general election, then our lot can answer all the questions?
Madam Speaker: It does not actually place me in any difficulty at all. My campaigning days are over—so if a general election were called, I would have a holiday.

Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY] [1ST PART]
Opposition Day

  Parliamentary Procedure
  3.34 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the increasing public contempt for Parliament; believes that its organisation and procedures are anachronistic and irrelevant to the concerns of modern British society; notes with concern the Government's systematic erosion of Parliament's role in the consideration of legislation and its ability to hold the Executive to account for its actions; notes with particular concern the Government's use of civil servants for party political purposes; and calls for urgent and comprehensive reform of Parliament, including changes to the format of Prime Minister's Question Time.
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Tyler: Suppose for a moment, Madam Speaker, that you were sitting in that Chair, but Edward VI had not had a redundant chapel available in which the House of Commons could sit; instead, he had a redundant royal tennis court. Suppose that in Versailles in 1789, instead of a redundant tennis court, there had been a redundant chapel. If one believes architectural determinism, our continental neighbours would have the confrontational system of politics from which we have suffered in this country and you, Madam Speaker, would look at a consensus of political views in a semicircle.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: That is factually true.
  Mr. Tyler: As my hon. Friend says, that is factually true.
  The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the two-party system is a product of that accident of history or whether, in some way, we have determined our own architecture and suffered accordingly. What is certainly true is that the consensus building of the semicircle has proved to be a great deal more sensitive to the pluralist politics of the 20th century—and possibly the 21st century —than the anachronisms of confrontation from which we still suffer in this place.
  As hon. Members may have already detected, I do not have any great credentials for moving the motion. I studied political history in my long-distant academic past. I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure—I do not think that that qualifies me for anything much. But, perhaps more germanely, I am back here as the prize retread, having been first elected 20 years ago, and, therefore, perhaps in a unique position to compare what happened in the early 1970s with what is happening in the 1990s. In the 1970s, television had not arrived and nor had the Select Committees. I shall come back to both those reforms in due course.
  My essential thesis is that those two changes, of themselves, cannot resist and reverse the tide of alienation —the alienation of Parliament from the people. The institution of Parliament has become dominated by party games, with the side effect of the stark dichotomy that few people outside this place recognise as relevant any more.
  Parliament has fallen into public disrepute—Interruption—as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.

  23
  Skinner) no doubt may vouchsafe. This institution is seen as old-fashioned and irrelevant, and its Members lazy, badly behaved and self-indulgent—[Interruption.] Hon. Members behind me may deny that, but they are all too keen to quote the polls when the polls suit them. The polls show that 56 per cent. of the public are dissatisfied with the way in which hon. Members collectively do their job; only 32 per cent. are satisfied. Just 12 per cent. believe that we work hard—nearly four times as many think we do not. Four out of five British people believe that "feeding time at the zoo" is a fair description of the House of Commons.
  The media stimulate that response because they emphasise the conflict in this place and ignore the consensus. The television cameras are on for Question Time; they are rarely on in Select Committees.
  Mr. Simon Burns rose—
  Mr. David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Tyler: I will not give way because I want to make some progress.
  We are seen in this place as unnecessarily argumentative, and it would appear that one or two hon. Members now wish to prove that point. Sixty-four per cent. of the public think that politicians emphasise what we disagree about; only 37 per cent. think that we emphasise what we agree on. Parliament's bad reputation is a prime cause of the public's disenchantment with the whole process of politics.
  Mr. Burns rose—
  Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way.
  The House of Commons is seen as being out of touch because, in many important respects, we are out of touch. Several hon. Members here will vouchsafe that many women in the community think that this Parliament is unrepresentative because only one tenth of our total membership are women while, of course, more than half the general population are.
  In 1992, at the last general election, 24 per cent. of the voters did not support either of the major parties. Their views ended up being represented in the House by only 7 per cent. of the Members. Obviously, the argument for electoral reform and a fairer voting system is as strong as ever.
  Despite being so unrepresentative, the two major parties continue to dominate the procedures and debates of the House. Almost 25 years ago, 90 per cent. of the population voted for the two parties. Today, that is not the case. In the 1992 election, the combined two-party vote dropped to 75 per cent. A week ago, when the Prime Minister claimed a return to the Buggin's turn two-party system, it dropped to just over two thirds—just less than 70 per cent.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is rightly trying to guide the House into behaving in a way that leads to more popular respect. Could he say whether the expression "Buggin's turn" was used by the Prime Minister or whether it is a phrase which he is ascribing to the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Tyler: The phrase was used as a description of the way in which the Prime Minister referred to a return to the two-party system. I am glad to make that point clear.
  24
  No one can say that our debates in this place represent the full range of perspectives and opinions in the country. Only the most simplistic partisan could pretend that every issue could be viewed as Government versus Opposition or Conservative versus Labour. That is not the real world. None of our constituents and none of the public see the politics of this country in that way. Yet the House continues to operate as if that were true. Parliament's traditions, bizarre as they are, often cause consternation to our constituents and no doubt to those non-present people in the Gallery. "I spy strangers", top hats, convoluted language: is it any wonder that the public feel that we are performing some sort of cynical ritual?
  The reality is that Parliament is not fulfilling its basic functions. Its first function is to call to account those who govern. That is true of the Opposition, whatever party is in opposition. That is our job. It is also the primary function of Government Back Benchers. Every so often, with a little freedom from the Whips, we see that happening—not, unfortunately, very frequently. The second function is the examination, criticism and approval of legislation. I shall deal with both those subjects briefly.
  In calling the Executive to account, a fundamental principle of the British constitution is that the Government are accountable through Ministers to Parliament. Such Government accountability is essential if we are to have responsible Government. We have seen the creation and development of the departmental Select Committees. I welcome them and I am sure that all Members of Parliament recognise the effective work that they do. However, few would claim that they exercise such effective scrutiny of Ministers and their Departments that the full House need no longer fulfil that function. The Select Committees report critically, but how often do we get an opportunity to debate their conclusions in full and to follow through those conclusions to some reform?
  I believe that the most important reason for the failure of the House of Commons to exercise its function is a lack of information. Government activities are not made available to the Opposition parties. Our winner-takes-all political system means that members of the Opposition parties are shut out of decisions and policy making. That is obviously exacerbated by the fact that the Conservative Government have been on the Treasury Bench for 15 years.
  Let us consider some of the ways in which the parliamentary question is supposed to be able to elicit information and fails. In recent years, Ministers have developed a number of techniques for evading questions. They have become masters of the art. Holding answers delay a comprehensive written reply for several days. They say, "I will write to the hon. Member", but when the letter eventually arrives, it is not available to other Members.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way. There will be time for other Members to speak in due course.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way.
  Thirdly, Ministers agree to put the information requested in the House of Commons Library, which is also an effective way to deny other Members the full explanation given in the answer to the question.
  I shall give an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked the Minister of Agriculture,

  25
  Fisheries and Food to place in the Library the results of market research on her Department's advertising and publicity campaign. He asked her to do so because she had stated in an earlier reply that such research existed for a range of campaigns. What finally arrived, after much pressure, were the results of research on only a couple of the many campaigns. Clearly, the answer did not meet the question. Any hon. Members or members of the public who wanted to look up the answer could not do so.
  Ministers also say that the information requested "is not available in the form requested," or "in a complete form". Another of my colleagues asked the Secretary of State for Health for background information and data on monitoring disciplinary procedures against doctors. The Minister of State responded that the data were not available centrally. Presumably inadvertently, however, he then enclosed the data in an incomplete form, with a little note on the top, "Do not send". I do not know whether the civil servant sent it on purpose or whether it was a mistake, but how revealing that is of Ministers' attitudes.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he was in the House many years ago and can compare different Governments. Does he agree that, irrespective of the merits of our procedures—there is room for improvement—he is properly exposing to the British public, if only the media will so allow, not the failure of Parliament, but the failure of the Government to take Parliament and its procedures seriously?
  Mr. Tyler: I shall come to that matter. The problem has certainly been exacerbated by Governments' attitudes. I recall that previous Government, and some of the gambits that are being used now were developed in those years. We cannot let any Front Bench off the hook.
  All hon. Members are well aware of the buck-passing between Departments. The Government have raised evasion to an art form, which is perhaps best expressed in that phrase coined by a former hon. Member, Mr. Alan Clark, who doubtless had experience of it—"economical with the actualité". We in Cornwall might not recognise that last word, but I think that we understand the sense of the expression. That is a very good way to describe the evasions that are now coming to the surface through the Scott inquiry on arms sales to Iraq.
  Mr. Toby Jessel rose—
  Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way. I have a limited number of things to say and there will be plenty of time for other people to speak.
  Whitehall's guidance on parliamentary questions says that answers to Members of Parliament should be
  "factual, straightforward and meticulously accurate."
  The Scott inquiry was told by a former civil servant, however, that
  "Questions should be answered to give the maximum degree of satisfaction to the questioner. That doesn't mean they should necessarily be full."
  The Pergau dam affair was another example of the way in which limited information can be given to the House. In 1991, the then Minister for Overseas Development said that there was no question of linking aid and arms deals. Subsequently, the Foreign Secretary said that the two for a time became entangled. Why is entangled not the same as linked?
  26
  The Minister responsible for open government—surely a misnomer—has claimed that Ministers have a right to lie to the House of Commons. He said that it is sometimes
  "necessary to say something that is untrue in the House of Commons".
  He gave as his precedent Lord Callaghan's statement on the 1967 devaluation, for which he later apologised, but he did not withdraw the accusation. The Minister said that evasive answers to questions can be justified because
  "much of the Government activity is much more like playing poker than playing chess. You can't put all your cards up at one time."
  Obviously there must be certain cases when Ministers cannot be completely candid to the House; perhaps matters relating to sterling and defence are examples. But the Minister, in his misdirected candour, failed to recognise the distinction between the national or public interest on the one hand and narrow party political interest on the other. He failed to see the distinction between lie avoidance and truth evasion, and he unwittingly identified for us all one of the Government's serious attacks on ministerial accountability to the House.
  I believe that Whitehall's guidance on parliamentary questions must be reviewed and rewritten, and freedom of information legislation would be an important back-up to effective parliamentary accountability. Already this afternoon, there have been questions about the effectiveness of Prime Minister's Question Time. This is a part of the parliamentary day and it is apparently what most attracts television producers.
  Looking back at Hansard for 1974—before television—I was interested to note that the then Prime Minister, now Lord Wilson, and the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who sometimes we think still is, were able to exchange real information. The Leader of the Opposition asked only one question and did not make three miniature speeches, and there were not three miniature speeches in reply from the Prime Minister.
  Does it really persuade any hon. Member—let alone the public—that that 15-minute partisan jousting match elicits information? Does any hon. Member really believe that the series of miniature speeches from the Leader of the Opposition, the patsy questions from Government Members and the point scoring of the Prime Minister in reply produce any form of accountability? The traditional view of Prime Minister's Question Time is that is the centrepiece of parliamentary democracy. Heaven help us if it is.
  A number of suggestions have been put forward and I was delighted to see that the Prime Minister agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that there is a need for reform; but we must see what is on the table. I have great sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that advance notice will just give more warning to the Prime Minister of how partisan he can be on the day.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend also accept that it would be helpful to democracy if Prime Ministers in this country did what Prime Ministers in other European countries do, which is to accept that good ideas do not always come from their own party and to say so publicly at Question Time and also to apologise when they and their Governments have made mistakes?
  Mr. Tyler: Having now given proportional representation to hon. Members from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, I do not propose to take any more interventions.
  I agree very much with my hon. Friend. It is interesting that the Australian and New Zealand Parliaments—where I understand they have advance warning of questions—have not achieved any improvement in their Prime Minister's Question Time, but that in the Scandinavian Parliaments, to which I think my hon. Friend is particularly referring, there have been notable improvements.
  I believe that unless we deal with the root disease, we will not achieve any improvements in the beer garden of Prime Minister's Question Time. But that is much more deep-seated than simply giving advance notice.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): The hon. Gentleman read that wrong—he means bear garden.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kindly intervention.
  I shall now move on to the matter of extra-parliamentary accountability, and the many institutions that have been taken away from us and which are no longer accountable to us through Ministers. The growth of quangos under the Government has been dramatic.
  Mr. Skinner: There are 7,000.
  Mr. Tyler: There are 5,521 quangos, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, if one adds the next steps agencies the total rises to 7,000. In 1993, those quangos spent £50 billion of taxpayers' money without our having the opportunity to bring them to book here in the House. Parliament's opportunities to question them are very limited and our ability, even in Select Committees, to ensure that they are answerable is very constricted by the Osmotherly rules. The hiving off of those many unaccountable organisations is an affront to the effective parliamentary democracy of this country. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will cite just one example of such behaviour.
  A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Further and Higher Education to intervene in a dispute over contracts of employment at the City of Bath college of further education. The Minister said that he could not do so. The Further Education Funding Council said that it had no power to intervene and the college governors said that they had delegated responsibility for such matters to the college principal. On the very same day that the Minister said that he could not intervene, however, he announced that he would hold back £50 million from further education colleges nationwide if they did not establish new, more flexible staff contracts. What bunkum it is when Ministers pretend that they cannot intervene.
  In most cases, all too often Ministers dip in and out of controversies, simply to suit themselves. Awkward questions about the practical implications of their policy decisions are often sideswiped to agency heads. Witness what has happened to the Child Support Agency. It is surely objectionable that Secretaries of State have sub-contracted state responsibilities for prisons, higher education and social security benefits.
  A veil has been placed between Parliament and those who are responsible for public services. I believe that the
  28
  next steps agencies should be put on a statutory basis so that we in Parliament know where we stand in relation to them and can bring them back under parliamentary control.
  As for the examination, criticism and approval of legislation, Parliament is still passing far too much legislation and even more speedily than it did in 1974, when I was previously a Member of the House. The speed at which legislation is considered has been a source of criticism for many years, but the pace is accelerating. Although the House spends about one third of its total time considering Government legislation, there is little effective scrutiny of Bills. All too often, they are considered in a hasty, excessively partisan and sloppy manner. For a variety of reasons, including partisanship, lack of resources and insufficient technical expertise, Standing Committees do not always scrutinise Bills properly. In performing our legislative role, Parliament has not done itself justice in the eyes of the public.
  I believe that it would be better if, pre-legislation, Select Committees were empowered to instigate consultation and examination of legislation rather than for that to be left, always, to White Papers and departmental trawls, which the Government have conspicuously failed to make effective.
  I will cite, briefly, three examples of poor legislative work. On the Railways Bill, the Government produced a huge number of amendments on the day that they were due to be debated. Once those amendments had been pulled apart, they were withdrawn, but further amendments were tabled at the eleventh hour. Therefore, once that Bill had received Royal Assent, a supplementary Bill had to be introduced to tidy up the mistakes. The Criminal Justice Bill of 1993 required about 100 Government amendments and some parts of it were not even capable of being enacted.
  The House spent hours debating the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, the Maastricht Bill, but that time could easily have been halved if there had been prior agreement on the length of debate on each group of amendments. Existing procedures allowed for lengthy filibustering, which was meaningless because it was virtually impossible to amend the Bill. The majority of amendments selected for debate were either wrecking or probing ones. During the Committee and Report stages, there were 24 closures, which meant that about six hours were wasted while hon. Members went through the Lobby. The delaying tactic of "motion to report progress" was used on three occasions.
  The Committee stage of the Bill took 163 hours over 23 days, and more than 600 amendments were tabled. Yet the Foreign Secretary told the House that, in effect, the vital amendment No. 27 on the social chapter would have no legal impact whether it was passed or not. What an extraordinary comment on our proceedings.
  Few outside observers believe that we are too scrupulous in our examination of legislation, yet the Government curtail Parliament's consideration of important Bills by using the guillotine procedure. In December, the Government took two Bills through all their stages in just two days. We need to change Parliament's procedures so that there is more time for the scrutiny of legislation. We need to give Select Committees a greater role in preparing legislation for the House.
  A matter of further concern is the increased use of, and scope for, statutory instruments. In 1993, there were 3,276 statutory instruments—two thirds more than 10 years ago.

  29
  Four statutory instruments are now in force for each statute. What degree of scrutiny does the House exercise when fewer than a quarter of Prayers are debated and about a third of statutory instruments are not subject to parliamentary procedures? Statutory instruments are growing like Topsy. Even when they are debated, they are not fully scrutinised in Committee. It should be possible to move amendments within the rules of debate. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn attention to the way in which those devices are used increasingly for political ends rather than for legislative means. That must be reversed.
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, on which other hon. Members may wish to speak, takes the matter a stage further with the so-called Henry VIII clauses. The 1932 report of the Donoughmore committee said that those would be used only in exceptional circumstances. They will now be used increasingly.
  The Select Committee on Procedure was permitted to examine the best way to give some semblance of effective scrutiny to "fast track" procedure, but it was not allowed to consider whether there should be one at all. Of course, its limited recommendations fell foul of the Government Whips.
  The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will no doubt speak about his Committee's recommendations and I shall not deal with those in detail at this stage. But is it not remarkable, if not deplorable, that the usual channels are currently carving up what was intended to be a report for the full House and Back-Bench Members in particular?
  The domination of the party in British politics has been effectively analysed by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) in both his academic and practitioner roles. I hope, Madam Speaker, that he will catch your eye, because he can obviously develop his argument better than I.
  Mr. Burns: He is not here.
  Mr. Tyler: I am sure that his absence from this important debate will be brief. He sums up his case as follows:
  "My argument, then, is that party substitutes for constitution in Britain (with party groups substituting for effective scrutiny) and that provides for a winner-takes-all kind of politics."
  There is a deep-seated malaise in our Parliament and politics. The medieval jousting in this Chamber is as irrelevant to the real concerns of the British people as the mumbo-jumbo of our neo-Gothic rituals. Only the built-in self-interest of the cosy cartel, which Front-Bench Members are only too happy to maintain, as it monopolises power between two rival and alternating establishments, keeps it that way.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Tyler: In 1780, the House passed a motion that the power of the Crown—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is not prepared to give way, so hon. Members should not press him to do so.
  Mr. Tyler: You will be glad to hear, Madam Speaker, that I am reaching my conclusion.
  In 1780, the House passed a motion that
  30
  "The power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished."
  If we mean business about parliamentary reform, we cannot simply deal with the symptoms—rowdy irrelevance at Question Time or impotent inquiries by Select Committees, for example. We must identify the root causes —the disease itself. We could do worse than start by agreeing that the power of the party has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
  4.3 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'congratulates the Government for its initiative in setting up the Select Committee on Sittings of the House (the Jopling Committee); supports the objectives of making agreed improvements in the House's hours of sittings and working methods; and welcomes the Prime Minister's recent statement reaffirming the Government's commitment to progress on parliamentary reform.
  I was surprised when the Liberal Democrats initially tabled this subject for discussion last Thursday because the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was well aware that discussions were proceeding—I hope also to have discussions with him—about reforming the procedures of the House. Therefore, it is surprising that this subject should be chosen for debate today.
  I was further puzzled when I discovered that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), rather than the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, was to lead the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. My high regard for the judgment of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was momentarily increased still further in the early part of the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall, when I noticed that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had left the Chamber, which seemed to me the most appropriate comment, although I realise that he came back. None of my puzzlement has been diminished by listening to the speech—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I think I ought to correct the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) came to the Chair to have a word with me at that time.
  Mr. Newton: In that case, I must straightforwardly apologise for misrepresenting the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I realised that he had left his place. I obviously made a mistake in assuming that he had left the Chamber, but, having listened to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I think that he would have been better off out of the Chamber had he done so.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for showing me the courtesy that, unfortunately, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who moved the motion, did not wish to show to others. Is not it an odd state of affairs when the hon. Gentleman who moved the motion is a Member who was in the House for about six months and then out for 18 years? If it is such a terrible place, why did he spend so many years trying to get back here?
  Although I share many of the criticisms that the hon. Member for North Cornwall made of Government action —obviously I would do that—was not the essence of much of what he said that we should take the politics out of

  31
  politics? This is a place for political warfare. If we did not have political warfare in a Parliament such as ours, which we should cherish, it would be out on the streets. There is nothing wrong with clashes. Much of what we heard—I think that the Leader of the House will agree—was pious nonsense.
  Mr. Newton: I usually try to be emollient, but for once I find myself greatly in agreement with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He asked a pertinent question of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to which, no doubt, we shall in due course receive an answer—why he was so keen to get back in here if he thinks so little of the place. On the other hand, our track record in obtaining from the Liberal Democrats answers to any question is not good that may remain another one that hangs in the air.
  It was, frankly—as I think will have been widely felt on both sides of the House—a pretty extraordinary performance. The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a speech in which, although I do not remember his exact words, he deplored the absence of proper debate in the House and then persistently refused intervention after intervention—interventions being one of the ways in which we conduct debate in the House, sometimes quite productively. He spoke of people evading issues; I have never heard a speech that evaded as many issues as his. There was only one thing in his remarks with which I totally agreed and I took a note of the sentence because it harnessed so much agreement in my mind. He said:
  "I have only a limited number of things to say".
  He could certainly say that again. He said them at some length and, in my judgment at least, his speech was little more than a series of cheap debating points.
  In the remaining few minutes of a speech that started by expressing worry about Parliament's bad reputation, the hon. Member for North Cornwall did nothing to enhance the reputation of Parliament.
  Mr. Burns: While my right hon. Friend is on the subject of enhancing the reputation of Parliament, did he notice that, during the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in which he criticised hon. Members of, I suspect, all parties in the Chamber for being egged on by the media, a phenomenon occurred that occurs only when Liberal Democrats make speeches? The Liberal Democrats all bunched behind one other on Benches belonging to the Labour party so as to achieve the "doughnut" effect for television. In other debates, when they are not taking part, they resume their normal Bench. They do that simply to get themselves on television and to give an impression that they are doing more work than they usually do.
  Mr. Newton: I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that path, but no doubt his observations will have been noted in these and other quarters.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) condemned what he alleged to be typical answers from Ministers—answers such as "I will write to the hon. Gentleman"? The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is the only Liberal Member who answers questions, and he gave precisely that answer to a question from me today.
  Mr. Newton: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) speaks for the House of Commons Commission. As I am a member of the Commission, I hesitate to attack him in that role. I see that he has had the grace to smile, in his usual engaging way, at the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).
  Let me return to what I consider to be the main issues in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who will no doubt wish to contribute to the debate. In my present capacity as Leader of the House, I am more than happy to engage in debates on procedure whenever the House wishes. Nevertheless—as I suggested in commenting on the existence of today's debate—I hope that I shall not be thought churlish if I express some surprise at its timing. As the House well knows, I am in the middle of discussions with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and others, seeking to make progress on procedural reform.
  Those talks are taking place in an extremely constructive way, but—as with any other negotiation or series of talks—it would be neither practicable nor desirable to attempt to give a blow-by-blow account in the middle of them. I hope that the House will understand that at this stage I can only set out our principal objectives, and state—I mean this quite straightforwardly—that I shall be happy to listen to any further thoughts that are expressed today. I very much hope that that will give further impetus to the progress that hon. Members on both sides of the House want.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Leader of the House used the term "procedural change". Is he in a position to say when we can expect changes to the Standing Orders governing Scottish business? I am given to understand that discussions have taken place over many months, but have been halted.
  Mr. Newton: I shall mention that later, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we hope that the new arrangements will be in place in time for the next Session of Parliament.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that he would accept whatever views were offered for consideration. May I bring up a very important aspect of what goes on in the House, which was not mentioned in that interesting schoolboy essay by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and has not so far been mentioned in the disconnected comments of the Leader of the House?
  One of the most malign influences on how the public see the House of Commons has resulted from the introduction of those damned objects, the television cameras. It has led to the bad conduct of hon. Members —worse conduct than normal—and the bad conduct of business in the House. The cameras are frequently abused by the Government Front Bench, and some of the slimier Members, to get points of view across to the public which are misleading and are made only because the cameras are on them.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has made his views known over a long period. I have to say that I do not agree with him about the adverse effect on the procedures of the House—or, indeed, about the view that the public take of the introduction of television cameras. My personal view

  33
  —it can be no more than a personal view—is that it has significantly enhanced interest in what goes in this place, and therefore enhanced the centrality of Parliament to the British political process. That effect should be welcomed. I do not say that there have been no undesirable side-effects, but overall I think that the move has been beneficial.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that—contrary to what has just been said by my dear, beloved hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—it is not true that behaviour in this place has deteriorated since the advent of television cameras? In fact it has improved, as has the dress of many hon. Members. If the cameras were withdrawn, would there not be a public outcry?
  Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's latter point is true. As it happens, I also agreed with his first point; it is simply that I did not wish to pick a dispute with the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on each and every one of his points. However, I made it quite clear that I did not agree with him.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Newton: I will, but from the large number of hon. Members present I judge that many would like to take part in the debate. I have said that, in present circumstances, I am not in a position to make a major, substantive statement about any changes and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. While I am ready, as ever, to give way to interventions, it will significantly prolong my speech if I continue to do so.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend referred to the public's interest in this place. They must find many of our proceedings somewhat arcane. Were we to timetable a greater proportion of our business, not only would they have a greater understand of what is happening but they would have greater opportunity to come to hear what we say, both in the Chamber and in Committee.
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend made that same point crisply and effectively during questions to the Lord President of the Council a little earlier today. I understand that that aim—expressed, in one way, in the Jopling report —would be supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Before I make what I intend to be fairly brief comments, I want to inform the House of the regret expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that, because of the short notice of the debate and his long-standing commitment in an equally important parliamentary capacity, he cannot be present today. He wanted me to pass on his regrets, which he expressed both to me and to the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
  The starting point of our discussion is the report known in the shorthand of the trade as the Jopling report—the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who may be seeking to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. As on earlier occasions, I pay tribute not only to him but to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk,
  34
  South (Mr. MacGregor), now the Secretary of State for Transport. His appreciation of the need for reform of our pattern of sittings led to the setting up of the Committee.
  When the House last debated the matter, which was some time ago, I made it clear that the Government would welcome the more civilised, more certain hours of sitting that the Committee recommended, provided that that could be done in a way that ensured that the elected Government of the day could get their legislative programme and other essential business through in a reasonable fashion. That remains our position. Since then, my goal has been a package of measures that strikes a fair balance between the interests of Government, the interests of the Opposition and, of course, the interests of the House as a whole.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the Government reach a conclusion on these matters—especially on the handling of legislation—will the right hon. Gentleman deal specifically with the arguments deployed by the all-party Hansard Society committee on the legislative process, chaired by Lord Rippon, which demonstrated authoritatively how unsatisfactory our processes are for the public in producing good quality legislation? That is due not in small measure to the amount of time wasting in dealing with legislation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman also deal specifically with the question raised by Sir Thomas Bingham, the Master of the Rolls, in his Denning lecture, about the inadequate amount of time being given by Parliament and the Government to the recommendations of the Law Commission, fewer and fewer of which are being acted upon by the House? Instead, they are lying collecting dust on the shelves, not because they are not worthy, but because the Government cannot find the time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is a very long intervention.
  Mr. Newton: I have two brief observations to make on that intervention. First, there is quite an amount in the report of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government—although I accept that it goes wider—which interrelates with the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale put forward in his report on the way in which the House approaches legislation and the discussion of legislation. Secondly, for what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland shorthanded as Law Commission Bills or law reform Bills, procedures already exist in both Houses of Parliament. In this House, there is the provision, for example, for some legislation to go to Second Reading Committees, which are designed to facilitate the passage of legislation when it is non-controversial. I better openly say that it was more difficult to operate those procedures during the period when the usual channels were not operating. I am hopeful that, now we are back to a more normal pattern of relationships between the two Front Benches, some of those difficulties may ease.
  The overall objective that we all have was well put by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a press conference that he held a week ago today, when he said:
  "I hope we can find ways of enabling the Commons to do its business in more sensible ways, in more sensible hours without either unacceptably reducing the government's capacity to carry its programme, or reducing the Opposition's flexibility in deploying and pressing its case against government legislation. I

  35
  believe that this effort has very strong support on both sides of the House and very strong support outside the House from millions of people who follow our proceedings. The government is keen to make progress on this front, if the Opposition are equally keen",
  I see no reason to doubt that they are. He continued:
  "I hope we should be able to map the way forward before the summer recess."
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Newton: Yes, I shall, but I must cease to give way quite so frequently if other hon. Members are to have a chance to speak.
  Mr. Flynn: In support of that statement by the Prime Minister, I gave him 24 hours notice last week of a question that I asked in an entirely non-combative way. The answer that I received was described in The Times editorial as being a typical civil service briefing with a party-political jibe in the tail. If the Prime Minister is failing to rise to his own challenge, why should the House take him seriously?
  Mr. Newton: Frankly, that is a cheap debating point rivalling the comments that we heard from the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Of course I was aware of, and had seen, the hon. Gentleman's letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister setting out his question. I heard the reply. I thought that it was a properly considered reply and that my right hon. Friend responded in the way in which the hon. Gentleman had made possible and I cleave to that view.
  In the last debate on the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, he made a comment with which I very much agree. He said:
  "when considering altering parliamentary procedure, it is important to seek to do it on the basis of consensus."—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 74.]
  That is very much the spirit in which I am conducting my current discussions and in which they are being conducted in other quarters as well. Since the usual channels have resumed, we have made good progress towards that objective and I hope that I shall also be able to have constructive discussions with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. Our aim, as I have said, is to be able to map the way forward before the summer recess and I shall give further indications on what we may be able to achieve as soon as I am able.
  However, I should like to underline something that I said either in response to an intervention or in response to one of the questions at Lord President's questions a few moments ago. I hope that the House will not underestimate the extent to which considerable progress has been made towards some of the objectives in the Jopling report in the management of this Session's business. Excluding Consolidated Fund debates, which are, of course, effectively private Members' time, we have sat after midnight on only 17 occasions out of 116. The longest sitting lasted until 3.22 am and only one other sitting went beyond 3 am. I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will agree, given his previous experience in this place, that the almost routine all-night marathons of the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s have effectively
  36
  become things of the past. We sit to those hours, or all night, far less frequently than was the case when I became a Member 20 years ago.
  We have tried to arrange less contentious business—this is much in line with one of the Jopling recommendations—for Thursday evenings to facilitate the passage back to their constituencies of Members from further afield who wish to be in their constituencies on Friday.
  I have sought to give Members as much notice as possible of the dates of recesses.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What about the summer recess?
  Several hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Newton: I understand the general interest in the summer recess. I am not in a position to be as forthcoming as I should like about that. I am conscious that on a couple of occasions I have given so much advance notice of the dates of other recesses that they have been overlooked and complaints have been made, when in fact the dates have been announced long since. On those occasions, some hon. Members were still unaware of the dates. We have, however, made some progress.
  In short, even within the present procedural rules, an approach to business management has been taken that has represented a deliberate wish to be responsive to the wishes of the House. That approach has already enabled us to make useful progress towards meeting those wishes. In doing so—I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will agree with me—we have created a useful foundation on which we may be able to make further progress, which is precisely what we are seeking to do.
  Given the time that has been taken by interventions, I shall not spend a great deal of time commenting on other recent reforms. I hope, however, that the House will not underestimate them. I have in mind the development of the European Standing Committees, which has helped to relieve the pressure of business on the Floor of the House. The volume of private business has been substantially reduced by the passage of the Transport and Works Act 1992.
  In this Parliament, the system of departmental Select Committees—it has been referred to already, but the extent to which Committees have improved the capacity of the House to hold the Executive to account has perhaps not been acknowledged—has been consolidated and extended. It is with some considerable pleasure that I find myself the Leader of the House who has extended the Select Committee system to Northern Ireland affairs and has achieved the establishment, after a long period of controversy, of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I pay tribute to the efforts that the Leader of the House has made. Will he be prepared to allow both the European Standing Committees and the Select Committees to have greater rights so that they can move amendments to the legislation that they are monitoring and can demand that it be fully debated on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Newton: It is always open to Committees to make proposals about debates on the Floor of the House. We always consider such proposals with great care.
  I promised the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that I would respond to his

  37
  intervention and I shall do so before I resume my place. There are one or two further procedural developments that I hope to bring before the House in the near future.
  In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland published the Government's proposals for improvements in the way in which we handle Scottish business. The aim, as I think I explained earlier—ray right hon. Friend and I hope to bring forward the proposals shortly—is to give Scottish Members additional opportunities to raise Scottish concerns without in any way diminishing their rights to debate Scottish issues on the Floor of the House.
  Under the proposals, the Scottish Grand Committee will be able to deal with a wide range of business, including the Second Reading of Bills, questions to Scottish Office Ministers, a new procedure for short debates, ministerial statements and general debates on topics chosen by the Government, the Official Opposition or by the minority parties. We envisage that the Scottish Grand Committee will hold some of its meetings in Scotland, not only in Edinburgh but in other parts of that country, provided that the necessary facilities are available. As I have said, it is our intention that those reforms should take effect at the beginning of the next Session.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has any more thought been given to the critical question whether the head of the Crown Office, the Lord Advocate, can be subjected to direct questioning by Members of this House? For that matter, has any more thought been given to whether the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who plays a very active, critical and controversial part in the affairs of Scotland, could also be subject to questioning by Members of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Newton: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, he raised those matters in a point of order towards the end of last week. I hope that he will not mind my saying that he also spoke to me informally afterwards about his concerns, and I undertook to look further into the points that he had raised. I will do that, but I hope that he will understand that I cannot respond further across the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
  There is really only one other point to which I want to refer, which may introduce slightly more controversy and on which some hon. Members may wish to comment. With regard to procedural reform or change, we have proposals for a new procedure for dealing with deregulation orders once the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill has been enacted.
  The House has already debated the Procedure Committee's valuable report on that subject. I am riot quite sure whether I understood the references of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to that point, because the Government have accepted virtually all the Procedure Committee's recommendations in that area, as the Chairman of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton very fairly acknowledged.
  The procedure will involve—this point relates to a number of strands in the debate—widespread public consultation before a proposal is brought forward and scrutiny by an all-party Select Committee with powers to take evidence from witnesses and to report its conclusions to the House. That will ensure that some useful but non-contentious deregulation measures can be enacted with full public and parliamentary scrutiny, but without
  38
  adding still further to the pressure on the Floor of the House which is one of the things that so many hon. Members wish to see reduced.
  I realise that, with respect to the main issue on people's minds, I have been able to do little more this afternoon than to say that I continue to listen against a background of continuing discussion. However, I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the comments that others will make. I hope that this debate will give a further impetus to the reform which I am sure is widely supported on both sides of the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that there is a great deal of interest in the debate, but only about two hours before the winding-up speeches must start. I appeal for short speeches.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I will certainly try to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In opening the debate, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested a reform which does not seem to have occurred to the Jopling Committee. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we could enhance our public reputation by redesigning the building. He suggested that we should sit around in a semicircle, rather than in this adversarial setting, perhaps on bean bags—[Interruption.] That would enable me to sit beside the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and I would like that very much. However, it would make no difference to the political differences between us.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall went on to describe his parliamentary colleagues as lazy, badly behaved and self-indulgent. I do not have the hon. Gentleman's experience of the Liberal Democratic parliamentary group, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he may be on to something.
  Mr. Tyler: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to put on record the fact that I was talking about the view of the public as displayed by a MORI public opinion poll. It was not my view.
  Mr. Brown: I am perfectly willing to accept from the hon. Gentleman that that is the public's view of the Liberal Democratic parliamentary group and it is fair to say that the recent election results rather bear that out.
  Not unusually for the Liberal Democrats, the motion confuses two different issues right at the beginning and then carries on in a similar muddled vein. It is true that the Government are unpopular. However, the Liberal Democratic motion confuses that with public contempt for the institution of Parliament. Dissatisfaction with the Executive and the Executive's decisions is not the same as disenchantment with parliamentary democracy. There is no widespread demand in this country for another form of government—not communism, not government by workers' soviet, not military rule, not fascist dictatorship, not even a change in the election system to give the Liberal Democrats a permanent veto over the decisions of Conservative or Labour Governments.
  The motion goes on to criticise the organisation and procedures of the House. Of course, there is a very strong case for reform, although it is not made out in the motion, which does not contain a single constructive suggestion. In

  39
  fact, the Jopling report contains a number of constructive suggestions and discussions are taking place in the normal way with a view to making progress on the Jopling recommendations and other ideas that sit logically alongside them. I am not in a position today to state the view of the parliamentary Labour party; nor is it right that I should.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I take my hon. Friend back slightly to the layout of the Chamber. Is it not a fact that if 650 people were chosen at random—indeed, looking around the Chamber, perhaps they were—and put in this place, because of the confrontational nature of the layout, they would behave in precisely the same way as hon. Members behave during Prime Minister's Question Time? Would not it be appropriate to look at the layout of the Chamber and do something about the appalling lack of facilities for Members? Why cannot we have individual desks so that we could speak from them, rather than stand in this rudimentary, confrontational Chamber which exacerbates feelings in this place?
  Mr. Brown: I have not given great thought to the positioning of furniture in the building. I am a bit of a traditionalist; I rather like the Chamber as it is. Just about the only chance of securing a parliamentary majority for the Liberal Democrats would be if hon. Members were chosen entirely at random. I do not see any other prospect of their gaining very much success.
  Before making further progress, it is absolutely right to thank the Lord President of the Council for the efficient and constructive way in which he is undertaking the task of reform. In particular, I thank him for his courtesy in the discussions on the detail of the proposals. I hope that we will have something of substance to put in front of the House soon and then we will be in a position to hear the views of the House. Not all those matters are adversarial between the parties; indeed, some are neutral. It is a matter of preference for the House rather than party political advantage.
  It is perfectly reasonable, for example, for Members of Parliament to want some certainty in allocating time for constituency business and other work that cannot be done in the House itself. It is also perfectly reasonable that Members of Parliament should like as much notice of business as can reasonably be provided. It also seems to me to be perfectly possible to bring about evolutionary change in the way in which we carry out our business in the House. Such change should be brought about by consensus.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is not my hon. Friend falling into the chasm of accepting the basic premise which operates in this place: that the Executive controls the timetable of Parliament? I think that that is wrong. The debate is about fundamental reform whereby control of the business of this place is repatriated to hon. Members rather than left with the Executive. It should be left to a Select Committee of distinguished parliamentarians who are not members of the Government. That is the basis of reform and many good things could flow from it.
  Mr. Brown: I do not want to become involved in the details of the discussion, because they are not complete and there are matters still to be resolved between us before we
  40
  put proposals to other colleagues. However, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of my falling into a parliamentary chasm, because I always send somebody from the Whips Office to walk in front of me.
  Change should be by consensus. It should not, as the Leader of the House has confirmed, disturb the existing balance between the rights of the Executive and the rights of the House—between Government and Opposition. The Liberal Democrat demand for immediate action goes very close to being a demand for the Executive to impose their version of change and reform on the House, whether hon. Members like it or not. That would be foolish. We should proceed by consensus and not by encouraging the Executive to impose their view on us.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I am pleased to see taking part in the debate.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I understand that we need to proceed by consensus and that no one can impose solutions over people's heads, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there will come a time when unanimity will not be possible, particularly among Labour Back Benchers, and that he will then have to use his best offices to persuade them of the need to change, even it means that some of them will be disappointed?
  Mr. Brown: I made it overwhelmingly clear that I support the case for reform and for consulting other people, among whom I would include the hon. Gentleman. We must proceed by consensus among the different political parties. People will always disagree on some points, but we shall have to find a way of resolving them. That should not strike any politician as being unusual or impossible to achieve. The Government and the parliamentary Labour party want to proceed in a way that is reasonable and sensible, probably not least because both see the realistic prospect of our roles being reversed, which is more than one can say about the Liberal Democrats.
  I should like to put in a word for the idea of non-adversarial examination of technical legislation: the annual Finance Bill, omnibus law reform, home affairs measures—perhaps building on the work of the Law Commission—and detailed Department of the Environment legislation. The idea, which has been canvassed before, is that technical parts of, for example, the Finance Bill could be separated from the rest of the Bill. Detailed measures could be dealt with under a separate Taxes Management Bill, which could be scrutinised in the same way as we scrutinise European legislation. It would require a larger gap between Second Reading and Committee stage, and as a quid pro quo the Bill would have to be passed on a tighter and, let me say it now, agreed timetable.
  I accept that that is not the Government's view. Such a policy, however, would improve parliamentary scrutiny, enable Members of Parliament other than Ministers to hear expert opinion and enhance our standing with specialists who would like to explain their position to us.
  I am not suggesting such a procedure for matters that are politically contentious between the two parties. The proposal would deal with technical matters, on which any reasonable person would like to hear the views of specialists before coming to a final conclusion.

  41
  There are other obvious areas for reform. More effective use could be made of scrutiny by Committee. If we are seeking to gain constituency time, the proposal to do the House's Friday work on Wednesday mornings merits consideration. The proposal has no balance of advantage between Government and Opposition, although other people will no doubt disagree. Obviously, it is essential that we piotect the credibility and reputation of Parliament and that we focus our energies on real issues rather than waste time for its own sake in a boring and anarchic way. It is surprising that some hon. Members, who claim to be the most radical, are among those most opposed to change.
  The Liberal Democrat motion rightly refers to the Government's
  "systematic erosion of Parliament's role in the consideration of legislation".
  The most blatant example of that was the way in which the increase in employees' national insurance contributions and the changes to the statutory sick pay regime were bludgeoned through the House before Christmas. As a result of that heavy-handed action, the Labour party broke off normal relations with the Government. By contrast, the Liberal Democrats condemned the Government's actions yet carried on conducting business in the normal way. They complain about Government action, but offer no effective opposition.
  Similarly, the Government guillotined the Finance Bill very tightly, allowing for a range of abuses, including slipping in amendments at the last minute under the name of Tory Back Benchers. They manipulated the guillotine to avoid Ministers having to explain tricky matters to the Committee. Tory Members filibustered debates prior to those that would be awkward to the Executive, thereby ensuring that controversial issues were not discussed in Committee, particularly the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel, which was almost not discussed at all.
  At the end of that farce, the Liberal Democrat spokesman felt able to tell the House that he broadly approved of the way in which the Committee had proceeded to the guillotine. The views of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are at variance with the contents of the motion.
  Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful way in which the Government used their majority to timetable those measures offers a salutary warning to those who believe that timetabling should be more frequently and routinely used in the House?
  Mr. Brown: The lessons to be learnt from the way in which the Finance Bill was treated in Committee this year were not lost on me, of all people in this place, and are conditioning the current discussions. My hon. Friend's warning is well taken. It is not possible for the Opposition somehow to sacrifice their rights and hand over the management of business to the Executive.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: Of course I will: how could I possibly resist?
  Mr. Beith: Has the hon. Gentleman talked to any of the many groups that watched the passage of the Finance Bill with particular interest because they are affected by it and have to implement it? Is he aware of the extent to which they found that the timetable made it much more feasible
  42
  for them to deal with hon. Members because they knew when amendments were to be debated? Will he recognise that my comment that the timetable for the Bill had, in general, worked, which I stand by, was qualified only by my assertion that the ability of other groups to vary the operation of the timetable would have improved it further still—a factor which is inherent in the Jopling proposals?
  Mr. Brown: I have in front of me what the right hon. Gentleman said in the debate on 20 April 1994. He did not make that latter point, although I appreciate that it is his view. He is a veteran of many Finance Bills. He is right to say that there should be certainty about the timetable so that the outside world can make specialist representations. I know that he shares my view that the best way to deal with the matter is to have a separate Taxes Management Bill dealing with the details of long, omnibus Bills point by point and measure by measure so that experts from outside can talk to us and explain their views.
  That does not mean that I yield one inch on the way in which Parliament handles controversial matters such as tax increases or decreases—tax decreases before elections and spectacular increases after elections. Those matters are politically contentious and it is no use suggesting that they can be dealt with by consensus, because they cannot. People have strong views about such matters. It would better serve democracy if we first took expert testimony on finance, home affairs and Department of the Environment measures and proceeded in a less adversarial way.
  The Liberals' motion makes some complaints about civil service involvement in political activity. I agree with the points that it makes. It is important that the public service remains independent and uncorrupted. Britain had a strong tradition of independent public service, which prolonged government by a single party has eroded. A letter from Mr. Bob Welsh to the social services inspectorate in the Department of Health states:
  "A continuing flow of positive messages about community care would pay political dividends at both local and national levels".
  That clearly oversteps the mark for a public servant. Nor do I think that it is proper to use parliamentary draftsmen to draw up copious amendments for Government Back Benchers to table to private Member's legislation, which the Government then pretend they do not oppose in principle.
  There is a case for reform, including reconsidering the procedure for Prime Minister's Question Time. The inescapable fact, however, is that the job of being a Member of Parliament will always be demanding and is likely to become more, rather than less, so. No reform of the House will ever get around that fact.
  We would also betray our responsibilities to the British people if we ever let Parliament become a part-time institution, relieving the Executive of the burden of scrutiny. I must tell the Liberal Democrats that no amount of neogothic self-righteous whingeing will ever change either of those facts.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he had taken note of a certain phrase in the opening speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches, in which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that he had "relatively few things to say". I also wrote that comment

  43
  down, and it occurred to me at the time that the hon. Gentleman might well have said that he had relatively few things in his head.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that he does not like the cut and thrust of our proceedings in this House, which has gone on for centuries, and wants to turn this place into a hemicycle to try to dampen everything down. If he sat and watched the proceedings of the United States Congress, a forum which is based very much on that approach, he would find that Members of Congress largely complain about the boring blandness of the Chamber and about the fact that all the real work goes on in Committee. I cannot think of a worse fate for this House than to be consigned to that sort of blandness.
  We repeatedly hear from hon. Members such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall of their dislike for political cut and thrust. We should never forget that there are still millions of people around the world who would give their back teeth for the cut and thrust of our debates and for the democracy that we enjoy. I am sorry to say this, but it seems that many hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches—and there are some here today who are distinguished exclusions from what I am about to say—seem to prefer the political actions of a dark night with a stiletto to the cut and thrust that is so much a part of our proceedings.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we have an adversarial Chamber, anyone who is elected to the House must decide which side they are on, and that such a decision does not come easily to many Liberal Democrats?
  Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend could not have put it better.
  I welcome this debate and the Liberal Democrat motion for one reason: it allows us again to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, of which I had the honour to be Chairman. We have not debated the report for two years. I shall come back to that in a moment; first, however, I simply want to say a little more about the motion that we are debating.
  When I first read the motion, it seemed to be a rushed job. It was not well drafted and little thought had gone into it. That became clear in my mind when I received a note from my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred. It was a note that my right hon. Friend had written to the hon. Member for North Cornwall in which he says —I have his permission to quote itߞ
  "I am sorry that when you had a word with me on Wednesday evening you did not mention the intention of your party to be arranging the debate."
  I will not accuse the hon. Gentleman. I cannot believe that—
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Jopling: I shall give way in a moment. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman did that out of discourtesy or deviousness—I grant him that. All I can say is that that demonstrates that his is a rushed, botched-up motion which should be thrown out on its ear.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he will be aware that the date for this debate was offered to the Liberal Democrats only on Wednesday. It was therefore impossible for my hon. Friends and me to indicate to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, for whom I have a high regard, the intention to debate this issue.
  Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman forgets that for many years I was part of the usual channels. Of course, the Liberal Democrats have always known broadly when they would get debates.
  Mr. Tyler: That is not true.
  Mr. Jopling: Not exactly when, but within a few weeks.
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to us.
  Mr. Jopling: I will not repeat the points made by my hon. Friends.
  In my experience, the Liberal Democrats always know within a few weeks that they are to be offered a half-day debate, and they always have a motion thought out and ready. Perhaps they do not think ahead as they used to.
  One part of the motion that demonstrates that it is a botched-up job is the reference to Prime Minister's Question Time. If ever there was a time not to table a motion criticising the format, this is it. Anyone can criticise the format of Prime Minister's Question Time; for many years, it has occupied better minds than those of hon. Members here today and no one has ever been able to come up with a better way of doing things. Let us hope that we can find one. It does not take a genius to criticise the present arrangement for Prime Minister's Question Time. But, given that things are at last—and helpfully, I hope—moving, this seems to me to be the most stupid time at which to criticise the format.
  Mr. Dalyell: There was a very different time in the history of Prime Minister's Questions—the time when the Prime Minister of the day would transfer any matter that was not directly relevant to the job of Prime Minister. The absolutely horrendous open question puts a completely different complexion on Prime Minister's Question Time. The two are as different as chalk and cheese.
  Mr. Jopling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House marginally longer than I have, will agree that, if we can find a better way of running Prime Minister's Question Time, we should do it. I welcome the initiative of the Procedure Committee, which has gone some way towards that.
  Mr. WinnickWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jopling: No, I shall proceed.
  Another thing that surprised me about the motion was its attack on Parliament's
  "ability to hold the Executive to account".
  As the motion says that, some credit should be given to the departmental Select Committees which were set up in 1980. As the House may remember—although my old friend Norman St. John-Stevas claims that he set them up —I undertook all the negotiations for setting up the Select Committees with the then Opposition Chief Whip.

  45
  I believe that the Select Committees have dramatically changed the ability of the House to question the Executive. As the House knows, I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee so I have some practical experience of this. I was also a member of two Select Committees—the Agriculture Committee and the Science and Technology Committee—during the famous Crossman experiment. I was sorry that they did not survive, but I am, and continue to be, a strong advocate of the Select Committee system.
  I also have the advantage of having had to sit on the sharp end of the Select Committees; as a departmental Minister, I was frequently cross-examined very hard by them. They have made a dramatic change to the preparation that Ministers undertake before they face the House. Any Minister who has had to sit in front of a Select Committee and be cross-examined will know that it is something that no previous Ministers before the early 1980s ever had to do.
  Mr. Winnick: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has given way on several occasions. Does he agree that, although the departmental Select Committees undoubtedly do excellent work, the Chamber must be the daily focus when we are sitting of the differences between the political parties, and that Prime Minister's Question Time, whatever its format, is bound to be the subject of intense controversy and the time at which the most controversial subjects are raised? There is no reason why we should apologise for the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House raise matters that we believe are of the greatest importance, or for the fact that there is some noise. Would not it also be useful if the serious newspapers reported parliamentary proceedings, not simply Prime Minister's Question Time?
  Mr. Jopling: I am delighted for the first time in my life publicly to support everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He and I have been in the House many years. I agree with what he said—indeed, I referred to that point a little earlier when I said that I hoped that we would not move to the bland American experience, which does not match the cut and thrust of our parliamentary proceedings.
  It occurred to me that in his arguments about the problems of Parliament in getting facts and information, the hon. Member for North Cornwall ought logically to have advocated a freedom of information Bill. I did not hear him expound that argument, although it seemed to be at the centre of what he was trying to say. He referred to the Pergau affair. I do not want to say too much about it as a member of the Select Committee which is currently examining the matter and preparing a report. The hon. Gentleman referred to a temporary entanglement. I make the point to him that the moment that Ministers discovered that there was a temporary entanglement, strenuous and in some ways rather harsh steps were taken to get rid of it, which reflected nothing but credit on the Government. It was clear that an entanglement had been arrived at which ought not to have happened.
  Sir Harold Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has provoked me with his references to freedom of information and the work of the Committee to which he belongs. Only today, I listened to a discussion on the radio about a prison which is due to open in my constituency. All kinds of revelations are common knowledge in the United States and these reports have been published about the prison, but the Home Office refuses to
  46
  divulge in this country any of the information that is available to the public in the United States. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have a look at that example.
  Mr. Jopling: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's local newspapers will have heard what he has said. I cannot comment on it. I have no doubt that his local radio and television stations will at this moment be agog and will make sure that his intervention is recorded in the 6 o'clock news.
  Let me make just a few comments about the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House. First, history: a unanimous report was published by a Committee representing the three principal parties. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was a most distinguished member of that Committee. There was a debate in the House before the last election in which broad support was expressed for the unanimous recommendation.
  Shortly after the election, an early-day motion was signed by 215 Members. I think that I speak reasonably accurately when I say that 120 of them or thereabouts were Opposition Members. We had another debate in July 1992. The current Leader of the House accepted about 85 per cent. of what the Committee had recommended. That was the high water point. Since then, the report has made little progress. I think that everyone in the House knows that the block to its progress comes from a small number of Members. I think that the Opposition Whips Office is one of those areas in which there is a small redoubt of opposition to the report. I shall not say any more about that because I really do not want to muddy the waters at this stage.
  Since our debate in the summer of 1992, the Government could easily have ramrodded the findings of the report through the House. I know from being around the House during the past two years that there is broad support for the recommendations right across the House. There is no week in the House when I do not have three or four Members from each side asking me, "When will the recommendations of your Committee be accepted by the House?"
  The Government could perfectly well have ramrodded the report through, but they have not done so. Because they have not done so, they have been subjected to the short-term criticism to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall treated us today. I hope that the Government will stick to the policies that the Leader of the House expounded today. My right hon. Friend can be perfectly sure that, if he had ramrodded the proposals through the House, the same Liberal Democrat Members would have talked about a travesty of democracy. We know their tactics. That is what they would have done.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that during the past two years I have used whatever influence I have to do my utmost to prevent the Government from ramrodding the proposals through the House. I have consistently appealed to my right hon. Friend privately not to ramrod them through. I am sure that that has been right.
  Like a few other people here, I was a Member of the House during the Crossman experiment that began when Richard Crossman was Leader of the House from 1966. The proposals that Richard Crossman made never had a broad consensus. As a result, they were made to be unworkable. The Select Committee on Sittings of the

  47
  House always knew that. I think that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will bear me out when I say that often during the deliberations of that Select Committee, we discussed the Crossman experience and agreed that we should go for a broad consensus if we wanted the recommendations to stick. Of course, one can never get unanimity. I have forgotten which member of the Committee referred to the need for unanimity. I think that it was the Liberal Chief Whip. He rightly made the point that one could never could get unanimity on such matters. However, one has to get as close to unanimity as possible. It is essential to get that broad support.
  Mr. Dalyell: Just to be fair, as the late Dick Crossman's Parliamentary Private Secretary, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that distinguished Members on both sides of the House said one thing and then changed their minds? If the shade of lain Macleod were here, he would confess to that.
  Mr. Jopling: I have no recollection, because I was an extremely junior Member in those days, of whether that was true of the discussions and agreements that took place before the proposals were introduced. I do know, however, that right across the Opposition Back Benches there was a dislike of the proposals—although I accept that those on the Front Bench accepted it.
  Sir Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Jopling: This must be the last time that I give way.
  Sir Dudley Smith: I intervene as one of the less distinguished people who were here at that time—as opposed to the powers that be, to whom the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred. The proposal was disliked by Members of all parties. The morning sittings failed because people on both sides of the House did not turn up and do their job.
  Mr. Jopling: That may well be right. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, but I shall not give way any more; I have given way a great deal and I must finish.
  The Select Committee's report was balanced. We sought to balance the interests of Government and Opposition and I still believe that the recommendations did that. I have never fully understood why a few hon. Members oppose the proposals. I think that the main opposition is to the timetabling of Bills, but I remind the House that the Select Committee was not specific about that. The Select Committee said that we ought to discuss further how timetabling should be introduced and referred to the Select Committee on Procedure report of 1986.
  If the Opposition do not like timetabling, let us not forget that the Government could implement the rest of the report's recommendations perfectly well without it, because they already have huge powers to introduce timetabling if they so desire. In the days when I was Chief Whip, I was very anxious that the Government should never exceed Michael Foot's famous record for timetabling—I think it was five timetable motions in a day. In the early 1980s, I tried my best to ensure that the Government never exceeded that record for guillotines. Since then, there have been many of them and no doubt the
  48
  House is moving, to a much greater extent, towards accepting them. But timetabling of Bills could be left out, as the Government would still have all those powers.
  Leaving aside some of the shortcomings of this debate, I welcome the opportunity to give a push to some of the report's recommendations. The House has demonstrated considerable patience by trying to wait for a move towards a broad consensus and I hope that that moment has now arrived. I only hope that the present talks will make all our patience entirely worth while.
  5.11 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have frequently heard the Labour Whips' Office referred to by colourful names but redoubt is not one of them. If I appear to be picking up on some of the supposed objections to some aspects of our parliamentary procedure, I hope that I shall be acquitted of doing so on behalf of those venerable ladies and gentlemen, most of whom I get on with very well, but very few of whom would suggest that I spoke on their behalf.
  The procedure of the House of Commons is an esoteric subject, on which Members frequently hold forth when they have astonishingly little knowledge of how it actually works. Recently, I was honoured to be asked to go to Kenya to talk about parliamentary procedure. The Clerk of one of our Commonwealth Parliaments was holding forth at great length, partly because he had toothache, about the need for Members of Parliament to understand procedure. He said that it should not be possible for people to become Members of Parliament unless they understood it. I was asked to comment and said that I was sure that that ought to be the way, but that it would rule out 50 per cent. of the House of Commons and a very distinguished gentleman added, "Two thirds."
  The way in which we order our business is fundamental to the way in which we take important political decisions. I have become increasingly disturbed by the suggestion that the House can somehow be organised as if it were a pea factory, with people pushing in inputs at one end, running a straightforward manufacturing line through and producing a nice, evenly balanced and beautifully prepared result at the other. That is not the way that it should work. We are here to represent our constituents, who have varied views and real interests. I am concerned that a consensus appears to be developing that will limit the powers of Back-Bench Members to express those views openly and with fervour.
  Many of my hon. Friends sitting on these Benches today, let alone those on the Conservative Benches, could be numbered as part of the awkward squad. My very good hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has frequently used the procedures of the House to put over important points that both Front Benches were in danger of glossing over. Therefore, it behoves those of us who have been here a long time and have watched the development of various changes in procedure to look closely at what such changes entail.
  I am strongly opposed to the timetabling of Bills. Frankly, that is not because I do not want to go home early. I would be happy to go home at a reasonable hour every night, but I understand that the work of Members of Parliament is becoming even more essential because of the powers that the Executive are taking every day. The Government have set out to hide vast areas of information.

  49
  They have changed the business of the civil service, so that there are an increasing number of agencies, which are made up of civil servants but are not answerable to the House of Commons in the way that they once were.
  Hansard, which is absolutely essential to many of our constituents because of the information that it contains, increasingly does not have the routine answers—in detailed statistical and political terms—that enable people outside this place to know what the Government are doing in every sphere. The habit of sloughing off responsibility to executives of "next steps" agencies is increasing and can only make it more difficult for Members of Parliament to represent their constituents properly, and that should concern us very much.
  Any move that either puts the provision of information a step further away or arranges the procedures of the House in such a way that only limited time can be given to the examination of a Bill can only be a derogation of power from this Chamber and should be considered very carefully.
  I was here at the time of the Crossman experiment and the theory behind it was sensible. I listen to Members who say that we should have a proper working day and should organise ourselves completely differently. When do they deal with their correspondence? Who are these Members who are so free of constituency duties that they do not need the mornings to reply to letters from constituents and follow up case work? When do they sit on Committees? Do they not sit on any Committee? Do they never turn up for work on any of the European Standing Committees? Frankly, if that is the case, their advice is not much help.
  There have been some useful modifications to our procedure. The European Standing Committees are a sensible development. If they do not work as well as they should, Members of this House must answer for it. If more Members used their right to turn up at European Committees and to ask the Minister detailed, factual questions for an hour, they would get far more information about what was happening to European legislation. They choose not to exercise that power, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
  I want the Leader of the House seriously to consider a means of developing the powers of the European Standing Committees so that they have the right not only to study legislation but to amend what is brought before them and to ensure that it is debated on the Floor of the House. At present, it is entirely within the aegis of the Chairman of a Committee to accept a manuscript amendment. There is no guarantee that those amendments will be debated on the Floor of the House. Most simply go through the Chamber virtually on the nod because there is no procedure to consider them carefully. We ought to be able to give them that consideration. The Select Committees, which already have the power to send for people and papers, should have increasing powers, not merely to use the information properly and produce a report but to take detailed information about specific legislation and to debate that here.
  My experience of any Government has taught me that they do not necessarily welcome careful and detailed scrutiny of their proposed legislation. Hon. Members who are so keen on altering the procedure might find that their views are slightly different when they are on the other side of the Chamber If the present Government had had that kind of support system, they might not have got themselves
  50
  into the bizarre craziness of the poll tax fiasco and they might have had a rather better response to some of their other more disastrous bits of legislation.
  For example, one may look at what the Select Committee on Transport did in relation to the Railways Bill. Much of the detailed and factual examination of the effects of privatisation should have made the Government pause, and not just because of the political implications. Many of the things that we warned about are now coming about and the Government will pay the price. In political terms, that does not cause me any great upset, but in reality it is a classic example of the folie de grandeur with which the Government went ahead, irrespective of the views of an all-party Committee that had taken detailed and important information.
  Lots of hon. Members want to talk about the matter, and it was only because I felt that some of the issues were going by default that I wanted to contribute to the debate. I am happy to take part in debates in the Chamber in the morning, but it will mean that the work that I do now in my office will be done at some other time. People do not disappear because I do not answer their letters in the morning. Cases do not get simpler because I am elsewhere debating a subject.
  The real problems for Parliament are the lack of accurate information about what it does and the refusal of the media to regard us as anything except a series of amusing sketches. Someone looking back to has happened at the present time may regard it as being of some moment that the political pages of our major broadsheets considered the future and past of a couple of beautiful guide dogs—of whom I am very fond—to be of more importance than the debate which took place on the Floor of the House last week.
  I am increasingly concerned that both the Leader of the House—who I believe is genuinely interested in the subject and anxious to do something about it—and the Shadow Leader may reach agreements that may be convenient for both Front Benches, but which undervalue the rights of Back Benchers. That is happening all the time. When I first came here, if an hon. Member wanted to propose a ten-minute Bill, it was up to him what time he got up, and he went and queued like anybody else. Now, he has to have the agreement of the Whips. That is a little erosion, and arrangements between the two Front Benches mean that there is a movement away from the rights of Back Benchers.
  When I first came here, there were a number of rights, which have since been quietly eroded by agreement between the two powerful Front Benches. That way lies perdition. People have been awkward in the name of democracy in British Parliaments since the 1600s. Those who give up their rights will be extremely sorry, whether they give them up under the banner of Maastricht or under the banner of a careful arrangement of parliamentary timetabling. Freedom of movement, freedom of speech and the freedom of Back Benchers to be damned awkward is what Parliament is all about.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I spent 14 years on the Back Benches doing everything I could to exploit, use and—some would say—sometimes misuse the so-called anachronistic procedures of the House. I spent the past 14 months in the House doing everything I could

  51
  to ensure that those procedures, without any truck from a Back Bencher, were overwhelmed by the majesty of the Front Bench.
  The speeches by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) effectively encapsulate the main debate about the reform of procedure, and they both made legitimate speeches and arguments. There is no doubt that there is a case for reform in the late 20th century. Many new hon. Members have come to the House during the past five or 10 years, and there are young hon. Members and many more lady hon. Members with families who rightly want to consider the case for the modern way of doing things with more "sensible" hours.
  Equally, the hon. Lady's point about the need to be wary before we plunge down the road of reform is equally important. I have been both poacher and gamekeeper and I suppose that, for the next few years, I shall be a poacher with an understanding of gamekeeping. There will be occasions when hon. Members who do not form part of a majority in the Lobby may rue the day when they throw away some of the seemingly arcane procedures.
  Anybody who ever wanted a lecture on that subject had only to consult the late Bob Cryer when he was alive. He was able to achieve many things for himself and his constituency through his use of so-called arcane and anachronistic procedures.
  There was an occasion in the mid-1980s when my constituency was faced with the possibility of receiving nuclear waste. There were three other hon. Members who faced the same possibility—one was the Government's Chief Whip, one was the junior Home Office Minister and the other was the present Attorney-General. I was the only Back-Bench Member, and I concluded that it might just be possible that those who had the Front Bench privilege might somehow be able to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment that perhaps their constituencies should not receive nuclear waste. I concluded that I perhaps might draw the short straw and, for a year or two, I used and misused the procedures of the House, and some accused me of abusing them. I make no apology for having done that.
  Liberal Democrat Members who describe the procedures of the House, and the House of Commons in general, as being held in "public contempt" should perhaps have rephrased the first line in the motion. What they perhaps meant to say in the first line was that this House notes the increasing public contempt for politicians, and not Parliament. I do not believe that there is any more contempt for Parliament today than there was 10 or 20 years ago. I am prepared to concede that there is an increasing contempt for politicians, but that is a different issue.
  That is why the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was right to remind us of what may happen. In fairness, I think that there is a general majority in the House in favour of going down the road of parliamentary reform, and that is why the Liberal Democrat motion is not the appropriate motion to pass. If we are to go down that road, the document that my right hon. Friend the Member for
  52
  Westmorland and Lonsdale and his Select Committee produced some three years ago ought to be the reference point.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) may have done the House a service in allowing my right hon. Friend to reiterate the work that has already been done and, to that extent, today's debate may have been worth while. It has also provided an opportunity for the House to be reminded and warned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that individual Back Benchers do have—if they choose to study "Erskine May", precedent and the Standing Orders of the House—many protections. I have watched, from both the Back Benches and the Front Bench, hon. Members successfully defend the interests of their constituents through the use of many of the arcane procedures that the Liberal Democrats might wish to tip away.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Brown: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has more experience in proving that point than anybody in the House.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the word arcane is sometimes used in complete ignorance? For instance, the Question that I think Mr. Deputy Speaker will put at the end of this debate is that "the original words stand part of the Question". But without that reform, which was made in the early 1970s by the Procedure Committee of which I had the honour to be a member, no minority could vote on its own words. That is a first-rate example of what appears to be arcane, but is fundamentally democratic.
  Mr. Brown: I agree absolutely. I am glad to note that it was a Conservative Government—my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was involved in the process—who conceded to that perfectly legitimate request.
  I accept that minorities have rights in the House and that minority parties take a great interest in what may happen whenever reforms are proposed by the two major parties. In the past 14 years, I have been a minority of one on more than one occasion—for example, when my constituency was the possible recipient of nuclear waste.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who took issue with the Liberal motion, which calls for an
  "urgent and comprehensive reform of Parliament, including changes to the format of Prime Minister's Question Time."
  We hon. Members have it in our power to reform Prime Minister's Question Time, regardless of anyone else.
  I have always attempted, with the aid of the Table Office, to table questions to the Prime Minister on subjects that I want to raise. I will table a question tomorrow, and until my name eventually hits the Order Paper, to ask the Prime Minister when he intends to carry out the commitment he gave at the Conservative party conference in 1992 to abolish the county of Humberside. I will put that question down on the Order Paper, without any suggestion from the Table Office that it should be transferred to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  When the Prime Minister comes to the House on the day when I am lucky in the ballot for Prime Minister's questions, he will know what I want to ask and he will be able to give the answer. I will then have a second bite at the cherry. If any other hon. Members who are concerned

  53
  about local government reform in Humberside want to express an opinion, we could have a mini-debate, as we used to do.
  Every hon. Member should appreciate how much more effective he or she could be in reforming the procedures of the House by tabling specific questions. It has always amazed me, both from the perspective of the Back Benches and the Front Bench, how few hon. Members, unlike those of 30 years ago, take the opportunity to table a specific question.
  Perhaps I should remind the House why hon. Members have opted for the open question. In the 1970s, Harold Wilson and, even more notably, Jim Callaghan, insisted on transferring questions that they felt could be legitimately answered by Departments of State. That is why we invented the open question.
  When I came to the House in 1979, I went to the Table Office to table my first parliamentary question. I asked why I had to table a question about the Prime Minister's engagements. The Clerk replied, "You will be interested to know, Mr. Brown, that the new Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, has indicated that so long as your question is in order for the Government, if you wish to ask your question of her, she will answer it." I asked the Clerk whether that meant I could table a question on inflation, trade union laws or whatever and he replied that the Prime Minister had intimated to the Table Office that that was so.
  We could reach an agreement between all the parties that the Prime Minister should not transfer any question that the Table Office deemed acceptable for answer by a representative member of the Government. If hon. Members wanted to table that question to the Prime Minister, Back Benchers could, overnight, return to the so-called golden age of Prime Minister's Question Time, when mini-debates were held.
  I suspect, however, that if one reads the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Times in the 1950s and 1960s without the benefit of rose-tinted spectacles, they will appear as much of a bear garden as some might say today's Prime Minister's Question Time has become, It will always be so, because, as hon. Members have already said, this is a debating Chamber. This is where we expect the cut and thrust. The Liberal party is somewhat naive—
  Mr. Burns: Sanctimonious.
  Mr. Brown: I note what my hon. Friend says.
  The Liberal party is naive to have a discussion based on an airy-fairy notion that the public are fed up with the cut and thrust of debate. Members of the Liberal party are only too happy to go in for the cut and thrust of debate on the doorstep, when they say all sorts of things that may or may not be true of their political opponents, when it comes to trying to win by-elections. I make no complaint about that; it is political life. When politicians are fighting on the doorstep a by-election, county council elections or European elections, it is perfectly right for them, in a democratic society, to choose to use whatever tactic they think will most advance their cause. It is the same in here as it is out there; that is the richness of our democracy.
  Notwithstanding the warnings of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, perhaps there is a case for making some reforms to our procedures now. After all, we spent a lot of time three years ago commissioning my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and his colleagues to study some of our procedures. We should tap
  54
  into the mood that appears to exist across the Chamber in favour of making some reforms. There is no doubt that the House and hon. Members of today are different types from those of 30 years ago.
  We must recognise that there is a mood in the House for some reform of procedures. We should not accept the terms of the Liberal motion, however, but take the Jopling report as our reference point. Whether we are talking about an individual Conservative or Opposition Back Bencher or a Conservative or Opposition Government, the arcane procedures—calls for the reform of which get cheap claps from our constituents—are the very procedures that sometimes guarantee us, as individual Members, our greatest powers.
  5.36 pm
  Mr, John Garrett: In practice, our Parliament exists to provide the members of a Government and to scrutinise their proposals and their actions to the extent that that Government will allow. That is the problem. It is absolutely clear that that is no longer good enough. Our system of the combination of powers—having Ministers drawn from the legislature—always carries with it the danger of an ineffective Parliament. The Government have exploited that to the full.
  In the course of studying Parliament for some years, I have carried out research into parliamentary reform and I have interviewed hon. Members and Officers of the House. I was surprised at the lack of demand for reform and the absence of imagination as to what our Parliament could be. In fact, our Parliament could be made much more effective quite easily, without any procedural revolution.
  Two steps are necessary above all else. First, more powers should be given to the Speaker, because the independence of the Speaker is greatly under-exploited. Secondly, more powers and resources should be given to Select and Standing Committees.
  The central problem is the overweening power of the Government over Parliament, which diminishes our democratic accountability. Our system is extraordinarily deficient in defending citizens' rights. Indeed, we have no rights which are not in the gift of Government to award or take away. As a consequence of that, Britain has been found guilty of infringing human rights by the European Court of Human Rights more often than any other country that is a signatory to the convention on human rights. In 27 cases, we have been required by the European Court to provide remedies to our citizens. It is clear that Britain should enact the European convention in our own domestic legislation so that British citizens would have direct redress through our courts instead of suffering the protracted processes of the European Court.
  We devote the greatest part of our time—about a third—to legislation, yet badly drafted and defective legislation is rushed through the House. Examples are the Football Spectators Bill, the Dangerous Dogs Bill, the poll tax legislation and the Child Support Act 1991. The Government will not allow adequate time or resources for expert consideration. The special Bill procedure, which would allow Standing Committees to take evidence from witnesses on the purposes and likely effect of a Bill, has been used four times in 15 years and has not been used since 1984. Yet when it was used, it was pronounced a

  55
  resounding success both by the Opposition and by Ministers subject to cross-examination under the procedure.
  Every year, we examine 2,500 pages of primary legislation, yet some 10,000 pages of secondary legislation are pushed through the House with little discussion and no scope for amendment. Much of it is important, filling in the detail of primary legislation or determining such crucial issues as social security entitlements.
  Mr. Dalyell: Hon. Members on the controversial Standing Committee on Scottish local government reform, which sat for 177 hours, pleaded courteously and seriously that the witness procedure be brought into operation at the first opportunity, but our wish was absolutely denied. It was not for want of trying.
  Mr. Garrett: I am sure that it was not for want of trying. When the Standing Committee on the highly complex Companies Bill voted for the special Bill procedure to be used, the Government refused.
  Avoiding parliamentary authorisation all together, the Government have used the royal prerogative ruthlessly—in effect, government by proclamation—to enable the United States to bomb Libya from places in Britain to declare the Gulf War to authorise jury vetting and telephone tapping to regulate the civil service and to ban unions at GCHQ.
  The Government use a derivative of the royal prerogative—Crown immunity—to enable Departments to avoid the requirements of such protective statutes as health and safety legislation, as they affect Departments. I cannot see the justification for continuing the royal prerogative, because everything covered by it could easily be set before us properly in primary legislation.
  We have inadequate arrangements for pre-legislative consideration and no post-legislative scrutiny. When an Act becomes unworkable, no arrangements exist for the Standing Committee that examined it in the first place to examine its implementation and call Ministers to account.
  The Government have also been ruthless in their use of the guillotine, which was used six times between 1950 and 1960, and 43 times between 1979 and 1990. In that area of legislation, new powers should be given to the Speaker. For example, the Speaker should deem any Bill that infringes citizens' rights to require exceptionally careful and lengthy examination with, for instance, evidence-taking sessions by a Standing Committee or the use of a qualifying majority. The Speaker should also determine the timetabling of Bills so that adequate time is given for discussing important or controversial legislation.
  Parliament's investigatory functions should be enhanced. It is worth noting that the relationship of Government, civil servants and Ministers to parliamentary Committees is governed by the Osmotherly rules, "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and the Armstrong memorandum, none of which have any statutory force or have been approved by the House. They are simply codes of practice which the Government drop on Select Committees and attempt to enforce.
  Since their reform in 1979, Select Committees have been successful, but their work is hopelessly superficial and partial and they do not fulfil their terms of reference. They are established to examine policy, spending and administration, but concentrate exclusively on policy.
  56
  They rarely look at Departments' management or spending, mainly because they cannot marshall the expertise or get expert staff to examine the details. A staff of two or three is clearly inadequate for a Select Committee to examine Departments' management and spending, particularly now that the machinery of Government has become so complex and has far outstripped the machinery of Parliament.
  A typical Select Committee was originally set up to examine the policy, spending and management of one or two Departments. Now, a typical Select Committee is faced with examining one or two ministerial headquarters; five to 10 agencies; several score quangos; and innumerable contracts with private contractors. They cannot hope to cope with the explosion of information.
  As in so many areas, we get Select Committees, which do a reasonable job within their limits, on the cheap. All the Select Committees cost some £3 million a year, of which £2 million is for printing reports. Much more investment must be made in Select Committees if they are to call Ministers to account effectively. They need expert staff capable of analysing the work of Departments, quangos and agencies, and their management and spending programmes. Those skills should be provided by a new research department in the House, staffed by accountants, analysts and specialists. There should also be a department of the Opposition, capable of providing civil service skills to Opposition Members on Standing Committees.
  The growth of the flow of information from Government agencies and what I have called elsewhere the "dismemberment" of Government—the turning of Government from a unified civil service to a constellation of different agencies—has been matched by no growth whatever in Select Committees' analytical skills. I hope that a current issue in that area will be raised this week on the Floor of the House. I proposed to the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee that it should carry out a survey on civil servants' attitudes. It is conducting a study of the future of the civil service, but it is not enough simply to examine the great and the good—Ministers, experts and trade union leaders. It is also important to find out how that revolution in government affects ordinary civil servants.
  I made the proposal, first, because it is necessary and, secondly, because I wanted to study the principle that Select Committees have the right to a research budget. To my surprise, the Committee accepted the proposal, yet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has refused point blank to allow it to be carried out. Not only is that a breach of privilege but he should be censured for it. Although that Committee can summon 500 civil servants to give oral evidence whenever it wants, the Chancellor of the Duchy refuses to allow it to write to 500 civil servants. I hope that we shall have a debate and censure the Chancellor of the Duchy on that subject.
  There are many other examples of the Government's authoritarian, reactionary and anachronistic attitude to Parliament, such as the facilities accorded to Members, the unfriendliness of Parliament to visitors and our constituents, and Parliament's supine attitude in defence of its rights. It is time for a thorough review of the Parliament's role, and I offer a few headings under which such a review could be carried out.
  Contrary to constitutional theory, there are some important functions in which Parliament should have an independent locus and standing, neither conferred by the monarch nor in the gift of Government. First, all the

  57
  expenditure authorised by Parliament should be audited. At present, that is not allowed. Secondly, our citizens should be educated in parliamentary democracy. We spend virtually nothing on that aspect of our work. Thirdly, we should improve the quality and intelligibility of legislation. That is a matter for Parliament, not the Government, and the Speaker should ensure that legislation is examined for workability and intelligibility. Fourthly, we should protect and advance civil rights. Parliament has a duty to advance civil rights. Fifthly, we should enact and supervise freedom of information and, sixthly, we should oversee the responsible transfer of authority to the European Parliament. That is happening anyway and it should be done properly.
  Those demands are not great. If they are to be implemented, we need a progressive Leader of the House who fulfils his terms of reference. Let me remind the Leader of the House of his terms of reference in the "Civil Service List":
  "to uphold the rights and privileges of the House as a whole".
  In my time, two Leaders of the House have attempted seriously to push forward parliamentary reform—Richard Crossman and Lord St. John of Fawsley. Since the time of Lord St. John of Fawsley, the Leader of the House—I am sorry to say it, because the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) is an amiable enough person—has been transformed from someone whose business is to defend the rights and privileges of the House to someone who simply acts as the Cabinet's major-domo.
  Mr. Tony Banks: For the time being.
  Mr. Garrett: For the time being. I hope that we get a better one.
  That is a depressing conclusion. I should have preferred the Leader of the House, instead of spending the first third of his speech being rude to the Liberals or whoever in that silly, schoolboyish way, to devote his attention to what the House of Commons is for and how its rights could be established and entrenched.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: What a difference an hour makes. An hour ago, the serried ranks of the Liberal Democrats were present for their motion, all sitting "doughnutting" for the television cameras that they knew would be on them. Now the rag-tag and bobtail of the Liberal Democrats remain. Their opening spokesman does not even do them the courtesy of being here to listen to the debate in time for the closing speeches.
  This is an issue of great importance to the House of Commons and it is very much an issue which, as many previous contributors to the debate said, can be tackled only through the agreement of the House of Commons and not the imposition of the Executive.
  The platitudinous motion, which could have been written on the back of an envelope in the Cock and Bull public house simply to try to appeal to as many people as possible, does not do a service to the House or further the debate. The opening speech did not add much to our sum of knowledge of the subject, except for the extremely interesting admission that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) extracted from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who admitted that the public's perception of the Liberal Democrats as politicians was that they were lazy and not especially interested in this place. I think that the House of Commons
  58
  deserves better than that, although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East for at least getting some honesty out of the Liberal Democrats.
  The motion begins with the words:
  "That this House notes the increasing public contempt for Parliament".
  That is trite and when, as an individual, one asks one's constituents about Parliament, one does not receive that answer. Yes, one does receive answers that Prime Minister's Question Time and other big House of Commons occasions may be too rowdy, although people certainly concentrate on watching and listening to them on television and radio because they find them informative, interesting and entertaining. That cannot be taken away, as the figures clearly show it.
  I would argue that the contempt that people feel is not for the work that goes on in this Chamber or in the Standing Committees and Select Committees, or for the work that we all do as individual hon. Members on our constituency cases, which was so graphically described by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her argument about the hours that we should work. The contempt is at the sharp end of politics which spills over into the House, but which people come up against on the streets and in our constituencies at election time. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but most people respect and admire the campaigning tactics of the Labour party and the Conservative party but utterly reject the campaigning tactics of the Liberal Democrats. They will reject the use of their leaflets. We have seen the handbooks that have leaked into the press, all of which contribute to the contempt of Parliament, telling the Liberal Democrats to jump on to a bandwagon when they know the result so that they can claim the credit when the decision has been taken, and to falsify the opinion polls, to cause confusion in the minds of the electorate as to who may be the main challenger, so that it will benefit the Liberal Democrats. All members of the Labour party and the Conservative party know those tactics. The sad fact of life is that, although it is far divorced from the work in the House, those tactics enhance and increase the contempt for politicians as a profession and for the House of Commons.
  Bold statements were made today about there not being enough scrutiny. One of the specific examples given by the hon. Member for North Cornwall was that there was not enough scrutiny in the Committees upstairs. I do not know how many Committees the hon. Gentleman has served on in the past two years when he has been a Member of the House, but I have served on a number of Committees in the past seven years and I have witnessed the line-by-line examination of the Bills that come before us. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats made a positive complaint about the scrutiny that takes place in those Standing Committees.
  I take as an example the recent Standing Committee on the Intelligence Services Bill. That important issue was taken upstairs in Committee for vigorous examination before returning to the Floor of the House. One would expect the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) to be an expert on that subject as GCHQ is in his constituency. The people of Cheltenham—and also the hon. Member for North Cornwall, if he had done some research before he made that criticism—might be surprised to learn that the hon. Member for Cheltenham did not turn up to all the sittings of that Committee although it was not only a constituency issue, but, according to the hon. Member for

  59
  North Cornwall, an important area in which we must scrutinise the legislation passing through the House and where the House is failing, according to the hon. Gentleman, because it is not taken seriously enough.
  If one wishes to make criticisms of procedures in the House—and heaven knows, criticisms can be made—one should at least do it when one's party is whiter than white and squeaky clean. It does no good to the party of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to try to bring the House into disrepute by making accusations of that nature when many hon. Members from all political parties spend a great deal of time in Standing Committees, monitoring and examining the legislation that passes through Parliament.
  I was also interested to hear several criticisms about the oral question system in the House. I shall take one example, which my Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) mentioned. Specific criticism was made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall about Ministers replying to questions by saying that they would write to the questioner giving greater details as an answer to the question. That is fine if it will increase the knowledge and information that the hon. Gentleman or Lady who has asked the question requires. Moreover, the hon. Member for North Cornwall is quite wrong to criticise that as a failure of the questioning system when exactly that stance was taken this afternoon in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham from the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend who was answering questions this afternoon, the name of whose constituency I cannot remember.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Berwick-upon-Tweed.
  Mr. Burns: If it is all right for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to do it, it is reasonable for Ministers to do the same thing when they feel that it would enhance the knowledge that they can impart to a colleague.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will forgive me if I say that while I congratulate him and his colleagues on their report, I wish to make several arguments on the subject.
  The recommendation to complete the sitting days Monday to Thursday by 10 o'clock and Fridays by 2.30 pm is, in many ways, attractive and appealing. We would not have the ridiculous situation, which even Members who entered the House after 1987 have had to go through, of being here until 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock or even later in the morning. Obviously, no one in their right mind can think straight and do a decent job of work at those hours on top of all the work that they have done in the morning and afternoon of what may be the preceding day but is still the same parliamentary day. However, I repeat the caution issued by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown): if our sitting hours are restricted, the powers of the Executive are increased.
  Although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I worked here between 1975 and 1979, when the Labour Government had a small majority and then lost it. The House was kept sitting for long hours, night after night. That may have been a crashing bore for hon. Members on
  60
  both sides of the House—regrettably, it may even have caused some health problems—but it gave Back Benchers and the Opposition of the day more powers to seek to limit and control the Executive.
  That may be an arcane way of operating the procedures of the House, but I do not consider it wise to jump on the bandwagon of automatically restricting the hours of the House to set times that are unrealistically short. That would limit the powers of Back Benchers—the members of the awkward squad about whom we heard in earlier speeches today—and of the Opposition.
  Mr. Tony Banks: One aspect of the Parliament to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the narrowness of the then Government's majority. Indeed, in a sense they were not a majority Government. In such circumstances, the Back Bencher's power becomes far greater. In subsequent Parliaments, with a Government majority of more than 100, it was obviously far more difficult for the Opposition to catch all Conservative Members out at the same massage parlour on the same night. The power of the Back Bencher is, in a sense, commensurate with the size of the Government's majority.
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is right, up to a point. Clearly, it would rarely be possible to whittle away a large Government majority; but if the system and the sitting hours are used to demoralise the Government of the day and their Back Benchers and to argue constantly against whatever is the current issue, it is potentially easier to persuade the Government to backtrack or amend legislation. If we operate in a fixed, rigid straitjacket, the Government will know that at 10 pm or at 2.30 pm that will be it: they will have their legislation.
  I merely caution hon. Members to think carefully. I fear that I shall be an old man before it happens, but at some point—probably just before my retirement—we shall have a non-Conservative Government. The torch of opposition will be passed to my younger colleagues, with whom I shall have grown up; I may not have had the experience of opposition. They will feel frustrated if they are put in a straitjacket and prevented from opposing because they have been deprived of the time in which to harry the Government in the traditional way.
  Mr. Garrett: In two consecutive sentences of an increasingly fatuous speech, the hon. Gentleman said both that the smallness of a majority enabled Government Back Benchers to exercise more power and that they were demoralised. Which was it?
  Mr. Burns: I said that if the Opposition harried the Government, and kept it up night after night, Government and Back Benchers might become demoralised by the sheer physical fatigue of the exercise and the increased time available to Opposition Members to argue their case for change. The Government might then backtrack or amend legislation. I did not say that that would definitely happen, but it is a possibility that would not exist if the Government of the day knew that at 10 pm, for instance, the business must end and a Bill or a Report stage would be secure.
  I certainly believe that the time came many years ago for us to amend the early-day motion system radically. It is a gross abuse, and a ridiculous, pathetic opportunity for parliamentary graffiti. Some absurd motions have clearly been tabled for the benefit of the "Wapping Times", the

  61
  "Brentwood Gazette" or whatever the Member of Parliament's local paper may be. We should get a grip: the system is a waste of time and money which genuinely misleads the public. Special interest lobbying groups tell them, "Write to your Member of Parliament: get him to vote for this motion, or sign that motion—we can change the world by ensuring that it is passed by the House of Commons."
  As we all know, most of these ridiculous motions never see the light of day on the Floor of the House. Some of those prayed against by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats reach the Floor of the House or are dealt with in Committee: that, indeed, is what the procedure should be for. The others, however, are a waste of time. The system should be changed as quickly as possible, to save time and money and to lower the expectations of people outside who assume that because the motions are on the Order Paper of the House of Commons they are much more important than they are. I hope that the issue will be re-examined soon by my right hon. Friend and by the relevant Committee.
  I welcome the reference in the report to restricting ways and means debates to 45 minutes. The late Bob Cryer was a past master in this regard, rightly using the procedure to highlight what he perceived as injustices or other faults in legislation, but open-ended ways and means debates were potentially vulnerable to abuse. The implementation of the recommendation for reform will benefit the workings of the House.
  Paragraph 98 of the report, which deals with proxy voting, recommends that
  "the Speaker and representatives of all parties should convene a conference with a view to making recommendations on this matter."
  Again, I urge caution. Part of the nature of the Chamber is that we must enter the Aye and No Lobbies through what some may consider archaic procedures. After eight minutes, the doors are locked and they are not unlocked until the end of the vote. We cannot have a system—I accept that the recommendation does not suggest such a system, but it has been suggested—enabling hon. Members to press a button to vote. There are only 437 places in the Chamber, and it does not possess the "desk" system that many other legislatures have.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East has suggested pressing buttons in the Lobby walls. I do not think that that would work; it does not get round the system of proxy votes. If we are to vote here, all who wish to vote should be present to cast their votes. The 1979 general election was triggered by the fact that one Labour Member was unable to come to the House to vote; due to illness, he had to stay up in Yorkshire. Paradoxically, I believe, a late Member of Parliament who represented Fermanagh and South Tyrone came over as a guest of the Labour Whips to abstain in person—much to the shock of the Labour Whips who, having flown him over, had apparently locked him in the Strangers Bar with plenty of light refreshment to keep him happy. It would take away a great deal from the nature of the Chamber and the way in which we do our business if we were to introduce a form of proxy vote.
  Mr. Jopling: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says as I did a little research into the matter some years ago. We know that the average large Division in this House takes about 12 minutes. I inquired into the amount of time it takes for a Division in the United States, which has electronic voting. I discovered that even with that system
  62
  a Division takes no less time. In addition, our system of voting gives Back Benchers a tremendous opportunity to buttonhole and cross-examine, on the move, members of the Executive.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I whole-heartedly agree with him, especially on his latter point. As he says, our system gives us a golden opportunity to speak to Ministers and even the Prime Minister, which would not be possible with a different voting system.
  We could, however, make a change which would not need legislation or debate and end the prolonging of open-ended debates and the wasting of time by the calling of unnecessary and fatuous votes simply to delay our Adjournment each evening. It is within the power of even just two hon. Members to call a Division. If Members would act in a more mature and restrained manner, we could overcome that problem.
  We could also overcome the ridiculous procedure that has been evident on Fridays in recent months of hon. Members calling "I spy Strangers" simply to disrupt the business. On one occasion in December it was done to obtain an automatic change of business because there were not sufficient hon. Members present to vote—despite the fact that it was an extremely important debate in which a number of hon. Members wanted to participate because it was of specific interest to their constituents. After about an hour and a quarter of that debate, which should have lasted five hours, it was automatically curtailed through the arrogance of two hon. Members who felt that it was their duty and right to end a debate in which they had no interest. There is something ridiculous about a system which allows that and it could be amended overnight by hon. Members behaving in a more restrained and respectable way.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: Anyone listening to this debate and hoping that the decline of Parliament will be arrested or reversed will be disappointed—unless he or she is married to a member of this Government or the next Government, in which case they will be delighted because it is obvious that the system is dominated by the Executive or the alternative Executive. If we add together the members of the Government, their Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the shadow Cabinet—almost as numerous as the Government—the former Ministers who still think as they did when they were in the Executive, the "wanabees"—those who would do almost anything to become members of the Executive—and those Members of Parliament who are coasting gently towards retirement or life after death in another place, the potential block of reformers diminishes to such an extent that hardly anyone is left to bear the torch of parliamentary reform.
  There are those who are happy to watch the game of Government and Parliament being played between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. In a way, we undervalue ourselves as individuals, as parties and as a collective if we assume that once we make that journey in a car driven by a chauffeur and have our hands in a red box, somehow qualitatively and in intelligence and knowledge we are apart from the rest—that somehow on the two Front Benches there is a monopoly of competence and a residue of all the intellect, demands and requirements necessary for governing a country. Many people still think that, but surely experience should have taught even them that that perspective is wrong.

  63
  I do not argue for a Congress-style government. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) spoke of Congress being rather bland. I would swap the noise and excitement of this House for a little of the blandness of the US Congress because that is a real legislature—a policy-making legislature and not a policy-influencing or rubber-stamp legislature such as this place has been for a century. We shall go into the next century as supine in relation to the for the moment invisible Executive as we have been in the past.
  Some of us do not necessarily want our Chamber to be called a legislature if we do not meet the basic requirements of a legislature. Almost every part of our society has seen major change during the past 20 to 50 years. Few structures in society have been left unaltered; yet parliamentary procedures and structures have been left almost intact. Apart from the lack of top hats, beards and gas lighting, a returning Disraeli or Gladstone or an analyst such a Trollope would find the House of Commons almost exactly as he had left it.
  There have been changes—many, many changes—to the way in which our procedural proposals have been implemented, but let us not mistake change for reform. Changes there have been many; reforms there have been few. There has been much constitutional tinkering, but what is needed is basic reform—not necessarily immediate reform of the structures, but first a reform of attitude. I suspect that the attitude to reform is as weak now as it ever has been.
  Some 10 years ago, after the 1980–81 reforms, I wrote a chapter on parliamentary reform in a book and I was rather excited about the changes that had taken place. Using something of a D-Day analogy 10 years in anticipation, I said that we had now stormed the beach head and it remained only to fan out into enemy territory and capture more and more of the bastions held by the Executive. Ten years later, however, we are as far away from reform as ever. Reform flickers on, kept alive by a few distinguished colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is one, and there are hon. Members on both sides who maintain the desire for reform—but tradition is strong and inertia even stronger.
  In the early 1980s, there were many important changes. There was a Procedure Committee report in the mid-1970s, although only about one third of its recommendations were implemented. In 1980, we gained Select Committees, Special Standing Committees, better staffing levels, better salaries, financial reform and a House of Commons Commission. Those were substantial changes. I had hoped that a new Parliament would be strong enough to defy the Executive in some ways. There was a large influx of Conservative Members who previously had been in business, who were used to being the shakers and the movers. I had hoped that when they came to this place they would shake and move—and so they did, but into inertia. The result was that those reforms stalled and came to nothing. The Leader of the House mentioned the few little, titillating things that may come about. That is not fundamental reform. It is reforming on the edges and it will not remotely deal with the fundamental weakness of this House. We are too supine, too prepared to listen to what the Government say on their side of the House and to what our
  64
  Front-Bench spokesmen and spokeswomen say on ours. Those great days of the 1970s were great days because Government Back Benchers had some influence. The Government had to take their own Back Benchers into account, which is not often done. The Opposition were happy because they had a great input in decision making. The Liberal party was happy because, for a while, it had some sort of input into decision making.
  I hoped that the Select Committee on Procedure and that environment of the 1970s would provide the push for reform, which would have made the House a genuine legislature. What happened after the first reforms which introduced the four Special Standing Committees? Why was that experiment abandoned? It was abandoned for one simple reason. The Bills considered were non-contentious and absolutely non-controversial. The Criminal Attempts Bill—a little controversial—the Education Bill, the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill and the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill were not basically fundamental dividing pieces of legislation, but the Government got a bloody nose. One Bill to amend the sus law was based, apparently, on the recommendations of a professor from Nottingham, but when he came before the inquiry part of the Standing Committee he said that he might have supported the Bill's principles a little time previously, but that, having seen the legislation drafted, he was totally opposed to it. It was game, set and match, and clause 1 of the Bill was withdrawn. It happened to the other Bills, too, so the Government said that they did not want the legislature to start legislating because it would be the end of the existing system of government. I have set examination questions, such as "Legislation is more the function of Government than the legislature—discuss," and it is absolutely true.
  Special Standing Committees are out of the window. Select Committees, the St. John-Stevas—or the Jopling—reforms were very important, but what happened afterwards? What powers did we have? We had great powers to send for persons and papers, to meet from time to time, to appoint advisers. They were basic powers, but the whole thing hardly amounted to a row of beans. We may increase the transparency of Government, if they are prepared to have a little light shone on their activities, but after some 14 years of Select Committees and a great deal of effort involving staff, witnesses, advisers and hon. Members, what have we achieved? On how many occasions have we compelled the Government to change their mind? I suspect that the answer would not be too illuminating because it would be too humiliating to admit that, after thousands and thousands of hours of endeavour, we have made precious little impact on the process of decision making.
  With other hon. Members, I have talked to those involved in the newly emerging democracies in eastern Europe. I was in eastern Europe quite recently and people there said that it was wonderful to have me come along from the mother of Parliaments, with a fine Defence Committee, and asked me to tell them what we do. They asked me to give them the secrets of our control over the budgetary process. I said, "I am sorry, but we do not have much control". They asked me what control we had over intelligence services. I said, "I am sorry, but we do not have any control at all over the intelligence services". They asked me to tell them what impact our Select Committees have on legislation. I said, "Actually, the process of legislation and the Select Committee procedure are quite

  65
  separate. We have not the slightest effect on the legislative process". They said to me, "You are on the Defence Committee, Mr. George. What impact does your Committee have on the procurement process? How much of your budget is taken up with defence expenditure? What part do you play in deciding whether major or smaller items of expenditure are allowed to continue? I said, "I am very sorry, but we do not have the slightest impact." It is humiliating and embarrassing. I am not surprised that they are not asking us to tell them any more about how to become a Parliament, as we have very little to tell them. In the Ukraine recently I asked someone what they did in their Parliament and they rattled off a list of functions and powers. I told that person that people there had have achieved more in two years than we had in 700; they should not be listening to us—we should shut up and listen to them.
  Mr. Jopling: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most members of the departmental Select Committees in the House would die of shock if they were told that they had to deal with legislation as well?
  Mr. George: It is not that members or supporters of the Government would necessarily feel excluded. I suspect that, if we had Special Standing Committees, Members on the Opposition Front Bench would feel a little excluded from the process. I should like to see Select Committees having a bigger legislative role. We spend a lot of time on the issues of foreign affairs, defence and education and it may be sensible that those people who develop an expertise should have some input into the process of legislation.
  I am sorry to have gone on for far too long—almost as long as the Minister, the Opposition spokesman and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Back Benchers will probably spend less than half the amount of time talking about parliamentary reform that those on the Front Benches took. I am conducting a survey of defence committees in 50 countries throughout the world and one thing is patently obvious from the 35 replies that I have received. I can put historical and contemporary defence committees from all those countries into three bundles. The United States Congress is alone. At the other end of the continuum is the supreme soviet of the Soviet Union and those former communist eastern European legislatures which had no effect on policy whatever. I would put the mass of other legislatures in the middle, but they all do more on their defence committees than we do. We have one thing in common with France: we are both supine legislatures, totally dominated by our respective Executives. So long as we are prepared to tolerate that—
  Mr. Garrett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. George: Yes, but I was about to finish.
  Mr. Garrett: I very much sympathise with what my hon. Friend says and he is absolutely right, but surely our Select Committees have all the terms of reference that they need. All that they lack is the ambition on the part of their members to be more effective. That is the heart of problem.
  Mr. George: I said earlier that it was an attitudinal problem more than a procedural problem. Our Defence Committee is very active, there is a 76 per cent. attendance rate, we produce many reports and we do a very good job, but we have been so used to being spoon fed and to having big brother tell us what to do that we would not know what
  66
  to do if we were given the freedom to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South is absolutely right. There ought to be collusion between all the eight sets of Back Benchers. That happens occasionally when we discuss pay and research assistants, but those are the only occasions on which there is a cross-party Back-Bench alliance. I like to think of myself as a Back Bencher in the House. I am not ashamed of being a Back Bencher only. I am not ashamed that I have not been called to high office. I believe that being a Back Bencher ought to be important, but regrettably it is not important. I should like to see Back Benchers on both sides of the House getting together against the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench, and perhaps even against hon. Members on some part of the Liberal Democrat Bench, to say that we must do more. We have a collective expertise that is not insignificant. Let us try to exercise those powers more strongly than in the past. Let us try to defy our Front Benches a little more and perhaps we shall see a Palace of Westminster that is vibrant and not merely an echo chamber for our respective Front Benches.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. David Harris: The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) struck a chord in his concluding remarks with those of us who have never held office, and never will, in this place. I congratulate him on the content of his speech and on the atmosphere that he created. To be honest, I think that he is rather pessimistic about the reforms or changes that have taken place. I suspect that, deep down, he is arguing for a separation of powers between the House and the Government, but that separation cannot take place. A relevant comparison, perhaps, is the way in which the House does its work and the approach adopted by the United States Congress. That, however, is a wider subject and I do not want to trespass on it.
  Shortness of time—perhaps this is just as well—precludes me from saying very much about the Liberal Democrats' motion. The leader of that party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), sets out in his book—I hasten to add that I have not bought a copy; instead I obtained a copy from the Library—with some pride how he decided to leave the House for two and a half days every week to travel round the country.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates a free plug for "Beyond Westminster: finding hope in Britain". I suppose that most of us do not have the luxury of leaving the House for two and a half days a week, depending on our parliamentary duties. There may be a few who think that the right hon. Gentleman's approach is treating Parliament with contempt, but I let that pass.
  I want to talk about the Jopling Committee's report because I was a member of that Committee. I agree very much with the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Indeed, I often agree with the hon. Lady, as she knows so well. We serve together on a Standing Committee on European Documents. I agreed with her so much when she said that the House cannot be treated like a factory. Basically, parliamentary democracy is a messy business. It cannot be organised to the nth degree. In modern Labour party terms, I suppose that I count myself as a moderniser of the House. Given all the arguments that the hon. Lady advanced so

  67
  eloquently, we should not be prevented from trying to do our job or from trying to ensure that the House does its job that much better than it does now.
  Things have changed dramatically in the past 20 years or so. I arrived in the Press Gallery as a journalist more than 30 years ago. That being so, I am aware of the changes that have taken place, not least in the workings of the parliamentary press.
  Mr. Dalyell: Its representatives are not here.
  Mr. Harris: One or two are. At 5 o'clock, there was only one reporter in the Press Gallery, who was from the Press Association. When I came to the Press Gallery decades ago, The Daily Telegraph, for which I worked, had a substantial Gallery staff as well as a Lobby staff. Two of us were always left on until 4 am, which was the final time for the last edition. We remained so that we could flash through to the stop press the immortal words, "The House was still sitting at 4 am." Nowadays, not many journalists are in the Press Gallery, and certainly not after 6 pm. I am not saying, of course, that we should tailor our proceedings in response to the publicity that we get or do not get, but attendance in the Press Gallery is one change in the equation.
  There have been many other changes, including some that I think and hope make it inevitable that the time has come for the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The tragic death of the Leader of the Opposition, the late John Smith, has given impetus to the report. It is recognised that there is a need for change.
  In addition, there was the lamentable breakdown of relationships between the two Front Benches a short while ago. I shall not go into the reasons, because I think that most of us have forgotten what the argument was about. That breakdown told us, however, that the Opposition do not achieve their aims by trying to keep the House up all night. Those days have gone. They might have applied some years ago, but the Great British public are certainly not impressed nowadays by the macho business of the House sitting right through the night. That cuts no ice outside. Oppositions do not achieve their aim by going in for those tactics. Governments, both Conservative and Labour, are usually resilient enough to withstand that sort of pressure. As I have said, no one is listening and no one is impressed. That is a great change.
  The attitude of the membership of the House has changed. It is true that many of those who have come into the House in recent intakes regard staying up all night as nonsensical.
  The most important reason why we should change our procedures is that we need to make the current way in which we approach legislation much more effective. It is nonsensical for us to spend hours and hours, especially in Committee or on Report, either in Committee Rooms or on the Floor of the House, on matters that do not count—time-wasting matters. When that happens, the Government introduce a timetable motion. We then have to rush through the concluding parts of the Bill without due consideration. It is far better to have a sensible timetable—we can argue about how we arrive at it—and consider the Bill in a measured way. I think that that approach will make for much better government.
  68
  We have every reason to criticise all Governments for bringing so much unprepared legislation before the House. For a time, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Howe, as he is now.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Very distinguished.
  Mr. Harris: Indeed. When he was Leader of the House, I was appalled at the way in which draftsmen had not prepared legislation because of the pressure that had been put on them, in a proper way. It was taken for granted that much of that legislation would be corrected in Committee, on the Floor of the House or in another place. That is not the right way to proceed. We want much less legislation and much better-quality legislation, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said. Those developments are essential.
  The right time must be taken to consider reports such as that which has been produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. As I have said, I think that its time has come, just as I think that the introduction of the televising of the House took place at precisely the right time. I was opposed to the televising of our proceedings when it was proposed earlier, but I took the view that, with changing circumstances, it was right to introduce it when it happened, not least for technical reasons. Despite what was said much earlier in the debate, it has been a great success. If we approach the Jopling report in the spirit of consensus, the changes outlined in it will similarly be a great success.
  Finally, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I thought that he came in for some unfair criticism from the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). I believe that my right hon. Friend has approached the issue in the correct way. I was pleased to hear the tribute paid to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). My right hon. Friend is proceeding carefully. He has to balance all the difficulties that lie with the need for reform against the sensible points made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. These are difficult matters, but I am confident that the House is now reaching consensus. I believe that the consensus will result not in the dramatic changes that some Members want but in a structure that will enable the House to perform its ancient function in modern times in a much better way than it has done in recent years.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the two minutes available, I want simply to focus on Prime Minister's questions.
  Last autumn, I was incapacitated following a hip operation. Therefore, I had to watch Tuesday's, Wednesday's and Thursday's "Westminster Live". Never was there a greater misnomer among programmes. It was not Westminster live at all. It was punditry and Prime Minister's questions.
  That leads me to the point that many of our constituents have the impression that Parliament is simply Prime Minister's questions and little else. Bluntly, sitting there, I was ashamed of how the House of Commons looked.
  I can tell the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that it was not a question of rapier-like debate. It was a bear garden. There were very few rapier-like debates. I believe that there is a solution to that. First, television has an obligation to broadcast

  69
  questions other than Prime Minister's questions and to give a good deal of time to them. Great credit often comes to the House of Commons from specific questions.
  We should return to the very old days when my first Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, would transfer any question which was not directly relevant to the office of Prime Minister. That had several advantages. It led to coherent questioning and the Prime Minister would know what subjects he had to address.
  I should like to ask the Leader of the House a question. How much time, effort and energy does the Prime Minister of the day have to spend having the day's papers examined in an effort to identify what questions he is likely to be asked?
  Mr. Harris: All morning.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) says all morning. I do not think that the Prime Minister of Great Britain should have to spend all morning searching around and wondering what he or she would be asked. I hope that an incoming Labour Prime Minister would not have to do that. That was one of the points that I raised with John Smith. The amount of civil service time taken up in that procedure is absolutely appalling.
  There is an answer to that problem, and that is the use of the private notice question by the Opposition Front Bench. If that process were used, there could be coherent scrutiny which is simply not possible under a system which, whether or not we like it in this House, has become a disgrace to Parliament.
  6.42 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up this important debate for my party. I have enjoyed listening to some excellent contributions from all parts of the House. However, I was saddened by the fact that some hon. Members preferred to close their eyes to the real issue. They are like people on the Titanic insisting that the ship is unsinkable as they slide across the dining room floor which is at an angle of 45 deg. They argue that our parliamentary democracy is in safe hands as long as it is in the hands of the Conservative Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a telling and important contribution. I heard no argument against his position from any hon. Member which persuaded me that his analysis was faulty. Whatever some Conservative or Opposition Members may feel, it is quite obvious to me that Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular, has seen its reputation collapse.
  In my constituency and around the country, I am frequently asked what on earth Members of Parliament are playing at down here in Westminster. Very often that question is put as a joke because that is how our antics are viewed by a vast proportion of the public. However, the sad fact is that it is no laughing matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall made his points very well. The picture that he painted was worrying to any believer in the value of the democratic process. However, for those who still doubt that there is any need for change, the way in which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and other private Members' Bills have been treated is a perfect example of everything that has gone rotten at the heart of government. It provides
  70
  overwhelming evidence for the kind of reform of Parliament for which we have been calling for a good many years.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Lady is right to particularise about issues of concern. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has now been discussed here and in the House of Lords for 37 and a half hours. There has been no vote against its principles or purpose. It has been subjected to systematic obstruction.
  Ms Lynne: I am grateful for that intervention. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been brought before this House 12 times in the past 20 years. Disabled people today are in almost the same position that they were in 20 years ago. They are still second-class citizens. They are still denied their basic civil rights and they are still unable to take their rightful place in society and make the contribution to that society that they are able to make. The reason is that the Government did not like the Bill. What a disgrace and what total abuse of power.
  The Government have not liked previous Bills conferring civil rights on disabled people. However, civil rights for disabled people is a very popular idea. No one can understand why disabled people should not be given the same rights as women and ethnic minorities whose special rights are guaranteed in law. Those views, which are held in the country, are also held in this House where an overall majority of hon. Members, from all parties and from both sides of the House, support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. However, the Government do not like the Bill.
  We are in a position where the majority of people in the country and the majority of hon. Members want civil rights legislation for disabled people, but because the Government, for their own peculiar and dogmatic reasons, do not want that legislation on the statute book, there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is an abuse of the principle that Parliament is sovereign. It replaces that principle with a notion that it is the Government who should be able to dictate every aspect of our lives quite irrespective of the concerns of modern British society.
  That situation shows up most glaringly the urgent need for the reform of the procedure by which the merits of private Members' Bills are tested in the House. After all, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is not the only example of a private Member's Bill which has been wrecked by the Government, but, in my opinion, it is one of the worst. The same thing happened to the Medicines Information Bill, the Tobacco Advertising Bill and the Energy Conservation Bill, to name just a few.
  The Medicines Information Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), sought to amend section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 and give the public a right to know facts about the safety and effectiveness of medicines, the reasons for a licence having been granted and details of any side-effects reported after licensing. The Bill was supported by almost every medical body, by the National Consumer Council and by groups representing people who are the victims of the side-effects of drugs. However, the Bill had two opponents: certain sections of the pharmaceutical industry and the Government.
  The Medicines Information Bill went through its first two stages without much of a hitch. However, the wrecking

  71
  amendments appeared all of a sudden in Committee. The fate of the Bill was therefore sealed. On Report, more than 40 extra amendments were tabled, and the Bill was talked out. So much for the commitment to open government that was made by the Prime Minister from his soapbox only a year previously. So much for parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Lynne: I am afraid that I do not have time; the Leader of the House wishes to speak.
  The fate of the Tobacco Advertising Bill, which was sponsored by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), was the same. The purpose of that Bill was to ban tobacco advertising so that young people especially were not tempted to take up smoking. The idea behind it was to reduce the incidence of smoking-related illness which, apart from being a tragedy to sufferers and their families, is a huge financial burden on the health service. Once again, the Bill was supported by all medical bodies and had widespread support from the public at large and the majority of hon. Members. The Bill had two opponents: yet again the Government and the tobacco industry.
  In Committee, wrecking amendments were tabled and defeated, so on Report 108 amendments were tabled by Conservative Members and, yet again, the Bill was talked out. So much for the sovereignty of Parliament.
  The Energy Conservation Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), was another tragic case in point. I say "tragic" because its provisions would have led to help being given to those suffering most acutely the imposition of VAT on fuel. Again, that Bill had widespread support in the House, support from concerned organisations and support from people throughout the country, but, once again, the Bill was opposed by the Government. Many amendments, this time drafted by parliamentary counsel, on the instructions of the Secretary of State for the Environment, were tabled and the Bill was talked out. So much for the Government who listen.
  Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Lynne: I am afraid I do not have time. [Interruption.] I am sorry; the Leader of the House wishes to speak.
  So much for the Government who listen and who believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. The Government, with impunity, use their control over the allocation of time in the Chamber to stifle any legislation however popular, however necessary and however important if they and their friends in big business find their own reasons for doing so.
  Recently, a more sinister development has come to our attention. During debate on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, I and other Members requested the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and Back-Bench Conservative Members to reveal the source of the amendments that they had tabled. The answers to those questions resulted in two Members, including the Minister, being forced on to the Floor of the House to apologise for misleading the House. That was an unprecedented occurrence within anyone's memory. They had been hiding the fact that many of the amendments that had been tabled had been drafted by civil servants in the form of parliamentary counsel, not only under instructions from
  72
  the Department, under the Secretary of State for Social Security, but with the collusion of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education.
  Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Lynne: I am afraid I do not have time; it is 6.52 pm.
  That civil servants should be used in that way to further party political policy is to plumb new depths of abuse.
  Through a series of further written questions, I managed to force an admission from four Ministers that they had authorised parliamentary counsel to draft amendments to private Members' Bills that were opposed by the Government. Those amendments were then passed to Conservative Back-Bench Members so that they would do the Government's dirty work. It is obvious that that practice has become endemic. It is obvious also that the civil service is no longer independent.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall rightly said, comprehensive reform of Parliament is needed so that those abuses do not occur again. But, as a first step, the Government could show their willingness to tackle the crisis of confidence by changing the procedure by which private Members' Bills are considered. Private Members' Bills should be eligible for timetabling in the same way as Government business, a whole day should be devoted to Third Reading, and a vote should then be taken. Perhaps also the ten-minute rule could be applied to debate on private Members' Bills to prevent filibuster. That matter has been considered by the Procedure Committee. One of its suggestions which seems to have merit is that, at 2.30 pm on Fridays, private Members should be able to move that extra time be provided on a later Government day after 10 pm. That would go some way to redressing the balance between Government business and private Members' Bills, although not as far as I should like it.
  At the moment, the Government of the day can crush without difficulty any legislation that they do not explicitly approve. The elderly people of this country who have lost the opportunity for savings against VAT on fuel deserve the ending of that systematic abuse. The children who, in the next few years, will be attracted to smoking, and the bereaved families of smokers who died from their addiction deserve changes to be made urgently to the Government's power over the business of the House.
  The victims of the side-effects of drugs who were unable to judge for themselves whether to balance the benefits of drugs against their side-effects deserve the restoration of the sovereignty of Parliament so that it becomes more than just a slogan. The disabled people of Britain who have to face yet another day of systematic and institutionalised discrimination deserve the Government doing more than just paying lip service to our democratic institutions.
  Hundreds of hon. Members are trying to represent their constituencies fairly and honourably, but they are being thwarted by the Government's obsession with their own dogmatic concerns and sectional interests. I ask that the House supports the motion which could lead us into a new era of enfranchisement, involvement and enablement—the true constituents of a real democracy. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Newton: With the leave of the House, I shall offer just a few comments on the debate, although obviously in a few minutes—I accept that I sought only a few minutes—I cannot comment on all the points that have been made, by any manner of means.
  I understand why the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said what she did and, perhaps, why she did not wish to give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). One of the interesting aspects of this matter is that my right hon. Friend's Committee—I think that my right hon. Friend will confirm it—has received almost no representations whether from the Liberal Democrats or from elsewhere about the handling of private Members' Bills, but no doubt he will have heard with interest some of the points that have been made.
  The only point that I make in response to the hon. Lady is that she might at least have acknowledged that the Government have made clear their reasons for concern about the practical consequences of the proposals in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and their concern to make positive progress, to the extent that the Government themselves will consult on a number of key matters in relation to discrimination against disabled people—for example, discrimination in employment, in access to goods and services, and in the provision of financial services. They will consult also on extending access provisions and creating a new independent body to advise the Government and to report on progress towards eliminating discrimination. That is an important and positive attempt to seek genuinely workable and practicable ways forward, and the hon. Lady might at least have acknowledged that in pursuing the controversy.
  Many other points have been made. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for acknowledging that he feels, as I do and as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) does, that it is important to make progress in this matter on the basis of consensus to the maximum possible extent. That has certainly been my approach.
  We heard with great and genuine interest the cautionary notes struck by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and others about how, sometimes, procedures that are regarded as arcane and complex are nevertheless an important part of hon. Members' armoury in pursuing their interests as Members. I say only—I see that the Liberal Chief Whip is looking anxiously at his watch lest I should talk the motion out, but that is not my intention—that some remarks made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and some of my hon. Friends were less than gracious. Perhaps he gave the game away when he said that the problem was not the powers that the Government have given Select Committees or the efforts that I have made, but, and I think that I noted his comments right, that all that these Committees lack is the ambition of hon. Members to use those powers. That may or may not be the case, but it is a criticism not of the Government but of hon. Members.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 187.

  Division No. 266]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Barnes, Harry

  Jamieson, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Chidgey, David

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mahon, Alice

  Cousins, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Etherington, Bill

  Olner, William

  Flynn, Paul

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rendel, David

  Galloway, George

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Garrett, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  George, Bruce

  Tyler, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hall, Mike

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Hanson, David

  Mr. Nigel Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Devlin, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashby, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkins, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowis, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bright, Graham

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Church, Judith

  Hayes, Jerry

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clappison, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Congdon, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Conway, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  75

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lewis, Terry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madden, Max

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thomason, Roy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Page, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walden, George

  Pawsey, James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Richards, Rod

  Willetts, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments.)
  The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 54.

  Division No. 267]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butler, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Clappison, James

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Colvin, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bright, Graham

  Dover, Den

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Elletson, Harold

  76

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Page, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Pawsey, James

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  French, Douglas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gallie, Phil

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Richards, Rod

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Riddick, Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hague, William

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hannam, Sir John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Harris, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sproat, Iain

  Hayes, Jerry

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Steen, Anthony

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Stephen, Michael

  Horam, John

  Stern, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Stewart, Allan

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sweeney, Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Sykes, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Trend, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Lightbown, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Luff, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Walden, George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malone, Gerald

  Wells, Bowen

  Mans, Keith

  Whittingdale, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Willetts, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Yeo, Tim

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hall, Mike

  Barnes, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Harvey, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hutton, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Chidgey, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Cousins, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Madden, Max

  Dixon, Don

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Flynn, Paul

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  77

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, William

  Turner, Dennis

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Terry Lewis and

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government for its initiative in setting up the Select Committee on Sittings of the House (the Jopling Committee); supports the objectives of making agreed improvements in the House's hours of sittings and working methods; and welcomes the Prime Minister's recent statement reaffirming the Government's commitment to progress on parliamentary reform.

  SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
  Ordered,
  That the Speaker have leave of absence on Friday 24th June to attend in her constituency upon Her Majesty.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Orders of the Day
  Trade Marks Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Trade Marks Bill [Lords]
    Clause 86

      POWER TO PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS, &C. FOR MIXED PARTNERSHIPS AND BODIES CORPORATE
      7.22 pm
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 36, leave out lines 41 to 47.
      The amendment reflects the fears of the Patent Solicitors Association that confusion will be caused by the use of the term "attorney". I understand that clause 86 originated from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and was moved in good faith. Let me say at the outset that I share the hon. Gentleman's laudable aim of finding for professionals who deal with trade marks a term that does not have negative connotations in the United States, France, Germany or elsewhere. Likewise, I share his aim of ensuring that litigation on trade mark matters is made cheaper and easier.
      I would certainly welcome stronger support among Conservative Members for the key role played by the Patent Office and for Labour's fight to protect the excellent record of its workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who is in his place, has supported those workers.
      The Patent Solicitors Association, which strongly supports the Bill, is highly critical of the introduction of clause 86 at a very late stage and at short notice. The association contends that the use of the term "trade mark attorney" will cause misunderstandings and even deception; that the word "attorney" implies to businesses and the public that the practitioner is a qualified lawyer, when that is not the case; that attorneys will be subject to discipline from professional bodies and ultimately the Supreme Court, when they will not; that they carry indemnity insurance, which they do not; and that they are trained in all aspects of the law and litigation practice, when they are not so trained.
      According to the Patent Solicitors Association, the term "trade mark attorney" is not recognised in Europe. In the United States, an attorney is someone who is a qualified lawyer, and who has passed the exams of the state bar—a very different type of professional. Assurances have been given that trade mark agents are highly qualified by examination, but that is not the case. The register of members of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents reveals that only 38 per cent. of the members and fellows have passed the institute's exams. That means that of the 416 full members only 158 were so qualified while 258 were not. If those members, who form a majority in the institute, were to be known as attorneys, the public would be likely to believe them to be legally qualified when they were not and would consider them to be lawyers when they were not.
      I do not seek to impugn the excellent work of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents, but I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on the reservations that I have

      79
      expressed, especially as other controversial clauses on unfair competition and lookalike products have been withdrawn.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I have listened with interest to the points that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has made. His amendment would delete clause 86, but I am not convinced that we should follow that course. I do not recall any dissent in Committee from the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), which would allow registered trade mark agents to use the title "trade mark attorney". It is important to remember that the full title, not simply "attorney", would be used.
      Moreover, as hon. Members will recall from the Committee, I reported that the overwhelming view of the departmental standing advisory committee on industrial property following consultation on the matter was in support of such a move. Although registered trade mark agents may not have a general legal qualification or be qualified as solicitors, they are qualified in trade mark legal practice by examination or experience. Their names also appear on the register maintained by the Institute of Trade Mark Agents—the professional body which exercises control over them. As I said in Committee, what is at issue is the use of the title "trade mark attorney", not the use of the word "attorney" on its own. Therefore, there should not be any confusion in the minds of the public.
      One of the hon. Members who took part in the debates in Committee was the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I go some way towards agreeing with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South that the hon. Member for Newport, West follows such subjects closely and also follows closely what goes on in the Patent Office. He gave a broad welcome to the change that has been made. Indeed, it received a broad welcome from the Committee. I understand the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South and his wish to raise the point, but I hope that he will not find it necessary to press the amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister has clarified one or two points. Although I still have some reservations, I have. no wish to delay the progress of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      7.28 pm
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I have the unusual privilege of welcoming the Bill on behalf of all sections of the House. Indeed, industry has been crying out for years for the protection that we hope that the measure will afford. Trade marks are often one of the best assets of successful businesses. They reflect the investment in quality and service of the work force, the management and the design teams. The confidence that a trade mark can inspire will ensure that the public can shop with an assurance of quality and design. The sad fact is that there have been delays in bringing this legislation before the House—delays which
      80
      have cost businesses revenue, hindered investment, cost jobs and are entirely the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade and his Ministers.
      In 1990, the Government published a White Paper, "Reform of Trade Mark Law", which responded to businesses' needs to register their trade marks for use in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. It promised simplified procedures for registering trade marks and detailed improvements to detect businesses that held current trade marks.
      Business reaction to the White Paper could not have been more favourable. Firms and individuals would save time and money in registering their trade marks. They would also have to spend less on bringing to justice those who infringe copyright, and loopholes in the law would be plugged, making it easier to secure a prosecution.
      In summary, this is a measure which business wants and that will give better protection to business and the public. There is no rational explanation for the lengthy delay in enacting it. Ministers have failed to explain to the House, both on the Floor and in Committee, why it has taken more than three years for the Government to introduce legislation on such a widely supported measure.
      There is only one word to describe the Government inaction and that is dither. Ministers have dithered for three years. The cost of their dithering has been borne by businesses and the public and it has been high. Present legislation, with its complexities and loopholes, is costing businesses around £30 million every year. By the time that the Bill becomes an Act, British businesses will have lost more than £100 million since the publication of the White Paper. It is a lame excuse for Ministers to say that there has been no time to legislate. I have studied more than 50 measures for which the Government found time to introduce primary legislation, and few merit the same priority as this.
      Business has been very patient with the Government. The Bill contains items that were recommended by Sir Reginald Mathys's committee many years ago. We are now on the brink of putting in place safeguards for the 1990s for British businesses and entrepreneurs. Now the Government have decided to tamper with the civil service, which administers patents. Instead of reflecting on the damage done to so many public services by the attack on civil servants, Ministers want to treat them like some fast food franchise.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), whom the Minister commended for his activities in highlighting the good work done by the Patent Office, warned the House on Second Reading and in Committee that if its work were tampered with further, the primary losers would be not be civil servants but the public and businesses that generate the wealth of the country. The uncertainty over the future status of the Patent Office has meant that when the European Commission considered where to locate its new office, it did not choose Britain, with a track record of a Patent Office that goes back 119 years, but preferred Alicante in Spain—an airport favoured by certain people who have made a lot of money out of trade mark goods, illegally.
      Instead of listening to the concerns of enforcement officers in trading standards departments, Ministers are determined that those key consumer protection services should be split up. It is time for Ministers to listen to trading standards officers and their fears that unscrupulous traders, who infringe trade mark legislation, will still find

      81
      legal loopholes. Trading standards officers do not believe that the Bill goes far enough in plugging such loopholes, or that it ensures that seized counterfeit goods can be more easily returned for destruction, by bringing the law into line with section 100 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.
      My main regrets are that it has taken more than three years for the Government to introduce this uncontroversial Bill, that their delays have cost businesses more than £100 million and that the Bill still has some flaws. In order to give our inventors, businesses and the public some of the protections that they need, however, I commend it to the House, warts and all.
      7.34 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) for welcoming the Bill. He made some of the usual taunts that we heard from him on Second Reading. He could not quite bring himself to give the Bill a general welcome and if he re-reads his speech in Hansard he will see that, if that is the voice of the new European Labour party, some of his comments about Spain will have to be tempered. Perhaps he is on the side of the section of the party of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) rather than that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). However, I am grateful for his welcome for the Bill.
      This is a complex Bill, but it is important to industry. I am grateful, therefore, for all the co-operation that has been demonstrated on both sides of the House in speeding its passage through the House. The Bill is a clear example of the Government's commitment to help industry and commerce. A company's trade mark can be among its most valuable assets and a major marketing tool in competing for business at home and overseas.
      The Bill deregulates the administrative procedures surrounding the maintenance of registration and that will directly reduce costs for industry and commerce. The Bill will make it easier for a trade mark to qualify for registration and will give registered trade marks wider infringement rights. It will also enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Madrid protocol. All those changes will make it simpler and cheaper for industry and commerce to protect their trade marks, both in the United Kingdom and overseas.
      In Committee, we made some changes to the Bill that will help further in that direction. A person who wishes to appeal against a decision of the registrar may, as an alternative to going to court, appeal to a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor, before whom he may be represented by a trade mark agent—or attorney, now—or a solicitor.
      Another provision of the Bill that was amended in Committee was that dealing with counterfeit goods. Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill strengthens the protection against trade mark counterfeiting, but attention was drawn to a gap in its provisions as they related to the delivering up of counterfeit goods. We have closed that gap. It will now be possible for trading standards officers to seek forfeiture of goods seized whenever they can demonstrate to a court that the goods are counterfeit. That will enable them to dispose of goods that are clearly counterfeit. That is a positive and helpful change, which can only help trading standards officers in their determined efforts to combat trade mark counterfeiting. That was not
      82
      part of the original consultation documents and would not have been in the Bill, but it has been included as a result of some court cases that we all know about.
      During the passage of the Bill, much attention has been paid to the subject of lookalike products, which are allegedly got up or designed to look like those of brand leaders. Reference was made to that, both in this House and in another place. It was clear that businesses are divided on the question. Many feel that the present law provides insufficient protection against competitors taking advantage of the reputation of established products. Others, however, contend that the law is adequate and that special measures against so-called lookalikes would restrict legitimate competition and reduce consumer choice.
      Even if one accepts the need for measures directed against lookalikes, it would not have been possible to deal with them in this Bill, which is about trade marks. A lookalike product may, in an extreme case, copy most of the features of a brand leader, but the one thing that it does not copy is the trade mark. As I said in response to a written answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), the Bill broadens the definition of what may be registered as a trade mark, so that distinctive attributes of goods, such as their packaging or shape, may be considered for registration as trade marks. The owners of such trade marks then have the right to take action for infringements against anyone using the same or similar marks on the same or similar goods.
      The Bill should, therefore, be given a chance to work. If, once it has been in force for a reasonable period, it can be demonstrated that there continues to be a problem, the Government will be prepared to look again at the situation.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: If, after the period to which the Minister has just referred, the Government were minded to take action on the matter, in what context and form would they attempt to deal with it legislatively?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I said that we will look at the matter after some time, but I cannot at the moment anticipate what will come out as a result of any inquiry that we decide is necessary. The hon. Gentleman cannot get any more than that at the moment because I believe that the Bill goes some way to meeting some of those concerns. I should just like to cover a few others points and the hon. Member may come back later if he wishes.
      We certainly understand the points made by the major brand owners. While we are firmly in favour of robust competition, some of the examples of lookalike products do seem to be close to the boundary between what is fair in business and what is not. I would therefore like to warn the producers of those goods. If they continue to sail close to the wind, there will undoubtedly be pressure on the Government and, as I have said, we would look at the matter again.
      I know that all hon. Members wish to see the Bill pass on to the statute book and come into force as soon as possible. In particular, there is pressure to bring into force those provisions of the Bill that deal with counterfeiting, so that they are available to trading standards officers to deal with the peak period for the sale of counterfeit goods in the run-up to Christmas. We are sympathetic to that call, and the Government will consider a timetable for implementation to determine by how much the planned date of I December 1994 can be brought forward.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I welcome that, because the Minister has gone half way. Does he recognise that there are two peak periods for counterfeiters? There is a peak sales period in August, which he has not mentioned, and one in December. Will the Government tackle the problems in August, which have been identified by the CBI and the anti-counterfeiting group?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I know that this point does concern the hon. Gentleman. Amendments have been made and the Bill will not have completed its stages once we are finished here tonight. That will depend upon progress in another place. I am keen to see the provisions relating to that type of counterfeiting brought into action as quickly as possible.
      I am grateful for the constructive and speedy way in which the Bill has been considered by the House. That speed has recognised the Bill's importance to industry and commerce, and to companies and small traders alike. A modern trade mark system is long overdue. This was a manifesto commitment two years ago and I am glad to be able to help discharge it. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Insurance
  7.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I beg to move,
  That the draft Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
  As with the previous measure, I am bringing before the House another useful piece of legislation. This, I am often told, is not characteristic of the Government's policies generally, in which case we may be breaking the mould today.
  The directives that the regulations implement will be of significant benefit to the people of this country. We in the United Kingdom are fortunate, in that the system of prudential supervision in insurance which is established by the directives reflects our own system of supervision, based on freedom with disclosure. The directives in effect export our regulatory system to other member states, many of which have operated more restrictive systems than we do. One of the most important benefits of the directives—the easing of such restrictions in other member states, and hence the opening of their markets to us—does not therefore appear in the draft regulations that are before the House for approval tonight.
  Having said that, I should explain that the directives do not harmonise the rules operated by supervisory authorities throughout the European Community, apart from a basic minimum. They rely instead on mutual recognition, which is much the best way of performing these functions. As such, they are consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
  The regulations are to be made under powers in the European Communities Act 1972 and mainly amend the insurance Companies Act 1982. Consequential amendments are made to the Financial Services Act 1986. They relate to the prudential supervision of life and non-life insurance—although in the case of Lloyd's some similar changes will be required to the byelaws.
  If I were to attempt to give the House a detailed and blow-by-blow account of the purpose of each regulation, we should probably be here all night. Instead, I have provided the House with notes on the regulations, copies of which are available from the Library. I hope that hon. Members have found those useful. That leaves me free to highlight the more important provisions of the directives, and the implementing regulations, and to offer comment on what I see as the benefits that the directives bring to insurers and consumers throughout the Community.
  The third insurance directives established the so-called "single passport" principle for insurance companies. That principle has already been adopted for banks and building societies. It will mean that any insurance company with its head office in a member state of the European Community may carry on direct insurance business through a branch in another member state, or provide direct insurance from one member state into another, on the basis of the authorisation that it receives from the supervisory authority in the state in which its head office is situated. For these purposes, that is called the home state. The immediate benefit of those arrangements for United Kingdom insurers is that, instead of having to comply with the often quite onerous supervisory requirements of each member state where they have a branch, they will only need to submit one return to the Secretary of State in respect of all their business.

  85
  Similarly, United Kingdom branches of companies with head offices in other member states will no longer have to submit returns to the Secretary of State. Another benefit is that companies will no longer have to submit their proposed premium rates and policy conditions for prior approval by the supervisory authorities in the member states where they intend to market their insurance products.
  The single passport will not extend to companies whose business is restricted to reinsurance business, to certain small mutual companies that are below a specified threshold or to companies whose head office is outside the European Community.
  For companies whose head offices are in the European Free Trade Association states of Austria, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and for life insurance companies whose head office is in Finland, the authority of the single passport will be valid throughout the 17 states in the European Economic Area once those states and the European Community have ratified the extension of the EEA agreement. This will require a further set of regulations in due course.
  Companies that do not get the single passport will still be able to benefit from other changes in the regulations that I have made recently—notably, the ability to take into account the value of rights under new financial instruments such as derivatives and stock-lending transactions in valuing the assets that they must hold to cover their insurance liabilities.
  The single passport procedures are set out in schedules 6 and 7 to the third directives regulations. Even in a single market, it is important for supervisory authorities to know which companies are carrying on business in their countries and for the companies themselves to know what laws will apply to them. The regulations therefore require that an EC company wishing to use its passport in the United Kingdom must be recognised. This means that the company's home state authorities must notify the Secretary of State of its intention to carry on direct insurance business through a branch in the United Kingdom, or to provide direct insurance into the United Kingdom, and supply the Secretary of State with certain prescribed information about its proposed business, its authorisation and its solvency. Similarly, a United Kingdom company must supply to the Secretary of State information about its proposed activities, which the Secretary of State will forward to the relevant authorities in the target member state.
  A consequential amendment to the Financial Services Act will ensure that an EC company will be automatically treated as authorised under that Act in the same way as United Kingdom authorised insurers already are.
  A fundamental requirement in the directives is that
  "member States shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the competent authorities have the powers and means necessary for the supervision of the business of insurance undertakings with head offices within their territories…and for the purpose of seeing that they are implemented".
  They must also take into account
  "the need to ensure the sound and prudent management of an insurance undertaking".
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be absolutely essential for the high standard and prudent supervision of insurance companies that Ministers in other member states can reassure British Ministers of the high standards of supervisory regulation
  86
  and compliance? Otherwise there will be a danger of lower standards in those countries coming into this country by the back door.
  Mr. Hamilton: I understand the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), although they may be misplaced. The Commission will certainly take its policing role very seriously, as will the Government. I am perfectly satisfied that no dangers will arise as a result of our exporting our system of supervision into other parts of the European Community; in fact, that offers great opportunities for our insurance businesses to break into markets which, if not entirely closed to them, have at least placed many obstacles in their path. On the whole, this liberalising measure will be of great benefit not only to European consumers of insurance services but to British business consumers because of the extra competition which it brings. I do not underestimate the fears that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South has expressed. We will certainly be vigilant to ensure that the interests of the public are fully protected in the opening up of new markets that I have described.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend say clearly and objectively that the directives will ensure free trade for British-based insurance firms seeking to do business in life and non-life insurance? On the two previous occasions on which we have had directives that apparently secured free trade, we found, on inquiry, that all kinds of restrictions operated—between mass risks and large risks and also on the initiator of inquiries on life business. Will British-based companies really now have total freedom to seek life and non-life business on the continent—subject, of course, to the derogations obtained by Germany and Denmark?
  Mr. Hamilton: My understanding is that the directives will open up the European market in the way that I have described. As the internal market Minister and deregulation Minister in our Government, I am very anxious to take advantage of those opportunities. I cannot guarantee that there may not be attempts to inhibit the working of the market. However, I can assure my hon. Friend—with whom I share many prejudices in this respect—that I will be particularly keen to ensure that the opportunities that I have mentioned are not in any way minimised. If any obstacles are placed before our companies to prevent them from developing in the way that I hope, the British Government will be foremost in seeking to use a crowbar to prise open those markets that may be partially closed to us.
  The directives require member states to ensure that insurance companies are soundly and prudently managed —the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South raised. I have listed criteria for sound and prudent management in schedule 1 to the draft regulations. Although the criteria are not, for the most part, new, by bringing them together, I have given them a better focus and proper weight. I have also introduced additional powers enabling the Secretary of State to investigate companies and obtain documents for the purpose of ensuring that the criteria are complied with. Failure to comply with any of the criteria will be a ground for intervention by the Secretary of State.
  I have also introduced provisions that will enable the Secretary of State to assist a supervisory authority in another member state to exercise its functions in relation to

  87
  the United Kingdom branch of an insurance company under its supervision—for example, by facilitating or assisting in an on-the-spot investigation, or by preventing a company from disposing of or otherwise dealing in any assets that it maintains in the United Kingdom.
  In addition, I have introduced changes to the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the authorisation of insurance companies. One new and important provision that I should mention is the power to suspend a company's authorisation in urgent cases—regulation 11. Although the Secretary of State already has a power to withdraw a company's authorisation, the new power will permit a more flexible approach. Companies will be able to make representations against the suspension and if, in the event, the concerns of the Secretary of State that gave rise to the suspension are unfounded, the suspension will be lifted without the need for the company to reapply for authorisation. Thus, the new power should be in the interests of policyholders and companies alike.
  We emphasised in the consultative document published last December, and I emphasise again now, that these are reserve powers which I do not expect the Secretary of State to have to use unless genuinely necessary. In the vast majority of cases, United Kingdom insurers are soundly and prudently managed and in practice the provisions should have no effect on them.
  A further requirement of the directives is that a person must obtain the approval of the relevant supervisory authority each time he increases his shareholding or voting power in an insurance company above one of several specified thresholds. To implement that, I have introduced the concept of "shareholder controllers", defined in terms of the percentage of the shares or voting rights that a controller holds. A person becomes a shareholder controller if he acquires a holding of 10 per cent. or more of the shares in the company, or is able to exercise 10 per cent. or more of the voting power at a general meeting of the company. Subsequent notifiable thresholds are at 20 per cent., 33 per cent., 50 per cent. and at the point at which the person becomes a majority shareholder controller. Notification and the approval of the Secretary of State is required on each occasion on which control is increased above those thresholds. Notification of decreases below the thresholds is also required.
  Another important obligation in the directives, which is already placed on banking supervisory authorities, requires supervisory authorities not to divulge information that they have received in confidence in the course of exercising their functions without the consent of the originator; however, information may be disclosed to certain authorities without prior consent if the disclosure would assist that authority to discharge specified functions. Those permitted disclosures are listed in schedule 2 to the draft regulations.
  The provisions on transfers of insurance contracts from one company to another have been revised. Under the principle of home state control, responsibility for authorising a transfer between two companies with their head offices in the EC rests solely with the home state, but is subject to the consent of other member states that have an interest. The rules are, however, unchanged in other
  88
  cases. I have found it clearest to set out all the transfer rules in a new schedule to the Insurance Companies Act 1982 —schedule 3 to the draft regulations.
  The changes brought about by the directives have provided an opportunity to review the assets that a company may value as cover for its liabilities. In line with developments in other financial services sectors, the directives recognise the increasing use of derivative contracts such as options, futures and contracts for differences, and also stock-lending transactions.
  In response to requests from the insurance industry, I have, to a limited extent, deregulated the current provisions to give insurers new freedom to count the value of rights under such contracts as admissible, subject to conditions. Those conditions should go a long way towards ensuring that the severe losses that we read about from time to time, which result from inappropriate use of derivatives, do not happen in the insurance sector.
  I have taken account of comments made in response to the consultative document about the proposed new treatment of debts. The regulations that I have made recently have been framed to meet those concerns.
  I have also introduced changes to the rules on determination of liabilities to reflect the provisions of the directives.
  The directives introduce new rules relating to the make-up of an insurer's required margin of solvency. Companies may take into account cumulative preference share capital and subordinated loan capital, known as "hybrid capital", up to prescribed percentages of that margin. I have not made provision in the regulations for the new rules on subordinated loan capital, as, for the time being, I intend to consider the proposed use of these instruments by companies on a case-by-case basis.
  The measures should assist insurance companies, especially mutuals, to raise new capital and to compete effectively with other financial services sectors, while ensuring that their assets and liabilities continue to be prudently valued.
  In due course, I intend to consult on further possible deregulation, for example in relation to the form and content of the annual return that insurance companies are required to submit.
  A new requirement of the directives is that prospective policyholders should receive certain information about the contract before they enter into it. In the case of life assurance, some information must also be provided to policyholders during the term of the contract. United Kingdom life companies are already used to providing some prescribed information in relation to life policies that are investment contracts and thus covered by rules made under the Financial Services Act. The new requirements of the third life directive are not materially different.
  An additional requirement, however, is that some information must now be given during the term of the contract. Some concern has been expressed by insurers, particularly about the requirement for annual disclosure of bonuses. While this is current practice in most cases, some contracts will be newly affected. I have therefore taken insurers' concerns into account in implementing the requirement, so as to minimise the cost of compliance. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important for consumers properly to understand the important aspects of their insurance policies, especially before they commit themselves. The regulations balance that objective with what I recognise is a burden on business.

  89
  Finally, on the scope of the regulations, I should mention the two new certificates that I am requiring. First, the directives require member states to
  "require every insurance undertaking to have sound administrative procedures and adequate internal control mechanisms".
  Although many companies do have fully adequate systems, others need to make improvements. Moreover, systems need to be progressively updated to ensure that they remain adequate.
  In response to our original proposal to implement this requirement, companies expressed concern that an inappropriate form of certificate would lead to an escalation of audit costs, well beyond what could be justified by the benefits flowing from improved systems. In the regulations that I made recently I have reduced the requirement to a certificate listing the published guidance with which a company's systems comply.
  I propose also that, from 1 January 1996, directors should be required to certify the general adequacy of the financial control systems that they have to meet the various regulatory requirements. I need to consult further on the form of such a certificate and will bring forward regulations in due course. This advance notice should prove adequate to allow those companies who need to make improvements to do so in good time.
  The third life directive requires life companies to ensure that premiums for new business are sufficient, subject to certain conditions, to meet their commitments to policyholders. In addition to introducing that principle into the legislation, I am requiring the appointed actuary to certify the adequacy of the company's premium rates. It will be important to be able to confirm, in response to any inquiries that we may receive, that a company's rates are adequate, and the certificate should serve to provide that confirmation.
  All member states are drafting comprehensive regulations along the lines of those that I have laid before Parliament. Some member states will implement the directives on time, as we will by the approval of these regulations; others, alas, will be late, although for some the delay may only be a matter of a few weeks.
  Nevertheless, to ensure that there is no gap in regulation of United Kingdom branches of companies with their head offices in a member state that has not implemented on time, I have included a transitional provision that will allow the Secretary of State to continue to regulate such branches until such time as those states have fully or substantially implemented the directives.
  The House has fully supported the single market generally and, in relation to these regulations, the single market for insurance in particular. As I said at the start, the directives reflect closely the United Kingdom system of supervision. With the abolition of prior approval of premium rates and policy wordings, and the reduced annual compliance returns, insurers will have more freedom to operate in the single market and offer the highly innovative and competitive products that they have been able to develop in the United Kingdom over the years. Although in practice there will be no big bang on 1 July, United Kingdom insurers have a lot to offer policyholders in the EC and, before long, the EEA.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend simply bear in mind—as he has sought to do—the fact that one of the difficulties for United Kingdom insurers competing with other investment products that are not insurance policies is
  90
  that, even under the regulations to implement the third life directive, UK insurers will be required to produce ever more information, and we do not have an equivalent requirement for regulations to be provided by banks and buildings societies competing with insurers in the provision of investment products? Will my hon. Friend continue to look, as he has in drafting the Government's response to that directive, at the burdens of regulation on UK insurers?
  Mr. Hamilton: I need not assure my hon. Friend that deregulation and the burdens that the Government can impose on businesses are at the top of my agenda. Naturally, we must strike a balance—as the Foreign Secretary often says—but the Government may pay attention to differing interests, and the protection of policyholders is vital. We must be certain that when we require firms to fill in forms and provide information to Government, that information is worth collecting and the costs that we impose are justified by the benefits to the public. I assure my hon. Friend that that technique has run throughout my consideration of how we might implement the directives. I am currently looking at a variety of ways in which we can reduce the bureaucratic form-filling burden imposed on insurance companies without prejudicing the wider interests of policyholders and others.
  From time to time, particularly with the recent improvements in technology, it will be possible for us to streamline our processes of information obtaining, retrieval and use. I hope that, in time, the costs to insurance companies of the regulatory requirements that the Government impose will diminish. Compared to the current costs of operating elsewhere in the European Community, the highly deregulatory regime that will now be introduced will substantially reduce the costs of British firms. Because they have operated in a much freer, more flexible market in Britain over the years, they should be more nimble of foot and, perhaps, more surefooted in the development of innovative products than their potential competitors across the Channel. A combination of those two things should provide many profitable business opportunities for our companies.
  I hope that these regulations will help United Kingdom insurers to remain strong and competitive in Europe through the introduction of home state control, and I commend them to the House.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: There will be heartfelt relief in the financial centres of Europe that, on 1 July 1994 when the directives come into force, they will not have the effect of "Big Bang". We are all grateful to know that, as one Big Bang in the City of London in a lifetime is enough for us all.
  The Minister's speech was interesting as he spoke about future regulation in relation to how derivatives affect the insurance sector. I am glad to hear that the Government are concerned about the derivatives market, which is a mystery to us all. Output options and share options can be hedged against different currencies and I surmise that the present fall in the stock market is indirectly caused by margin calls on derivative contracts in the United States. It is important to put on record on the Floor of the House our overall concern about the future of the derivatives market.
  My response to the Minister's speech follows on from his winding-up of our previous debate on the second

  91
  directive. Those of us who have been through the first and second directives are now happy to be at the third one. When the Minister introduced the second directive, he said that the Government attached high priority to the completion of the single market in insurance. The second directive and the regulations that we are discussing represent a small but useful step. The Minister said that he looked forward to bringing before the House regulations to implement the third directive, which would grant a single passport to European Community insurers and make the single market a reality.
  It is always a pleasure to follow the Minister and equally pleasant to speak on this directive without repeating the same speech as I made on the second directive. In creating a single passport for insurers, we are mirroring directives already in effect for banks and building societies. That fact might strike a chord with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). It is now possible for three strands of our financial market—banks, building societies and insurers—to do business in other member states on the basis of the authorisation that they receive in their head office's member state. That will encourage, rather than detract from, the concept of bancassurance.
  Over the past few years, we have seen how markets have been changing in that respect. Banks have set up their own life assurance companies; building societies have entered into alliance with life offices; building societies want to become banks; and a bank has even wanted to become a building society—or rather, take over a building society. As the directives flow together, we may see the continuation of the trend towards bancassurance. So, too, will the trend within the global economy of national insurance companies joining forces with continental insurance companies to get the best out of the single market through the directives.
  We welcome the news that Commercial Union has sought to avail itself of the advantages of the single market by buying into France. It will obviate its need to enter the market of its own accord with its celebrated initials, CU, which have an entirely different connotation in France. Its acquisition of the whole of Abeille Assurance, the whole of the existing life assurance company, Abeille Vie, and 50 per cent. of the new life assurance business coming through AFER, the French savings association, show the advantages of the single market.
  The Minister said that the House has generally supported the single market in the years since the Single European Act 1986. Certain sectors of the House have misunderstood it, but it has received a friendly welcome overall. In the dynamic modern economy that is to deliver opportunity to all its people—not merely to a limited number—as advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), we have no hostility to bancassurance.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a specific company's recent acquisition of a French company, but I am sure that he would wish to take the opportunity of joining me in congratulating a range of UK insurance companies which, for many years, have developed interests on the far side of the channel. Several life companies, including one that I used to work for but in which I have no continuing interest, have for many years
  92
  had extremely detailed links with, and in some cases ownership of, continental insurance companies and/or savings institutions.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Gentleman and for the fact that companies in Germany, Italy and France have involved themselves in our country and have bought into insurance companies here. There is therefore a two-way traffic as a result of the single market and we see that, in an ancient phrase but one which is nevertheless useful, we take in each other's washing when it comes to insurance and we both benefit from the free market.
  On the bancassurances, we wish gently to point out to the Government and the Minister that we must worry a little about the consequence of the horizontal mergers or takeovers where the result of such takeovers is that the financial markets are dominated by no more than six or seven of the largest producers and distributors of financial products. Although we have all agreed on the Floor of the House that it is important that the single market should be continued and balanced and that we should all benefit from it, it does not yet offer the celebrated level playing field.
  Many insurance companies seeking to make a major move into continental Europe have to be sure of the route that they are taking. Acquisition is one route; going it alone is another. The essential element of a successful penetration of the continental European insurance market is access to distribution—not unlike in our own market. Many of the major broker networks are tied in to existing insurance companies and banks are increasingly moving into the insurance business, so new entrants find it extremely difficult to establish a major foothold.
  In relation to the earlier intervention of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, aided and supported indirectly by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), there are other elements to the so-called level playing field. Protection—that pariah to the free market—can also raise its head and may be written into the single market through differing tax regimes. They may reduce the ease with which insurance products can be transported across borders. They may indirectly protect the home market for the local insurance player. Local legal requirements, as regards policy wording and the form of cover that insurers need to provide, are but one further complication that insurers attempting to move into the new market must confront.
  Notwithstanding the single market, therefore, the home team, as with most home teams, will continue to have an advantage simply because it is the home team. The footballing cogniscenti are no doubt widespread in the Chamber tonight—we are, after all, no doubt watching the world cup, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said from a sedentary position. In terms of the level playing field, it is rather like Yeovil Town playing Sunderland at home in the FA cup. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) tut-tuts from a sedentary position, but I am sure that as a Whip he wants us all to get home early tonight and would not wish to prolong my speech by provoking me into extending it.
  The directives before the House amend mainly, as the Minister said, the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and they also make consequential changes, which were the words that he used, to the effect of the Financial Services Act 1986. We can see that the home member state shall be

  93
  solely responsible for the control of an insurance company's financial position, including compliance with solvency margins, technical provisions and matching requirements.
  I notice that I have mentioned the phrase, "solvency margins" and the Minister said that those directives would have some impact on byelaws at Lloyd's of London. This is the time of year when we are told that we should be worrying about the solvency margins of Lloyd's. This is the time that we are told that Lloyd's may be in a meltdown situation. This is the time that accountants begin to worry whether Lloyd's is in full compliance with its solvency margins. I am always reassured to know that Lloyd's has about £6 billion of assets and that it can meet its solvency margins many times over, but it is right to reflect on the anxieties that are felt and there is no better place to reflect them than the Floor of the House of Commons.
  Lloyd's is an important—an integral—part of our insurance market. It is an integral part of the City of London. We wish the Lloyd's management well in their endeavours to put the past behind them and to get on with the future, but it is right to place on record many of the anxieties.
  I was discussing the supervisory requirements in the directives and the ways in which they will affect the regulation of insurance companies whose head office is in our jurisdiction. We are all aware, and I think that we would all agree, that the Government have made a dog's breakfast of their regulatory regime. Yet that is the regime that should govern the substance of the directives. Is it self-regulation? Is it independent regulation? Is it statutory regulation, all regulation being underpinned by the Financial Services Act 1986, which is being amended tonight? Or is the subject too perplexing? Even the City of London had become divided.
  Those people who will do business in our country under the directives will know that when it comes to their margin requirements they will look to the Department of Trade and Industry and its 90 or so insurers' supervisors, but to whom should they look to regulate their package of products and the marketing of those products?
  We have the Personal Investment Authority. The proposal to establish the PIA has been in the ether for about three years and it has managed to spend about £6 million even before it opens for business. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that it might now be appropriate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce legislation putting in place direct regulation, which would have the advantage that those continental European insurance companies wishing to set up here under those directives might know how they will be regulated. I can only repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central in the debate on private pensions:
  "The time has come for us to recognise that direct regulation is necessary. By direct regulation, I mean regulation by the SIB which would be answerable to Parliament."—[Official Report, 30 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 1027.]
  Reverting to the subject of the PIA, it is my view, and that of Her Majesty's Opposition, that it has yet to satisfy many of its would-be members that it knows the difference between aims and methods, training and competence, costs and standards, public interest and commercial interest, whether they have a prospectus or a game plan, a consultative document or an indicative document—in short, that it knows what it is doing. The question whether
  94
  the Department of Trade and Industry should be responsible for insurance supervision or whether that supervision should be part of the work of an overarching statutory organisation is perhaps a debate for another day.
  If I may quote my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield again—we are all anxious to have it on record that we are quoting him left, right and centre at this time—
  "We have to set out a new economic agenda for what will be very shortly a new millennium".
  There will have to be a full debate on statutory regulation of the City of London. That will be a part of a new economic agenda as to the appropriate way of regulating our insurance industry, within an overarching framework of statutory regulation.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman consider, when calling for statutory regulation, that the much-vaunted statutory regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States did not stop a large number of extremely complex, and costly to consumers, frauds happening in the USA? He might wish to consider whether statutory regulation, as opposed to the Securities and Investments Board here, would therefore be any answer.
  Mr. Bell: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that, in the first instance, we would not propose a full SEC. As for the second, it was through the SEC that the whistle was blown on the Guinness affair. The statutory regulation had a serious consequence in that context. It also would have ensured that there would be no prospect of the sort of catastrophe that has occurred at Lloyd's in the past few years.
  As you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as alert as ever—I do not intend to wander too far from the subject of the directives. We are grateful to the Minister for keeping his promise of 12 January 1993. We are glad to see that all member states are introducing the enabling legislation and that France, Portugal, the Netherlands and possibly Denmark and Germany expect to implement the regulations by 1 July. We noted the Minister's hope that other states would follow. We can only say that the mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly small, even in terms of regulation through the European Community—or the European Union. Other member states will follow in the next two to three months.
  It has long been the ambition of the much-maligned European Commission to make it possible for insurance companies established in any member state to provide services freely throughout the European Union. It has long been the Commission's ambition for insurers to be subject to similar controls in each of the member states where they might wish to open offices. It has long been its ambition for policyholders to have a wider choice of insurers, and to be able to cover their risks—wherever they are situated within the Union—through the insurer of their choice. For the United Kingdom, those ambitions have come closer tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Insurance
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      VOCATIONAL TRAINING: LEONARDO DA VINCI PROGRAMME
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4187/94 and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 23rd May 1994, relating to vocational training (LEONARDO DA VINCI programme); shares the Government's view that appropriate transnational actions on vocational training can add value to national training activities by enabling exchanges of best practice; and endorses the Government's view that such actions must be cost-effective and fully in line with subsidiarity, in particular as regards consistency with the recognition in Treaty Article 127 that member states are responsible for the content and organisation of vocational training.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
      Question agreed to.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Litter (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

      INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

      AGRICULTURE
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1302), dated 13th May 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

    MEMBERS' INTERESTS
    Ordered,
    That Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and Mr. William Etherington and Mr. Andrew Mitchell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    LIAISON
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Andrew F. Bennett be added to the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Sport
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I rise to address a packed Chamber at what I would normally describe as a late hour, but tonight I have to describe it as a ridiculously early hour. Hansard would pick up my lie if I said that it was late when in fact it is particularly early. I know that that is welcome to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I do not wish to extend the debate until 10.30 pm, as I could do if I wished. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that, although I intend to take a little time, I do not intend to take as much as that.
  I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) is present, as I know that a constituent of his has a problem similar to the one that I am about to describe. I hope that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), who is concerned about issues relating to this, will also be able to speak if I finish early.
  I wish to examine the position in which a constituent of mine finds himself, and to highlight a major problem in the way in which the Football Association conducts itself. An intolerable trading environment has led to a complete lack of free market—not a position that I would expect the Government to support. The Football Association has two positions simultaneously: it is both poacher and gamekeeper, watchdog and profit-maker. It can exclude people from the marketplace, while at the same time entering that marketplace to promote its own products, which may or may not have sponsorship.
  Oddly enough, I have received a large amount of post since I took up the matter and secured this Adjournment debate. I confess that I was surprised by the interest engendered by something as small as an Adjournment debate among ordinary people around the country and others involved in businesses. They have written to me drawing attention to difficulties faced by those who want to get their products into the marketplace but are forced to abandon their objective because of the intransigence of the Football Association.
  My constituent, Steve Aldridge, received the UK patent for a game called Futbolito—a mini-football game—in 1989. The concept comes from South America, and has been used there. Having seen the game, I believe that it provides a stepping stone to the real game of soccer, giving children basic skills and an understanding of all the necessary features of the game. It is played by small teams using small goals that can be set up outside in limited environments such as playgrounds, or even on playing fields.
  In 1989, my constituent contacted the Football Association to ask for consideration to develop the mini-football game for the benefit of the national game. He was told by the FA's director of coaching, Mr. Charles Hughes, that pursuing the project could be of no particular value to the FA; that was after some examination of it. My constituent, however, continued to believe that there was a genuine need and demand for the game, and went on to launch Futbolito in 1992.
  In April 1992, my constituent received a letter from the FA saying that it was going to launch mini-soccer, which would be the only—I stress the word "only"—approved game for youngsters in the six to 11 age range. The game

  97
  was to be sponsored by Coca-Cola, which I think sets the matter in a slightly larger perspective. Coca-Cola also promoted and sponsored the national soccer show in 1993, at Birmingham's national exhibition centre.
  Interestingly, one of the problems encountered by my constituent was the fact that both he and his product Futbolito were prevented from being present. He gathered later on, and I have discovered, that Coca-Cola wanted the mini-football that it had sponsored to have exclusive rights at the event. Only after it withdrew its sponsorship did the organisers tell my constituent that he could demonstrate his game and attend the show. My constituent's problems continue—a catalogue of problems, which illustrate the fact that the FA has a tremendous amount of power. It seems that, with just a nod and a wink, it can restrict the possibilities for people such as my constituent to pursue their rightful business interests.
  Despite oral and written approvals of my constituent's teaching and coaching aid by FIFA, and an oral approval of the equipment by the English Schools Football Association, the Referees Association and others such as the Bobby Charlton soccer school, the FA still denies approval for the product. The irony is that in many discussions the ESFA gave my constituent plenty of assistance, expressing the view orally that the equipment was perfectly all right and that it hoped that he would receive FA approval. In trying to secure written approval from the English Schools Football Association, my constituent wrote some 20 letters, but the association did not reply. It was happy to talk on the telephone, but it never put anything in writing. I suggest that that indicates a certain fear of what might happen should it break the line and state in writing that it considered the product good.
  My constituent has never sought sponsorship or other finance from the FA. He really only wants approval for his game, so that he can go out and compete with other products in the market. The only product that is FA approved at present happens also to be the FA's product.
  Since being denied the FA's approval, Mr. Aldridge has been virtually put out of business. Were it not for his tenacious attitude in making the project work, by now he would have gone under. He has been invited to demonstrate his product at certain venues, in particular at the start of a football match in Yeovil in August 1992 and, later that month, in Loughborough. However, on both occasions he was told at virtually the last minute that he could not demonstrate his product.
  Having been refused approval for his product, Mr. Aldridge has found it virtually impossible to demonstrate Futbolito. It appears that once the FA discovers that he is about to demonstrate his product, it find ways to contact the organisers and sponsors and—surprise, surprise—the invitation to demonstrate is hurriedly withdrawn.
  Sir Michael Grylls: The dismal and worrying catalogue of events that have beset my hon. Friend's constituent have been almost exactly reflected in the experience of one of my constituents, Mr. Mickey Clarke who lives in Egham. He invented a similar mini-football game and has been treated disgracefully by the FA. My hon. Friend the Minister has been given the facts and I know that he is considering them carefully.
  The case of my constituent adds force to what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) has said. Something should be done. The Football Association seems to be omnipotent. If it were a commercial company
  98
  it would be outlawed by the Office of Fair Trading. Indeed, if it were trading across European Community boundaries it would be fined heavily by the Commission. Perhaps the OFT could do something. I certainly support my hon. Friend in all that he has said.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: As my hon. Friend clearly explained, his constituent has a problem similar to that of my constituent. Indeed, his constituent has also written to me with copies of his correspondence—not because he expects me to check up on my hon. Friend, but because his case bears such a remarkable similarity to the issues surrounding my constituent's problem. I know that my hon. Friend has assiduously pursued his constituent's case, probably with much the same results as I have achieved on behalf of my constituent. I wish my hon. Friend's constituent the very best of luck, although I gather from the correspondence that he is having tremendous difficulty getting any results. Indeed, he is probably shorter of his objective than my constituent is.
  The main problem for my constituent relates to demonstrations. On one occasion he was prevented from demonstrating Futbolito at an English Schools Football Association event literally as he was about to go on to the pitch. After a series of telephone calls from the Football Association, the ESFA was left in that hazy area of not being told directly "thou shalt not", but having it made quite clear that if it were the FA's decision, it certainly would not do so. I gather that in the football world that is tantamount to saying, "Don't do it." The ESFA then withdrew my constituent's invitation as he was about to go on to the pitch to demonstrate the product. Yet before inviting him it knew that he did not have official FA approval. The truth is that the FA did not like the fact that my constituent had been invited to demonstrate his competitive product.
  It is difficult for my constituent to promote his product to schools. Imagine his position. He writes to a school and suggests that he goes there to demonstrate his product or talk about it. The school—especially if it is an inner-city school—looks at his literature and thinks the product is a good idea. Then the person reading the literature realises that he does not have FA approval, or perhaps in conversation with him they ask, "Does this product have FA approval?" The answer is no, in which case they say, "Well, we shall probably look instead at the FA approved products," little realising that in fact there is but one approved product, which also happens to be the FA's product. The schools do not understand all that; they simply look for the FA badge of approval. That is right because they want something approved on the grounds that it is reasonably safe and is a good game that teaches children the right skills. That is what they are looking for, but it is not the essence of why FA approval has been withheld.
  The FA makes money from its approved version of mini-football. It also sells a variety of other things over which it has control of approval. Like Futbolito, the FA is a limited company and therefore quite legitimately—I do not criticise this—seeks to make a profit from its mini-football game. However, it has a massive advantage as it can at the same time—this is my major point—deny its competitors the official approval that it gives to itself.
  There are differences between the two games. One is smaller than the other and in one sense they do not directly compete—yet still approval is not given. What is the FA so

  99
  scared of that it refuses to give my constituent an opportunity to compete in the open marketplace? What is so much to be feared that my constituent cannot be allowed to demonstrate his game so that those wishing to buy a game can make a decision on whether his is worth the money, whether it is a good game, whether it is cost-effective and all the other aspects that consumers take into consideration in making a choice? Instead, only one product is available.
  I do not want to go into detail about who stole whose idea. That is always a grey area. I am not saying that the FA set out to steal my constituent's idea, although there are disputes on the margins about when its product was devised and whether it got the idea in some part from my hon. Friend's constituent or from mine. The real point is that there should be a proper, competitive marketplace, but the FA is preventing that by refusing people such as my constituent a fair crack at selling their products.
  My son and daughter attend an inner-city school in London, which has a limited tarmac playing area about half the size of the Chamber. It would be perfect for my constituent's product, but would not be right for the FA's larger mini-soccer product. Such schools are denied the opportunity to consider Futbolito and therefore to encourage their children to kick a ball around.
  I am passionate about the concept of team sports, as is my hon. Friend the Minister. I criticise both this and past Governments for laying less and less emphasis on the need for children to compete with each other, learning what it is like to win at the same time and, more importantly, learning what it is like to lose—to learn to live with failure as well as with success. The best way to do that is go out and kick a ball around or, in the summer, to hit a cricket ball—the sort of things that we used to enjoy doing when we were young, but which are now rarely available for children. They spend far too long sitting in front of computers playing computer games; they have forgotten what it is like to compete.
  We must try to reverse that trend. My hon. Friend the Minister is one of the great supporters of the concept of team sports. This debate is not just about my constituent, although his case is vital; it not just about the fact that we no longer have a proper, competitive marketplace, although that is also vital; it is about the fact that at the heart of the problem there is a sickness that affects the way in which we can draw talent from all our children. It is no wonder that we find it difficult at times to get people into coaching and into senior sides and end up producing a side in England, Scotland, or Wales that does not go off to the world cup.
  It is ironic that I am holding this debate tonight when I watched television on Saturday night and applauded the Irish for their fantastic effort in beating the Italians. I applauded them because they showed every bit of the determination and drive that we should have done in this country. I do not necessarily blame just the players; I blame the whole system and at the heart of that system is the Football Association, which illustrates that sickness by the way in which it has behaved towards my constituent and others.
  I must press my hon. Friend the Minister on the matter because we need to do something about it. I am the last person to say that something must be done, but I have to
  100
  say it in this case because we have a problem. It is not only about sorting out how football is played, but about the fact that there is a lack of competition in that marketplace. We are allowing the Football Association to act almost as gods. My hon. Friend and I have had considerable correspond-ence on the matter. Although the Government's position is that it is not their place to interfere in the matter, and I understand that argument, the booklet about mini-soccer states:
  "The sponsorship of Mini-Soccer by Coca Cola Great Britain has been recognised by an award under the Government's Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme for Sport, `Sportsmatch', which is administered in England by the Institute of Sports Sponsorship."
  It appears, therefore, that we are putting some money towards the product. I am not questioning whether that was right or suggesting that this sponsorship is in any way is wrong. I am questioning the decision that we should do nothing when clearly something needs to be done. We have an entrée because we gave the FA—reasonably enough, it would be appear—sponsorship to deal with the problem of getting children on to the pitch to play football, so let us ensure that there is proper competition and that there is not unfair use by the FA of its position.
  I believe that there needs to be a separation between the FA's right to approve products and its right to produce products for itself. Let us start there. Let us find a way to separate those powers and we may see a Football Association which moves forward to protect and encourage the game across the country. We must do that and get those basics right, because my constituent, who worked very hard and put up a large amount of money to try to get his product off the ground, is being forced towards bankruptcy because he cannot get a fair shot at the market. Most people listening to or reading the debate would think such a situation absurd and I demand that we do something about it: some mechanism must be found to get inside the FA and sort it out.
  8.42 pm
  Ms Kate Hoey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) for allowing me a few moments to speak in the debate. I congratulate him on his persistence in trying to get the topic discussed, because, under the rules of the House, it has been extremely difficult. However, we now have a useful debate raising the subject of the Department of National Heritage's responsibility for sport.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall not take advantage of the fact that we could talk for another hour and three quarters on this topic or widen my remarks too much to go into the Department's responsibility. However, the topic raised by the hon. Gentleman is a useful opportunity to raise one or two points about the Football Association generally, for which the Minister, in his responsibility for sport generally and, especially, for football, which is the national game, loved and cared for by so many millions of people, has ultimate responsibility, even though the FA is responsible for the game.
  I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Gentleman and his views on Futbolito. I have also been involved—obviously not as much as the hon. Gentleman—with the case. I also know about the other case to which the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) referred.
  However, I shall raise first an issue of concern to me: the scheme called Soccerfun. It is also a new, innovative

  101
  scheme, which was devised by Mr. Terry Densham. It is in a similar situation, although it has not quite gone to the length of the case about Futbolito. It is also a game for five to seven-year-old boys and girls in family groups. It has been developed, there have been many meetings and it has been started following meetings in Leeds, Watford and Manchester.
  The Junior and Family Football Supporters Association asked Soccerfun to introduce sessions to eight clubs during the summer of 1992. It was proposed, if the scheme was successful, to provide the other 67 major football clubs with the results and to recommend the introduction of Soccerfun. The condition, once again, was that the FA had to give approval in writing. Unfortunately, in spite of repeated attempts, meetings and discussions, two years later a dialogue is still continuing, but absolutely nothing has happened. It is just another example of the way in which the FA use its power to control and its power to divide and decide what it wants to do and what is in the best interests of football.
  I think that the average person in the country who cares about football would say that the last body in Britain that could organise, care and understand football is the FA, because it has had a series of failures. If people are absolutely honest, they would not blame the England players or even the England manager, but they would blame the system in this country and the FA. The FA is responsible for football in the country and it has not served the game or the supporters well.
  There has recently been quite a lot of publicity about the charges and penalties as a result of the difficulties and scandals happening in football, especially relating to the problems at Tottenham Hotspur. Much as I want to see the underhand dealings, the kickbacks, the bungs in the envelopes and such matters sorted out, the way in which the FA has responded and dealt with the problems at Tottenham Hotspur has not done the attempts to get to the bottom of the matter any good whatever.
  I remind hon. Members that the FA set up a commission almost a year ago to look into those charges of financial dealings and nothing happened for months and months. Finally, the only occurrence has been that the chairman of Tottenham, Alan Sugar, went to the FA and produced some of the background, which he had found out since he joined the club—I do not want to get into the difficulties between Alan Sugar and Terry Venables—and there was no doubt that Tottenham came clean with the new chairman and produced as much documentation as they could. As a result, the club has been very badly treated. There is no doubt that it should have been fined, although, interestingly, the person responsible for most of the matter—Irving Scholar—is sunning it in the south of France and getting away with absolutely everything. The very least that the FA should have said was that Irving Scholar should have absolutely nothing to do with any football club and should never be allowed to have anything at all to do with football in this country. It has not even said that.
  The FA has taken the easy route out. It has punished the supporters; those people who pay their money week in and week out to watch Tottenham, when the team have not been doing especially well and when they have been doing well. Those people have paid their money on wet and cold nights and they have been punished. Indeed, the entire club is being punished for something for which the people who are curently running the club are not responsible. It is extremely unjust. It raises the question whether a vendetta
  102
  might be being waged by the FA against Tottenham in particular because of the difficulties that there were between Terry Venables and Alan Sugar. It would not do now, of course, given that Terry Venables has been appointed the manager of England, for him to be in any sort of difficulty. We must question whether the FA is prepared to get to the bottom of the financial irregularities. It should be taking a much more serious view and not picking on one club and using it as a scapegoat.
  The FA should be setting up independent tribunals to examine the ways in which players are sold from one club to another. There should be an independent tribunal system. There must be a great deal more control of agents. There was the ridiculous situation over the past few days concerning Eric Hall. I do not think that any player in this country would want Eric Hall to represent him. On the other hand, there are some good agents who are willing to be regulated. They are willing to put all their financial dealings through the FA. The association should be taking the lead from the good agents who want to work properly for the players.
  The FA fouled up the appointment of the England manager. It is to be questioned whether it is capable, as constituted, of running the game. It is all very well saying that it is the governing body of soccer and we should leave it to run things.
  Soccer is an important part of our sporting and cultural life and it matters what is happening to it. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Minister to be aware of who is running the FA. Who are the sort of people who are running it? Is it good enough to have people like Charles Hughes running the coaching system? The Minister should adopt a much more hands-on approach. He should be doing much more to knock heads together, to lay down guidelines and to insist that certain things are done. Ultimately, the average soccer supporter has only the Minister to help to change things. I hope that he will take on board some of the changes that are necessary.
  The way in which the FA has handled the television coverage of soccer is disgraceful. It has allowed television companies to decide when matches will be played. It has played into the hands of people who are interested only in making money. I recognise, of course, that clubs need to be financially sound. We want clubs to have sufficient money to enable them to buy players, for example. In the present climate, however, it is the ordinary punter who is suffering once again. I am talking of the person who goes along to a match, pays his money and tries to watch football. He has to go through the hoop to watch matches on a Monday evening. He travels long distances and pays large amounts of money. Such circumstances should not have been allowed to develop.
  One of the problems is that football is being run by people who are still living in the past. They have not moved into this century and they are certainly unprepared to move into the next. They are not in tune with the modern game. We have a responsibility in the House to take an interest in what is going on.
  Another problem is that many people, including some hon. Members, do not like criticising the FA because they like getting free tickets. It is wrong that, even in the House, we cannot make it clear that we think that there is a great deal more that could be done to clean out the game and to ensure that it is run by people who have an interest not only

  103
  in the players but in the supporters and, most important, in setting standards and targets that will mean that England will be able to qualify for the next world cup.
  The current problems lie not with the players or the standard of play but with those who are running the game and with the way in which it is being run. It is not being run in the interests of the players, and certainly not in the interests of supporters.
  Sir Michael Grylls: The hon. Lady referred to free tickets. I dissociate myself from the general proposition that Members have free tickets. I have never sought a free ticket and I have never been offered one. Indeed, I do not want one.
  Ms Hoey: I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman, to the hon. Member for Chingford or to the Minister when I talked about some people wanting free tickets. I feel that there is a cosiness, however, about the FA and the establishment generally that runs football in this country.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The problem lies with those who might want the odd free ticket—this is very much part of what I said earlier—and do not want to say something that might mean, whatever they are doing to run their end of football, that the FA might suddenly be breathing down their necks, saying that next time something comes up and it has the power to make a decision, it will decide against them. The problem extends right the way up to what the hon. Lady said about Spurs. It seems that those who are running the organisation see it as their personal sinecure. They seem to think that favours can be granted or not according to whatever is in their interests. It is an outrage and something must be done about it.
  Ms Hoey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a cosy establishment complacency that is based on how things were run in the past. The FA is not representative of those who understand football. It has no representative from the Professional Footballers Association. There are very few representatives who have come from the professional game. There is a ridiculous system of ticket allocation. On FA cup day, those who have followed the two teams right the way through often find that they are unable to get tickets for the Cup Final because so many of the tickets go to others who have no direct interest in the two clubs.
  Perhaps it is just as well that I did not realise that we would have so much time to debate these issues. With that knowledge, I would have prepared a 45-minute tirade against the FA. I shall, however, sound a warning to the Minister. I am worried about the European championships that England will be hosting in 1996. I am delighted that that is to happen, but I am genuinely worried whether the FA has the capacity to organise the championships in a way that will maximise the benefit to the United Kingdom, including the supporters and football generally.
  I am concerned because the FA still refuses to listen. It always acts too late. It reacts only when things have already happened. It is important that the Minister keeps a close eye on how the FA is working towards the championships. I am not talking about problems that relate to hooliganism, for example. Surely we want to maximise
  104
  a sporting festival for people in this country and others throughout the world. I have grave doubts about the FA's capacity to do that.
  I hope that the Minister will pick up the particular case which this debate is all about, because it is quite wrong that the buck can be passed. The Office of Fair Trading says that the case has nothing to do with it. The Minister responsible for sport says that it has nothing to do with him and the FA continues to get away with basically being the judge and jury. I hope that this debate, short as it is, will give the Minister something to get his teeth into. I am sure that he will welcome doing that.
  8.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. fain Sproat): May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on the persistence with which he has followed this case? He was in touch with my predecessor as Minister responsible for sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and he has spoken and written to me about it. His constituent should be glad, if for nothing else, for the hard work that my hon. Friend has put into this important case.
  I am also very glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) who is, typically, also in his place. He and I have had discussions and exchanged correspondence over many months about a similar case affecting his constituent called Mr. Mickey Clarke. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his hard work on behalf of his constituent.
  I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) in the Chamber. I congratulate her on the astute way in which she broadened this debate, entirely of course within the proper boundaries. She used the fact that we happened to begin the debate rather earlier than expected to set out many interesting and wide-ranging propositions. I assure her that I will study what she has said extremely carefully.
  I will answer in more detail in just a moment the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford about his constituent Mr. Aldridge. The hon. Member for Vauxhall said that she hoped that she had given me something to get my teeth into. She has certainly done that.
  I have listened very carefully and with great interest to the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford for Mr. Aldridge and I entirely agree that Futbolito appears to be a well-intentioned scheme for participants of all ages and for a wide range of users such as qualified football coaches, teachers, local community sports developments officers and football clubs at all levels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford will know that the concept of Futbolito originated from Colombia where football is played with a small ball on a pitch the size of a basketball court. I understand that Futbolito is already played in around 300 schools and by 19 professional clubs in this country and that it is the intention, as the scheme develops, to introduce local, county, national and, ultimately, international Futbolito championships.
  My Department does not, of course, have any jurisdiction to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of properly constituted governing bodies of sport such as the Football Association. As my hon. Friend the Member for

  105
  Chingford will be aware, the role of Government is to support and encourage the development of, and participation in, sport through appropriate policies and expenditure programmes. The Government do not, and should not, run sport.
  From our previous correspondence and from correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford will be aware that Mr. Aldridge's complaints about alleged anticompetitive practices by the FA have been fully investigated by the Director General of Fair Trading. In October 1992, following allegations that Futbolito demonstrations had been banned by the football authorities, the Office of Fair Trading made inquiries of the FA and the English Schools Football Association and the director general was satisfied that there had been no transgression of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.
  The director general also concluded in January 1993 that the FA's action had not breached the relevant competition legislation—the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to review commercial activities in the United Kingdom, identifying possible monopoly situations. Where criteria are met, he may at his discretion refer such situations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation.
  Under the Competition Act 1980, the director general may also investigate courses of conduct pursued by individual organisations that may be anti-competitive. I understand that he does not have powers to take up complaints on behalf of individuals; nor can he make judgments on what is fair, unless they raise concerns for competition in the wider context of the market as a whole. The director general was not persuaded that Mr. Aldridge's case raised such concerns.
  Hon. Members will know that four home country associations are responsible for football, each of which covers the school, amateur and professional aspects of the sport. The FA, formed in 1863 as the governing body of football in England, is responsible for an enormous range of activities at every level of the game. More than 43,000 clubs are affiliated and the FA has a crucial role in ensuring a healthy and successful base for the national game.
  Over recent years, the FA has expanded its activities and stepped up its commitment to the development of young players and the need to invest in the future of the game. The FA's programme for excellence has led to the creation of centres of excellence attended by more than 8,500 students between the ages of nine and 14. The development of that programme has been possible only because of the Football Association's determination to establish a financially secure base for its work. More money is now available to be directed at the grassroots of
  106
  the game, where the long-term future of the sport is being secured and underpinned by the Football Association in partnership with a range of other agencies.
  More than 100,000 children are coached annually on courses approved by the Football Association and by qualified FA coaches. They participate in a range of schemes, including the soccer star scheme, which is a skills award scheme for boys and girls aged six to 16; the preliminary soccer star scheme, which is for children with disabilities and learning difficulties; and in fun weeks, which are non-residential and residential holiday courses. The FA also runs mini-soccer, which brings me to the subject at the heart of the debate.
  It is my understanding that the FA views its scheme, which was launched last year, as an extension of its existing coaching programmes. The aim is to provide a football introduction to boys and girls, with a view to developing a lasting interest in the sport. While developing the scheme, the Football Association has been assisted by a number of other sporting bodies that have recently developed specific schemes to attract the interest of the young. That includes the National Cricket Association, which initiated kwik cricket; the Lawn Tennis Association, which was responsible for the introduction of short tennis; and the Rugby Football Union, which was responsible for mini-rugby.
  In partnership with Coca-Cola, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the FA has encouraged clubs, schools, sports centres and youth clubs to open up as licensed mini-soccer centres to create a nationwide network in which children can play safely under supervision. Mini-soccer is the only competitive form of football approved by the FA for under-nines, and it is the recommended game for all under-I Is. I understand that the FA will not sanction any leagues, cups or tournaments; it believes that, at those young ages, the game is a sufficient challenge in itself. The FA believes also that mini-soccer can provide a valuable curriculum resource for the games module of the physical education national curriculum for boys and girls in mixed teams.
  The FA is also involved in a series of special projects to encourage participation by certain groups of young people. Those include girls-only coaching courses, a new "football challenge" Duke of Edinburgh award, which is aimed at inner-city areas, and a series of coaching courses for police officers working in areas of high deprivation.
  I believe that the Football Association and Mr. Aldridge have the health of football and young people at heart. In common with all hon. Members, I very much hope that their efforts will bear fruit.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Nine o'clock.

TREASURY

  Taxpayers Charter
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Dewsbury tax office has achieved the targets set by the taxpayers charter.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Dewsbury tax office operates efficiently and is committed to achieving the targets set by the taxpayers charter.

  Hospital Developments
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the role of Treasury Ministers in the approval for new hospital developments.

  Mr. Portillo
  The role of the Treasury is to advise its Ministers on the level of resources appropriate for individual departmental programmes and to satisfy itself that public funds—including funds for capital developments—are used efficiently and effectively.

  In this context, Treasury Ministers reserve the right to examine any proposed capital development to ensure that it is affordable and represents value for money. I also formally approve new hospital developments, or schemes which are part of a planned programme of development, which have a total capital cost over £50 million.

  Tax Office, Dewsbury
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason for closing the tax office in Dewsbury.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Revenue management is considering a proposal to move the work of Dewsbury tax office to a new office in Leeds. No decision is likely to be made on this proposal for some months. The proposal arises from the Revenue's change programme which is designed to improve the quality and efficiency of the service provided to taxpayers by the Department. The Dewsbury proposal will be assessed against those objectives.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of keeping the Dewsbury tax office open.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated cost for 1994–95 of keeping the Dewsbury tax office open is £1,991,000.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have visited or telephoned the Dewsbury tax office, for information or advice, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of people who have visited or telephoned the Dewsbury tax office, for information or advice, in each of the last three years is as follows:
  2

  Year to April 1992

  1993

  1994

  Telephone calls

  49,717

  51,638

  55,961

  Personal callers

  10,597

  9,748

  9,577

  TOTAL

  60,314

  61,386

  65,538

  Mortgage Tax Relief, Scotland
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of providing mortgage tax relief in Scotland; and how many households received it in the latest year for which he has information.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that the cost of mortgage interest relief for Scotland in 1993–94 was £280 million. It was received by about 710,000 married couples and single people. The estimates are based on the regional distribution of mortgages shown by the 1992 Family Expenditure Survey applied to the United Kingdom total estimates for 1993–94.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the current legislation for reinvestment rollover relief which allows individuals and most trustees to defer capital gains tax on any chargeable gains which they reinvest in an unquoted trading company.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A loophole has been identified in the capital gains tax reinvestment rollover relief rules. This enables taxpayers in certain circumstances to convert what is meant to be a tax deferral into an outright exemption. The main circumstances are where someone reinvests in shares bought from a spouse or where someone realises gains on two or more disposals and reinvests in shares whose market value is less than the total gains realised.

  The Government intend to correct this defect in the next Finance Bill. The new rules will apply to disposals, acquisitions and other chargeable events occurring on or after today. Further details are given in a press release which the Inland Revenue is issuing.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cause a case-stated to be delivered to Mr. Marriott of Barnstormers, West Lane, Higher Blagdon, Paignton, as requested, following the hearing at the beginning of February before the Commissioners with regard to capital gains tax liability arising from a defunct business; if he will make a statement as to the reasons for the delays in delivering a case-stated; and if he will cause bankruptcy proceedings to be halted until the case-stated has been delivered so as to provide the information needed for an appeal.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 15 June.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what allowance for price rises will be made to the electricity supply industry to recover costs incurred through the reduction in electricity voltage.
  3
  Mr. Eggar
  Matters relating to pricing in respect of the electricity supply industry are for the Director General of Electricity Supply. Any costs are not likely to be incurred for several years and would also depend on the final stages of harmonisation which will not take place until some time after the year 2003.

  Airbus
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the desirability of publishing the overall profit or loss of the airbus project and the amount of public or state industry financial commitment so far contributed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. It is for the Airbus Industrie and its partners to decide what financial information it will publish.

  The United Kingdom Government have contributed £746.4 million towards British Aerospace's involvement in the consortium and has recouped £178.3 million to date.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the British Coal pension schemes will be guaranteed by Government; when the new industry-wide schemes for the privatised industry will be set up; what protected person status will mean; and what scheme contribution rates will be payable in future.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is currently envisaged that, subject to the Coal Industry Bill having secured parliamentary approval and Royal Assent, Government guarantees for the mineworkers' pension scheme—MPS—and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme—SSS—would come into effect in mid-September this year. At that time the schemes would be modified as necessary by regulations as proposed in the Bill. It is envisaged that the two new industry-wide schemes proposed for the industry after privatisation would then be established in December.

  On the day when the industry-wide schemes are established employers of contributing members of the MPS and SSS who cease to be or are not British Coal employees—that is, any employees of British Coal or its subsidiaries transferred on that day to successor companies and all other persons who are scheme members on that day but are no longer or were never employed by the corporation or its subsidiaries—will be obliged to give such employees the option to join the industry-wide schemes in which the employees will gain statutory protected-person status. Successor employers of members of the MPS or SSS who remain as British Coal employees for some period after the establishment of the industry-wide schemes and who are subsequently transferred to the successor employers will be obliged at the time of the transfer to give such employees the option to join the industry-wide schemes in which the employees will gain protected-person status. Protected person status will operate to safeguard the pension benefit structures of the MPS and SSS which will be reproduced within the industry-wide schemes.

  Contribution rates for employees and indicative estimates of initial employer contribution rates are set out for each industry-wide scheme as percentages of pensionable earnings:
  4

  Employees' contributions Per cent.

  Employees' contributions Per cent.

  IWS-MPS

  5·25

  9·25

  IWS-SSS

  5·00

  15·00

  There will be no transfer of employer contribution holidays from the MPS or SSS to the industry-wide schemes.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of money made available for training and reskilling under the Konver programme in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A total of £201,000 was made available in Essex for training projects as part of £501,000 of grants to projects in the county from the United Kingdom's 1993 Konver programme. I shall seek to ensure that the United Kingdom receives its fair share from the £380 million available under Konver II for the period 1994–1997.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total value by region of(a) regional selective assistance and (b) regional enterprise grants for the period 1 August 1993 to 19 May 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The value of offers that have been made by region in England of (i) regional selective assistance and (ii) regional enterprise grants for the period 1 August 1993 to 19 May 1994 are as follows:

  Regional selective assistance £ million

  Regional enterprise grants £ million

  East

  0·4

  0·3

  East Midlands

  4·9

  1·7

  London

  0·5

  —

  Merseyside

  13·3

  1·5

  North East

  26·6

  1·5

  North West

  11·6

  —

  South East

  1·6

  0·6

  South West

  12·3

  1·0

  West Midlands

  13·9

  0·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11·6

  4·4

  TOTAL

  96·7

  11·8

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will discuss with the chairman of governors of the BBC their proposal for ethnic quotas in trainee schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. The BBC is responsible for decisions about recruitment to its training schemes and other employment matters. The Race Relations Act 1976 permits discrimination on the basis of racial group in the selection of trainees when statutory criteria are satisfied.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  United Kingdom Passport Agency
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to contract out or privatise any function of the United Kingdom Passport Agency;

  (2) what was the result of stage II, dealing with the scope for privatisation and abolition, of the framework document review of the United Kingdom Passport Agency;

  (3) what plans there are to market test the United Kingdom Passport Agency during the next two years;

  (4) what was the result of stage I, dealing with the evaluation of performance, of the framework document review of the United Kingdom Passport Agency.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In accordance with the normal practice of reviewing executive agencies after they have been in existence for three years the activities of the United Kingdom Passport Agency are currently under review. The review includes an evaluation of the agency's performance and an examination of the options for delivering its services. An announcement on the future of the agency, and on any plans for changing the arrangements for delivering its services, will be made in due course.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which private companies have been invited to tender for the post and data entry function at the United Kingdom Passport Agency.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. No tender has been issued.

  Firearms
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research into the origins of firearms and shotguns used in the pursuit of crime his Department has commissioned or undertaken;

  (2) what research his Department has commissioned or undertaken to identify how many legally held and licensed shotguns have been used in the pursuit of crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Research which was commissioned by the Home Office into the use of firearms in offences of robbery has been conducted by the Oxford centre for criminological research. One of the aims of the research was to establish how the guns used in robbery were obtained. The report of the research has recently been completed.

  In addition, a study has been conducted by the Home Office research and planning unit into the theft of firearms from an analysis of police crime reports.

  It is expected that both reports will be published shortly.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to permit firearms certificates to be issued to members of the public on condition that such arms will be used only on private land specified on the certificate and where land is located away from public highways and public rights of way.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. Chief officers of police already have extensive powers to refuse the issue of firearms certificates to anyone without a good reason to 6
  possess one, or to anyone who could not possess one without danger to public safety or the peace. In addition, chief officers may impose territorial conditions on firearm certificates, restricting the area where the firearm may be used.

  999 Calls
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines he issues to(a) chief police officers and (b) chief fire officers on the timing and release of information to the press following a 999 call to a serious road accident.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No specific guidelines are issued to chief officers of police or to chief officers on the timing and release of information to the press following a 999 call to a serious road accident. This is matter for chief officers to decide. General guidance to all emergency services about dealing with the media is contained in the Home Office publication "Dealing with Disaster".

  Remand Prisoners
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of each country of the European Union have been remanded in custody in the United Kingdom for more than(a) two years and (b) one year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Sir Russell Johnston, dated 20 June 1994.
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many citizens of each country of the European Union have been remanded in custody in the United Kingdom for more than (a) two years and (b) one year.
  The latest available provisional information is for the population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 April 1994. It is given in the attached table.

  Population of remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 April 1994, remanded in custody for more than (a) two years and (b) one year, by European Union country2

  Nationality

  Time since first remand in custody1

  Over two years

  Over one year but less than two years

  Belgium

  —

  —

  Denmark

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  5

  France

  —

  1

  Germany

  —

  1

  Greece

  —

  —

  Ireland

  1

  7

  Italy

  —

  1

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  1

  United Kingdom

  37

  287

  All EU Nationalities

  38

  303

  1Time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment; includes any intervening time on bail. Excludes any time spent in non-Prison Service establishments (eg police cells) before reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment.

  2Provisional figures.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the European Commission's target of a 50 per cent. reduction in animals used in experiments by the year 2000.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government fund research into alternatives to the use of animals in scientific work, and welcome the contribution which the European centre for validation of alternative methods—ECVAM—will make at a European level to the identification and validation of alternatives. The number of procedures carried out in the United Kingdom has been declining, and this process, combined with the search for alternatives, should make a significant contribution to meeting the European Commission target.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicity ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Howard
  The code of practice on Government information commits the Department to publishing relevant facts and analysis underlying major policy proposals. This would include details of any public consultation exercise. Comments on public consultation documents are sought on the basis that the Department would not wish to publish individual responses without the agreement of those providing them.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Howard
  The rules do not require staff below grade 3 level to report approaches to the centre of their departments. Five offers of jobs have been reported by staff at grade 3 level and above since 1989, all of which have been followed by a formal application. The rest of the information requested is either not available or is not maintained centrally.

  Blakenhurst and Doncaster Prisons
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available in the Library details of contracts for the Blakenhurst and Doncaster prisons; what representations he has received concerning these contracts; and what has been the nature of such representations.
  8
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Robert Wareing, dated 20 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about Blakenhurst and Doncaster prisons.
  A copy of the invitations to tender which formed the basis of the contracts are already in the Library and copies of the contracts without details of the contractor's prices will be placed there.
  From time to time the Director General receives questions concerning the nature of these contracts. They are diverse in their scope but have covered the costs of the contracts; staffing numbers and arrangements; which companies had tendered for the contracts; and the wrongly perceived 'privatisation' of the Prison Service.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement with regard to absconding by illegal immigrants from Jamaica who arrived at Gatwick in December 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Efforts are being made to trace, with a view to removal, 11 passengers who arrived on two charter flights at Gatwick last December and who are known to be here illegally because they have not complied with the terms of their temporary admission. If any other passengers who were allowed to enter for six months are found to have overstayed their visit, we will pursue them with a view to deportation in the normal way.

  Tamara Norashkaryan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the application for political asylum made by Tamara Norashkaryan, a Russian visitor to the United Kingdom, was considered under the normal procedures; who reviewed the recommendation on the application within the Immigration and Nationality Department at senior official level; and what conditions have been imposed on Ms Norashkaryan's leave to remain in the United Kingdom;

  (2) when Tamara Norashkaryan, a visitor to the United Kingdom from Russia, applied for political asylum in the United Kingdom; when her application was approved; whether a recommendation on her application was referred to Ministers for decision; when he was informed Ms Norashkaryan had married Sir Antony Buck; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) on what date Sir Antony Buck was interviewed concerning Tamara Norashkaryan's application for political asylum in the United Kingdom; what representations Sir Antony has made to Ministers concerning the immigration status of Ms Norashkaryan; and in what form and on what date or dates such representations were made;

  (4) how many meetings his officials have had with Ms Tamara Norashkaryan, a Russian visitor to the United Kingdom, in connection with her application for political asylum in the United Kingdom; when she completed the necessary application forms; when she told his officials she intended to marry or had married Sir Antony Buck; and for how long in total Ms Norashkaryan was interviewed.
  9
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It has been the long-standing normal policy not to confirm or deny whether any individual has applied for political asylum or to provide details of the consideration of individual claims.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decisions he has reached on the recommendations made by the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom for changes to pay structures, pay levels and pay-related conditions of service for police officers in the ranks of inspector and above.

  Mr. Howard
  The Police Negotiating Board's recommendations for police officers of all ranks were sent to the Secretaries of State for the Home Departments at the beginning of April. The board subsequently put forward further proposals which took account of the decision which I announced on 26 April that the rank of chief inspector should be retained.

  We have now studied these proposals carefully. We accept the board's proposals for superintendents and their revised proposals for inspectors and chief inspectors. The proposals will be implemented with effect from 1 September 1994.

  New pay arrangements for chief constables and assistant chief constables are linked to the introduction from 1 April 1995 of fixed-term appointments for officers in these ranks. Once certain outstanding issues relating to these appointments have been settled I shall be in a position to announce the Government's decision on pay for this group of officers.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if discretionary life prisoners who have been transferred to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983, and whom it is not appropriate to remit to prison even though they no longer require, or can effectively be given, hospital treatment, are able to have the question of their release considered by the Parole Board under section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Howard
  The cases of discretionary life prisoners in this category are referred to the Parole Board under section 34 of the 1991 Act, while they remain in hospital, in the same way as if they had been remitted to prison.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuba Mountain
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from discussions recently held by the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development about the killings and dispossession of the people of the Nuba mountains.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware that the subject of the Nuba mountains has been discussed at the IGADD talks. A draft declaration of principles, now under consideration by the parties, makes general references to human rights and human suffering in war-affected areas.

  Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Korea in regard to military and nuclear developments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  North Korea's continued non-compliance with its safeguards agreement remains a cause for great concern. In the United Nations Security Council we are consulting other member states and regional countries on the timing, tactics and substance of Security Council action. Another cause of concern is the large concentration of North Korean forces along its border with the Republic of Korea. We urge North Korea to recognise that peaceful means offer the best chance of resolving the current problems on the Korean peninsula.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the use of the Turks and Caicos islands as a processing camp for Haitian refugees will be limited to a certain period of time.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The agreement among the three Governments on the processing centre to be established in the Turks and Caicos islands is limited in duration to a period not exceeding six months.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make the proposed United States of America processing camp for Haitian refugees on the Turks and Caicos islands subject to a formal leasehold agreement betwen the United Kingdom and the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The arrangement to establish a processing centre for Haitian boat people in the Turks and Caicos islands is contained in a memorandum of understanding signed by the British, United States and Turks and Caicos islands Governments. The UNHCR will be closely involved in the arrangement. Under the MOU, the TCI Government will make a site available in Grand Turk for the processing centre, which the United States authorities will occupy on a lease arrangement.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans exist to resettle those Haitians who are judged to be genuine political refugees; and whether they will have a right of abode in the Turks and Caicos islands.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the arrangement agreed with the United States for the establishment of a processing centre for Haitian boat people in the Turks and Caicos islands, those Haitians considered by United States immigration officers running the processing centre to have a genuine claim to refugee status will be removed from the Turks and Caicos islands and resettled in third countries or in the United States. These Haitians will not have the right of abode in the Turks and Caicos islands.

  Lockerbie
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consult the authorities in Lebanon to secure more information on the
  11
  reported confession of Yusef Shaban that he had responsibility for the Lockerbie disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in contact with the Lebanese authorities on this matter.

  Visitor Visas
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many initial assessments prior to formal application for a visitor visa have in the last year resulted in the potential applicant being advised not to proceed with formal application on the grounds that they are unlikely to succeed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the 27 posts worldwide where a formal preliminary examination of applicants is carried out, 33,890 applicants were advised in 1993 that their applications would be unlikely to succeed without further information being supplied. Such advice would no doubt also have been offered at other posts when appropriate, but precise figures are not available.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 27 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what were the results of discussions with the Government of the Ukraine about maintaining and seeking to improve electricity supplies, and technical assistance and loan finance for safety upgrading and investment in completing of Ukraine nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  So far, the talks have been at an exploratory level. Substantive discussions are not expected to take place before next month, when the Ukrainian presidential election process is completed, and the G7 summit in Naples has had the opportunity to consider the question of nuclear safety in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine.

  Tamara Norashkaryan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at which British overseas post Tamara Norashkaryan, a language lecturer at Moscow university, applied to visit the United Kingdom; when her application was made; for how long a visit she applied and what were her reasons for visiting the United Kingdom; when the visa was granted; who sponsored her visit; whether Ms Norashkaryan had previously applied to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I will look into this matter and write to the hon. Member in due course.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work has been contracted out by the Natural Resources Institute as a direct result of the redundancies announced in January 1994 in(a) oilseeds, (b) mycotoxins and (c) other areas.
  12
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Mr. Anthony Beattie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Anthony Beattie to Mr. Tom Clarke, dated 20 June 1994:
  1. Mr. Lennox-Boyd has aked me to reply to your question about the amount of work contracted out by NRI as a direct result of the staff reductions announced in January.
  2. We have so far contracted out work to the value of £6,300 in the oilseeds area. No work has been contracted out so far in mycotoxins or in other areas. It may, of course, prove necessary to do so in due course but I have no reason at this stage to think that this will be a substantial requirement.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he will take to protect and guarantee the integrity of aid expenditure decisions relating to work undertaken by the Natural Resources Institute following a change in ownership of the institute;

  (2) if he will rule out a change of ownership for the Natural Resources Institute.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 26 January, at column 272. Options for the future ownership of the Natural Resources Institute are still being considered. Whatever the future ownership of NRI, contracts placed with it by the ODA will continue to be subject to all normal ODA procedures which are designed to ensure effective development and value for money.

  Brazil
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in Brazil respecting the provision of aid for health and environmental purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  During his visit to Brazil in April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Brazilian counterpart discussed issues relating to sustainable development agreeing, particularly, the importance of effectively following up the environmental objectives agreed at the Rio Earth summit. The Minister for Overseas Development also met the Brazilian Minister for the Environment and Amazonia earlier this month, when environmental issues in Amazonia and the urban areas were discussed.

  It is our intention to maintain an effective bilateral programme of technical co-operation with Brazil in areas of mutual priority, including the environment, both natural and urban, and health sector management reform. We also support health and environment projects managed by United Kingdom non-governmental organisations.

  UN Children's Fund
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give his reasons for the annual reduction in the United Kingdom's contribution to the core funding of the United Nations children's fund.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Growing pressures on the aid programme mean that we are unable to insulate UN
  13
  voluntary funds from some reduction in our annual core funding. However, this is only part of our support. We also contribute generously to UNICEF's emergency and other extra budgetary programmes.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what economic rate of return was projected by the Overseas Development Administration for the Pergau dam project in Malaysia(a) at the time of the contract proposal in January 1989 when the price was £316 million, (b) at the time of the revised contract proposal in April 1989 when the price was £397 million and (c) at the time approval was given in 1991 when the price was £417 million.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The appropriate method of economic appraisal for projects like Pergau which are part of a financially viable interconnected grid system involves calculation of the least cost expansion path. This method utilises a computer model to analyse and minimise total systems costs as new generating units are added to meet the forecast levels of demand.

  In January 1989 ODA did not have sufficient information to judge whether Pergau appeared on the least cost path although this seemed likely at the then price of £316 million; at subsequent higher cost estimates the project was judged to be outside the least cost expansion path.

ENVIRONMENT

  Non-domestic Rating
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hereditaments were included in the 1990 non-domestic rating list; and how many appeals against valuation were lodged.

  Mr. Gummer
  A total of 1.584 million hereditaments were included in English 1990 non-domestic rating lists in April 1990. By the end of March 1994, 1.1 million proposals to alter the list had been made to the Valuation Office Agency, of which 633,000 were against the values originally shown in the list and 467,000 were made following changes in circumstances since the 1990 list came into force.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many places were made available for those sleeping rough in central London in 1985, 1990, 1993, and what is his estimate for 1995; and what was the average take-up rate, expressed as a percentage.

  Sir George Young
  Accommodation for people sleeping rough in central London is provided by a variety of agencies, including the Resettlement Agency, housing associations, local authorities and the voluntary sector. My Department does not have detailed information on the total number of places available, nor average occupancy rates for any particular year, and I cannot estimate how many places might be available in a future year.

  As part of the rough sleepers initiative 1990–91 to 1995–96 in central London, the Government are funding emergency and temporary bedspaces in winter shelters,
  14
  nightshelters and hostels; temporary accommodation in properties leased from private sector landlords; and permanent accommodation in flats and houses for people to move on to. This provision, which includes at least 3,300 places in permanent move-on accommodation, has enabled many thousands of people to start a new life away from the streets, and will continue to do so.

  Housing, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present number of housing units provided by housing associations in the Harrogate borough council area.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested can be found in appendix 1, page 58 of "Housing Associations in 1993" published by the Housing Corporation and held in the Library.

  Somerset County Council
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received in support of retaining the county council in a two-tier structure for the present county of Somerset.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has received 1,754 written representations opposing the Local Government Commission's recommendation to replace Somerset county council and the five Somerset district councils with three unitary authorities. A large number of these did not state a preferred alternative. It is therefore not possible to give an accurate figure for those supporting a two-tier structure.

  Miss Patricia Eaton
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost, including the cost of(a) staff time, (b) legal advice and representation and (c) litigation relating to this case to (i) the Inner London education authority, (ii) the London residuary body and (iii) the London Pension Fund Authority, of responding to the complaints lodged by Miss Patricia Eaton of Kidbrooke Park road, London SE3, relating to her treatment by the ILEA when she was in its employment, over the period from 1980 to the present date.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the London Pensions Fund Authority and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should contact the chief executive for the information he requires.

  Naval Firing Range, Cornwall
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has been consulted by the Ministry of Defence over the proposal to site a naval firing range off Dodman point in Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes, in January 1994. The Department raised no objections to the proposal.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement clarifying the manner in which ERDF grants are taken into account in
  15
  assessing the standard spending assessments of local authorities; and what steps have been taken to harmonise the principles of such policies with other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  When a local authority in England receives an ERDF grant for a capital project, a supplementary credit approval—SCA—is issued to it. Nether the grant, nor the related SCA, is taken into account in the calculation of its standard spending assessment.

  The systems of support for local authority expenditure in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland differ in a number of respects. Decisions on the operation of each system are the responsibility of the relevant Secretary of State.

  Park Homes
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households his Department estimates to live in park homes; and what plans his Department has to introduce a council tax band below band A to cover park homes.

  Mr. Curry
  British Holiday and Home Parks Association Limited has estimated that there are about 96,000 residential mobile homes at mobile home parks in Britain. We have no plans to introduce a council tax band below the present band A.

  Traveller Sites
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list both the statutory obligations that apply at present and guidance given to local authorities for the provision of sites for gipsies and travellers; and if he will outline the changes that will take place at the time of enactment of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Baldry
  Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 requires local authorities to provide adequate accommodation on caravan sites for gipsies defined as"persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin",
  residing in or resorting to their areas. In non-metropolitan counties in England and Wales the functions of site development and management are shared between county councils and district councils. County councils are required to consult district councils and other persons before adopting site proposals.

  Guidance on these and other relevant provisions is given in the Department's circulars 28/77, 57/78, 8/81 and 1/94.

  If enacted, clause 75 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill would repeal both part II of the 1968 Act and also the Secretary of State's power to pay grant in respect of the capital costs of site provision in England and Wales. Local authorities would continue to have discretionary powers, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, to manage existing sites and to provide further sites.

  Clauses 72 and 73 of the Bill would give all local authorities in England and Wales new powers to control unauthorised camping in their areas.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the conclusions reached as a result of the recent evaluation of the effectiveness of the Government's urban programme spending; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report "Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy" which is part of the inner cities research programme of the Department of the Environment, will be published shortly.

  Abandoned Mineworkings
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has agreed measures with British Coal to overcome potential pollution disasters resulting from its termination of pumping operations at abandoned mineworkings.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Discharges from coal mines in England and Wales are subject to regulation by the National Rivers Authority. It is for British Coal, in consultation with the NRA, to determine what measures are necessary to avoid pollution.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what instructions are given to security staff in his departmental offices in London for dealing with(a) those sleeping rough in departmental doorways and (b) beggars in the vicinity; and how many problems have been experienced with each category in the last three months.

  Mr. David Davis
  If there is a need to deal with beggars or anyone sleeping rough in doorways, security staff in London buildings occupied by the Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI would contact the Metropolitan police.

  No problems have been experienced during the past three months.

PRIME MINISTER

  Department of Transport
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to abolish the Department of Transport or merge it with another Government Department.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have been given a specific responsibility for disabled people within their respective departmental portfolios.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People has a cross-Government remit for all issues affecting disabled people. The Cabinet Office produces a list of ministerial responsibilities which identifies the responsibilities of all Ministers, including
  17
  those with specific, designated responsibility for matters affecting disabled people within their departments. The list was updated in May and copies placed in both Libraries. Copies can also be obtained from the Vote Office on request.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects ministerial consultation on legislation providing civil rights to the disabled will be complete; and if he will introduce a Government Bill before the summer recess.

  The Prime Minister
  In reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on 10 May 1994,Official Report, column 153, I stated that consultation would take place within six months. Preparations are now well advanced on proposals to help disabled people. Consultation will start as soon as possible and is expected to last for three months. No legislation will be introduced in advance of consultation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions are given to security staff in his departmental offices in London for dealing with(a) those sleeping rough in departmental doorways and (b) beggars in the vicinity; and how many problems have been experienced with each category in the last three months.

  Mr. Hague
  No specific central guidance is given to security guards on these matters. It would be an issue for the managers of the individual offices concerned. No records are kept on the extent to which problems may be encountered.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications there have been in the last six months in each of the English health authority regions for a disability living allowance;

  (2) how much money has been granted in disability living allowance in the last six months, nationally and by health authority region; and how much was granted during the same period a year earlier;

  (3) what proportion of those people applying for the disability living allowance between 1 January and 31 May in each health authority region and nationally had their application rejected; and what was the rejection rate for similar applicants between 1 January 1993 and 31 May 1993;

  (4) what are the rejection rates, by condition giving rise to an application for a disability living allowance, for applications in the last 12 months, set out by health authority region.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about disability living allowance is not available in the form requested. Nationally, between 1 December 1993 and 31 May 1994 there were 216,000 applications. In the same period 97,000 awards were made on initial claims, and between 1 December 1992 and 31 May 1993 132,000 awards were made. The proportion of applications made between 1 January 1994 and 31 May 1994 that were rejected was 50 18
  per cent. and for the same period in 1993 the proportion rejected was 46 per cent. Where a claim is rejected no information covering a claimant's disabling condition is recorded.
  Source: DSS Analytical Services Division—based on 100 per cent. count.

  Fire Safety, Quarry House
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether a fire certificate has been issued for Quarry House, Leeds, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  An application to the Home Office for the issue of a fire certificate was made in July 1992. Such certificates are not normally issued until all defects within a new building, however small, have been rectified. The Home Office has confirmed that there is an extremely good fire prevention system in Quarry house, and there are no doubts about its effectiveness. The Home Office has begun the final scheduled inspection of the building prior to the issue of a fire certificate.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the date of the inspection for fire safety at Quarry house, Leeds(a) before the opening of the building, (b) between the opening of the building and 9 June 1994 and (c) since 10 June 1994; and if he will list those carrying out the inspection.

  Mr. Burt
  The construction of Quarry house commenced in November 1990 and the building was completed and occupied in three separate phases, the first phase being ready on 6 July 1992. The following site inspections were carried out

  (a) before the phased occupations:

  25 April 1991

  Property Services Agency (PSA) Fire Officer and PSA

  Building Control Section

  May 1991 to July 1992

  Site meetings and inspections involving PSA Fire Officer and PSA Building Control held at monthly intervals

  30 March 1992

  West Yorkshire Fire Brigade and PSA Fire Officer

  June 1992

  Weekly inspections by PSA Fire Officer, with further unannounced visits, to review fire precautions and evacuation procedures

  8 June 1992

  Witness testing of fire alarm system by Home Office Inspectorate, Health and Safety Executive, PSA Fire Officer and PSA Building Control Section

  6 July 1992

  PSA Fire Officer inspection immediately prior to, and following occupation of Phase 1 of building

  August 1992

  PSA Fire Officer witness testing of atria smoke extraction systems

  1 September 1992

  PSA Fire Officer inspection immediately prior to phase 2 occupation by staff

  18 November 1992

  Home Office inspectorate and Health and Safety Executive visited, and made further visit within 7 days

  5 February 1993

  PSA Fire Officer inspection immediately prior to and following Phase 3 occupation by staff

  1 March 1993

  PSA Fire Officer final inspection

  (b) between full occupation and 9 June 1994

  There were no formal fire inspections between February 1993 and June 1994.

  (c) since 10 June 1994

  13 June 1994

  Home Office Inspectorate

  Disability Working Allowance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications there have been in the last six months in each of the English health authority regions for a disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about disability working allowance is not available in the form requested. Nationally, between 1 December 1993 and 31 May 1994 there were 6,045 applications.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for assistance from the social fund at the east Nottinghamshire, north Nottinghamshire and west Nottinghamshire benefits offices were made in the last year for which figures are available; how many were accepted and how many were refused.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 17 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of applications to the Social Fund in the Benefits Agency's East, North and West Nottinghamshire Districts.
  You asked for details of how many of these applications were successful and how many were refused. Those details are shown at Appendix A. Please note that Cold Weather Payments, which are paid without claims being made, are not included in the figures provided.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix A

  1993–94

  Applications

  Awards

  Refusals

  Nottinghamshire East

  22,875

  12,436

  9,583

  Nottinghamshire North

  20,139

  10,380

  8,425

  Nottinghamshire West

  26,246

  15,170

  10,301

  The above application figures include the following:Applications awaiting determination.Applications withdrawn before determination.Budgeting and crisis loan offers which are not accepted.

  Tamara Norashkaryan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Tamara Norashkaryan, a visitor to the United Kingdom applied to his Department for assistance; what assistance she was given; from what date such financial assistance was provided; if Ms Norashkaryan submitted a standard acknowledgement letter with her application or after submitting any application; what was the total amount of financial assistance given by his Department to Ms Norashkaryan; what advice was given to her to apply to any local authority or other public agency for assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Max Madden, dated 17 June 1994:
  20
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking specific details about Ms Tamara Norashkaryan and her application to the Department for financial assistance.
  As you are already aware Ms Norashkaryan is currently visiting the United Kingdom. I can confirm that she has made a claim for financial assistance by way of income support and that a decision has been made on her claim. However due to the confidential nature of this case I have written to you separately and in greater detail about this matter.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

HEALTH

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people over the next 10 years are expected to develop(a) HIV, (b) AIDS and (c) AIDS dementia.

  Mr. Sackville
  Projections of the incidence and prevalence of AIDS cases and other severe HIV disease in England and Wales have been made by a working group chaired by Professor N. E. Day. "Communicable Disease Report" 1993; 3 (Supplement 1): S1–17, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Treatment Abroad
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held by her Department on the number of NHS patients who have been sent abroad for surgical treatment from(a) GP fundholding practices and (b) GP non-fundholding practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioners cannot authorise such treatment.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what risk assessment she has commissioned on the link between benzene exhaust emissions from motor vehicles and human health.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committees on Carcinogenicity—COC—and on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants—COMEAP—have considered hazards to health from inhalation of benzene, which is a component of exhaust emissions from motor vehicles and of vapour fumes from petrol.

  Benzine is toxic at high doses and is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a human carcinogen. Long-term occupational exposure to benzene at concentrations a thousand times greater than those typically found in urban air in the United Kingdom has been shown to increase the risk of certain types of leukaemia in adults; its use in industry is therefore strictly controlled. Although it is not possible to define an absolute safe level of exposure to benzene, levels in outdoor air encountered in the United Kingdom are considered by the COC and the COMEAP to present very low risk to health.

  Psychological Testing
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS Executive, the Department of Health, NHS Trusts, NHS regions, district health authorities and
  21
  family health services authorities expend each year in employing (a) outside employment agencies and (b) employment agencies which conduct psychological testing.

  Mr. Sackville
  During 1993–94 the Department of Health, including its agencies and the National Health Service Executive spent the following amounts on recruitment exercises conducted by outside recruitment agencies, including Recruitment and Assessment Services, an executive agency of the Cabinet Office.

  Recruitment without psychological test £

  Recruitment with psychological test £

  DH (excluding agencies and the NHS Executive)

  173,708

  16,244

  NHS Executive

  54,902

  14,805

  Agencies

  NHS Pensions Agency

  20,566

  —

  NHS Estates

  —

  36,191

  Medicines Control Agency

  43,041

  —

  TOTAL

  292,217

  67,240

  Figures for NHS trusts, NHS regions, district health authorities and family health services authorities are not available centrally. NHS employers are autonomous and make their own arrangements.

  Distinction Awards
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been paid by her Department as merit awards to medical consultants in each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of the names of the medical consultants who currently hold merit awards; and if she will indicate the grade that each has been awarded.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about the awards status of individual consultants is confidential.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants in oral health have been awarded merit awards in the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 296 distinction awards were granted to dental consultants in England in the years 1984 to 1993 inclusive.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the first annual report of the advisory committee on the distribution of awards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This was done following publication in April 1994.

  Access to Treatment
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards the application of the principle of equitable access to NHS services on the basis of need and its implementation in relation to the provision of hospital services to patients of fundholding and non-fundholding general practices.
  22
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Hospitals may not offer contracts to one purchaser which could disadvantage the patients of another. However, local waiting times for non-urgent treatment may vary according to clinical need and the priorities of different purchasers.

  Emergency patients are always treated immediately, and urgent cases treated within locally agreed time scales.

  Information Budgets
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the budgets and projected budgets for her Department's information department from 1986 to 1996.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure and budget figures for the Department's Information Division which now includes the recently established public inquiry office and the rationalisation of the Department's printing services are shown in the table.

  Year

  Publicity £ million

  Manpower and running costs £ million

  1986–87

  12·627

  —

  1987–88

  12·381

  —

  1988–89

  10·799

  —

  1989–90

  17·248

  0·890

  1990–91

  21·008

  1·250

  1991–92

  24·471

  1·491

  1992–93

  20·710

  1·749

  1993–94

  119·405

  1·897

  1994–95 (budgets)

  23·067

  2·247

  1Estimated.

  Information on manpower and running costs for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 are not available in the form requested.

  Budgets for 1995–96 have yet to be decided.

  Serious Incidents
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all circulars issued by her Department since 1985 on the investigation of serious untoward incidents affecting patients; and if she will place a copy of each of those circulars in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  Hospitals were reminded of their responsibility to report adverse incidents involving medical devices in health circular HC(88)51 published in June 1988. This was updated by HSG(93)13 published in June 1993. Copies of these documents will be placed in the Library.

  Merit Awards Committees
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of the members of the regional merit awards committee for each region in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A list of the members of the Regional C Awards Committee and Higher Awards Committee for each region in England will be placed in the Library.

  Sports Injuries
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions apply to the charging by NHS hospitals for treatment for sports injuries.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. National health service treatment is free of charge unless there is a specific statutory power to charge.

  European Union Health Expenditure
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest available per capita spending figures on the health services for each member state of the European Union.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service will be spending an estimated £674 for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom in 1994–95. Figures for other member states of the European Union are not available on a comparable basis.

  Discrimination
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the publications of her Department on discrimination in the NHS since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested from 1983 onwards is available in the Library. A comprehensive list of publications before 1983 is not available centrally.

  Central Heating
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Department of Health has commissioned on the links between lack of central heating and long-term limiting illness and disability.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are not aware of the existence of any such research.

  Student Grants
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the regulations governing the provision of help with national health service charges so that students are assessed solely on the basis of the student grant they actually receive and not on the assumption that they take up a student loan.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Medical Negligence Cases
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list, by each district health authority in England and Wales, the average value of negligence cases brought by patients successfully concluded in each year since 1985;

  (2) if she will list, by each district health authority in England and Wales, the total number of successful negligence cases brought by patients against the district health authorities for each year since 1985, indicating the number resolved incorporating secrecy clauses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 14 March at columns 537–38 and on 10 May at columns 84–85. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the Government's response to the Bloomfield report on dentistry before the end of June.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government's response to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report will be published in due course.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those national health service trusts that did not reach their target of 6 per cent. return on capital for(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 20 April at column 541.

  Adrenalin Supplies
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that adequate supplies of adrenalin injections suitable for the immediate treatment of anaphylactic reaction are generally available; and what discussions her Department has had with the Medicines Control Agency on this subject.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Medicines Control Agency under its chief executive, Dr. K. H. Jones. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. K. H. Jones to Sir Cranley Onslow, dated 17 June 1994:
  Adrenaline Injections for the treatment of Anaphylactic Reactions
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning supplies of Adrenaline injections suitable for the immediate treatment of anaphylactic reactions and their availability.
  The Medicines Control Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department of Health responsible for safeguarding public health by licensing medicines, monitoring adverse drug reactions, surveillance of marketed drugs and publication of standards. The Agency carries out the day to day activities of the Licensing Authority which comprises Ministers. The Chief Executive reports to the Secretary of State for Health, and the Agency remains in frequent and regular contact with the Department.
  Adrenaline Injection in a preloaded syringe (Min-I-Jet) was granted a product licence for the treatment of anaphylactic reactions after assessment for safety, quality and efficacy. The manufacturer however recently experienced production difficulties resulting in shortages of supply during April and May 1994. Further and adequate supplies of the Min-I-Jet became available during the week commencing 6 June 1994.
  It is a principle of UK Medicines Control that doctors have clinical freedom to prescribe unlicensed medicinal products and Section 13(1) of the Medicines Act grants an exemption allowing very limited quantities of imports of such products. This is allowed without reference to MCA and it is on this basis that an unlicensed Adrenaline Injection in a self-injecting syringe (Epipen) has been imported from the United States of America by or to the order of doctors in the UK for the treatment of their particular patients. This product has not been assessed by this Agency and prescribers assume full responsibility for its use.
  The shortage of licensed Min-I-Jets resulted in an increased demand for unlicensed Epipen and the Boots Company applied to the MCA for an exemption to import a significant quantity in anticipation of orders from doctors in accordance with Statutory Instrument SI (1984) 673. Normally exemption under this Regulation is refused if there is an equivalent licensed product on the market. In accordance with this practice, exemption was initially refused because of the restored availability of Min-I-Jets. However, it became apparent that although adequate supplies of Min-I-Jets had been resumed, those supplies might not have reached community pharmacists in all areas. The decision to refuse Epipen exemption status was therefore reviewed and subsequently reversed.
  The demand for Adrenaline Injection is currently being met by the licensed Min-I-Jets supplemented by the unlicensed Epipen. This Agency understands that an application for a UK product licence may be submitted for Epipen. In such circumstances the application would be assessed by the MCA and if granted the licence would enable Epipen to be marketed in the UK.

  Social Work Records
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she intends to make to existing legislation or practice on access to social work records following the proposals issued for consultation by her Department on 26 February 1992 entitled, "Response to the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Graham Gaskin (Access to Records)".

  Mr. Bowis
  The 1993 White Paper on open government sets out the Government's proposals for a new statutory right of access to personal records, adding to existing rights of access.

  Accident and Emergency Services, Barking and Havering
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to why the London borough of Redbridge was not formally sent a copy of the Barking and Havering health authority consultation document on changes to accident and emergency services.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Littlewood, chairman of Barking and Havering health authority, for this information.

  Infertility
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision is made for(a) infertility treatment and (b) infertility investigation in each of the Birmingham health districts;

  (2) what advice each of the Birmingham health districts has sought in the last three years from her Department as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing infertility investigation and treatment;

  (3) what has been the (a) revenue spend and (b) capital spend in each of the Birmingham health districts in each of the last three years for which figures are available on infertility treatment;

  (4) what has been the (a) revenue spend and (b) capital spend in each of the Birmingham health districts by name in each of the last three years for which figures are available on infertility investigation.

  Mr. Sackville
  For information about infertility investigation and treatment in Birmingham the hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. B. Stoten, chairman of South Birmingham health authority and Dr. D. M. Skillicorn, chairman of North Birmingham health authority for further information.

  The national health service provides a wide range of treatments for subfertility. Individual health authorities determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances. Advice is available to health authorities and clinicians in two publications drawn to the attention of the national health service in 1992:

  (a) The Effective Health Care Bulletin on management of subfertility, published for the national health service Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York Universities and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  (b) The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists publication "Infertility Guidelines for Practice.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.
  26
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the provision for infertility treatment in South Manchester district health authority;

  (2) whether South Manchester district health authority has sought from her Department advice as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing for infertility investigation and treatment in its area;

  (3) what provision is made for infertility investigation in South Manchester district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  For the information requested about infertility investigation and treatment in Manchester the hon. Member may wish to contact Professor Robert Boyd, chairman of Manchester health authority. We are not aware of requests for advice on this matter from the former South Manchester health authority.

  The national health service provides a wide range of treatments for subfertility. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 18 May at column 520.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average budget for(a) GP fundholders and (b) non-fundholders in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 for England and by region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Average budgets for general practitioner fundholders by region in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 are shown in the table. It is not possible to produce comparable information for non-fundholding general practitioners.

  Average budgets for general practitioner fundholders by region: 1991–92 to 1993–94

  £ million

  Region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  1·7

  1·7

  1·8

  Yorkshire

  1·5

  1·7

  1·8

  Trent

  1·3

  1·4

  1·5

  East Anglian

  1·5

  1·7

  1·7

  North West Thames

  1·3

  1·4

  1·6

  North East Thames

  1·4

  1·2

  1·4

  South East Thames

  1·3

  1·4

  1·6

  South West Thames

  1·3

  1·3

  1·6

  Wessex

  1·3

  1·5

  1·8

  Oxford

  1·2

  1·4

  1·6

  South Western

  1·2

  1·4

  1·6

  West Midlands

  1·3

  1·4

  1·6

  Mersey

  1·3

  1·3

  1·6

  North Western

  1·3

  1·4

  1·5

  England

  1·4

  1·5

  1·6

  Note:

  From 1993–94, the scope of the general practitioner fundholder scheme was expanded to include the purchase of community health services. In addition, the minimum list size criterion for joining the scheme was reduced from 9,000 to 7,000 patients.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to investigate the extent to which general practitioner fundholders' savings have been used to fund the element of general practitioner staff costs normally paid by the general practitioner.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. The National Health Service (Fund-holding Practices) Regulations 1993 specifically preclude this.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have applied for recognised general
  27
  practitioner training courses in each year from 1989–90 to 1993–94; and what were the figures for individual courses for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been de-registered by general practitioners in each English health region in each year since 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Yorkshire RHA
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the total expenditure for each financial year since 1989–90 on the headquarters of the Yorkshire regional health authority at Harrogate.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Greetham, CBE, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the location of the new headquarters for the Yorkshire and North region of the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority is preparing a business case, to determine the best location of the new regional headquarters.

  Carers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health the number of cases of bad practice recorded of(a) un-registered carers and (b) registered carers in 1993–94.

  Mr. Bowis
  Informal carers are usually spouses, relatives or close friends of people with a range of mental or physical needs. They are not registered as such. Poor quality care provided by employed carers is a matter for the employer concerned.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to set up an independent registration and regulatory body for unqualified paid carers within the health and social services departments;

  (2) what is her policy on the British Association of Social Workers proposals for an independent statutory register of social workers.

  Mr. Bowis
  There have been various proposals for a General Social Services Council to regulate those employed in social work. These proposals are being considered by the Government.

  Asthma
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the adequacy of patient information material on asthma available to general practitioners; and if her Department will distribute information provided by voluntary organisations.
  28
  Mr. Sackville
  We are satisfied that general practitioners have adequate patient information on asthma available.

  Prescriptons
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the numbers of private consultations which(a) result in a private prescription paid for by the patient and (b) are transcribed on to NHS prescriptions by the GPs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available.

  Burns Unit, Billericay
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to make the decision about moving the burns unit from Billericay to Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The regional health authority is expected to refer this matter to Ministers shortly.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much(a) a basic filling, (b) a crown and (c) a course of bridgework costs (i) an exempt NHS patient and (ii) a patient paying 80 per cent. of the cost of treatment;

  (2) how much a basic filling, a crown and a course of bridgework would cost (a) an exempt national health service patient and (b) a patient paying 80 per cent. of the cost of treatment, if the dental charges were to rise by (i) 5 per cent., (ii) 10 per cent., (iii) 15 per cent., (iv) 20 per cent. and (v) 25 per cent.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The statement of dental remuneration gives a range of fees payable to dentists depending on the complexity of the actual treatment provided. Exempt patients pay no charges. For a single filling, excluding root fillings, the charge for a patient paying 80 per cent. of the cost would be between £4.24 and £11.00. For a single crown, the patient's charge would be between £41.52 and £59.32. For a course of bridgework, the patient's charge would be between £184.24 and the maximum of £275 for a single course of treatment.

  The effect of each 5 per cent. increase would be to raise the patient's charge in the examples given above by £0.21, £0.55, £2.08, £2.97 and £9.21 respectively, but not beyond the maximum of £275.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of dental treatment have been given to expectant and nursing mothers in each of the last 10 years; and what was the cost of the courses in each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is provided in the table.
  29

  General dental services number and gross cost of courses of treatment for expectant and nursing mothers from 1984 to 1993–941 adults England

  Courses of treatment

  Gross cost

  Total

  2Expectant mothers

  2Nursing mothers

  Total

  2Expectant mothers

  2Nursing mothers

  Year

  Number

  Number

  Number

  £

  £

  £

  1983

  886,090

  —

  —

  24,593,360

  —

  —

  1984

  890,470

  —

  —

  26,909,170

  —

  —

  1985

  903,760

  —

  —

  28,676,670

  —

  —

  1986–87

  968,720

  —

  —

  33,916,030

  —

  —

  1987–88

  978,770

  —

  —

  34,784,740

  —

  —

  1988–89

  1,015,140

  —

  —

  38,843,190

  —

  —

  1989–90

  1,044,250

  —

  —

  40,523,920

  —

  —

  31990–91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  1,117,865

  452,555

  665,310

  45,173,918

  15,074,247

  30,900,671

  1992–93

  1,116,531

  443,922

  672,609

  42,846,329

  14,133,933

  28,712,396

  41993–94

  1,060,683

  429,382

  631,301

  35,990,624

  12,327,137

  23,663,487

  Notes:

  1 Data for 1978 to 1985 are available for calendar year only.

  2 Separate data for expectant and nursing mothers are not available before 1991–92.

  3 Data for 1990–91 are not available.

  4 These figures are estimated using 5 per cent. sample; complete data are not yet available.

  Source: Dental Practice Board.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of dental treatment have been given to patients who pay 80 per cent. of the cost of treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is estimated that 21.7 million courses of treatment were completed between 1 April 1993 and 31 May 1994 for which no exemption or full or partial remission was claimed.1 Some of these courses of treatment will have been affected by the operation of the maximum charge and some will have been started before 1 April 1993—when the 80 per cent. proportion came into effect—and will therefore have been paid at an earlier rate.
  1 Estimated from a 5 per cent. sample of courses of treatments.
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) adults and (b) children, who are registered with a dentist, are exempt from paying charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All children are exempt from national health service dental charges. It is not possible to quantify the number of adult patients registered with a dentist who qualify for exemption.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost per adult patient for each course of dental treatment in each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The direct cost for a course of treatment for an adult patient is the fee paid to the dentist. The table shows the average fee in each year.

  Average cost per adult course of treatment England

  Year

  Average cost (£)

  1990–91

  36·20

  1991–92

  39·80

  1992–93

  39·11

  1993–94

  36·18

  Source: Dental Practice Board.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount raised from all charges on NHS dental services.
  30
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisional data for 1993–94 indicates that patient charge income from the general dental services was £367 million, net of refunds to patients. Information is not available centrally on the small amount of income raised by the limited range of patient charges applicable in the community and hospital dental services.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she will be publishing her response to the report by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield on dental remuneration;

  (2) when she will be publishing the oral health strategy for England; and what status it will have when it is published.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government's response to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report will be published in due course. The oral health strategy for England will be published at or around the same time. The strategy will review the present state of oral health in England and set out objectives for the future.

  Community Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to empower general practitioner fundholders to employ community nurses directly; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no immediate plans to do so.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS episodes of orthodontic treatment there were for the period 1983 to 1993; and what was the cost of NHS orthodontic treatment for the same period.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: No consistent data are available until 1991–92. Data from 1991–92 onwards are shown in the table.

  General dental services: courses of orthodontic treatment England and Wales

  Year

  Number (thousands)

  Cost (£ million)

  1991–92

  280

  30·8

  1992–93

  340

  36·0

  Source: Dental Practice Board.

  NHS Staff
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many(a) men and (b) women were employed at the latest available date for each grade in the administrative and clerical pay group and of the ancillary staffs pay group of the national health service, for grades one to 30 in the senior managers pay group, for each grade in the ambulance staffs pay group and the ambulance officers pay group, and for general managers and chief executives in the national health service; and if she will express the figures as numbers and as full-time equivalents.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: The latest available information by grade and by gender for the relevant staff groups will be placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Private Members' Bills
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have(a) requested parliamentary counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Parliamentary counsel does not draft on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. On one occasion since April 1992, in respect of the Civil Rights (Disabled) Persons Bill, Employment Department Ministers agreed that instructions should go to parliamentary counsel for amendments to a private Members' Bill with the intention that these should be tabled by the Government. These amendments were subsequently passed to private Members.

  European Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on what contacts his Department has had with the European Committee of the Regions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department is in contact with the European Committee of the Regions through directors of Government offices for the regions, several of whom have had meetings with members and alternate members of the committee.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Hunt Trespass
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place a copy of his guidelines relating to hunt trespass on railway lines in the Library.

  The Attorney-General
  I have issued no guidelines of the ature suggested by the hon. Member.

  Euromac Ltd.
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what investigation he has made into the reasons for and conduct of the prosecution of Mr. Ali Ashour Daghir and Jeanine Speckman of Euromac Ltd., following their release as a result of a decision of the Court of Appeal.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received respecting the bringing of criminal charges by the United Kingdom against General Augusto Pinochet; and if he will respond positively to such requests.

  The Attorney-General
  Amnesty International (British Section) requested that I should either initiate a prosecution against General Pinochet for alleged offences contrary to section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or grant consent for a prosecution to be brought. My office responded explaining that I do not myself investigate alleged crime or initiate criminal proceedings. Any action by the public prosecuting authorities would need to be preceded by a criminal investigation. Amnesty International was advised that, if it considered that the public prosecuting authorities in this country should take action, the proper course would be for them to place any evidence in the hands of the police and general guidance was given as to the evidence required to support any application for consent.

EDUCATION

  Student Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received over the last 18 months on the subject of discretionary grants for students.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Student Numbers
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what has been the total number of students attending university and colleges in each of the last three years;

  (2) what was the number of students attending universities and colleges who are aged over 35, 40 and 45 years, for the latest available period.

  Mr. Boswell
  The numbers of United Kingdom domiciled higher education students in England were 800,600, 891,200 and 995,200 in academic years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively. The numbers of students aged 35 or over in 1992–93 on the same basis were 146,500. Information on the other age groups is not readily available.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the projected number of higher education franchised students in further education colleges for 1994–95; and what was the figure for the year in which the higher education students early statistics survey was last done.
  33
  Mr. Boswell
  In the academic year 1993–94, the higher education students early statistics survey showed an estimated 43,000 franchised home and EC fee-paying HE students in further education colleges. The number of franchised HE students in FE colleges in 1994–95 will depend on decisions taken by individual HE institutions on how and where to deliver the teaching supported by HEFCE funding allocations.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which grant-maintained schools, under section 93 of the Education Act 1993, have been transferred from one former maintaining local education authority to another for the purpose of the calculation and recovery of annual maintenance grant by the Funding Agency for Schools; what were the local education authorities in each case; and what was the effect on the annual maintenance grant of each school concerned.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 May 1994, Official Report, c. 499]: I originally stated that only one operating grant-maintained school, All Hallows Roman Catholic school, formerly maintained by Hampshire local education authority and located within the boundaries of Surrey, had been affected by section 93 of the Education Act 1993. Further information has since been received by the Department indicating that the London Nautical school, formerly maintained by Southwark LEA, is located within the boundaries of Lambeth. The Funding Agency for Schools is currently considering the basis for the determination of the school's grant for 1994–95. In addition, Hockerill school, which began operating as a GM school on 1 June, was formerly maintained by Essex LEA, but is located within the boundaries of Hertfordshire. The funding agency is currently consulting on the school's grant for 1994–95.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Moorland
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to implement a scheme for moorland areas under the EU agri-environmental programme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The details of this scheme are under active consideration following a change in the quota transfer rules. We hope to be able to launch the scheme before the end of this year.

  Cereals £

  Oilseeds £

  Protein crops £

  Set-aside £

  Total £

  Avon

  1,263,110

  460,557

  205,187

  511,551

  2,440,405

  Bedfordshire

  5,060,128

  3,267,651

  2,628,276

  2,419,604

  13,375,657

  Berkshire

  3,568,382

  1,835,365

  353,265

  1,427,301

  7,184,312

  Buckinghamshire

  4,142,939

  3,321,845

  1,793,044

  2,043,092

  11,300,919

  Cambridgeshire

  16,635,924

  6,100,373

  6,974,190

  7,204,304

  36,914,791

  Cheshire

  1,780,105

  589,330

  337,828

  700,326

  3,407,590

  Cleveland

  1,445,379

  821,399

  229,832

  591,444

  3,088,054

  County Durham

  3,596,620

  2,216,667

  315,522

  1,545,029

  7,673,839

  Cornwall

  2,531,028

  450,525

  374,434

  989,125

  4,345,111

  Cumbria

  720,235

  118,848

  11,409

  265,105

  1,115,598

  Derbyshire

  2,584,475

  1,473,739

  604,494

  1,155,869

  5,818,577

  Devon

  4,274,237

  649,056

  1,142,828

  1,703,893

  7,770,015

  Dorset

  5,616,807

  682,290

  1,057,228

  2,067,180

  9,423,504

  East Sussex

  2,329,667

  1,148,079

  660,075

  1,019,306

  5,157,127

  Common Land
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress she has made in discussions with agricultural interests on the timetable for the introduction of the proposals of the Common Land Forum for legislation to resolve anomalies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department of Environment is currently formulating proposals to tackle the most immediate difficulties on common land and, in this context, has had discussions with agricultural organisations among others.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on compliance with the EU ban on drift nets over 2.5 km long.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom industry was reminded earlier this year that drift nets longer than 2.5 km were prohibited. Subsequently the Commission proposed that enforcement on the north east Atlantic drift net tuna fishery, which is prosecuted principally by French, but also by Irish and British vessels should be enhanced to ensure improved compliance with the regulations in force, including the ban on the use of nets longer than 2.5 km. I have made it clear that I am ready to examine additional cost-effective enforcement measures constructively. National enforcement procedures are kept under review and varied when appropriate.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of payments made under last year's main arable area payments scheme in each county of England in respect of(a) cereals, (b) oilseeds, (c) protein crops, (d) linseed and (e) set-aside.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table gives the total payments claimed in 1993 for cereals, oilseeds, protein crops and set-aside on land situated in each county of England. The total amounts paid will have been slightly lower because of reductions made for various reasons. However, since such reductions normally have to be calculated on the basis of the total claim, which may include land in more than one county, it is not possible to give figures for the total amounts paid on a county basis. Linseed was not included in the scheme until 1993–94 and county-based figures are not available for 1992–93.
  35

  Cereals £

  Oilseeds £

  Protein crops £

  Set-aside £

  Total £

  Essex

  16,053,877

  7,973,011

  6,094,061

  7,106,416

  37,227,364

  Gloucestershire

  6,312,976

  3,891,434

  1,871,244

  2,816,647

  14,892,302

  Greater Manchester

  407,341

  170,722

  122,700

  175,019

  875,783

  Hampshire

  10,752,141

  3,407,796

  2,434,460

  3,976,396

  20,570,793

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  7,700,175

  2,978,188

  3,205,633

  3,433,498

  17,317,494

  Hertfordshire

  6,080,991

  2,729,974

  2,498,086

  2,696,533

  14,005,584

  Humberside

  18,726,645

  6,241,866

  7,116,120

  7,838,505

  39,923,137

  Isle of Wight

  795,051

  313,488

  262,757

  289,895

  1,661,192

  Kent

  8,733,521

  6,343,054

  4,020,186

  4,072,982

  23,169,743

  Lancashire

  1,315,884

  396,579

  663,464

  508,987

  2,884,913

  Leicestershire

  7,917,287

  5,151,317

  3,896,942

  3,797,855

  20,763,401

  Lincolnshire

  29,642,531

  10,635,771

  13,984,261

  12,882,312

  67,144,874

  Merseyside

  740,434

  253,374

  314,566

  314,379

  1,622,752

  Norfolk

  21,513,571

  2,126,744

  6,427,548

  8,394,303

  38,462,166

  North Yorkshire

  18,974,064

  6,110,437

  4,588,308

  7,722,108

  37,394,918

  Northamptonshire

  8,512,313

  6,787,823

  4,796,043

  4,366,080

  24,462,257

  Northumberland

  8,244,767

  4,439,934

  845,488

  3,364,373

  16,894,563

  Nottinghamshire

  7,779,274

  3,852,044

  2,924,559

  3,460,257

  18,016,135

  Oxfordshire

  9,951,094

  6,718,368

  2,651,441

  4,390,622

  23,711,525

  Shropshire

  7,576,999

  1,116,354

  1,573,403

  2,917,073

  13,183,829

  Somerset

  4,007,406

  650,164

  1,315,194

  1,567,290

  7,540,054

  South Yorkshire

  3,368,107

  1,963,770

  1,433,119

  1,559,266

  8,324,261

  Staffordshire

  3,934,570

  1,486,400

  1,069,211

  1,599,768

  8,089,950

  Suffolk

  17,586,154

  4,276,384

  6,526,543

  7,384,311

  35,773,392

  Surrey

  1,027,695

  649,340

  351,365

  485,067

  2,513,467

  Tyne and Wear

  741,792

  610,103

  29,078

  311,713

  1,692,686

  West Midlands

  458,864

  283,127

  84,256

  224,509

  1,050,755

  West Sussex

  3,906,997

  1,390,040

  1,762,035

  1,659,823

  8,718,895

  Warwickshire

  6,021,458

  4,544,970

  3,111,537

  2,989,801

  16,667,766

  West Yorkshire

  2,137,691

  967,120

  573,338

  929,196

  4,607,345

  Wiltshire

  11,213,128

  4,337,627

  1,824,493

  4,479,427

  21,854,675

  TOTAL

  308,034,248

  126,171,763

  105,162,516

  131,521,783

  670,890,310

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her estimate of payments to be made under this year's main arable area payments scheme in each county of England in respect of(a) cereals, (b) oilseeds, (c) protein crops, (d) linseed and (e) set aside.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Forward estimates are not made on a county basis. Current estimates for total payments in England under the main arable area payments scheme are:

  £

  (a) cereals

  413,222,528

  (b) oilseeds

  136,070,860

  (c) protein crops

  85,940,727

  (d) linseed

  63,231,644

  (e) set-aside

  194,383,962

  Total

  892,849,721

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment her Department has made of the overall environmental quality of the arable areas in England for which payments under the main arable area payments scheme are being made; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A three-year environmental and agronomic evaluation of set-aside under the arable area payments scheme is currently being commissioned, and is to start this autumn. The evaluation will identify the environmental and agronomic impact of different management conditions on the set-aside land itself, and on neighbouring and subsequent arable crops.
  36
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she intends to take to prevent environmental damage and improve environmental quality on land on which arable area payments are made.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the information in the reply I gave him on 14 June, Official Report, column 444.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost to her department of advertising in the media that 15 May 1994 was the deadline for receipt of completed area aid applications under the IACS; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cost of advertising the 15 May 1994 deadline for IACS applications in the national farming press was £16,694 including production, advertising charges and VAT.

  The aid available under the common agriculture policy schemes which require submission of an IACS form is an important part of the income of many farmers. I considered it vital to ensure that there was wide publicity in respect of the deadline because 1994 is only the second year of IACS operation and because two extra schemes were subject to the IACS requirements this year.

  Fisheries, Cornwall
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the effect on the fishing industry in south Cornwall of the Ministry of Defence's proposal to site a naval firing range off Dodman point.
  37
  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry of Defence has consulted widely about its proposals to move the naval gunfire support training area from Portland to Dodman point and has arranged meetings and a demonstration firing to inform fishermen of their intentions.

  I understand that a feature of gunfire support training is that the Royal Navy works around and does not disrupt fishing operations or disturb other marine activity. However, the area adjacent to Dodman point is regularly fished by a number of mainly inshore vessels from local ports and I am aware that considerable local concern has been expressed. MAFF officials have received assurances that MOD will give very careful consideration to the objections expressed by local fishing organisations.

  MoD is now analysing the comments received during the consultation period, which ended on 10 June, before reaching any decision.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide figures for each year since 1979 for what was the total area of agricultural land in the English less-favoured areas in hectares in each year since 1979; and what are these figures as a percentage of the total current English less-favoured areas.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The table shows the total area of land in England, designated as less favoured, in each year in which additional land has been designated and expresses this as a proportion of the current area of designated land.

  Cereal yield estimates

  Yield (tonnes per heactare)

  Year

  Wales

  England

  Farms wholly within less favoured areas

  Farms wholly outside less favoured areas

  Farms wholly with less favoured areas

  Farms wholly outside less favoured areas

  1986

  4·91

  5·47

  4·97

  6·28

  1987

  4·67

  4·85

  5·39

  5·61

  1988

  4·41

  5·02

  5·13

  5·49

  1989

  4·18

  4·36

  5·02

  6·03

  1990

  4·50

  4·85

  5·96

  6·23

  Average 1986–901

  4·53

  4·91

  5·18

  5·96

  1In each case excluding the year with the highest yield and the year with the lowest yield during the period.

  Medical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds his Department has available for statutory or non-statutory contingent liabilities for claims of medical or surgical negligence against GP fundholders.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None of the Welsh Office funds are available to meet liabilities for claims of clinical negligence against GP fundholders. All general practitioners are obliged to make their own arrangements to cover such risks.

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of cattle aged 30 months or under with enzootic bovine leukosis.
  38

  Total area in England designated as less favoured

  Area designated as less favoured

  ('000 hectares)

  As a proportion of total land currently designated per cent.

  1975

  1,476·0

  77·8

  1984

  1,889·4

  99·6

  1990

  1,897·8

  100·0

WALES

  Cereals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the average cereal yields achieved on farms in(a) less favoured areas and (b) non-less favoured areas in Wales for each year from 1986 to 1990, excluding the highest and lowest values; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Estimates of cereal yields are derived from a sample survey, the cereals production survey and from the June agicultural census, both conducted jointly by MAFF and the Welsh Office. The sample survey is not specifically designed for results to be produced at below an all-Wales level and so the average yields are subject to a greater margin of error than for Wales as a whole. The average values shown in the final row of the table are estimated to be accurate to within plus or minus 20 per cent. The requested information is shown in the table. I have set out the position in England for the purpose of comparison.

  Mr. Redwood
  I know of none at 15 June 1994.

  Flood and Storm Emergency Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he made in 1993–94 for flood and storm emergency services financial assistance to local authorities; and what provision he is making for 1994–95.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities are expected to make provision for responding to emergencies such as storms and floods when setting their budgets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may provide extra financial assistance for large scale emergencies under the Bellwin scheme in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. In 1993–94 Bellwin payments of £3.76 million have been made. Provision for 1994–95 is £50,000.

  Groundwork Trusts
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library details of the financial contribution of his Department to the groundwork trusts in Wales in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1992–93 and 1993–94 the Welsh Office made the following contributions towards the administrative costs of the four groundwork trusts in Wales and to environmental improvement projects they have undertaken.

  £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Core funding grant

  292,081

  329,407

  European regional development fund

  313,926

  639,311

  Urban programme

  710,000

  689,540

  Environment Wales

  60,389

  81,408

  TOTAL

  1,376,396

  1,739,666

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been made in the current year for category 3 sheep quota from the national reserve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have received 2,011 applications—1,745 from producers in the less-favoured area in Wales and 266 from producers who fall within the Great Britain lowland—to category 3 of the 1993 sheep national reserves.

  These applications will be considered against the criteria established in S.I. 1993 No. 3036, and individual producers notified of the outcome in due course.

  Community Care
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts were spent on the community care programme for each county council area, each district council area and for Wales as a whole since the introduction of the programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the amounts spent by local authorities on the care in the community

  ERDF Grant Payments made to Local Authorities by Financial Year

  Authority

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Aberconwy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  308,000

  677,000

  4,000

  138,000

  Arfon

  58,000

  0

  0

  65,000

  344,000

  Blaenau Gwent

  105,000

  73,000

  407,000

  150,000

  398,000

  Brecknock

  10,000

  0

  117,000

  0

  107,000

  Cardiff

  1,841,000

  273,000

  687,000

  1,982,000

  72,000

  Carmarthen

  98,000

  0

  127,000

  0

  0

  Ceredigion

  60,000

  66,000

  369,000

  570,000

  249,000

  Clwyd

  1,501,000

  292,000

  2,318,000

  2,123,000

  1,721,000

  Colwyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  159,000

  Cynon Valley

  203,000

  85,000

  288,000

  430,000

  1,400,000

  Delyn

  292,000

  856,000

  764,000

  431,000

  496,000

  Dinefwr

  201,000

  1,000

  0

  575,000

  131,000

  Dwyfor

  0

  1,141,000

  826,000

  858,000

  322,000

  Dyfed

  175,000

  1,858,000

  10,640,000

  1,043,000

  4,053,000

  Glyndwr

  0

  74,000

  3,000

  0

  0

  Gwent

  115,000

  1,315,000

  3,634,000

  1,565,000

  2,791,000

  Gwynedd

  1,448,000

  1,091,000

  2,492,000

  595,000

  1,541,000

  Islwyn

  6,000

  0

  1,116,000

  121,000

  834,000

  40
  programme is not collected centrally. However, the amounts identified within the overall standard spending assessments for each county in Wales are given in the following table. Separately identifiable provision was not made for district councils.

  Provision for care in the community identified within standard spending assessments

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  6·8

  14·4

  Dyfed

  4·6

  10·7

  Gwent

  5·5

  12·6

  Gwynedd

  3·5

  8·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  5·1

  13·6

  Powys

  1·6

  3·6

  South Glamorgan

  4·9

  11·0

  West Glamorgan

  5·4

  12·1

  WALES

  37·5

  86·0

  ERDF Grants
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total of European regional development fund grants accruing to local authorities in Wales in each of the most recent five years; if he will make a statement clarifying the manner in which such grants are taken into account in assessing the standard spending assessments of local authorities in Wales; and what recent changes there have been in such procedures.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total amount of ERDF paid to local authorities in Wales in each of the most recent five years is provided in the following table.

  Each local authority's outstanding loan debt is taken into account when it's standard spending assessment is determined.

  Since ERDF grants are used to redeem debt, the relevant debt figures for each authority is reduced annually by the amount of ERDF grant it has received up to the end of the last full financial year for which payments information is available. This procedure, which is agreed with the Welsh local authority associations, has not changed in recent years. Further details may be found in the "Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1994–95" (HC 168).
  41

  Authority

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Llanelli

  465,000

  25,000

  574,000

  1,139,000

  1,032,000

  Lliw Valley

  0

  0

  185,000

  139,000

  225,000

  Meirionnydd

  31,000

  780,000

  784,000

  1,698,000

  997,000

  Merthyr Tydfil

  10,000

  13,000

  0

  0

  147,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,956,000

  4,291,000

  1,997,000

  3,694,000

  4,448,000

  Monmouth

  0

  0

  121,000

  73,000

  38,000

  Montgomeryshire

  642,000

  24,000

  1,270,000

  1,074,000

  329,000

  Neath

  74,000

  37,000

  709,000

  0

  374,000

  Newport

  261,000

  358,000

  741,000

  1,960,000

  765,000

  Ogwr

  708,000

  83,000

  0

  96,000

  274,000

  Port Talbot

  81,000

  0

  0

  0

  47,000

  Powys

  1,023,000

  249,000

  1,824,000

  1,815,000

  661,000

  Preseli Pembroke

  58,000

  0

  1,158,000

  556,000

  173,000

  Radnorshire

  31,000

  0

  316,000

  745,000

  169,000

  Rhondda

  415,000

  658,000

  907,000

  270,000

  807,000

  Rhuddlan

  3,000

  981,000

  1,956,000

  1,682,000

  1,011,000

  Rhymney Valley

  288,000

  77,000

  539,000

  185,000

  289,000

  South Glamorgan

  286,000

  69,000

  2,689,000

  5,210,000

  1,016,000

  South Pembrokeshire

  405,000

  288,000

  43,000

  0

  131,000

  Swansea

  0

  3,924,000

  215,000

  1,228,000

  1,456,000

  Taff Ely

  0

  19,000

  97,000

  238,000

  277,000

  Torfaen

  120,000

  706,000

  383,000

  1,219,000

  1,015,000

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0

  6,000

  517,000

  205,000

  155,000

  West Glamorgan

  1,556,000

  291,000

  5,582,000

  2,715,000

  2,386,000

  Wrexham Maelor

  0

  240,000

  2,259,000

  476,000

  132,000

  Ynys Môn

  710,000

  436,000

  1,404,000

  40,000

  82,000

  Total

  18,218,000

  20,988,000

  50,735,000

  36,969,000

  33,192,000

  /p>

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Furnishings
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee how much will be spent in the next two financial years on office furnishing in the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. Channon
  Under the 10-year rolling programme of works some £260,000 has been set aside for office furniture in each of the next two financial years.

  Child Care
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what is the timetable for progress on child care arrangements in Parliament.

  Mr. Beith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).

  European Debates
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what considerations he takes into account when placing notices in the Order Paper to suspend Standing Order No. 102 relating to debates on matters concerning the European Community and Union.

  Mr. Newton
  A motion is occasionally tabled to de-refer a European Community document which stands referred to a European Standing Committee, so that it may be debated on the Floor of the House. The considerations will vary depending on the nature of the document concerned.

  Sitting Hours
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he has made in respect of reforming the sittings arrangements for the House.

  Mr. Newton
  I am currently engaged in constructive discussions with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). Our aim is to find ways of enabling the House to do its business in more sensible ways, at more sensible hours, without either unacceptably reducing the Government's capacity to carry their programme or unacceptably reducing the Opposition's flexibility in deploying and pressing their case. It is my hope that those discussions will enable us to map the way forward before the summer recess.

  EC Legislation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has considered to improve the scrutiny of EC legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament in advance of its enactment by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Newton
  I expect to respond shortly to the report by the Select Committee on European Legislation entitled "Scrutiny after Maastricht" (First Special Report, 1993–94) which contained detailed proposals for the scrutiny of legislative proposals under the co-decision procedure.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list those hon. Members who have had oral questions 1 to 10 to the Secretary of State for Employment more than three times during 1994.

  Mr. Newton
  None.
  43
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list those hon. Members who have had questions 1 to 6 to the Prime Minister more than four times in 1994 to date.

  Mr. Newton
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has had five such questions to the Prime Minister.

  Visitors
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his timetable for improving facilities for visitors to the House of Commons.

  Mr. Newton
  It is hoped that the House will have an opportunity to consider the recommendations contained in the Catering Committee's First Report of Session 1992–93 on Line of Route facilities before the summer recess.

TRANSPORT

  Piggyback Rail System
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to support the introduction of a lorry piggyback rail system between the channel tunnel and the midlands.

  Mr. Freeman
  The proposal to build a piggyback freight railway from the midlands to the channel tunnel is being put forward by a private sector group. It is for them to seek planning permission and finance. The Government have not been asked to assist the project. More generally, we welcome in principle any worthwhile proposal to ship more freight by rail, either conventional containers or the whole lorry trailer and load.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has in respect of train maintenance on the London underground.

  Mr. Norris
  The maintenance of London's under-ground system is an operational matter for London Underground Limited.

  Road Traffic, Eastbourne
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last had the opportunity to consider the road traffic needs of Eastbourne.

  Mr. Key
  Last month, when I visited the area.

  Runway Capacity
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the Government's response to the consultation on the report on runway capacity in the south east.

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently considering the responses to the RUCATSE consultation and expect to respond before the end of the year.

  Motorways
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the proportion of car owners who regularly use motorways.
  44
  Mr. Key
  Research commissioned by the Department and summarised in the Green Paper, "Paying for Better Motorways" (Cm 2200), indicates that only about half of car drivers use motorways most months or more frequently.

  River Crossings
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make a further statement on river crossings and improved transport facilities in south-east London.

  Mr. Norris
  I am reviewing the strategy for river crossings in east London. I hope to make an announcement later this summer.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments he has made of the effects on passengers resulting from plans to privatise the railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) earlier today.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what indications there are from previous privatisations of transport industries of the effects on passengers of the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  Previous privatisations have consistently led to improved services for customers and greater efficiency for the industries concerned. The same will happen on the railways.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the line closures that are likely to result from the privatisation of British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no reason for privatisation to lead to any increase in the number of lines or stations being proposed for closure. The safeguards are at least as strong as they have been in the past.

  Aircraft Noise, Gatwick
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of noise caused by night-time commercial aircraft movements around Gatwick airport.

  Mr. Norris
  The night restrictions that we have set at Gatwick are designed to keep the night noise level below that in summer 1988.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the timetable for franchising railway services.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a target timetable for the franchising of services by the franchising director. The first six franchises are to be awarded by the end of 1995, and over half of British Rail's current passenger services are to be
  45
  franchised by April 1996. The franchising director published a programme in April setting out how he intends to meet these targets.

  Rail Services (Competition)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what results he expects from the introduction of competition in terms of improving rail services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Evidence from previous transport privatisations shows that the introduction of competition encourages the development of better quality services. I am confident that customers—passengers and freight consignors—will benefit from more services of higher quality, improved efficiency and better value for money.

  Transatlantic Air Routes
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.

  Mr. Norris
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport met the US transportation secretary last month he once again signalled the United Kingdom's willingness to continue talks. We hope that the United Kingdom's approval of the Virgin/Delta deal will help get the talks going again.

  A12
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about proposals for a new junction to be constructed on the A12 to join with the A134 at Great Hawkesley.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has no plans to increase capacity on this section of the A12, nor to construct any new junctions. We would therefore expect the cost of any new A12–A134 interchange which might be needed to facilitate development to be met by the developers.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of occasions, the reasons, and the cost to public funds of the use of helicopters by employees of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for Railtrack, but I understand from it that there has been no use of helicopters by its employees.

  Air Fares
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the third aviation package is having on air fares in Europe.

  Mr. Norris
  EC carriers are now free to set their own fares, and the EC licensing and market access provisions encourage competition. Since the beginning of 1993 we have seen some straight fare reductions, and various offers of seasonal tickets and promotional fares.

  Residential Areas
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the volume and speed of traffic in residential areas.

  Mr. Key
  It is for local highway authorities to design schemes which control the volume and speed of traffic on their roads. My Department provides technical advice on the regulations and individual design features in circulars and traffic advisory leaflets.

  Kidderminster, Blakedown, Hagley Bypass
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the public costs associated with the Kidderminster, Blakedown. Hagley bypass incurred so far; and if he will break this down between(a) design, (b) compulsory purchase and (c) public inquiry costs.

  Mr. Key
  The question relates to matters which are the responsibility of the Highways Agency; the chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Anthony Coombs, dated 16 June 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport about the public costs incurred so far with the Kidderminster, Blakedown and Hagley Bypass and if he would give a breakdown between: (a) design, (b) compulsory purchase and (c) public inquiry.
  The overall cost so far is about £15–4 million (inclusive of VAT). This does not include in-house staff costs, which are not readily available but are comparatively small.
  Of this, design costs amount of £1.95 million. This includes the costs of a number of consultants, ground investigation works and an archaeological survey, and of printing and compiling a range of documents.
  We have not yet reached compulsory purchase stage, but we have acquired property under either statutory or discretionary blight at a cost of £13.26 million. We will however be in a position to sell many of these properties after completion of the scheme and in the meantime many are rented to tenants. The net cost will therefore be lower.
  The direct cost of the Public Inquiry was about £189,000, not including the costs of our consultants for this purpose, which are included in the figures above.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's cones inquiry line.

  Mr. Key
  As the cones hotline is not an operational matter for the Highways Agency, the chief executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Brian Donohue dated 16 June 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he would make a statement on the Department's cones enquiry line. As this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I am replying to your question.
  The cones hotline has been running for exactly two years. In that time it has dealt with 5,200 telephone calls of which just over 3,000 have been pursued as formal complaints or requests for information. It gives motorists direct access to the highway authority responsible for the motorway and trunk road network; and as such fits squarely with the wider Citizen's Charter initiative and the policy of improving driver information.
  The Cones Hotline is covered by the Highways Agency's 'Road User's Charter' which sets out standards of service for the

  47
  road network. In following this we undertake to deal with Hotline enquiries as efficiently as possible; and if it is established that there is no good reason for cones to be present, we undertake to get them removed.
  We have recently invited expressions of interest, through the EC Journal, from specialist companies who might be well placed to run the Cones Hotline on the Agency's behalf. This is part of a continuing review to ensure that the Hotline provides the most efficient and effective service.

  Railway Property (Hunt Trespass)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of hunt trespass on railway property have been recorded to date in 1994.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are six recorded incidents of hunt trespass on railway property to date this year.

  Marine Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he proposes to introduce the proposed 20 per cent. efficiency savings into the Marine Safety Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  Plans for delivering this saving are still being formulated.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 565, what percentage of male grade 7s received (a) box 1 and (b) box 2 markings in 1991–92, what were the figures for typists; what proportion of typists were (i) male and (ii) female; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  In the 1991–92 reporting year, 4.7 per cent. of male grade 7s received box 1 and 52.4 per cent. box 2 performance markings. No male typist received a box 1 or 2 marking. 0.3 per cent. of typist grades were male and 99.7 per cent. female.

  DISC Project
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 3, what is the total cost to date of the DISC network policy project; and what tangible results have been obtained from the expenditure thereon.

  Mr. Norris
  The DISC network policy project finished in July 1993 when a policy governing the provision of wide-area computer network services was endorsed by the departmental Information Systems Committee. The project to develop the policy cost approximately £117,000—made up of consulting fees and official time. The end product was a policy that defines the framework within which the Department's executive agencies and other units address their individual requirements for data communications and the mechanism by which the Department as a whole achieves economies of scale in meeting these requirements.

  Heathrow and Gatwick Airports
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the latest projections he has received from United Kingdom airlines of the proportion of both full day peak and morning peak time slots scheduled for a typical mid-August 1994 week at Heathrow and Gatwick as a proportion of total slots available for both periods.
  48
  Mr. Norris
  In a 1994 mid-August week the proportions of available slots allocated to airlines in the full-day peak—0700–2059—and the morning peak—0700–1159—are, respectively, 96.8 per cent. and 98.5 per cent. at Heathrow, and 95.2 per cent. and 95.9 per cent. at Gatwick.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 3, on the study of EC directives undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand, what consideration was given to using civil service staff to undertake the work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Support from consultants was used as resources were not available within the Department to carry out all the work required in the limited time available.

  Information Campaigns
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) of 3 March,Official Report, column 833, if he will list the budgets for the various public information campaigns for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which the budgets will be affected following his recent statement of the 20 per cent. efficiency gains.

  Mr. Norris
  The budgets provisionally allocated to the various public information campaigns planned for the current financial year are as follows:

  £ million

  Road safety campaigns

  6·30

  drink drive

  2·50

  kill your speed and child road safety

  3·00

  other road safety

  0·80

  Other transport safety and public information campaigns

  0·65

  These budgets are not affected by the recently announced 20 per cent. efficiency gains statement, but as with all voted expenditure they are constantly reviewed in the light of the priorities and the resources available to meet them.

  Responsibility for marine and coastal public information campaigns and the relevant budgets is being transferred to the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency.

  Rail Staff Pay Offer
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he or any of his Ministers or civil servants had any communications with members of the board of British Rail or Railtrack on the subject of the signalling staff pay offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Negotiations about the pay of signalling staff are a matter for Railtrack. But I, my Ministers and senior civil servants have made clear to members of the boards of British Railways and Railtrack on a number of occasions the importance which the Government attach to controlling public expenditure and restraining paybill costs.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the approximate cost of preparation and auxiliary work occasioned by works for the Jubilee line at Westminster station that are not part of the contracts for that line; and what is the principal expenditures and the source of funding from(a) public and (b) private bodies.

  Mr. Norris
  In the parliamentary summer recesses of 1992 and 1993, London Underground Limited spent a total of around £3 million on utility diversions in the Westminster station area. All that expenditure was financed by the Government's grant to London Transport.

  A64
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last travelled in his official capacity along the A64 from York to Scarborough.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have never travelled along the whole route in my official capacity but have frequently done so non-officially.

  Buses, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) double decker and (b) single decker public service buses are estimated to be on London's roads at the latest available date; how many passengers they carried; what were the comparable figures five years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  In 1992–93 there were 3,649 double decker and 1,395 single decker—including 1,232 midi and mini type—London Transport buses, excluding tendered service buses run by companies other than London Buses Ltd. In 1987–88, the comparable figures were 4,389 double decker and 624 single decker—including 170 midi and mini type.

  For total passenger figures, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 29 November 1993 at column 340. Passenger figures by vehicle type are not available.

  London Traffic
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the proportion of traffic within Greater London carried by(a) road, (b) rail and (c) river.

  Mr. Norris
  In 1992, it was estimated that 78 per cent. of freight lifted in Greater London, by weight, was carried by road, 17 per cent. by river and 4 per cent. by rail.

  In 1991, 81 per cent. of the number of journeys made by individuals, excluding journeys involving only walking, were by road and 19 per cent. by rail. The proportion of journeys made by river was less than one tenth of 1 per cent.

SCOTLAND

  Litter Bins, A9
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the outcome of the Scottish Office experiment in the reduction in the deposit of litter in 50
  lay-bys which led to the removal of litter bins from lay-bys on the A9 from Aviemore to the Slochd; when these bins will be replaced; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990, which came in to force on 1 April 1991, and its associated litter code of practice transferred responsibility for sweeping and cleansing of trunk roads—other than motorways or designated special roads—from the Secretary of State to the district or island councils.

  Since the removal of the litter bins from the lay-bys on the section of the A9 trunk road from Aviemore to the Slochd, only one lay-by has given cause for concern. In response to this, Badenoch and Strathspey district council replaced the litter bin and is now content with the situation. It has no plans to replace any further litter bins on this section.

  Green Belt Policy
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of protecting the green belt which lies between(a) Paisley and Elderslie and (b) Elderslie and Johnstone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government's policy on protection of the green belt in Scotland is contained in Scottish Development Department circular 24/1985, a copy of which is in the House Library. I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list individuals and organisations who responded to the consultation document on the proposal for a national health servive trust to merge the Royal Scottish National hospital with Forth Valley Healthcare; who was in favour of the proposal; and who was against.

  Mr. Stewart
  Copies of all comments received in response to the public consultation have been retained by Forth Valley health board and are available for inspection. In due course a copy will also be available for inspection in the Library of the Scottish Office at St. Andrew's house, Edinburgh.

  There were 32 responses, most of which provided comments but did not specifically indicate support or opposition to the proposed merger. Clearly stated opinions indicated eight in favour and two against, as follows:
  In favour

  Area Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Central Regional Council

  University of Stirling

  Relatives Association, Royal Scottish National Hospital

  Purchasing and Monitoring Team on Priority and Community Services, Forth Valley Health Board

  Forth Valley College of Nursing and Midwifery

  Mr. P. Dickens, Clinical Services Manager, Royal Scottish National Hospital

  Against

  Mr. Dennis Canavan, MP

  Dr. G. Dodds, Consultant Psychiatrist, Bellsdyke Hospital

  Comments

  Area Medical Committee

  GP Sub-Committee

  Area Pharmaceutical Committee

  51

  Area Paramedical Committee

  Psychology Advisory Committee, Forth Valley Healthcare

  British Medical Association

  The College of Speech and Language Therapists

  The Royal College of Nursing

  Clackmannan District Council

  Forth Valley Local Health Council

  Scottish Health Visitors' Association

  Friends of Bellsdyke Hospital

  Stirling and District Association for Mental Health

  Dr. P. Murdoch, Consultant Physician in Geriatric Medicine, Falkirk Unit

  Dr. R. Hall, Interim Clinical Director (Community) Forth Valley Healthcare

  Mr. and Mrs. J. McKelvie

  General Adult Psychiatry Clinical Directorate, Forth Valley Healthcare

  Professions Allied to Medicine, Forth Valley Healthcare Carers' Forum

  No comments

  The Royal College of Midwives, Scottish Board

  British Red Cross

  Strathcarron Hospice

  Mental Welfare Commission
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects to announce the appointments of the new members of the Mental Welfare Commission;

  (2) if he will list the current members of the Mental Welfare Commission and their period of tenure.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has today announced the appointment of Mrs. Norma Bennie, Mrs. E. Faith Cotter, Mr. Donald J. MacDonald and Mr. John A. Ross as part-time commissioners to the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Mrs. Patricia A. Baxter has been re-appointed for a further term.

  The current membership of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland is as follows:

  Year of First Appointment

  Due to Demit Office

  Chairman

  Sheriff Hazel Aronson QC

  1991

  1 May 1995

  Full-time Medical Commissioners

  Dr. J. A. Dyer (Director)

  1991

  15 April 1995

  Dr. A. W. Drummond

  1993

  31 May 1995

  Full-time Social Work Commissioner

  Mrs. C. E. McGregor

  1993

  30 November 1997

  Part-time Commissioners

  Mrs. P. A. Baxter

  1990

  30 April 1998

  Mrs. N. Bennie

  1994

  31 May 1998

  Mr. P. H. Brodie QC

  1985

  31 December 1996

  Mrs. E. F. Cotter

  1994

  31 May 1998

  Mr. R. G. Davis

  1984

  31 May 1996

  Mrs. A. M. Green

  1984

  31 May 1996

  Mrs. M. Jeffcoat

  1992

  31 May 1996

  Dr. M. G. Livingston

  1994

  31 December 1997

  Dr. E. D. A. McCall-Smith

  1993

  31 July 1997

  Dr. R. G. McCreadie

  1994

  31 December 1997

  Mr. D. J. MacDonald

  1994

  31 May 1998

  Mr. J. C. Murray (Vice-Chairman)

  1991

  2 September 1995

  Miss L. Noble

  1992

  31 May 1996

  Mr. J. A. Ross

  1994

  31 May 1998

  Mr. J. G. Sutherland OBE

  1984

  31 May 1996

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what criteria he will use for appointments to the Mental Welfare Commission;
  52
  (2) how many nominations he has received for vacancies on the Mental Welfare Commission.

  Mr. Stewart
  The criteria for appointments to the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland are set out in part II of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. Commissioners are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Before making such a recommendation, my right hon. Friend is required to consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned.

  In the past year, 11 nominations have been received for part-time vacancies on the Mental Welfare Commission. Recommendations for the appointment of full-time medical and social work commissioners are put forward following an open recruitment competition.

  Housing
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number and location of unoccupied housing held by Government Departments; and what proposals he has to bring these back into use for homeless families.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is responsible only for property held by the Scottish Office. In April 1993, the Scottish Office Departments, health boards and trusts had 239 empty properties throughout Scotland out of a total stock of 1,625 properties. An agreed target was set to dispose of or bring back into use 80 of these properties by 31 March 1994. The figure achieved was 94. Sale or lease to a housing association for rent to those in housing need is one option to be considered for empty property, but the approach in each case will depend on local circumstances.

  Ravenspark Hospital
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many redundancies Ayrshire and Arran health board expect to result from the closure of Ravenspark hospital; and how many of these will occur among(a) ancillary, (b) nursing and (c) medical staff;

  (2) what assurances have been sought by Ayrshire and Arran health board or the Community Health Care NHS trust from the companies bidding for replacement provision resulting from the closure of Ravenspark hospital as regards the employment of national health service employees who will be made redundant by the closure of Ravenspark hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: It is anticipated that Ravenspark hospital will close in early 1995. It is too early to talk about specific redundancies at this stage.

  All prospective tenderers have indicated to the health board that their recruitment programmes would give first consideration to staff currently caring for patients who will be transferred from Ravenspark hospital to the new facilities under their ownership and management. For its part, the community healthcare trust will ensure that staff and patient welfare issues are actively addressed during closure to ensure a smooth transition in the interests of staff and of quality patient care.

  Psychiatry (Statistics)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many high-security psychiatric patients were admitted to psychiatric wards in non-high security units in Scotland in the period from 1985 to 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: None. The state hospital, Carstairs provides care for all Scottish psychiatric patients needing treatment in conditions of medium or maximum security.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the most common forms of mental illness for children and teenagers; and what was their incidence in Scotland in the period 1979 to 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: This information is not available. However, in 1993 the number of admissions to mental illness hospitals in Scotland for the under-19 age group was as follows:

  1993

  Percentage of total admissions

  Alcoholic psychosis

  19

  2

  Alcohol dependence syndrome

  Drug abuse

  104

  11

  Schizophrenic psychoses

  85

  9

  Affective psychoses

  56

  6

  Other psychoses

  90

  10

  Disorders of childhood

  38

  4

  Neurotic disorders

  33

  4

  Depressions—non psychotic

  169

  16

  Personality disorders

  35

  4

  Other conditions

  1288

  31

  Total

  917

  100

  1Refers mainly to assessment or respite admissions.

  The total numbers of admissions for this age group since 1979 were as follows:

  All admissions

  First admissions

  1979

  1,032

  704

  1980

  1,095

  667

  1981

  1,269

  720

  1982

  1,102

  685

  1983

  1,145

  730

  1984

  1,082

  657

  1985

  1,033

  613

  1986

  935

  563

  1987

  941

  579

  1988

  909

  575

  1989

  898

  530

  1990

  916

  566

  1991

  961

  575

  1992

  1,056

  541

  1993

  917

  490

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the national referral pattern for adolescent psychiatric services for Scotland; and what was the regional breakdown of contractual referral for each health region for the period 1979 to 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The information is not available in the form requested. Information is available that shows first attendances for
  54

  years 1984–93 only. However, the information is too lengthy to print in the Official Report so I will arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member and for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House. Adolescent psychiatric clinics are provided by the boards shown. For those that do not hold separate adolescent clinics, adolescents are likely to be referred to neighbouring boards or to their own adult psychiatric services.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursing and paramedical staff in Scotland are qualified in forensic psychiatry and working in(a) high security units and (b) admission wards in psychiatric hospitals and mental health trusts.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what capital charges were levied on each regional adolescent psychiatric unit in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: None. There are no regional adolescent psychiatric units in Scotland. Adolescent psychiatric services are part of the general psychiatric provision.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursing and para-medical staff working in psychiatric wards in mental health trust hospitals in Scotland have sustained non-accidental injuries from patients in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many psychiatric patients have been contracted out for treatment to the private sector in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: This information is not available centrally. It is for individual health boards to determine the needs of their population and to purchase psychiatric services accordingly.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds designated specifically for adolescent psychiatry there were in Scotland in each year since 1979 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS Scotland average available staffed beds; Adolescent psychiatry: Years ending 31 March 1979–1993

  Year

  1979

  64

  1980

  64

  1981

  64

  1982

  64

  1983

  64

  1984

  79

  1985

  78

  1986

  76

  1987

  77

  1988

  77

  1989

  75

  1990

  67

  1991

  59

  55

  Year

  1992

  53

  11993

  61

  1Year ending 31 December 1993

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the national referral patterns and regional referral patterns for all units providing psychiatric services for deaf people in Scotland in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children and teenagers suffering from serious mental illnesses were admitted to psychiatric hospitals in Scotland in the period 1979 to 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Admissions1 to Mental Illness and Psychiatric Units Scotland 1979–1993

  Aged 0–19 years

  Year

  All Admissions

  1st Admissions

  1979

  1,034

  705

  1980

  1,125

  670

  1981

  1,293

  725

  1982

  1,134

  690

  1983

  1,152

  730

  1984

  1,088

  658

  1985

  1,034

  613

  1986

  935

  563

  1987

  941

  579

  1988

  910

  575

  1989

  898

  530

  1990

  920

  566

  1991

  969

  575

  1992

  1,067

  541

  21993

  923

  490

  1Excludes patients with a mental handicap diagnosis.

  2Provisional.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many forensic psychiatric patients have been treated in Scotland in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Separate information on forensic psychiatric patients is not available. The position for all mental illness and psychiatric admissions is as follows:

  Admissions1 to Mental Illness and Psychiatric Units Scotland 1985–1993

  Year

  All ages All Admissions

  1985

  27,158

  1986

  27,418

  1987

  27,925

  1988

  28,907

  1989

  28,786

  1990

  29,771

  1991

  29,626

  1992

  29,095

  21993

  28,243

  1Excludes patients with a Mental Handicap diagnosis.

  2Provisional.

  56
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many extra-contractual referrals for individuals requiring specialist psychiatric services for deaf people were made in Scotland in 1993–94.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors are trained each year in forensic psychiatry; and how many qualified in forensic psychiatry are practising in the national health service in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: There are seven doctors in specialist training in forensic psychiatry in Scotland, corresponding to approximately one a year. There are 11 consultants and one associate specialist in the specialty.

  Dentistry
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many general dental practitioners in Scotland received remuneration for NHS treatments in each year since 1983.

  (2) how many general dental practitioners in Scotland were registered with the Dental Practice Board in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: To receive remuneration for national health service treatment a dentist must be on a health board's dental list. The number of general dental practitioners registered on health board dental lists to provide national health service general dental services in Scotland is contained in the table.

  Number of dentists on health board dental lists in Scotland at 31 December

  Year

  Number of dentists

  1983

  1,379

  1984

  1,360

  1985

  1,392

  1986

  1,456

  1987

  1,511

  1988

  1,528

  1989

  1,587

  1990

  1,626

  1991

  1,666

  1992

  1,680

  1993

  1,774

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general dental practitioners qualified and took up national health service practice in Scotland in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The numbers of dentists who qualified are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1984

  152

  1985

  153

  1986

  127

  1987

  145

  1988

  150

  1989

  146

  1990

  142

  1991

  133

  57

  Year

  Number

  1992

  120

  1993

  135

  Information is not held centrally on how many took up NHS practice in Scotland. In recent years most dental graduates have undertaken a year's vocational training before becoming a general dental practitioner. As from October 1993 this became mandatory.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dental de-registrations there were in Scotland in the period 1985 to 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Formal arrangements for patients to register with a specific dentist were introduced under the new contract for general dental services on 1 October 1990. Information supplied by health boards shows there have been around 17,000 de-registrations in the period October 1990 to December 1993.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for a review of orthodontic services in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: There are no plans for a review of orthodontic services specifically. However, the system of dental remuneration is currently under review, following consultation on the Bloomfield report.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many clients were registered in Scotland with general dental practitioners in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Formal arrangements for patients to be registered with a specific dentist were introduced under the new contract for general dental practitioners on 1 October 1990. The number of people registered with a dentist in Scotland is contained in the table.

  Number of people registered with a dentist in Scotland as at 31 March

  Year

  Number registered

  1991

  1,710,947

  1992

  2,485,531

  1993

  2,528,268

  1994

  2,514,816

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS episodes of orthodontic treatment there were for Scotland for the period 1983 to 1993; and what was the cost of NHS orthodontic treatment for Scotland for the same period.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: NHS orthodontic treatment is provided through the general dental service, community dental service and hospital dental service. Information on treatment and cost, where available, is shown in the tables.
  58

  Table 1 Orthodontic treatments in the General Dental Service in Scotland: 1983–1993

  Year 1

  Number of treatments 2 3

  Total cost (including patient contributions)4

  1983

  18,321

  1,556,020

  1984

  17,334

  1,613,631

  1985

  17,794

  1,882,173

  1986

  16,874

  2,220,719

  1987

  15,929

  2,567,395

  1988

  16,151

  3,183,938

  1989

  18,499

  3,445,292

  1990

  17,949

  3,622,600

  1991–92

  16,305

  3,009,660

  1992–93

  22,735

  3,513,233

  1Information is for calendar years from 1983 to 1990. From 1991–92 information is for financial years.

  2The number of treatments is a count of the number of forms with an orthodontic appliance. This includes retention and replacement applicances.

  3Differences in the number of treatments may be due to changes in the definition of orthodontic treatment items in 1987, 1989 and 1990.

  4The cost of orthodontic treatment from 1983 to 1990 include examinations and study models. From 1991 the cost excludes examinations and study models.

  Table 2 Orthodontic treatment episodes in the Hospital Dental Service in Scotland: 1983–1993

  Year ending 31 March

  New out-patients at consultant clinics

  In-patient and day case discharges

  1983

  14,523

  10

  1984

  14,371

  1

  1985

  15,514

  195

  1986

  16,059

  493

  1987

  18,012

  746

  1988

  19,103

  891

  1989

  18,898

  952

  1990

  119,487

  858

  1991

  18,825

  1,089

  1992

  20,739

  955

  1993

  22,597

  494

  1Estimated.

  Information on costs is not available centrally.

  Table 3 Orthodontic treatment episodes in the Community Dental Service in Scotland: 1988–1993

  Year1

  Number of Orthodontic Episodes of Treatment

  1988

  5,727

  1989

  7,349

  1990

  9,523

  1991

  8,550

  1992

  7,417

  1993

  6,992

  1No information is available prior to 1988.

  Information on costs is not available centrally.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of individuals who received private orthodontic treatments in Scotland during the period from 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: No information is held on private dental treatment.
  59
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients are waiting for orthodontic treatment in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: At 31 December 1993, the latest date for which information is centrally available, there were 12 patients waiting for in-patient treatment in orthodontics and paediatric dentistry. No patients were waiting for day case treatment. Information on patients waiting for out-patient treatment is not centrally available.

  Prisons
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to amend the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The draft revised Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules were issued for consultation last September. Consideration of the comments received has almost been completed and it is intended to lay the new rules before Parliament in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the attendance records of individual members of prison visiting committees for the last two years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Detailed attendance figures for all individual visiting committee members are not collated centrally and any exercise to obtain comprehensive data would involve disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations have been undertaken with the local authorities in Scotland about proposed changes in the membership of prison visiting committees.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The draft revised Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules, which contain proposals for changes in the constitution of prison visiting committees, were sent to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in September 1993 as part of a comprehensive consultation exercise.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many private ambulance contracts there were for Scotland in the period 1985 to 1993;

  (2) how many private patient journeys were undertaken by NHS patients in Scotland for journeys to and from (a) nursing homes and (b) private hospitals in the period from 1985 to 1993; what ambulance charges were levied on these NHS patients; and what was the total money earned from these charges for the same period;

  (3) if he will list the NHS ambulance services in Scotland which have contracts with private sector health care providers.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Information is not collected centrally on private ambulance contracts, but it is considered that there has been little use if any, of such contractors by NHS bodies in Scotland since the Scottish ambulance service exists to meet the needs of NHS patients.
  60
  No charges are levied on NHS patients for any ambulance journeys provided by the Scottish ambulance service for NHS treatment in nursing homes or private hospitals. Non NHS patients are carried by the Scottish ambulance service only on the basis where there is no detriment to NHS patients. A charge is made. The total income earned in respect of such patients for the period 1991 to 1993 was £48,131.

  There is only one ambulance service for the whole of Scotland and it has no contracts with any private health care provider.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what arrangements are in hand to audit non-departmental public bodies; and what improvements to those arrangements are currently being considered.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The Comptroller and Auditor General is the auditor of two-thirds of non-departmental public bodies. The auditor of the remaining bodies is appointed by the responsible Secretary of State, usually from the private sector, and accounts are laid before Parliament.

  In addition, as the auditor of all central Government Departments and agencies the C and AG checks the payment of grants to all public bodies funded by central Government. In most cases he has a right of access to the body receiving the money both so that he can check that the Department is supervising the spending of public money effectively and also to check that the body spends the money properly.

  The recent report by the Public Accounts Committee on the proper conduct of public business suggested that the National Audit Office be enabled to examine and inspect all non-departmental public bodies and other organisations which receive the greater part of their income from central Government funds. The Government have agreed to consider the need for the C and AG to examine bodies to which he currently does not have access on a case by case basis.

  National Audit Office
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement about the level of funding made available to the National Audit Office to investigate changes in the proportion of moneys spent by local authorities on the various duties they performed over the last five years.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The audit of local authorities is the responsibility of the Audit Commission, and does not therefore come within the remit of the Public Accounts Commission and the National Audit Office.

DEFENCE

  Air Manoeuvres
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of each manoeuvres commission established under the Manoeuvres Act 1958 since 1979.
  61
  Mr. Hanley
  It has never been necessary to invoke the powers of the Manoeuvres Act 1958 as training has been accommodated on existing MOD land, or on the occasions this has not been possible, by negotiation with the landowners concerned.

  Naval Firing Range, Cornwall
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consultations his Department has had with the Department of National Heritage concerning the siting of a naval firing range off Dodman point in Cornwall;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total savings to his Department of resiting a naval firing range off Dodman point in Cornwall from Lulworth cove in Dorset;

  (3) what consultations his Department has had with the Department of the Environment concerning the siting of a naval firing range off Dodman point in Cornwall;

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the impact on the local economy of the siting of a naval firing range off Dodman point in Cornwall;

  (5) if he will make a statement about his Department's decision to resite the Navy's firing range from Lulworth cove in Dorset to the sea area off Dodman point in Cornwall;

  (6) if he will name all the sites which are being considered as a naval firing range to replace the current range at Lulworth in Dorset.

  Mr. Hanley
  The proposal to establish a new naval gunfire support training area has arisen as a result of the decision to move the Royal Navy operational sea training organisation from Portland to Plymouth, which will require transfer of training currently conducted at sea off Portland to exercise areas in the channel south of Plymouth. The move will involve the transfer of some 280 RN personnel to the Plymouth area, and will create an estimated 100 civilian jobs there, as well as bringing additional revenue to the areas.

  As well as undertaking extensive consultations locally, my Department has also consulted the Department of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the habitat protection branch and the water resources and marine division of the Department of the Environment. We did not consult the Department of National Heritage as it has no locus in this matter.

  The financial savings involved in establishing the new range, as opposed to continuing to use the current site at Lulworth, are difficult to quantify precisely. We expect, however, that the saving in man hours and fuel alone could be as much as £500,000 per annum. Also, were the task not transferred to the new range, there would be significant operational penalties elsewhere in the Navy's programme as a result of the greater amount of resources necessary to complete the NGS task.

  After a preliminary survey of the whole coast area from Lizard to Start Point, we have also given careful consideration to several alternative sites to that proposed off Dodman. These included Bolt Head, Bolt Tail, HMS Cambridge, Rame Head and the Eddystone Lighthouse. Each of these sites proved unsuitable, however, for various reasons.

  There has been local concern about the potential impact of this proposal on the local economy. As it is the Navy's intention to work round, rather than to disrupt, the
  62
  activities of fishing and commercial vessels and of leisure craft, we would expect there to be very little impact on Cornwall's economy.

  The formal phase of the public consultation period has now ended, and the various representations are being considered. We shall look very carefully at all the factors before making a final decision.

  D-day Veterans
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans Her Majesty's Government have to compile a register of surviving British service men and other United Kingdom citizens who took part in the D-day landings to ascertain their living conditions; and if he will introduce measures to improve those conditions.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is the Government's aim to provide a full range of health and welfare facilities to meet the needs of all members of the population. This would include those who have served in the Armed Forces, and who may expect to benefit from them in the same way as other members of the community. There are of course also arrangements in place to cater for the special needs of former members of the armed services.

  D-day Commemoration
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to Her Majesty's Government of the events staged to commemorate D-day.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Redcar (Dr. Mowlam) on 24 May,Official Report, column 108. The estimated additional costs for the Department of National Heritage are approximately £230,000.

  Troops (Emergency Tours)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) infantry battalions and Royal Marine Commandos, (b) Royal Artillery regiments, (c) Royal Armoured Corps regiments and (d) Royal Engineer regiments are currently projected to have an emergency tour interval in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96 of less than 24 months, assuming continuation of the current level of commitments in Bosnia and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans the following number of units will deploy in each of the two years on emergency tours within 24 months of their last emergency tour:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Infantry battalions and Royal Marine commandos

  6

  7

  Royal Artillery regiments

  1

  1

  Royal Armoured Corps regiments

  1

  2

  Engineer squadrons

  4

  8

  Household Division
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his duty hours(a) a guardsman and (b) a trooper in the Household Division has spent on

  63
  public duties over the most recent (i) quarterly and (ii) annual period for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the impact of public duties on recruitment to the Household Division; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to answer the question in the form requested. On average, however, a guardsman in a public duties battalion is committed to nine days public duties per month, rising to 13 days in the ceremonial season and a trooper to 10 days per month, rising to 14 days in the ceremonial season.

  There is no evidence to suggest that the Household Division's requirement to perform public duties has any effect on its ability to meet its recruitment targets.

  McCarthy and Sons
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds McCarthy and Sons (Contractors) Ltd. of Coombe road, Torquay, are ineligible to work on his Department's sites.

  Mr. Aitken
  Provided that McCarthy and Sons (Contractors) Ltd. of Coombe road, Torquay meets the MOD's contract terms, including security requirements, there is no reason why the company should not be eligible to undertake work at MOD sites.

  Military Bands
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of maintaining and training(a) a military bandsman at the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall, Twickenham, (b) a Royal Marine bandsman trained at Deal and (c) a Royal Air Force bandsman trained at Uxbridge, including all extraneous training costs; and what is the annual cost of training an Army bandsman at Kneller Hall.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between the costs of training bandsmen at these establishments for various reasons, such as the differences in course lengths and varying standards of musical ability on arrival. It is possible, however, to give
  64
  a broad indication of the approximate annual cost of training bandsmen at the three establishments in question, and this is as follows:

  £

  Deal

  72,000

  Kneller Hall

  16,000

  Uxbridge

  1Nil

  1The RAF recruits fully trained musicians although there is a small element of expenditure on higher level training.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sum was spent by his Department on the restoration of the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall, after the decision to reprieve the RMSM and prior to the visit by Her Majesty the Queen to mark the completion of the restoration.

  Mr. Hanley
  Repairs to the roof and work on the stonework on the external facade of the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall, was carried out in November 1990 at a cost of approximately £2,000,000.

  Special Air Service
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to disband R Squadron of the Special Air Service.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to reduce the current strength of the SAS reserve although some restructuring will be necessary to enable more flexible use of the numbers available.

  Small Arms
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the capability to produce small arms nitro compound currently exists in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  Small arms nitro compound is not a term recognised within the Ministry of Defence. There is no capability in the United Kingdom to produce propellant for small arms ammunition.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend the European Speakers' Conference in The Hague from Thursday 23rd June to Saturday 25th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday, 23rd June.

Mrs. Carol Ann Riley: Parole Decision
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the decision of the Parole Board on Friday 13th May not to grant parole to Mrs Carol Ann Riley (GB1136—HMP Drake Hall) is in line with Home Office policy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, yes. The Parole Board's recommendation was based on the criteria for assessing a prisoner's suitability for release on licence, which the Home Secretary issued to the board under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I had thought that the Dickensian practice of the Parole Board refusing parole to inmates who had passed their "parole-by date" simply and solely because they continued to maintain their innocence had been abandoned some years ago under Home Office instructions. Is the Minister aware that the only reason why Mrs. Riley, a housewife who

2
is allowed home freely for four days every fortnight, is kept inside is that twice this year she has been refused parole for the simple and sole reason that,
"She has not yet addressed her offending behaviour or realised the harm it did"?
Does the Minister agree that that is a kind of doublespeak from the Parole Board? Will he explain how it is possible for a person who maintains her innocence to address her offending behaviour? Perhaps the Minister will confirm that it is truly the policy of the Home Office not to use denial of guilt as a threat to inmates? In those circumstances, will he go back to the Parole Board and ask that this case be reviewed again?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any "doublespeak", as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, would put it. Each case is considered on its merits. The types of issue that the Parole Board must consider are the nature and circumstance of the offence, the offending history, the inmate's behaviour in custody (including the approach to the offending behaviour and the attitude to its victim) and any relevant medical or psychiatric reports, release plans and representations which are made by the prisoner.
The fact is that the Home Secretary cannot release a person whom the Parole Board does not recommend. The whole purpose of the Parole Board is that it makes an independent judgment of the people who are applying for parole. If it is its view that the person is not considered right to be released, he or she is not released and the Home Secretary cannot alter that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the Minister's statement about the independ-ence of the Parole Board and I do not wish to question that. However, will he confirm, as he was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that it is not the policy of the Parole Board to keep prisoners in prison after their parole date has been reached solely on the ground that they refuse to admit their guilt? I had understood that that wrong policy had been changed. It would be helpful to have that confirmed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the policy of the Parole Board is a matter for the Parole Board. Each case is considered on its merits. Although Mrs. Riley has made good progress, she has not addressed her offending behaviour or realised the harm that it had done, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said. That is the reason why the Parole Board said that it did not think it correct to release her.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is there not some absence of logic? If Mrs. Riley has not admitted the offence how can she reform the bad behaviour which she does not accept she has committed? I do not understand the argument. Can the Minister explain?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no I do not think that I very well can. The fact is that she may have maintained her innocence but she was found guilty. She must understand the effect on others of that of which she was found guilty. As I understand it, that has not yet materialised.
It would be improper for me to go into the detailed cases of individuals who seek parole. The Parole Board considered all the questions and all the merits of the case and that was the conclusion to which it came. It would not be right for a Minister to try to counteract the Parole Board's decision.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in case other Members of this House share my ignorance, will my noble friend tell us what she was convicted of?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, she was convicted of fraud. I believe that she was involved with a company which invited people to lodge money with it at an enormous rate of interest. It ended up at about 100 per cent. per month. Not surprisingly, that rate of interest did not materialise and some of the funds went down the Swanee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister accept that his answers have been rather worrying to some of us? Of course, nobody suggests that in individual cases there should be parliamentary comment on the decisions of the Parole Board. But the question of whether somebody should be kept in prison merely because she does not admit her guilt is surely an issue of public policy, is it not? Is that not an issue on which the Minister feels able to comment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that anyone should be kept in prison simply because there is no admission of guilt. That is not the reason why that lady is being kept in prison.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, did she enter an appeal against her conviction?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes. She had two convictions. In 1990 she was convicted of two offences of fraud, to which she pleaded not guilty. She was sentenced for those offences in 1991 and received a sentence of six years. On the second occasion, in 1992, when she pleaded guilty, she received a sentence of two-and-a-half years. She appealed against that sentence and in 1994 the Court of Appeal reduced it to a year.

US Plutonium Production: Safeguards
2.43 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the United States Government's admission of the loss of a quantity of plutonium sufficient to make 300 nuclear weapons and, if so, what steps they propose to take with the United States to trace the missing plutonium.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, this is a matter for the US Government. We understand from them that recent reviews of their plutonium production have revised the quantity of plutonium produced, and that the differences in their figures are not due to missing or stolen plutonium. We understand they are due to material contained in solutions, ducts and other plant or radioactive waste, which is not readily accessible. We further understand that the US Government intend to release additional information on their plutonium production in the near future.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is this not an extremely worrying matter? Is the Minister aware that the Washington correspondent of the Guardian describes the American method of accounting for what has happened to the plutonium supplies as showing breathtaking irresponsibility? Does the Minister not agree that it rather appears that one explanation is that the amount of plutonium produced was deliberately understated in the statistics so as to make available a certain amount of plutonium, which was then exported secretly to those countries not on the list of "exportables"? Those countries are said to include both Iran and Iraq. In those circumstances, does the Minister not await with considerable anxiety the further report which we are supposed to receive from the American Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the preoccupation of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, with this matter. I do not believe that the words of Martin Walker, the Washington correspondent of the Guardian, are the last words on this matter. We understand that the United States maintains security arrangements over its plutonium stocks which are in line with internationally agreed standards. Certainly our UK civil facilities are subject to strict safeguards oversight by independent Euratom inspectors, and are subject also to strict security arrangements in line with those internationally agreed standards. I cannot tell the noble Lord what will be in the forthcoming report. I can say only that the British Government will not allow plutonium to be exported from this country unless we are confident that it will not be misused. I cannot speak for the US Government.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister agree that such incidents underline the importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection and co-operation procedures? Have the UK Government

5
had any discussions with the Russian Government about their stocks of plutonium, and has the IAEA inspected those stocks?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I should make it clear, because the noble Baroness's question raises the matter, that I understand her belief in the IAEA. We follow what it does with the greatest care. I am told that the different sets of figures which are the subject of this Question arise because the measurement skills in 1944, when the system started, have changed greatly over the 43 intervening years. That is why the United States Government are now giving a different figure.
In respect of the question which the noble Baroness asked, we have close contact with the Russians. However, I should like to check on the specifics of her question and I shall write to her on that matter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in those circumstances, we must await the further report of the American Government on this issue? But, if they are not to be trusted to keep charge of their plutonium in a reasonable and proper manner, who is to be trusted? Is that not a matter of worldwide anxiety?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have certainly not said that the United States Government are not to be trusted. That is a very strange interpretation for the noble Lord to make. We certainly can be trusted to obey the rules. We have done so; and we shall continue to do so.

Orly Airport: British Air Services
2.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the French Government are continuing to exclude British civil aircraft from Orly Airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we are pleased that, following pressure from our Government, air services between London and Orly Airport in Paris started from 13th June. However, the conditions which the French Government have imposed on the route are clearly discriminatory and we are working to secure their removal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. What do the Government propose to do if the French do not relax those restrictions? Will they take counter-measures?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that we should look favourably upon taking counter-measures. However, we are considering taking action under Article 170 of the treaty which will enable us to take the French to the European Court of Justice. Before that happens, the Commission is required to investigate the matter and to deliver a reasoned opinion within three months.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House, especially in view of the rather grave infringement by the French Government, whether there has been any pronouncement from the President of the Commission on the subject? If so, are the Government satisfied with what they have heard from the Commission? Are they satisfied that such opinion as it may have is quite impartial in the matter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, I do not keep a scrap-book of the utterances of the President of the Commission, so I cannot honestly answer the first part of his question. However, I can tell him that the Commission issued a decision on 27th April which held that the French authorities should not continue to refuse Community air carriers permission to operate air services between London and Paris, Orly.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the Minister explain for the benefit of the House what restrictions continue to be placed on the traffic between London and Orly Airport?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, essentially there are two restrictions. The first is the number of flights allowed per day, which is to be four to each carrier, and the authorities have in fact bracketed British Airways and TAT, which is a French subsidiary of British Airways. The second restriction refers to the size of the aircraft. No aircraft with a seat limit of under 200 passengers will be allowed into the airport.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the restriction on the number of seats in the aircraft to over 200 applies to all aircraft flying into Orly or only those from the United kingdom?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend asks me a valid question. Of course, if it applied to all aircraft coming into Orly Airport it could not be held to be discriminatory. However, it applies only to those coming in from London. Therefore, it is clearly discriminatory.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, notwithstanding the question posed by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, is it not clear that the Commission has in fact done its duty in this regard? Is there any reason to suppose that it will not continue to do so in view of the complaint which is currently being made by Her Majesty's Government? Further, is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House support the Government in the actions that they propose to take? However, can the Minister explain what implications there are in the policy of liberalisation, which we support and, indeed, which is being tested by the Orly case, as regards the United Kingdom's attitude towards the use of certain airports outside the London area— Manchester in particular—by United States airlines?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the noble Lord's support for our general policy vis-à-vis this particular matter about Orly Airport. I can confirm that the Commission acted quite

7
properly; indeed, we support it absolutely in the decision that it took in April. If the matter has to go again to the Commission, we have no reason to believe that it will not take a similarly robust view. On the latter part of the noble Lord's question, I must tell him that the matter of the US-UK air bilateral falls outwith the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister let his imagination loose and venture to give us some opinion as to what the reaction of the French Government would be if we disobeyed the rules as they do?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the French Government would be very annoyed if we disobeyed the rules. But, of course, the question is totally hypothetical. As the House knows, we scrupulously obey the rules.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was not asking him about the role of the Commission? I was asking what implications there are in relation to the liberalisation policy for aviation and for airport use so far as concerns US relations with this country and, in particular, in relation to the use of non-London airports.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord's questions go a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I am glad to be able to tell him that we would be very happy to proceed with negotiations on liberalisation with the United States but, unfortunately, all our overtures and suggestions to them have yet to be met with a reply.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I revert to Orly Airport, to which the Question relates. Can my noble friend the Minister say what is the total loss incurred by British airlines as a result of such wholly unnecessary and wanton restrictions?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry to tell my noble friend that I cannot give him a figure as to the potential loss incurred by British airlines. Of course, some of the flights that would be shifted to Orly Airport would in fact be flights that currently go to Charles de Gaulle Airport.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend spoke of a limitation on the number of seats in planes flying only from the United Kingdom to Orly Airport. Can he say whether those regulations apply to French airlines, and particularly Air France, as well as to other airlines?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I understand it, even the French have not attempted to be that discriminatory. The restriction applies to all airlines flying from London to Orly Airport.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that such discrimination would end fairly quickly if Her Majesty's Government were to insist on the same discrimination for French planes coming to this country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not be tempted by my noble friend to look into a crystal ball on that aspect of the matter. However, as I said earlier, we do not believe that the sensible way to proceed in such incidents is to take retaliatory measures.

Gibraltar: European Parliament Elections
2.55 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What requests they have received to enfranchise Gibraltar to participate in elections to the European Parliament and what consideration is being given to the arguments put forward.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a subject on which we maintain a regular dialogue with the Government of Gibraltar. We have, in addition, been lobbied by a number of political parties and organisations in Gibraltar. We have explained that Annex II of the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections limits the franchise in European parliamentary elections to the United Kingdom.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which was not unexpected. However, as uniform procedure is not yet in place, would it not be an appropriate time now for the Government to pave the way for the amendment of Annex II of the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections to which she referred? Further, is it not a fact that the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 and the 1986 regulations are amended by the 1994 regulations regarding changes to the franchise and qualification of representatives? Therefore, could not the matter be considered a little more favourably?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern in the matter. The situation is complicated because, although Article 8b(2) of the Maastricht Treaty establishes the right for European Union citizens resident in another member state to vote and stand for election in the European Parliament, it does so under the same conditions as apply to nationals of the host member state. In this case, that way of resolving the matter has no practical application for Gibraltar because it does not confer a franchise; it simply refers to national treatment. The basis for Gibraltar's exclusion is Annex II of the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections.
It is important to remember that Gibraltar's position in the European Union is unique. It has an opt-out from the CAP; it is excluded from the free movement of goods regulations; and it makes no contributions to Community resources. Yet we have managed to negotiate for the Gibraltarians Objective II structural funds to assist them. We cannot give a vote to Gibraltar when no other territory which does not vote in a member state's national elections can vote in European elections. Therefore, I do not hold out the hope that my noble friend wishes I could.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the remarkable and massive loyalty that Gibraltar has shown to this country both in peace and wartime—and those of us who know Gibraltar very well understand that the Gibraltarians acknowledge themselves as being part of this island—would the Minister be prepared to continue her endeavours, in which I am sure that the whole House would wish her success, so that Gibraltarians will know that the loyalty which they have always shown to this nation will be reciprocated in any assistance to help them join the European Parliament? If we are successful in that endeavour, we shall have another certain, good ally.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to know how one could deal with the matter. Gibraltar's total population is less then one-tenth of the size of the average European constituency in this country and significantly smaller than the average European constituency, even in Luxembourg. I do not believe that Gibraltar can be attached to a UK-European constituency. We are bound by Annex II of the 1976 Act. Therefore, I cannot see a way of giving the franchise to Gibraltarians when no other country has a place in the European elections when it does not in the national elections. I do not believe that the noble Lord was making that suggestion.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, as Gibraltar is part of the European Community by virtue of Article 227(4) of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, surely nationals of member states should be allowed to vote there in European elections, as six member states already allow their nationals to vote even if living outside the Community.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that there is some confusion about this matter and I shall write out in great detail to my noble friend the full details and copy that to other noble Lords who are interested. The important thing is that where there have been Gibraltarian concerns, both my noble friend Lord Bethell and the Member of the European Parliament, Alf Lomas, have taken up the Gibraltarian concerns in the European Parliament, so they have not gone by default. But I can see no way in which Annex II of the 1976 EC Act can be changed.

Value Added Tax Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 101 [Commencement and extent]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the amendment:
Page 90, line 43, leave out ("78") and insert ("72").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is necessary to correct a small drafting error. Clause 101(2) refers back to the earlier clause in which the criminal offences are set out; that is, Clause 72, and not Clause 78, which was referred to in error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.2 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 139 [Age at which homosexual acts are lawful]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 160A:
Page 113, line 13, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("sixteen").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 160A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 161A and 163A and also, as I understand it, to the Question that Clause 139 stand part of the Bill. I want to make that clear from the outset.
Baroness Young: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but should not the clause stand part debate be taken at the end of this grouping because, as I understand it, the amendments which follow it could not be called were the clause stand part debate to be; deleted? I wonder whether it is in the right grouping.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not my grouping. I understand that this grouping has been agreed. The Question as to whether Clause 139 should stand part of the Bill cannot be dealt with until all of the amendments relating to Clause 139 have been dealt with. However, I understand it is for the convenience of the Committee: that the issues of the age of consent, be it 16, 18 or 21, should be debated together. But we cannot change the: order in which votes are taken. The noble Baroness is entirely right on that.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Can we be absolutely clear that the debate on whether Clause 139 should stand pan: of the Bill will only be taken after Amendment No, 164ZA?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, that is the position because the group starting with Amendment No. 161 comprises amendments to Clause 139 and therefore the clause stand part debate cannot be taken until the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, have been debated.
I shall try again to preface my remarks by saying that anything I say on this issue is a personal view. As far as my party is concerned, this is a matter of individual conscience and we are not required to vote in any particular way. I very much respect the opinion of those who say that the decision of the House of Commons

11
—the view held by a considerable majority in that House—that the age of consent for homosexual acts between men should be reduced from 21 to 18 should prevail. I understand that argument as the House of Commons is the elected Chamber of Parliament and its Members have expressed their views. I can quite understand when people argue that it would be wrong for this Chamber to express a different attitude and therefore to raise the possibility of conflict between the two Chambers. That was, after all, a powerful argument in the debate which we had a couple of months ago on Sunday trading where a number of noble Lords felt—I understand their position—that it would be wrong for us to overturn the considered decision of the House of Commons.
But the challenge does not come from me. The challenge came in the first place from those who sought to oppose the Question that Clause 139 stand part of the Bill, and therefore that the age of consent for homosexual acts between men should be restored to 21 rather than to 18, as the House of Commons wished. Under those circumstances I feel—I hope the Committee will agree with me—that it is proper that the debate which takes place on this issue—and which must take place on this issue—should explore all the options which the House of Commons considered. That is why my three amendments and the Question on whether Clause 139 should stand part, and the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, are being taken together as they are all concerned with this issue of the age of consent.
With that, I turn to the merits of the issue. I do not think anyone will deny that the existence of a different form of sexuality—in other words, homosexuality both between men and between women—has been a feature of the human race for as long as records have existed. Throughout the ages, as literature and art confirm, homosexual love and homosexual sexual acts have been a part of all of the societies which have preceded our society, and they are still prevalent in virtually all societies as well as in western society. Indeed, we owe to the existence of homosexual love a considerable body of the finest works of art and the finest literature which exist to sustain the human spirit.
At the same time, I do not think anyone could deny that there are different views as regards at what age it is proper for the law to recognise sexual acts, whether between men and women, between men and men, or between women and women. That is an opinion which will differ from one society to another and it does differ as between one society and another. In many parts of the world the law differs accordingly. What is much more unusual is the provision which has existed in our law, and would exist still in our law unless these amendments were carried, of a different age of consent for heterosexual sexual acts on the one hand, homosexual acts between women on the second hand, and homosexual acts between men on the third hand. I have reached a slightly strange anatomical conclusion, but nevertheless the point is still valid.
I suggest that if we are to sustain a difference as regards the legal age of consent for these different kinds

12
of sexual acts that is not a matter of personal morality but rather a matter for the Churches and for those who seek to persuade themselves and other people of what is right for them and those who agree with them. If we are to insist on a different age, then we have to show that there is some social or medical reason why the law should intervene in this, on the face of it, strange way. I suggest to the Committee that all of the social and medical reasons, and indeed the legal reasons, support a common age of consent for all sexual acts rather than an unequal age of consent, as is provided by the law at the moment.
Perhaps I may deal first with the issue of enforcement. Most police forces in this country, including in particular the Metropolitan Police, have made it clear that the enforcement of the prohibition on homosexual sexual acts under the age of 21, or under the age of 18, is very low on their list of priorities. If we insist on an unequal and higher age of consent, we risk putting forward a law which in practice will not be enforced. Although I may not quote him, that was the very powerful argument of the right honourable Tristan Garel-Jones MP in another place when supporting the age of consent at 16.
Then there are the medical arguments as to whether 16 is the right age of consent. All medical authorities are unanimous on this issue. The General Council of the BMA says that there is no convincing medical reason against reducing the age of consent for male homosexuals to 16 and that to do so may yield positive health benefits. The Health Education Authority believes that fixing the age of consent at 16 is crucial for the health of the nation. Lindsay Neil, the HEA's AIDs and HIV sex education director, says that the current law restricts health promotion among young homosexuals. Teachers and youth workers are inhibited from passing on information:
"crucial to health promotion and the prevention of HIV infection among young gay men".
Therefore, on health grounds there is little doubt that the opinion of those who are best informed on this matter is in favour of reduction of the age of consent to 16.
What are the arguments against this? It appears to be argued sometimes that young men between the ages of 16 and 18 will be seduced into homosexual behaviour. It is argued that at the age of 16 or so they become confused about their sexuality and that to make homosexual acts legitimate would turn them into homosexuals when they would not otherwise be so. Again, all of the evidence is directly to the contrary. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that there are no developmental reasons for not reducing the age for homosexual consent to 16. The Royal College of Psychiatrists means by that that young people do not grow up with a confused idea of their sexuality and would not be seduced into homosexuality by the fact that it is made legal.
Research carried out by the SIGMA Foundation shows that 74 per cent. of young men know what their sexual direction is before they engage in any sexual activity. Therefore they cannot be seduced into that activity and are not confused. In addition, in a very high

13
proportion of cases, at the time of the first sexual act the difference in age between the two partners is a year or less. Therefore, there is not a pattern of older men seducing younger men into homosexual behaviour.
I did not go to a boarding school, so I do not know what goes on in boarding schools. But it has been rumoured that some people who go to boarding schools engage in homosexual acts and grow out of homosexuality later. If that is the case they are a relatively small minority of the population. For the population as a whole, by the age of 16 nearly all young men are aware of their sexuality and will not be diverted from it by seduction by older men.
I mentioned AIDs and HIV. I also want to talk about the wider issue of health education and what the organisations which try to help young people can do and what they think about the matter. Barnardos says:
"The present law prevents us from giving practical support and information. We find ourselves in the ludicrous situation of handing out condoms to girls who are 16 and to heterosexual boys who are 16 but not to gay 16 year olds".
Save the Children—which used to be the Save the Children Fund—says:
"The discriminatory age of consent encourages intolerance and prejudice which can seriously affect the lives of young homosexual people. There is considerable evidence pointing to high levels of attempted suicide, family rejection, bullying and intimidation of this group of young people … The protection of young people is best maintained by the consistent and fair application of the law rather than legislation which is both hard to justify and damaging in its application".
It has been suggested by a number of people who support the view that I am putting forward that this is an issue of what they call gay and lesbian rights. I suggest that that is not the case. I think that what we have before us today is an issue of human rights. It affects all of us, whether we are heterosexual or homosexual in our inclinations. We should not allow the law to outlaw the behaviour of people who are not doing any harm to themselves or to anybody else, who have no desire to do harm to themselves or anybody else and whose sexuality is determined not by themselves but by outside forces whether by nature or nurture, who is to know? We do not need to go into that question.
Those are very clear issues. I suggest that if we wish to preserve the role of the law as being the protection of society rather than the enshrining of different kinds of private moralities which do not affect social behaviour, we should oppose any state of law which encourages a different age of consent. It is not merely a matter of sexuality. This is a question of the way in which we treat each other as human beings and respect the differences between each other as human beings. If we cannot get this right what can we get right? I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I cannot see across the Chamber, I hope that no one else has risen to speak at this stage.
The Committee has before it three ages. These are not ages of consent but minimum ages at which homosexual intercourse can lawfully take place. It is somewhat misleading to speak of that as an age of consent because it leads to the argument which has just been put forward so forcefully that what is the true age of consent—

14
namely, that for heterosexual intercourse—should be the guide as to what should be the minimum age of legal homosexual intercourse.
The Committee has before it three ages: 16, 18 and in effect 21. There is no proposal that the age should be higher than 21, although a number of scriptural arguments suggest that that should be so. Nor is there before the Committee any suggestion that the age of homosexual legality should be lower than 16. The Committee is therefore approaching the matter in the way in which the Wolfenden Committee approached it —namely, weighing two considerations.
First, the law should not interfere more than is required with the private activities of adult citizens. Secondly, although it should not interfere more than necessarily, the law should nevertheless, intervene to protect those who are vulnerable and immature. I assume that on the whole noble Lords favour the approach of the Wolfenden Committee which, when facing the problem for the first time because there had not previously been a minimum age, recommended the age of 21. It considered the arguments put forward so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in favour of 16, and it unanimously rejected them. It considered the arguments in favour of 18, and the minority was in favour of that age. The majority also considered that there was much to be said for a minimum age of 18. However, in the end minority and majority aligned in favour of 21. The Committee therefore may think that it would be useful to proceed on the basis of the considerations of the Wolfenden Committee. It considered the matter for three years, took abundant evidence and came to that conclusion.
What has happened since? It seems to me that there have been two significant developments: first, the menace of HIV and AIDS; and, secondly, the increasing propaganda on behalf of homosexualism. The Committee will probably consider that both those matters reinforce the argument in favour of 21 years. Nevertheless, I would favour 18; and I hope to give the Committee reasons why noble Lords should accept that figure.
First, perhaps I may deal with the argument that the minimum age of consent should be the same: that there is in some sense an anomaly if the minimum legal heterosexual age of consent is not aligned with the minimum legal homosexual age. Although, as the noble Lord justly and movingly said, there is a duty on any civilised society to show toleration; nevertheless, society cannot view impartially homosexual activity and heterosexual activity for this reason. Without heterosexual activity, society does not subsist and continue. There is another social matter. Wherever homosexual ethos has been to some extent dominant or even acceptable, the status of women has been debased. That was noticeable in ancient Greece. It is also noticeable in many places in the Middle East today.
I add one other factor to the argument on equality. The issue will run into great trouble with regard to Northern Ireland, where the age of heterosexual consent is 17, as it is in the Irish Republic. Therefore a reduction to 16 will either lead to an anomaly between Northern

15
Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom or to an anomaly in equality between the legal minimum age of homosexual activity and heterosexual consent.
Perhaps I may turn to arguments which, despite the developments since the Wolfenden Committee, might cause the Committee still to prefer the age of 18. First, Wolfenden was taking a revolutionary step in a controversial atmosphere. Secondly, it considered favourably 18 as the minimum age for homosexual activity. It did so while firmly rejecting 16 as the age. Thirdly—I say this somewhat diffidently because it depends on a lay evaluation of medical opinion—I do not consider that general psychiatric opinion is as categorical as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggests. On the contrary, there is a widespread psychiatric opinion that, say between the ages of 14 and 18, there is some confusion, some sexual ambivalence. One has only to think of hero worship of the captain of cricket, or of a "pash" for the games mistress, both undoubtedly sexual proclivities although neither physically consum-mated. If it is right that there is a period of ambivalence from which the bulk of the population evolves naturally into heterosexualism, that can be hindered by the intrusion of extraneous influences. Although that consideration militates against 16 as the age, it also inclines slightly in favour of 18.
The fourth and last reason is an argument to which the noble Lord referred. The House of Commons by a large majority has favoured 18. I have frequently urged your Lordships to accept confidently your independent constitutional role. However, this seems to be one of the very worst issues on which noble Lords might come into conflict with another place. The cliché of asking the other place to think again is particularly out of place in this context. As I say, the other place voted by a large majority for a minimum age of 18 and by a substantial minority for 16. It would seem to me to be a mistake not to accept what the other place decided, in particular when the decision is justifiable on other grounds, as I have suggested. So I shall vote for the Bill as it stands.
Perhaps I may say a few words on Amendment No. 164A. I was very hesitant about putting it forward. It is a probing amendment. However, I had thought originally that it would be preferable to wait to see how the debate develops. The amendment frames the counterpart of the defence to illegal sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of 13 and 16. That defence provides that, if the man is under 21 and has not previously been charged with a like offence and he believes on reasonable grounds that the girl is over 16, he is excused from illegality.
I have tried to translate that into homosexual terms, but I am doubtful whether that was the right way to proceed. I think that the heterosexual provision has worked well and obviously what lies behind it is the sense that there is all the difference between, on the one hand, sexual activity by young people in the fire of youth and, on the other, the predatory stalking of a young girl by an older man for purposes of sexual satisfaction.
Having seen amendments which were put down later, particularly those by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby,

16
which would narrow my age of 24 to 18 with two years' difference, I prefer his. However, I prefer even more to leave the matter to the discretion of the prosecuting authorities. On the whole, those authorities do not now prosecute when the ages are very close and where the younger one is over 18. That is another argument in favour of 18. As the Committee knows well, since the directorship of public prosecutions was instituted, the prosecuting authorities have from the beginning been given a discretion whether or not to prosecute. They have to consider the public interest as well as the evidential validity.
In March, in the debate on the subject in the other place, the Solicitor-General drew attention to that point and enunciated some of the considerations which the prosecuting authorities have in mind. Leading them were the ages of each of the parties and their relative ages. However, there were also other considerations as to whether there was an element of seduction, breach of trust or how far a crime was endemic in the area and how much it affronted public opinion. Thus I do not propose to move my amendment. I have left it on the Marshalled List, but I prefer to leave the issue which it raises to the discretion of the prosecuting authorities.
There is only one point I wish to add. I have seen it suggested that, since the prosecuting authorities now hesitate generally to prosecute where the parties are young but over 18, that necessarily means that if we accept the age of 18, it is effectually lowering the age to 16.I do not believe that that follows at all, nor that the prosecuting authorities will take that line. Although the noble Earl's department is not responsible for the prosecuting authorities, perhaps he would give some guidance on the matter. In sum, it seems to me that the argument points in favour of 18 as the minimum age for legal homosexual activities.
3.30 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: I wish to associate myself with the first part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord and with his conclusions. As Members of the Committee will realise, the whole subject has been agonising for the Churches and virtually all Churches have considered it at great length. They have found themselves in a measure divided because one is trying to do two things: first, to meet an obvious human need among people who have for too long been denigrated by society. One is trying to meet the growing aspirations of young people to discover more fully who they are and so on. Secondly, one is also aware of the social context in which that is done and the long religious tradition for which we carry responsibility and which has rightly been cautious within the area.
Some years ago, the House of Bishops produced a comprehensive report called "Issues in Human Sexuality". We did not discuss this issue, but last year, when considering the motion that was to come before another place, by a large majority the Bishops were of the opinion that 18 was about the right age, recognising that that is a compromise. There must be some movement from where we are now but they were unwilling to go the whole way towards 16.

17
I wish to centre my reasoning about the matter around three related questions. First, there is the general question of how far the law should intervene in matters which are claimed to be private. We need to recognise that every society sets some limits on sexual activity, if only in order to create a set of expectations. It seems to me that when one is talking about the law one is not simply talking about what the police will do or the punishments that might be administered; one is also talking about the kind of society which one is endeavouring to embody and the expectations which people should have of one another.
One of the deeply disturbing things which has happened in our society in recent years is that so many of the normal conventions about sexual relations and when those might begin have been eroded. We are moving much nearer to what one might call the law of the jungle in sexual matters. That puts enormous pressures on individuals. Where within society there is a firm set of expectations, individuals do not find themselves under the pressure that they do in today's society where everything is saying to them: "Unless you have sexual experience early, unless you completely express yourself in whatever way you wish, unless you go along with all the exciting things which are set out in much of the sexual literature which is even now penetrating into schools, then somehow you are not a fully formed, mature human being". It seems to me that any change in the law changes expectations on those levels.
Thus, it is not simply a private matter. Indeed, one person's sexual activity is of concern to others. We have seen that again in our recent social and political life where concern about the sexual behaviour of others is not merely a matter of prurience but often much more about the kind of society which we are creating for ourselves. The law cannot easily control those matters and one must recognise that fact, but it can define expectations and it can protect.
The second question I wish to ask is: are homosexuality and heterosexuality simply alternative and equivalent forms of sexuality or is there is a difference between them which should somehow be represented in the law? We have inherited a long-standing belief that there is a difference. Much of this is rooted in Christian tradition. I do not want to stand by all that has been said and done on this subject within the history of the Christian Churches. As I said earlier, some appalling things have been done to homosexuals in the name of God. I would not in any way wish to endorse the hatred and contempt in which many of them have been held.
Nevertheless, there is something fundamental about our human nature which is safeguarded within the Christian tradition. It is a tradition which talks about the purpose of sex, which is procreational as well as relational. It is a tradition about the way in which we are made. It is a long-standing tradition about how human beings should relate to one another and where the limits should be drawn.
I hope that by moving in the direction that the other place has taken us, we can, as a society, rectify some of the mistakes that have been made in the past. That is part

18
of the case for change. But I do not think that as a society we can simply say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are in all respects equivalent. Plainly they are not. Therefore, in our legislation we need in some way to define a norm. It seems to me that to have the small age difference which is represented by the figure 18 says something about society's acceptance of heterosexuality as the norm.
My third question is: how valid are the arguments that 16 year-old boys need protection? Or how valid is the argument that is put by the other side that 16 year-old boys are at risk of being criminalised if the law is not changed to suit them? We have heard quite a bit already about the medical evidence. But the fact from which we start is that nobody knows what causes homosexuality. Therefore, any interpretations of how it develops must inevitably be speculative.
In the very comprehensive Wellcome Report: on sexuality in Britain the point was made that many of those questioned regretted that they had had sexual experience too early. I believe that young people need time to discover who they are and that in the case of those who may be fairly clear about their sexual identity by the age of 16 it is not necessary that they should have actual genital experience in order to prove it. I believe, above all, that young people need to know where the boundaries lie. That is why we have to have laws in this area.
I do not take too seriously the point that young people will not be willing to go for medical or contraceptive advice or consultation about AIDS for fear of being criminalised. It seems to me that the way in which the law is applied says much more about the desire of society to help those who have got themselves into trouble rather than its desire to criminalise them unnecessarily. The evidence is that with a minimum age of 21 (or whatever) people will engage in this kind of sexual activity well below that age. I think that it is highly likely that if the legal age were 16 then in fact sexual activity of this kind would begin around 14 or so. There is bound to be, just as there is with speed limits on the road, a grey area in which those who might prosecute recognise the ambiguities and recognise particular human need. I hope that any law would be applied in that spirit. Lowering the legal age to below 16 would in practice, I believe, lower the expectations of sexual activity to an age much earlier than that.
It is manifestly true, if one compares boys and girls, that girls mature sexually earlier than boys. The psychiatrists may not know it, but every parent knows it. Again, homosexuality between men and homosexuality between women is, for very obvious reasons, different, simply because men and women are physically different. I do not profess to know very much about these matters from personal experience, but it would seem to me that homosexual relations of a certain kind between young boys must entail a good deal more physical commitment than homosexual relationships between young girls. I hope that this Committee will obey the good advice that has been given to it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and that it will stick to the line that the other place took in voting for the age of 18.
3.45 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am a practising Roman Catholic, and I think that it is common knowledge that the Christian religion believes homosexual acts to be morally wrong. That is clearly taught in the Bible. They are considered to be unnatural, which is confirmed by the construction of the parts of the body that are involved. It is well known that some boys, when they reach adolescence, often pass through a transient homosexual phase, but that in most cases heterosexual urges have taken over by about the age of 21.
The Kinsey Reports of 1948 and 1953 concluded that 10 per cent. of the male population was homosexual. That is now thought to be widely inaccurate. In the USA, Professor Tom Smith concludes that 0.7 per cent. are homosexual. A recent estimate in the UK is that only 0.9 per cent. are homosexual.
There is a most dangerous likelihood of AIDS being caught. The Washington Family Research Institute has revealed that a homosexual lifestyle reduces life expectancy from 75 years to 42 years.
I advocate that Clause 139 should not stand part of the Bill, which would mean keeping the age of consent at 21, and not reducing it to 18, so that there would be a longer opportunity for young men to work out their psycho-sexual orientation as they grow up.
Lord Kilmarnock: I want to start from the proposition that an area of the criminal law should be no wider than it need be or usefully can be, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated. That applies especially to areas where it is not enforced and is unenforceable, other than at an unacceptable opportunity cost to other police activities. We have too many coercive and violent acts within society which keep the law and its agents fully occupied without pursuing consensual sexual behaviour. There are, of course, certain safeguards that are required here, to which I shall come shortly, but the point that I want to stress is that we should not criminalise people or inflict on them the fear of criminality unless there is a very strong case for doing so.
I accept that, on the other side of the coin, it is the job of the law to forbid and, if possible, to prevent people doing things to others which they do not want done to them and which, if strong enough, they would resist. It is the Government's job, in so far as it is within their power, to protect citizens against coercion or assault, whether sexual or otherwise. No government can legislate for morals but governments can and should pass legislation to protect citizens against rape, abuse and so forth.
There are other considerations to which different people will give different weight. Some will give emphasis to equality and the need to remove discrimination between the sexes as regards the age of consent to homosexual acts. I understand that there is a case before the European Court of Human Rights alleging contravention by Britain of certain articles by some young men. Incidentally, that court is not an institution of the sinister empire of the European Union, as some see it, but an institution of the Council of Europe, of which we were a founder member and whose

20
Convention on Human Rights many people want to incorporate into our domestic law. It is not unlikely that we shall be obliged by that court in due course to move to equality between the sexes. But that is not my main point, which remains the futility of criminalising consensual acts and then turning a blind eye to them.
The current state of affairs is rather extraordinary. According to an Answer in another place on 17th January, there were in 1990,1991 and 1992 respectively 10, 19 and 14 prosecutions in England and Wales for consensual acts of buggery or attempted buggery with consent by males of 21 or over with males under 21, leading respectively to nine, 10 and 12 convictions. On one interpretation that is not a very impressive record of snooping; on another it is a tribute to the authorities concerned for turning their backs on a fruitless pursuit. In Scotland there is a tacit policy of disregard of such offences other than those in which exploitation, corruption or breach of trust is suspected. Details of the Scottish position are given in House of Commons Library Research Paper 94/12 on page 5.
So there is a widespread reluctance by those responsible to enforce the law. According to research commissioned by the Department of Health under the heading Project SIGMA, 88 per cent. of first consensual homosexual acts take place before the age of 21 and 61 per cent. take place before the age of 16. On whatever estimate of the homosexual population that one chooses to take, the law is obviously being disregarded daily on a very large scale with only minimal intervention by the authorities.
In another place an extraordinary argument to my mind was advanced, to the effect that the law is simply there as a framework, a set of precepts, guidelines or signals which may or not be invoked. Is that what the law means or what it ought to mean? Is it just an assemblage of indicators, flags, hints or nudges which one can take or leave alone? How would it work in relation to motoring or other offences, if the law were simply discretionary? To advocate that the law should be there as a kind of vague, admonitory instrument seems to me to be quite wrong and simply sows confusion, cynicism and ultimately a total lack of respect for it.
I turn to matters of public health. It is curious that the two most draconian Motions for debate were put down by noble Lords who profess themselves (as I am sure they are) concerned to prevent the spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The noble Duke and his friends want to reverse the decision taken in the other place and to restore the age of consent from 18 to 21. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam—if I understood them rightly, as they have substantially redrafted their amendments—appear to want consensual buggery to remain a criminal offence until the age of 21. I shall now try to deal with each of those propositions.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Could the noble Lord possibly speak into the microphone? I heard my name mentioned but I did not hear what else the noble Lord said.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord. But I am much closer to him than is the noble Earl and I have not heard a word that he has said so far.
Noble Lords: Speak more slowly.
Lord Kilmarnock: I believe it is something to do with the microphones. I was endeavouring not to delay the Committee unduly. I shall pay attention to the views of the Chamber. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, I simply said that, if I rightly understood his amendment and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, they appeared to want consensual buggery to remain a criminal offence until the age of 21, even if other offences were decriminalised until the age of 18. I shall now deal with each of those propositions.
The assumption that sticking to 21 will help to reduce cases of HIV among young homosexuals not only fails to take account of the widespread non-enforcement to which I referred but also is at variance with the opinion of virtually every voluntary organisation working with young people in this field—organisations such as Barnardo's, the citizens advice bureaux, the National Children's Bureau and so on (I have a list as long as my arm); likewise, professional bodies, including not only the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has been mentioned, but also the proverbially conservative (with a small "c") BMA. They all argue that the current law inhibits effective health promotion and safer sex education among those who most need it. The young people fear to seek professional advice because that might be tantamount to admitting a crime; and professionals and teachers are reluctant to give advice for fear of being in breach of the law themselves. Furthermore, those views are in tune with government policy. According to the Department of Health, that is founded on the proposition that prevention remains the cornerstone of the strategy to curb the spread of HIV by education and publicity campaigns.
Incidentally, I have checked with Dr. Lawrence, the senior genito-urinary physician at St. Stephen's, who has allowed me to quote his opinion that:
"the current age of consent poses a considerable deterrent to young men coming forward to be tested".
That is confirmed by Dr. Nichol Thin, who is the chairman of the Association of Genito-Urinary Medicine. It is a very serious criticism of the present law that it may lead to unwitting transmission of a terrible disease.
I understand that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, will be debated later. I shall not therefore pursue them any further at present. But returning to the age of 21 is not sensible, practical or even particularly moral in relation to a disease which has especially horrible consequences. We should rather be thinking of how to prevent non-consensual homosexual acts and for that there are other options. For example, the amendment which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and which has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to create an offence of male rape and put it on an equal footing with the rape of a female by a male, seems to me

22
to be very well worth consideration. I shall listen to the noble Lord with great care when he moves the amendment.
There are other possibilities, such as the practice in several European countries, some of which have the basic age of consent as low as 12, of running a dual-track policy, whereby a higher age applies (typically 18) when the older person is in a position of authority, influence or trust vis-à-vis the younger. That is an obvious deterrent to the abuse of power.
All the bodies that I have mentioned and some others as well want the age of 16, as I do. That is not to say that they and I do not consider 18 to be an improvement on the present law. It was recommended as long ago as 1981 by the Home Office Advisory Committee and, as we know, it was the preferred option, by a very large majority, of the other place.
We do not of course on a matter of conscience have to follow another place. But it is important to note that, taking the pro-18s and the pro-16s together, there is a very large body of opinion against maintaining the law as it stands. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, presses his amendments, as I hope he will, I shall support him. If we are unsuccessful, I strongly urge the Committee to support the Motion that Clause 139 stand part of the Bill and to defeat the misplaced zeal of those who want to overturn it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend that the age of consent should be 16. I should declare that I am a member of the parliamentary Stonewall group, which is a group established to campaign for homosexual equality. Moreover, it is a group which has done a great deal to oppose the kind of discrimination to which I believe we would all object. I am also a member of the council of Save the Children, which has already declare publicly its support for the age of consent as 16.
I do not want to take up much time because I believe that my noble friend has already set out the arguments for his amendment with a great deal of force and clarity. However, I support the amendment, first, because I believe in the principle of equality. I can see absolutely no case at all for treating homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. It is quite well established that young people are well aware of the way that their sexual preferences will lie some time before the age of 16. That is true for both young men and young women. It was certainly true in my own case and I am sure also for many noble Lords should they care to think back that far.
It is sometimes argued that a higher age is required for male homosexuals because of the risk that otherwise they might be corrupted by older men. I have always found it striking that no one seems to be that bothered about the corruption of young women by older men, which one would have thought to be a much commoner phenomenon.
Secondly, I am opposed to a law which treats young gay men as criminals. Between 1988 and 1991 there were over 2,000 arrests for offences involving consensual sex with men under 21 years of age. The criminalisation of such acts has quite disastrous

23
consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, there is currently the problem of HIV infection and AIDS. It is vital therefore that young people should receive proper counselling. They must be given information that will enable them to protect their health. As it now stands the criminal law prevents such counselling being made available to young homosexual men.
It is for that reason, among others, that Save the Children supports equalisation at age 16, otherwise advice and help could be denied to young people at a time when they are most in need of it. I strongly believe that only prejudice is responsible for a differential age. In relation to the reference to the Wolfenden Report made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I would remind the Committee that the Wolfenden Report was published as long ago as 1957 and there is no logical reason to continue a differential on the lines now suggested. I sincerely hope that the Committee will support my noble friend Lord McIntosh when he calls for a vote.
4 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My reason for putting my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is simple: I want an age of consent law which is enforceable and enforced. The present age of consent law for heterosexual acts is an example of an enforceable law. The age of consent law as it relates to male homosexual acts is neither enforceable nor enforced. The most reverend Primate referred to the role of the law in setting expectations. I agree with that. But it seems to me that his argument would have been more secure had he proposed raising the age of consent for heterosexual acts to 18. The present expectations of the law are that sexual acts will be allowed at 16. Why should not homosexuals have the same expectations as the majority of the population?
I take the central purpose of the criminal law to be to deter conduct which is defined as criminal. Deterrence depends on three things: the chance of being caught; the chance of being prosecuted if caught; and the chance of being punished if prosecuted. In all those respects the present age of consent law for male homosexual acts is virtually a dead letter and the most general reason is that the existing law does not command sufficient assent to be enforced in specific cases. That is the important point.
What are the facts? Members of the Committee referred to some of the statistics. One can set them out in different ways but they all come to the same thing. At present the Crown Prosecution Service operates what is called a flexible prosecution policy in respect of male homosexual offences. The data for 1992—the last year available—show no charge brought or even caution given for consensual sexual relations between young men aged 17 to 20. In the case of consensual sexual relations between males over 21 and young males aged 17 to 20 in 1992 there were 136 cautions, 216 prosecutions, with 165 found guilty, and 12 custodial sentences. To a certain extent that may show that the law is being enforced. In fact, almost all the arrests occur in

24
public places where the committing of sexual acts is an offence whatever the age of those concerned. Such arrests have nothing at all to do with enforcing the age of consent law; they are directed against public indecency.
Apart from acceptability of the law there is a good reason for the non-enforceability of the present law. It is almost impossible to get caught unless the offence occurs in a public place. On the other hand, that is not likely if the age of consent is lowered to 16. Where offences involve men over 21 with young men under 16, detection is much easier—though usually takes the form of parental complaint—simply because in nearly all cases the younger partner will still be living at home.
I hope the Committee will agree with me that it is a mark of an enforceable law that it should not be constantly exposed to the charge of being unfair and unjust whenever an attempt is made to apply it in a specific case. What is the point of having such laws? We do not expect the law on burglary to be flexibly applied. If the police apprehended burglars who had just removed the contents of my house I would find it extremely alarming to be told that the Director of Public Prosecutions operates a flexible policy and will only prosecute if he thinks it in the public interest to do so and having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. Similarly, most parents of under-age girls would find it alarming to be told that charges of unlawful sex would only be brought at the discretion of the police. Yet that is how matters stand with unlawful sex as currently applied to homosexual acts.
It is of the essence of an enforceable law that it should be enforced in every case that it is broken. I know that that is an ideal; yet if I am caught speeding I expect charges to be brought and would consider myself extremely lucky to be let off with a caution. Where it comes to the age of consent my argument is that the only enforceable law is one which equalises the age of consent at 16. There is no significant demand to legalise sexual acts below that age. We all expect the law to protect minors. We also have evidence at present that the law is enforced with respect to under-age girls, as the public expect. The same would be the case with boys who were under 16.
We tread an extremely dangerous path if we pass laws which are intended to be largely declaratory. We run the risk of so discrediting that kind of law that it becomes impossible to apply, even in cases where it ought to be applied. Nothing is more likely to undermine the effective protection of those who need protecting than to have laws governing sexual behaviour which cannot be rationally defended and in consequence cannot be enforced in specific cases.
Those in favour of retaining the present law argue that consent at 21 means consent at 18 in practice. They say that consent at 18 would mean consent at 16 in practice. If that is the case, why not go straight there in the first place? They then go on to argue that consent at 16 would mean consent at 14 or 15 in practice. But that last step in the argument is a complete non sequitur. The reason that laws which apply to 21 year-olds are not enforced is that public consent for enforcing them is not available in the specific cases, irrespective of what the

25
public in general want. Where laws are enforceable we only pay attention to whether justice is seen to be done in the specific case; we do not question the justice of the law itself. That is why the law can be enforced for an age of consent of 16—because the justice of that law will not be questioned—and why it cannot be enforced for an age of consent of 21 or 18.
It is argued further that the homosexual age of consent ought to stay at 21 because under 21s are most sexually active and most likely to engage in practices which lead to AIDS. As far as we can ascertain, that is not so. The facts on buggery, for example, do not support it. The average age at which the practice starts seems to be between 20 and 21. But even if it started earlier, the argument is a complete non sequitur. It presupposes that the existing law is a deterrent. But the existing law is not a deterrent; an unenforced law does not deter. What it may deter is young homosexuals seeking advice on safer sex. It does not prevent homosexual behaviour; it simply turns homosexuals under 21 into criminals.
There is another equally unsatisfactory aspect about the present position. Young men between 17 and 20 are subject to criminal prosecution for giving consent to sexual relations whereas girls under 16 cannot give consent. They cannot be criminally liable. If the homosexual age of consent were lowered to 18, young men of 16 and 17 would still be liable to prosecution. It is completely illogical that a law which ostensibly exists to protect young people should also treat them as criminals. That is why I support the amendment which I understand will be moved later in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Perhaps I may say a few words to the Conservative Family Campaign which has been urging us, very ably, to support the existing law of consent. Last year I supported an amendment in this House to allow parents to withdraw their children from sex education classes in schools on conscientious grounds. I agreed with the arguments then of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. Like him, I was against using the law to impose a particular view of sexual behaviour. But it seems to me, with respect, that he has not followed the logic of his own position on this issue. I am equally against using the law to enforce moral disapproval. The reason the present law is a bad law is that it is discriminatory. It discriminates against a particular section of the population. Catholics in this country should appreciate the force of that argument.
Tristan Garel-Jones summed up the matter admirably in another place: by voting for 18 we shall end up with the worst of both possible worlds—a newly enacted law that is not properly and rigorously upheld but … in which young people will still be in fear of criminality. If noble Lords are persuaded by the arguments for this amendment they should not be dissuaded from expressing that support in the Lobby by the fact that another place has voted for 18. In allowing a free vote the Government invited MPs to decide the matter in their personal, not their representative capacity. This sound Burkean argument should have particular appeal in this House where we are answerable only to our consciences.
The Earl of Longford: I realise that everyone hen: has their own experience of this terrible subject and that we all have our qualifications and disqualifications My main qualification may endear me for the moment—but only for the moment—to some of those who support the homosexual cause in that I was the only person who was bold enough in 1957 to espouse the Wolfenden Report by opening a debate in this House in that year when no one in the House of Commons would touch it. So no one must come and tell me that I am a queer basher or something of that kind. I moved that Motion and the attitude of the Government was not helpful. It took another 10 years and, if I may say so without bringing party into it, a great Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and the Labour Party to introduce the Bill which then carried the Wolfenden Report into law. I hope we shall not be told by the Government that they have always stood for the introduction of more liberality for homosexuals. That was not so in 1957 by any means.
However, my disqualification is that my dear old friend, Professor A. L. Rowse, said of me to one of ray daughters that my trouble is that I lack homosexual experience. I do not know how many other noble Lords; lack homosexual experience.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Hands up!
The Earl of Longford: There are no hands going up in a contrary sense. At any rate, I suffer from that: disadvantage. It may be that other speakers have an advantage of me there.
I am standing firmly on the issue of 21. If it is said that I approach this from a Christian point of view, yes, that is perfectly true, but I realise that there are Christians—perhaps better Christians—who do not agree with me on that. I can only say that I regard all human beings as equal in the sight of God. But I cannot say that I am sorry that none of my children or grandchildren—or, so far as one can judge, my great-grandchildren—is homosexual. I doubt whether anyone here wants to bring into this world homosexual young people. I believe it is a terrible handicap in life. We have to do all that we can to help them, but certainly we must not pander to them. That would be the greatest mistake possible. In that sense, I am on the side of trying to protect homosexuals.
I was asked this morning on the radio to sum up my case in 15 seconds. I tried to and I shall try again now. I submit that if the age is reduced below 21 the amount of corruption by middle-aged and elderly gentlemen of young adolescent boys will much increase. That is 15 seconds and that is clearly where I stand. My noble friend Lady Turner said, "What about women? Why shouldn't they be treated the same way?" I am afraid that I do not think anyone here feels that women and men in this matter are exactly the same. I shall, again in 15 seconds, try to show what I mean. It is perfectly possible, as I know from experience, for young women to be prostitutes and to recover and become mothers and maybe grandmothers. But it must be rare indeed—I have studied this question in a number of different connections, including the criminal world and also the Streetwise centre for homosexual prostitutes, which has closed down—for anyone who is corrupted as an

27
adolescent boy to lead a normal life thereafter. So, without more ado and taking a little more than 15 seconds, but not much more, I support the age of 21.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: I unquestionably support retaining the age of 21. I agree very much with all that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has just said. Nothing I have heard in this afternoon's debate has altered my view on this matter.
I am not standing up to apportion blame to anyone but I do think that we need to consider this matter very carefully and to answer the very clever arguments, if I may say so, that are put by all those in favour of lowering the age to 16 or 18. The first argument came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who more or less told us that we should not vote for anything else but 18 because another place has voted for 18. If one took that point seriously we might just as well pack up and go home now and not debate anything at all. It is a free vote. We are one of the Houses of Parliament and we are perfectly entitled to express our view. We have often, as a matter of historical fact, been a more accurate judge of public opinion than another place.
Secondly, I think the argument put by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is a very powerful one. All of us know perfectly well that if the age comes down from 21 to 18 it will come down very quickly to 16; it will come down after that to 14, because the pressures will be on; and, who knows, it will be simply accepted that homosexuality is as normal as ordinary heterosexuality. It is a very dangerous path that we are going down. That is the first reason why I support retaining the age of 21.
I have spoken in your Lordships' House in the debate on the International Year of the Family and I think that one of the great dangers confronting society today is the break-up of the fabric of society. Whatever we may think of it, to have more divorces, more single-parent families and more children born out of wedlock is not really a desirable state of affairs. Every year the statistics increase and we have this army of unhappy children. This debate today seems to be one more nail in the coffin of the fabric of society because we shall simply go down a path making matters worse. All the clever arguments in the world advanced by the police, by, I am shocked to hear, Save the Children and Barnardo's, by psychiatrists, and by others, fly in the face of what the public know to be true and what experience over hundreds of years has shown us to be the best form for society, which is the family in what has always been accepted as its proper form.
I say to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that I was very upset by his speech. I shall of course read it again very carefully. I am a member of the Church of England and in the church which I attend regularly I do not believe that his view is held either by the clergy, by the parishioners or, indeed, by very many members of the Church of England. We are worried. We want a definite lead on some of the moral issues of today. We should not be afraid to say that the normal is better than the abnormal. That is a relevant statement.

28
I now turn to the argument about the age of 16. That seems to be the most dangerous of all. What are we going to say to schoolchildren? Will it be all right for the master to abuse the school child or for the headmaster to do so because that is all going to be perfectly all right in future? Even at 18 there are plenty of boys at school who could be subjected to that abuse. It is certainly completely counter to the Children Act, which we all agreed to a few years ago. It is setting an extremely bad example. If we consider the matter from the point of view of school teachers it will simply create a great deal of difficulty and confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a very powerful argument about the enforceability of law. It is the argument that I read in the debate in another place. Why we should imagine that because the law is difficult to enforce at the age of 21 it will somehow become miraculously easy at the age of 18 or 16, am not at all clear. If his argument is that it is unenforceable at 21 because a lot of people consider it to be unjust, I can tell him right now that if the age were at 16 or 18 a lot of people would think that unjust, too. It is no use the noble Lord shaking his head. I am quite certain that there are a great many people—we have not taken a vote on it so we do not know—who are not in favour of the age of 16. The idea that the whole of the population of this country is in favour of the age of 16 is quite wrong and the law would become equally unenforceable.
Lord Skidelsky: Does my noble friend think that the present law as regards the age of consent for heterosexuals is considered unjust?
Baroness Young: The present age for heterosexuals has been in existence for a very long time. If I was deciding this de novo I am not sure that I would say that the age of 16 was right, but that is what we have got. But there is a very great difference which has been partly brought out. In the first place girls mature earlier than boys. On average the 16 year-old girl is more mature than the 16 year-old boy. But if a 16 year-old girl has heterosexual relations, the worst than can happen to her is to have a baby. She could lose her heart to an unsuitable man and she may be very unhappy. But there is nothing to stop her going on to have a happy marriage, children, and to live a normal life. What is so tragic for the 16 year-old boy is that if he becomes entangled with homosexuality he denies himself forever the opportun-ity for marriage, children and a normal life.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said one thing with which I agree completely. He said that the law should be there for the protection of society. I believe that the age of 16 is very young, because both boys and girls are effectively not grown up at that age. It is the job of the law and of adult society to protect them and to try to prevent this sort of thing happening; either homosexual or heterosexual sex, for that matter. That is my own personal view. I believe that we would have a much better society if adults truly fulfilled their responsibili-ties to the young without being ashamed to say what they believe to be right.
I have two points to make in conclusion. I speak not only as a Member of your Lordships' House, but as a mother. I have three daughters. I look at my four young

29
grandsons and ask myself frequently what kind of a world are they growing up in and would I really like for them to have sex or homosexual sex at 16 or 18. The short answer is that I would not. I believe that most mothers want their children to grow up as normal adults. They want them to marry and have children and grandchildren. That is a very normal fact of life which we should remember.
My last point is a political one. I make it to some of my colleagues who seem absolutely convinced that 18 is the right age. I do not believe that there is any public support for lowering the age for homosexuals. There is, of course, a homosexual lobby which has been very strong in arguing its case. Like a lot of people who put up rather doubtful cases, at times they can argue it very well. But the idea that the mass of the people of this country believe that this is a most urgent matter is not true. For the Conservative Party to be supporting these arguments seems to me to be quite contrary to all our general beliefs. I believe very strongly that we should keep to the age of 21 for the reasons I have advanced. I hope very much that the House will support my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk in his proposition that Clause 139 shall not stand part of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: It is nearly 29 years ago since I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. It was on the Third Reading of the second Bill of Lord Arran, who introduced the Bill—I remind the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that it was he—to make homosexual acts between consenting adults legal. I spoke in support of that Bill. I am glad that at any rate today nobody is trying to overturn the provisions of that Bill.
Before we go any further about the ages of 14, 16, 18 or 21, I wonder whether we should not distinguish what young men are like. Twenty nine years ago I had much more confidence in my judgment than I have today about what young men are like because I was in daily contact with them and with young women at university. I remind the Committee that we are an elderly House. We need to take into account whether we really know what young men are like today.
There is one thing which is perfectly clear: there are always going to be some who are going to be congenitally homosexual; psychologically and physio-logically, they are predestined to that end and no amount of psychiatric or hormone treatment will alter that. When Lord Arran's Bill was being debated there was certain things that could not be mentioned. One could not mention that this country's most prestigious painter; our most famous choreographer at the Royal Ballet; our most renowned composer of classical music whose operas had been performed all over the world; and the best known and finest English-born poet, were all homosexual and could never have been anything else. Two of them were devout Anglicans.
There is one further matter. Unless anyone should think that I am merely citing a lot of eccentric artists, perhaps I may remind the Committee of one tragic case. During the war one person, perhaps more than any other, prevented us from losing the war (of course, not winning it, but he prevented us from losing it) and that

30
was a scientist, a fellow of my college at Cambridge —Alan Turing. He broke the Enigma code and enabled the Royal Navy and Coastal Command to defeat the U-boat offensive. He saved us from starvation in this country. When later he was a professor at Manchester he was apprehended. A young man whom he had befriended stole some of his goods. In his naivety he went to the police. The police said: "What were you doing with that young man?" He was arrested,, tried and convicted. He was sentenced to undergo hormone treatment. He grew women's breasts and in his disgust he committed suicide.
We should not forget cases of that kind and we should realise that in their lives some people will be forced to be and will continue to be homosexuals. It is absurd to say, when such people have passed the age of majority: "You must wait until you are 21 before you give vent to your natural feelings. If you do not wait, we will prosecute you". Do we really want to put such people in the dock? Let us not forget the line of that remarkable classical scholar and poet, A.E. Housman, which he wrote after the trial of Oscar Wilde, though of course he did not publish it during his own lifetime because he could not:
"They are sending him to prison for the colour of his hair".
Of course we all know that the vast majority of our fellow men are stoutly heterosexual but there are young people who want to experiment when they are young. They experiment mostly with ideas, and some of the ideas which we hold when we are 18 or 16 we may look back on in later life with some amusement. But of course some of them want to experiment with other things: with drugs, gambling or sex. They may well have homosexual affairs. But in my experience, for example, at boarding school, highly-sexed boys of 16, 17 and 18 may well have had homosexual relations with other boys, but that did not mean that they would be homosexual for the rest of their lives. I must say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. In my experience, and particularly at university, many of those who are homosexual happily marry within a few years of going down.
So I imagine that those who oppose this amendment have in mind another kind of young man: that is, the kind of young man whom we describe as "immature". Our Victorian ancestors would have said that such a young man was a weak character, infinitely seducible by ideas, by groups or by whatever is fashionable or faintly unorthodox. I suspect it is these young men whom the movers of amendments to keep the age of consent at 21 or even 18 have in mind. They have before their eyes the picture of some inexperienced youth being taken up by a homosexual clique and being seduced to that way of life for the rest of his days.
That is not absurd, and I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he rather pooh-poohed the possibility that anybody could be seduced to a homosexual way of life. I think it is very possible. Today the gay culture beckons openly, in a way that 30 years ago it could only do clandestinely—though it was not as clandestine as all that. At some time in their lives

31
susceptible young men are going to meet this culture and they may be attracted to it. However, their character will determine whether or not they go over to it.
Is that a reason for differentiating between the age at which men and women may have sexual relations? I would have thought that the case was overwhelming for revising the age for consenting homosexual acts from 21 to 18. The age of 18 has been for some 30 years now the age of majority and if a young man is eligible to vote, it seems to me that he is eligible to go to bed with a consenting partner of his choice. If he is old enough to be called up and fight for his country in time of war, he is surely able to make up his mind about other things. He can marry a woman without anyone's consent but hers at the age of 18. And who set this age of majority?— Parliament. It really does not make sense if we now say, "Yes, 18 is the age of majority but not in this particular instance". Either someone is fully adult or he is not.
Of course it is true that there is an anomaly. It is legal to have sexual intercourse with a girl of 16. I suspect that that age was fixed a very long time ago, because by then a woman is fully mature and can have children. If the age were to be any higher the courts would be filled with cases of rape and indecent assault. In fact today, with better nutrition and health, women mature much earlier. One can see lively young women of 14 playing at Wimbledon. But here there is a distinct difference between women and men. Boys at 14 are spindly and you will not find any of them playing at Wimbledon. That is a major difference between the sexes. There is no question about it: women do mature earlier than men. At the age of 16 there is still a difference between them. I also maintain that women at the age of 16 are far more sensible than boys at 16. Your Lordships may say that that is a lot of subjective rubbish, but I do not think it is more subjective than some of the psychiatric evidence which has been cited to us this afternoon.
So why should the age be different for a young man? A case could be made—and I would rather enjoy making it—that women are a great deal more mature at the age of 16 than men. But while psychologists might agree and declare that adolescent males at 16 are apt to be assured and keen to prove that they are older than they are, I doubt whether that is evidence enough for distinguishing between the two sexes when it comes to a question of sexual choice and having sexual relations.
I was actually much moved by what the most reverend Primate said on this. He said that there is a case to be made for the difference between 16 and 18, if only to distinguish between the kind of sexual conduct which is necessary for the welfare of the race and that which is deviant. I hope that all members of our society, whatever their views on homosexuals might be, would agree with that. The fact that there are large numbers of deviants is not a reason for denying that difference and therefore I find myself torn between wishing to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, pointed out, one age which is the same for men and women—16—and, as my noble and learned kinsman Lord Simon so eloquently spoke for, the age of 18 as being the sensible and right age. I will in fact listen further to arguments put forward

32
before I make up my mind and I shall speak further on the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, are moving.
Earl Russell: It gives me great pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, arguing for our right to stand up to another place. I shall remember that. But it does not follow that on this occasion we need to exercise that right. I would also like to say—and this may be necessary to prevent misunderstandings—that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about expectations for our children: mine are as hers. But if I had had any occasion for doubt in this matter, I could have thought of nothing more disastrously self-defeating, either for their sake or for mine, than to call in the assistance of the criminal law for determining their sexuality.
I am here to speak in favour of the age 16. It seems to me to be the only just and equitable conclusion and also—and this may at this stage of the debate be more important—it is the only one which will prevent this debate from recurring over and over again. However, I am also here to oppose the amendment that the clause should not stand part, to oppose any reversion to 21. I quite understand, and indeed sympathise with, the fact that a large proportion of the Committee feels a distaste for homosexuality. I also understand that a proportion of the Committee regards it as a sin. I will ask them to pause before they translate their own distaste or their own conscience into the criminal law of the land. There is wisdom in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas that human law can neither punish nor even prohibit all that is evilly done.
We in this Chamber are in a position of power, although sometimes it does not feel like it! If we want to prohibit something, we have a chance to do so. The urge to say, "It's bad. There should be a law against it", is very instinctive and deep. It tends to lead to the overloading of the statute book. That argument was made familiar in the debates on the deregulation Bill but it also applies in moral matters and in many others. Perhaps my favourite example is the farmer who in 1640 wrote to his MP to urge him to make a law to stop the sparrows eating his grain. A more topical example is the Act of Parliament of 1531 with the most catch-all Long Title I have ever heard. It is:
"An Act against buggery, Welshmen, vagabonds and other misdemeanours".
It is for that kind of reason that we should pause before we overload the statute book.
I want to consider some conditions which stretch way beyond this debate. Before attempting to incorporate our own dislikes in the criminal law, we should try to check those conditions to see whether they are satisfied. The first is that the Act must command general assent. I do not mean that everybody should agree; I mean that it should be acceptable and tolerable so that we can submit to it being enforced. Perhaps I may take an extreme example. I lived for five years in the state of Connecticut in the former colony of Newhaven where there is still in force a 17th century law which makes it a crime to kiss your wife on a Sunday. I will freely admit that while I lived in the state of Connecticut I was a criminal. I do not usually lightly break the law but on that matter I did so with a clear conscience.

33
If the law does not meet the test of public opinion, either it will not be enforced—as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, argued—or, if it is enforced, it will not achieve its objective. In 1637 the Earl of Strafford wisely remarked that a prince who loseth the force and example of his punishments loseth withal the greatest part of his dominion. If the punishment is not shaming because, by a large proportion of the population, it is not thought to be being inflicted for something wrong, it does not achieve the desired effect.
We are in an area in which there has been a rapid change in public opinion. I have followed it since I first spoke as an under-graduate in the debate on the Wolfenden Report. Change has taken place slowly since then but during the past year it has become very rapid indeed. Therefore, the movement is away from those who want to keep the law as it is. It is away from them in particular among the young. Among those I teach, the case for the imprisonment of homosexuals is as totally incomprehensible as the case for the burning of heretics. In that situation, invocation of the criminal law is risky. In a divided society, which we must all admit we are, where we consider the criminal law the burden of proof must be on the prohibitor.
The second test is that a law must be enforceable. I listened with care to what was said by the most reverend Primate about setting a norm. We heard that argument in this House on the debate on war crimes. I believed —and when it came to the vote the House believed too —that it was not good to put on the statute book an Act of Parliament which we considered could not be enforced. Since then the history of the issue of war crimes has on the whole persuaded me that that stance was correct.
Apart from the difficulty of public opinion, there is the difficulty of enforcement; most of the offences take place in private. The same difficulty was faced by another place when, in 1650, it decided to make adultery a capital offence. At the last moment, one experienced Member—I will not say in what sense I use that term —inserted an amendment to make conviction require two witnesses. I believe that there is one lone conviction under that Act.
One cannot change sexual orientation by law. It is not an act of will, so it is not something which we can suppose is in any way a matter of expectation. I do not believe that what the law says is likely to influence that. As regards either sex, at no time has it been possible to impose chastity by law. Therefore, I remain to be convinced that if the law retains the age of 21, one fewer homosexual act will take place than if it is changed.
So if the law achieves nothing one must move on to apply the Benthamite test; does it prevent more pain than it causes? As Bentham put it, all punishment, being in itself pain, ought to be admitted if only to avoid a greater pain. I do not believe that the provision will reduce homosexual acts, nor do I believe that people will be abusing their pupils. We must remember and welcome the fact that it has become more unacceptable than previously to abuse heterosexual pupils as well as homosexual pupils. It is the abuse which is the offence in that case, and that we must hang on to.

34
I will take one example among many of the pain caused by the present law. It comes from my own brief. Members of the Committee may not be surprised to hear that it is the case of 16 and 17 year-olds who encounter the social security system. Of those who make severe hardship claims, 65 per cent. do so because they were thrown out by their parents. Many of them were thrown out by their parents because they were discovered to be homosexual. While what those people do is criminal, they have great difficulty when thrown out on their own in a big city in asking for any help for fear that they may be prosecuted. Instead, some of them become rent boys because they must eat, and because the pay is higher they tend to do it without contraception. I would have thought that the risks of that were obvious. Therefore, the law does not pass the Benthamite test that it. prevents more pain than it causes.
Finally, I turn to the issue of another place. I agree with the noble Baroness that we can reject what another place does. When I argue for that, I am usually arguing for challenging the power of a government who need checking somehow. But again I would propose some conditions for the circumstances in which we may usefully challenge another place. I would do it if any one of those conditions were satisfied. The first is that we should have strong support in public opinion.
This Chamber should be wary of raising the cry that was raised in 1832 and 1911 of Peers versus people. When in the case of the eyes and teeth tests 87 per cent. of public opinion was on our side, that was a reason for asking another place to think again. Where all informed opinion is on our side, as in the case on the debate on the cab rank rule in the Courts and Legal Services Bill, there is good reason to ask another place to think again. Where we are arguing a major constitutional principle, as we were in the case of the police committees on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, there is good reason to ask Members of another place to think again—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They did.
Earl Russell: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says, they did, and we owe much gratitude to him for his efforts in helping to persuade them to do so. In any of those cases, we were within our power to ask another place to think again. But in this case, if we send the Bill back to another place, we are taking on a very large majority there with the tide of public opinion moving against us; and it is moving against us fastest among the age group to which the law will apply most. Finally, if we send the Bill back, we should take care because the other place may change its mind and vote in favour of the age of 16.
Lord Ashbourne: I shall be extremely brief. As noble Lords have had some difficulty this afternoon in hearing speakers, if anyone finds it difficult to hear me, if they will raise one hand, I shall do my best to increase the volume or improve the direction, as may seem appropriate. Homosexuality is unnatural. It is a perversion. We are told in the Book of Leviticus that it is an abomination to the Lord.
I was extremely pleased to hear the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York explain and argue so

35
cogently this afternoon that homosexuality is not just an alternative to heterosexuality. I agree entirely with him about that. Homosexuality is unnatural; heterosexuality is entirely natural. Therefore, there is a fundamental difference between the two.
Therefore, I urge Members of the Committee to vote Not-Content to Amendments Nos. 160A, 161A, 163A and 164A, and I agree with my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk that the Committee should oppose the Question that Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We are having a very good and civilised debate this afternoon. It is taking place on the basis of an amendment inserted by another place into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that the people in the House of Commons who had moved the amendment and voted upon it did so in a personal capacity. Of course that is true. But he should not forget that they are also representatives. Therefore, they have a duty to those whom they represent. I believe that the duty which Members of the House of Commons have to those whom they represent means that they should at least discuss the matters with their electorate before they, willy-nilly, without any notice, insert into a Bill—a Bill that has little to do with the issue—an amendment of very great note and anxiety to many people up and down this country.
I wonder whether the mover of the amendment—I believe it was Mrs. Currie—to reduce the age of consent to 16 had discussed that matter with her constituents at the general election which took place not so long ago. I wonder whether any of those Members who voted in another place—because they are still representatives, unlike us—discussed with their constituents the issue of reducing the age of consent for homosexuality to 18. My guess is that they had not. Therefore, as is so often the case now, the general public is excluded from the debate. I believe that that is altogether reprehensible. It would have been far better to have had a much longer debate in which the general public could have taken part and we should then have been able to know better its opinion.
Having said that, I wish to say why I oppose my noble friend's amendment to reduce the age of consent to 16 and to say also why I shall also oppose the amendment in favour of keeping the age of consent at 21.
In the first place, I believe that there is a difference between young men and young women. I have a daughter and I have two sons. I know that the rate of maturity was different for my daughter compared with my sons. Therefore, I believe that that is a relevant argument which draws me to the conclusion that I should vote against my noble friend's amendment.
But as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, there is a relevance in relation to the question of 21 or 18. When the Sexual Offences Act 1967 was passed, the age of majority was 21. Of course it was logical that the age of consent for homosexual acts should be put at the age of majority. For my part, that is the sticking point. Parliament in its wisdom reduced the age of consent

36
from 21 to 18. Therefore, it really would be odd if we saw just one simple act as being outside the age of majority.
After all, at 18 people can now buy houses. At the age of 18, they can go to war, and have been able to do so for a hell of a long time. They can do virtually anything at the age of 18. That is the age of majority. That is why I shall certainly vote against the retention of 21, and I shall vote to keep the amendment which was passed in the House of Commons as it is. I do not do that because that is what the House of Commons did but because I believe that is the sensible option.
Finally, I wish to deal with one other issue. We have heard a great deal about equalising the age of consent at 16. But of course, we are not doing that. The acts are different. This amendment does not provide that acts of buggery should be permitted with females. We are saying that they should be permitted only with males. Therefore, there is no equality. It will remain an offence to commit an act of buggery with a female aged 16 or any other age. Therefore, when people are voting and thinking of reducing the age to 16 on the basis of equality, they should understand that there is no equality in what we are now trying to do. I repeat that it will remain an offence to undertake an act of buggery with a female of any age.
Therefore, for all those reasons, I cannot support my noble friend's amendment, although I shall not go so far as to support amendments which would alter the age of consent from 18 to 21.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: In speaking in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and those grouped with it, at the same time I should like to make clear why, at this stage in the passage of the Bill, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, might do well not to put his amendment to the vote, although if he does, I shall feel obliged to vote with him.
Since the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, it has been the principle of our law that consensual sexual acts taking place between two adults in private are not unlawful. There may be various such acts which can be considered sinful, according to widely held moral and ethical codes—and adultery would be one such— but that does not make them unlawful. We also have the principle that it is unlawful for adults to have sexual relations with minors. That principle would find agreement with most Members of the Committee.
What is most deeply offensive about the present situation, as it applies before the passage of the Bill, is that it criminalises a significant and very vulnerable minority within our society; that is to say, young homosexual men between the ages of 16 and 21. If the Bill as it has come to us from another place is passed in its present form, it will still criminalise those young men between the ages of 16 and 18 who give physical expression to their feelings.
The manifest injustice and inappropriateness of the situation—in effect, to criminalise a significant minority of young men between the ages of 16 and 18—is such as to cause deep unease to what I judge to be the great majority of young people today, including the great

37
majority of those young men and women who would personally find homosexual relationships so far as they are concerned unattractive or distasteful.
The point has been made that Members of the Committee are in general rather older than the individuals on whom we are focusing this afternoon. However, I have the opportunity and the privilege of talking about many matters with people in those age ranges. I can assure Members of the Committee that those with whom I have spoken in general—although not all of them—feel that criminalisation process to be inappropriate and distasteful. Perhaps I may stress that that is the view of women students, with many of whom I come into contact, as much as men students.
Moreover, many women students—and, no doubt, many young women in the present world—also find themselves to be vulnerable. I believe that the suggestion was made earlier in the debate that many women would be distressed or would disapprove if the age of consent were lowered from 21. However, I can assure Members of the Committee that there is a feeling abroad among young women as much as among young men that one has to be more sensitive about personal relationships. One does not have to be a woman feminist to feel that quite acutely. That feeling of awareness extends to young homosexual men as much as to other sectors of society.
As we have heard, the practical consequences of the present situation are that, in criminalising this vulnerable segment of the population, society is making it more difficult for them to seek the advice and guidance that some of them need or wish to have, including guidance about health. Indeed, some Members of the Committee have spoken about their concern regarding the risks to that section of the population of incurring AIDS or, more accurately, of being infected with the human immuno-deficiency virus which causes AIDS. As we know, most of those public bodies which are concerned with health care see the criminalisation of those young people—and the bar that that sets up to their receiving proper advice and guidance—as a health risk and not a safeguard. That is certainly true of the all-parliamentary group on AIDS and other specialist groups about which we have already heard.
The argument is not confined to the practicality of applying the law and to justice and the avoidance of inequality together with the avoidance of harassment and discrimination which are prevalent in our society; it is also, as many members of the Church of England have recognised, concerned with morality. If we are speaking of family values, I submit that it is no longer acceptable to cast out of the nuclear family, or the Christian family, those young men who are homosexual. I should remind Members of the Committee that the law wisely takes no account of women who fall within that category. I was encouraged by the remarks of the most reverend Primate whose views coincided to a significant extent.
I have received with unease a flow of lobbying literature, some from a group calling itself the "Conservative Family Campaign", and other materials which contain a tide of something which many would consider to be assertive dogmatism. In view of the

38
appropriate tone of the Committee's debate, I shall avoid the word "bigotry" although it did flash through my mind. Some of the material manifests that particularly British ability to marry puritanism with prurience and displays what might be considered an unhealthy preoccupation with matters sexual. I hope: that many Members of the Committee will agree that family values today include moral support and constructive help for all our young people whatever their sexual inclinations, into which it is not necessarily our business to inquire.
As for the Conservative family, perhaps I may say that I believe it to have been an important symbolic act: when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister invited Sir Ian McKellen to meet him at No. 10 Downing Street. In reading Hansard, I have been impressed by the quality of debate on the subject in another place as well as by details of the voting. So let: me go so far as to say from this side of the Committee that I, for one, resent those lobbyists and campaigners who, purporting to speak in the name of Conservatism, in some cases equate that outlook with what can only be described as homophobia. However, I would certainly not apply the latter to any of the observations made in Committee today.
For those reasons, I favour the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. However, as other speakers have indicated, I feel that it may not be our place to seek to overturn what was decided by a free vote in another place. It is true that the voting there was close on the 16–18 issue with, I believe, some 280 votes in favour of the amendment and 307 against. However, I do not believe that we should seek to reverse that decision. I make that argument with greater force as it can be applied consistently—as, indeed, was done by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—in opposing the Motion standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester, and others, that Clause 139 should not stand part of the Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: As a member of the faith community that started the whole argument that we are debating today by ruling in its legislation that homosexual conduct was not only immoral but also illegal, I feel heartened by the valuable contributions made at the outset of our deliberations, most notably by the most distinguished spokesmen of the two Christian denominations who greatly enriched our discussions. I fully endorse not only their general trend but also that of many other speakers who followed them and who support the amendment.
For my part, if I have some hesitation in giving my support to the upper age of 21 it is because I do not believe that even at 21 things that previously were an offence and immoral can suddenly become moral simply because someone has passed the age of 21. Can it be argued that two consenting individuals contemplat-ing or committing an act regarded as immoral under certain circumstances should be exempt from culpability once they reach a certain age? Also, why do we brand as illegal bigamy, which is a moral offence, and adultery, which is still a moral offence, as well as

39
incest? They are all moral offences; nevertheless, they are still branded as illegal and actionable. In other words, there is a discrepancy between regarding certain moral spheres as being outside the reach of the law after a certain age and other equally immoral acts as still being within the law; that is, within our accepted legislation.
Moreover, speaking now on a broader scale, I am likewise puzzled as to why we often have the attitude that it is minors or younger people who must be protected against abuse and, above all, against corruption. It is as if people who are over 21, or over 30, or over 40 are not equally prone to be corrupted by literature that is corrupting or that is indecent, or by films that are indecent. As a matter of fact, I think they are more prone because they are more mature and therefore are likely to be more influenced by what they read and by what they see. The whole notion that morality, as it were, is only to be enforced and applied to the young, and that those who have reached maturity are no longer to be governed by some form of self-restraint or self-discipline that keeps our lives within certain well defined limits, is one that I cannot accept as being basic to the kind of society for which we are looking.
This leads me to what is, I believe, the major point here. As has been pointed out, the law must not only be something that enforces obedience to a certain code of life but also something which sets the standard. Our society has paid enough for allowing the doctrine "as long as it makes you happy" to be the gauge to what may be done and what should not be done. We live in a society where the pursuit of happiness is the summum bonum, the ultimate aim of life, and as a result we pay for that today with higher divorce rates and higher crime rates because we indoctrinate our youth to feel that whatever makes them happy is legitimate. I cannot see how we, whose role is not merely to reflect public opinion but to help in forging it, can endorse that view especially at a time when already we have departed so devastatingly from the norms that would make for a decent, self-controlled and upright society.
For my part, I must say finally that I believe we are bound, as the most reverend Primate mentioned, to set the kind of standards that will influence society at large and the country at large as an example and as an expectation, even if we cannot in all cases enforce them. The illegitimacy of an act is independent of the power always to enforce standards, and therefore I hope that we shall give a signal to our society and to the world at large that we still want our children to be raised in an environment in which the difference between right and wrong is inculcated by teachers, by parents and certainly by ourselves.
Lord Renton: Although age has been mentioned several times in this debate, the fundamental facts with regard to it have not yet been put before the Committee, and I take the liberty of doing so. In answer to a Written Question that I tabled earlier this year, we were told that in 1993 over 1,000 people in the United Kingdom died of AIDS, and 732 of them were homosexual men. Some

40
of those homosexual men were bisexual, but I would have thought they were a minority. If we lower the age for homosexual consent, taking it either below 21 or below 18, it cannot be denied that more homosexuality will be practised. I would have thought that it is likely that more young men will be infected with AIDS.
The experts say, "Oh that is inevitable whatever we do about the permitted age, so let us legalise it so that people will turn up for medical treatment". The experts think they are more likely to do so. That is the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, and I respectfully disagree. I think that is a fallacious argument for two reasons. First, those who become infected can get medical treatment anyway, and it is such a fatal disease that they are crazy if they do not apply for medical treatment. The second argument is this—if we make it lawful for people under 21 to be homosexuals, many more will be exposed to the risk of AIDS and many more may die of it. God forbid that we should do so!
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment and to disagree respectfully with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I declare my interest in this matter as the founder director of the National Aids Trust and as someone who is at present a member of the governing body of a number of the voluntary and educational organisations which have been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Kilmarnock, in proposing the amendment, and which have rightly identified their total support for more health education in this country.
I would respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the point is not that people will be cured of HIV by coming forward for medical treatment as there is no cure. The argument is that more people will be prevented from catching this virus if there is better education that is more widely available at a younger age. That is a simple fact which is well known, as I say, to all these bodies which have completely identified themselves with the amendment of my noble friend because they understand that homosexuality will not be spread by lowering the age of consent but rather that appropriate education will be spread and that will prevent the spread of HIV.
Lord Craig of Radley: We have been discussing inevitably very much the impact of this measure on the homosexual community and on the individual homosexual. I believe it is also right to consider the feelings of the vast heterosexual majority in reaching our decision on the matter of age. I personally do not wish to be aware of what may go on in private between consenting adults, but I find it obtrusive when those of homosexual tendencies choose to parade their feelings vociferously, and sometimes objectionably, in public. I nevertheless believe we must accept this public manifestation now between male adults; but I ask myself whether we should accept it also between adults and those who are still legally minors. I would find that

41
particularly objectionable. I believe that in reaching a decision on age in relation to this matter, we should not overlook that point.
Viscount Mountgarret: I should like to lend my support to my noble friend Lord Renton in his argument about AIDS. I would go further and suggest that if we were to consider lowering the age of consent even further to 16, there is a real danger that in many schools where pupils have not yet finished their education, we may well open the flood gates to all sorts of unacceptable carryings on. I feel that it is correct to leave the age of consent as it stands at present. If the argument of my noble friend Lord Renton is carried through to its conclusion, it could almost be argued that the age of consent ought to be raised to protect people from themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, produced an argument which I believe is fallacious. He said that just because the general age of consent had been reduced some time ago from 21 to 18, it would seem odd to leave the age of consent in this matter at 21, and therefore it follows naturally that it should be reduced to 18. But that surely is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Am I not right in thinking that there was a time when the coming of age was 21 but one could obtain a full driving licence at 17? If one followed the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to its conclusion young people could not have had a driving licence at the younger age. Reference has been made to whether this Chamber has the right to overturn what has been considered in the lower House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. I did not say that the age of consent had been reduced from 21 to 18. I said that the age of majority had been reduced from 21 to 18. That is quite different. The point that I sought to make is that if, at the age of 18, people are able to make major decisions about their lives in financial and economic terms they should be able to make decisions about their personal lives as well.
Viscount Mountgarret: I apologise to the noble Lord. I must have expressed myself extremely badly. I meant precisely that. The tail is wagging the dog. In my view the age of majority has nothing to do with the age of consent in this matter.
As to the constitutional position, I do not believe that that should form part of our deliberations in making up our minds which way to vote if this matter is pressed to a Division. This Chamber exists in order to assist the other place in coming to decisions. The fact that the other place reaches a particular decision on one matter does not necessarily mean that it is always right. It would be incorrect for this Chamber not to exercise its power in order to give the other place an opportunity to reconsider the matter.
This matter is non-political. It will be a free vote. Therefore questions of manifesto undertakings or the Salisbury convention do not come into play. I hope that if the matter comes to a vote we shall express our views, even if that means overturning the decision of another place.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: At Second Reading I made it clear that I should have preferred to have concentrated our consideration on Clause 139. Nevertheless, I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate lowering the age of consent to 16. I am grateful to my noble friend for providing that opportunity.
The arguments have been fully explored in relation to possible ages of consent. However, in my view the central issue is that homosexuals are people in their own right. They are not corrupted heterosexuals; they are not recruited to be homosexuals.
I remind the Committee that a case is pending before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the homosexual age of consent. I do not know what the outcome of the case will be, but that court has already forced a number of European countries, including the Irish Republic, to reform their laws in this area, with no noticeable harmful effects on the wider society in those countries.
I find it shameful that our fellow citizens should have to go to the court on this matter. We took on the treaty obligations embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights because of the horrors which occurred in Europe 60 years ago. It is often said that the convention is a minimum standard. I believe that we should be in advance of it if we are true to the best traditions of that standard.
I do not believe that anyone ever sets out to infringe human rights. That happens because of a blindness or lack of imagination. For some apparently plausible reason one pretends that someone unlike oneself does not deserve or should not be given the fair treatment one would wish to receive oneself. That is to pretend that our society need not be built on the ideal of loving one's neighbour as oneself. That is the principle on which I base my belief on equality for homosexuals.
If there were any evidence that homosexuals damaged the fabric of society I might hold another view. If there were any evidence that a differential in the age of consent did anything to limit the incidence of homosexuality I might have another view. I should not like the discrimination any better, but there would at least be some reason to believe that the law would achieve the end that was sought.
What are we left with? Some believe that society has the right to legislate simply to express its disapproval of certain activities. We have heard much about the morality of homosexual behaviour this afternoon. I find the idea of society having rights which override the rights of human beings to equality very dubious. But perhaps I am just an old-fashioned socialist.
I believe that this Chamber is united in believing that people need to be protected from those who would take advantage of them. We all need protection from sexual assault. The amendments in my name—which we shall come to in due course—have that as their common theme. But young people need respect from the law in order to learn respect for the law. They will not respect us if we use the law to enforce our prejudice against their natures. I do not believe that their homosexual contemporaries will respect us either. Homosexuality is widely accepted outside this Chamber as part of a rich

43
diversity of life, particularly among the young. We are not considering this matter in a vacuum; we are legislating for the real world.
Earl Ferrers: This subject is one on which people of all types, whether inside or outside this Chamber, feel very strongly and on which they hold strong and sensitive views. Whatever one's own opinion, those are views which we must respect. The debate this afternoon has respected the views of others.
We must be clear that the effect of Clause 139 is to reduce from 21 to 18 the age at which two men may engage in homosexual acts in private anywhere in the United Kingdom. Amendments Nos. 160A, 161A and 163A would reduce the age of consent to 16. This is an issue of conscience, which the Government consider falls properly to be decided by a free vote. The Government will respect the will of Parliament when the Bill completes its passage.
Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 164A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to which the noble and learned Lord spoke in connection with the other amendments in the grouping. The noble and learned Lord's amendment seeks to make allowance for the "mistake" as regards age. The noble and learned Lord said that it was a probing amendment. It is fairly complicated, and I shall do my best to explain the difficulties.
The amendment reflects a similar provision in the law that if a man under 24 has sexual intercourse with a girl who is under 16 but whom he believes to be over 16 he does not commit an offence. However, there is one significant difference between the two situations. A girl who is under 16 does not commit a crime if she has sex with an older man. However, a young man who is under 21—or 18 if the Bill becomes law in its present form —is liable to prosecution if he commits a homosexual act, whatever the age of the other party to the act.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment would have the curious effect of leaving the younger man free from prosecution if the older man thought he was over 18, but the younger man would be liable to prosecution if the older man thought he was under 18. In other words, under the noble and learned Lord's amendment, if a 23 year-old man thought that a 17 year-old was actually 18, both the 23 year-old man and the 17 year-old boy would escape conviction. But if the 17 year-old boy looked his age and the older man knew that he was only 17, then both parties to the act would be guilty. In this case, whether or not the younger man is guilty depends not on what he did but on how old the older person thought he was.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. What he says would apply equally to the counterpart in relation to heterosexual offences. However, I indicated that I shall not move the amendment. I merely express my gratitude to the noble Earl.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I deeply appreciate the noble and learned Lord saying that he will not move the amendment. I am rather less appreciative of the fact that he put it down in the first place because it took me hours to understand the exact permutations.
Perhaps I may refer to one other point made by the noble and learned Lord. He said that he was concerned about the policy on prosecution of 16 to 18 year-olds. Any prosecution requires, first, a reasonable prospect of conviction and, secondly, a public interest in prosecution. My right honourable friend the Solicitor-General has set out in another place how the Crown Prosecution Service approaches those matters. I can tell the noble and learned Lord that every case will be dealt with on its merits against those strict criteria.
Perhaps I may return to the central issue of the debate: that is, the age of consent for homosexuals. The Committee will be aware that the matter was debated at considerable length in another place. The subject matter did not form part of the original Bill, as the Bill is a criminal justice Bill; it is not a sexual offences Bill. As noble Lords will have observed with regard to some of the other amendments in this part of the Bill, once we start on this subject we get into some pretty murky waters. However, at the conclusion of the debate in another place, a substantial majority supported the amendments which now appear as Clause 139 of the Bill. But, of course, it is quite proper for noble Lords to discuss the matter and to reach their own conclusions. Noble Lords have every right to ask another place to reconsider its decision if that is what the Committee wishes to do. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said of his party that there is a free vote. I can tell the Committee that the same applies on this side of the Chamber too.
Perhaps I may make a personal observation, it is only a personal observation. I share the unease which many noble Lords have about the decision of another place. I find it difficult to equate homosexual behaviour with heterosexual behaviour, and to accept the arguments which flow from that. In my view equality is not an issue. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky said that if the age does not drop to 16, the law is discriminatory. My personal view is: quite right too. I remember the late Archbishop Fisher once making the remarkable observation that there is no unreasonable argument that cannot be proved reasonable by reason. I would be concerned about the effect which the amendment for dropping the age to 16 would have on the attitude towards homosexuality.
In a debate in another place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said:
"It is also still unquestionably the case that most parents hope and expect their sons to follow a heterosexual lifestyle and hope that in due course they will build a family life of their own". —[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/94; col. 93.]
I believe that my right honourable friend was absolutely right. I was impressed by the robust speech of my noble friend Lady Young. Whatever one's views may be on the age of consent, I admired her robust defence of family life and the trenchant defence of the family as a whole. In my view homosexuality sets a young man

45
apart from the majority and he has to be given time to make up his mind. I personally think that even 18 is too soon. After all, the habits, characteristics and personalities of people are not just caused, as some claim, by heredity, and what is planted in people at birth, important though those are. People are also affected, and considerably affected, by teaching, opinion, example, experience and life in general. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. We are all vulnerable at any stage in our lives to many different pressures. One inevitably changes one's mind by one of three things: by what one sees, hears or reads. In so far as we all see, read and hear, we are all vulnerable. I would worry that a decision to reduce the age of consent either to 18 or to 16 will not be in the interests of the social fabric of the young and of our society. However, that is my personal view and it carries no more weight than that.
On the Government's behalf, I must tell the Committee that the Government's view is—I say it without an excess of enthusiasm—that any of the alternatives for the age of homosexual behaviour which have been canvassed (16, 18 or 21) can be justified in terms of the purpose and the extent of the criminal law. That is precisely why there was a free vote in another place. The Committee may also consider it worth bearing in mind that when the matter was considered in another place, the real argument—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to it—lay not so much between 18 and 21 as between 18 and 16. If another place is to think again, which noble Lords are perfectly permitted to ask it to do, there is no certainty that the result would be as straightforward as some people might expect. That is a matter which the Committee might consider worthy of consideration. I put it no higher than that. The whole matter is entirely for individual conscience and individual opinion. That is why I would not wish to persuade the Committee on the Government's behalf in any particular direction.
However, the Committee might find it helpful if I were to advise noble Lords, as I did on the Sunday Trading Bill, on what to do when we vote. I remember endeavouring to do so on that occasion, with I thought a relative degree of clarity over a complicated issue, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham rose to say that I had got it wrong.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I had got it wrong.
Earl Ferrers: It was a disconcerting moment. I hope that my noble and learned friend will refrain from jumping to the same erroneous conclusion this time. Those noble Lords who wish to vote for the age of 16 should vote for Amendment No. 160A and for Clause 139 stand part, as amended, if the amendment is made.
If the amendment is not made, voting for Clause 139 will be the equivalent of voting for the age of 18.
Those noble Lords who wish to vote for the age of 18 should vote against Amendment No. 160A and for Clause 139 to stand part, as it stands. If Clause 139 is changed to make the age 16, voting against the Question that Clause 139 stand part will mean voting for the age of 21.
46
Those noble Lords who wish a return to the age of 21 should vote against Amendment No. 160A and against the Question that Clause 139 stand part.
I hope that noble Lords have been able to retain that. I have done my best to explain.
Lord Mayhew: I may well have misunderstood the noble Earl, but does he propose to take the Question that Clause 139 stand part before discussing the amendments standing in my name?
Earl Ferrers: Certainly not. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, need not become unduly agitated. I simply sought to explain what noble Lords should do with regard to the ages of 16, 18 and 21 when we consider the Question that the clause stand part. Before that issue is considered, of course the noble Lord's amendments will be taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I start by echoing the Minister's words when he gave his advice as to what the effects of the different votes will be. He described the position entirely accurately and in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, he confirmed that although we shall vote roughly in the same way as we did on the Sunday Trading Bill, the two votes will not succeed each other immediately. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, will have to be taken after the first vote.
It has been a rich and varied debate and I do not think it is any the worse for the fact that so many Members of the Committee have spoken out of instinctive feeling rather than rational argument. I confess that there is an element of instinctive feeling in my own position. I say genuinely that there must be a mixture of the way we feel about these matters, as well as how we reason our way towards a conclusion.
However, I have to say that in the course of the debate I have heard no effective or authoritative answer to the three major points which I made at. the beginning. They led me to the conclusion that the law should not discriminate against homosexual acts in the way that it does and in the way that it would if my amendment were defeated. I have not heard anyone say effectively that the criminalisation of or the retention of criminalisation of homosexual behaviour of those over 18 can be enforced. It is not enforced now and no one has, suggested a way in which it can be enforced in the future.
I have not heard anyone argue effectively against the views of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in particular that all the research evidence is that young men are not seduced into homosexual behaviour but their sexuality is largely determined before their first sexual act. Therefore, the arguments about seduction, particularly by older men —and that is certainly not the case—have not really been effectively countered.
Finally, I have not heard any effective answer to the opinion of all those who are concerned with health education, in particular, with HIV and AIDS, that the fight against AIDS and HIV infection is harmed by the criminalisation of homosexual activity for those aged 16

47
and over. Those who are in need of advice and comfort are unable to come to the agencies and the adults who would be able to give counsel and advice are deterred from doing so because of the fear of being involved in a criminal act.
In all this there must, of course, be an element of what we feel. I have sensed a great deal of disapproval and distaste for homosexual behaviour, whether it is in the form of Gay Pride marches or in the form of activities between consenting adults in private. I plead with the Committee not to allow that disapproval or distaste, which Members may well feel, to affect their views on what the law should say about the actions of adults in private.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York made, as always, a most thoughtful speech. He described heterosexual activity as "normal" and I think that for most of us it is. But that does not mean that homosexual activity is abnormal, it is simply different. It certainly does not mean that it should be condemned in the way that some Members of the Committee—not the most reverend Primate—appear to wish to condemn it.
We have had a debate on the issue of whether the ages should be 16, 18 or 21. I appreciate the views of those who wish to give primacy to the views on a free vote expressed in another place. But having had the debate and having taken into account all the speeches that have been made, I believe that Members of the Committee would wish to vote on all the options. I now propose to ask the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 160A.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 160A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 245.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Annan, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Avebury, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Byron, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Craigavon, V.

Leigh, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Listowel, E.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Davies, L.

Lockwood, B.

Desai, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Eatwell, L.

[Teller]

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ennals, L.

Marsh, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Foot, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Moyne, L.

Gregson, L.

Peston, L.

48

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Skidelsky, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Rea, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Richard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Seear, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dudley, E.

Ackner, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Addison, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Ezra, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Faithfull, B.

Annaly, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Arran, E.

Finsberg, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Fitt, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Flather, B.

Attlee, E.

Foley, L.

Balfour, E.

Forbes, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Beloff, L.

Gibson, L.

Blatch, B.

Gisborough, L.

Blyth, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Boardman, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Goschen, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grantchester, L.

Bramall, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brentford, V.

Gray, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Brightman, L.

Greenway, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Grey, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hanworth, V.

Burnham, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Cadman, L.

Harlech, L.

Caldecote, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harrowby, E.

Carnock, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hayter, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Henley, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hesketh, L.

Chesham, L.

Holderness, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hood, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hooper, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Hothfield, L.

Cockfield, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Coleridge, L.

Howe, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Howell, L.

Courtown, E.

Huntingdon, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Inchyra, L.

Cranborne, V.

Ironside, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Cross, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Kimball, L.

Dainton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Davidson, V.

Kinnoull, E.

De Freyne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Liverpool, E.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Diamond, L.

Longford, E.

Digby, L.

Lothian, M.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Donegall, M.

Lyell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Downshire, M.

Chancellor]

49

Macleod of Borve, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Salisbury, M.

Mar, C.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Marlesford, L.

Savile, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Seccombe, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Selborne, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Shannon, E.

Mayhew, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Shepherd, L.

Melville, V.

Sherfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Slim, V.

Milverton, L.

Sondes, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

St. Davids, V.

Monson, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Moran, L.

Stallard, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stedman, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Munster, E.

Strange, B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Nelson, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Newall, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Nicol, B.

Sudeley, L.

Nolan, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Norfolk, D.

Swansea, L.

Northbourne, L.

Swinfen, L.

Northbrook, L.

Tenby, V.

Northesk, E.

Teviot, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Torphichen, L.

Orr-Ewing, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Tugendhat, L.

Palmer, L.

Ullswater, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Peel, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pender, L.

Waverley, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Weatherill, L.

Perth, E.

Westbury, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Whaddon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wharton, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wigoder, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Windlesham, L.

Renton, L.

Wise, L.

Renwick, L.

Wolfson, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wynford, L.

Romney, E.

York, Abp.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.55 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 113, line 13, at end insert:
("() In subsection (1) of that section, after the word "act" there shall be inserted the words "(other than buggery)".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 161, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 161ZB, 162, 163 and 164ZA. Clause 139 lowers the age of consent for all homosexual practices. The effect of these amendments is to lower the age for all homosexual practices except buggery.
I was a little confused by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the medical profession agreed that there was no health risk in homosexual practices. I think that the noble Lord fails to distinguish one homosexual practice from another. There is in fact a complete consensus among medical professionals and among gay organisations that even with professional
50
advice and the use of condoms, buggery still presents a health risk. In its current literature, the Terrence Higgins Trust, which is a leading pro-gay organisation, states:
"The main risk of transmitting HIV is through anal intercourse. You can really cut down the risk by using condoms".
It does not say "eliminate" the risk, but "cut down" the risk. The trust then lays down a number of provisos. It lists seven precautions that still need to be taken relating to the nature of the condoms and their method of use. At the same time, the trust recommends nine homosexual practices other than anal intercourse that it declares to be completely safe. To the best of my knowledge, those risk assessments by that expert body are not challenged by anyone —certainly not by any medical authority or gay organisation. It follows, I hold, that everything needs to be done to discourage the practice of anal intercourse.
The Wolfenden Committee, whose recommendations I warmly supported at the time in the other place, considered at length whether the law should discriminate, as these amendments do, between buggery and other homosexual practices. The committee asked itself, for example, whether this particular practice was unnatural, or more unnatural than other homosexual practices. It asked itself—I think more pertinently— whether this particular practice did not play a disproportionate part in increasing prejudice against the gay community. However, as we all know, the Wolfenden Committee did not agree that any discrimination should be made between anal intercourse and any other homosexual practices. But of course, like everybody else, including myself, the Committee knew nothing about AIDS. Had it done so, and had it known that this particular practice could condemn a person to a fatal infectious disease, it must surely have come to a different conclusion.
Sadly, we have to register, though it is hard to believe, that the legalisation of buggery which followed its recommendation made no contribution whatever to the rapid rise in HIV and AIDS which followed it. It is common sense to assume that legalising an action and making it permissible also makes it more acceptable and more readily practised. That is why we sensibly declined to repeal some laws which are quite unenforceable. The law against drug taking in private is not only in practice unenforceable but in fact encourages criminal activities. Yet there is reluctance to repeal that law because we know that it would make drug taking more readily acceptable and practised.
I particularly appreciated the words of the most reverend Primate on that matter. He pointed out that the law is concerned not only with what the police will do and with the fear of detection and punishment. He said that the law:
"defines a set of expectations … [and] changing the law changes the expectations".
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, said the same. He said that the law was not just about detection and punishment but that the law set standards of value. I am sure that that is an important point.
Therefore, so far as concerns the particular law that we are discussing, even though it may be unenforceable, it acts as an additional warning and discouragement. It

51
is a benchmark: thus far and no further. It is a benchmark for young gay men and also for their teachers, for parents and for ourselves as legislators.
If it is unamended, Clause 139 will remove that benchmark. It lumps together all homosexual practices. It legitimises unsafe sex. I cannot believe that that is the message that this Chamber means to give: legitimise unsafe sex for 18 to 21 year-olds.
Anal intercourse is by no means the most common homosexual practice. Our best studies suggest that fewer than half of gay men practise it regularly and 8 per cent. never practise it at all. Since they can see that it is dangerous, gay organisations themselves ought openly and frankly to campaign against it. However, as it is, we should resist their campaign to legalise it. I invite the Committee to do that by supporting these amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Annan: When I saw this amendment I was reminded of the immortal remark of Ernest Bevin:
"When you open that Pandora box, you will find it full of Trojan horses".
This is a very difficult amendment to support. It seems to me that it would set an extraordinary precedent. If acts which lead to disease and death are made criminal, then the first and most obvious result is to make smoking a criminal offence. Far more people die from coronary thrombosis and lung cancer which has been brought on by smoking than from AIDS.
The proposers of the amendment say that their motive is to protect the community from AIDS. But is it not a fact that the HIV virus can be transmitted by what is called an exchange of bodily fluids? If buggery is to be made criminal on medical grounds, then so also must fellatio and cunnilingus. And why stop there? Should not kissing be made a criminal offence?
But the main reason for rejecting the amendment is that it is unenforceable. If anyone of whatever age commits buggery in public, he is guilty of an offence. So the amendment must be aimed at those under 21 who commit the act in private. How is that to be enforced? The only people who can enforce it are the police. Have the proposers of the amendment considered to what that could lead?
Let us suppose that the police know that two young men share a flat and that they are supposed to be homosexual. The police would have the right to force entry to the flat on the suspicion that the two men were engaged in anal intercourse. Those two men could then be forced to get up in the middle of the night and dress and be taken to the police station. There they could be forced to submit to an examination by a police surgeon to see whether either or both of them had semen or smegma in the rectum. No one should suppose that that is beyond the bounds of possibility.
Some years ago a young and most promising Member of another place visited a club. In that club were a man and a woman who were police officers out of uniform. The Member of the other place was accused by the male police officer of making an indecent proposal and gesture to him and the woman police officer corroborated the offence. I am glad to say that,
52
having heard the evidence, the jury threw out the case. But, it may be asked: what were those two police officers doing on private premises? The political career of the person concerned has been blighted to this day.
I do not want to suggest that that is typical of police behaviour. But there will always be cases of an officer who is overzealous or violently prejudiced and who oversteps the bounds of sensible policing. If we make this act a crime, it will positively encourage some inexperienced or obsessed officer to take such a step.
I do not want to invade the territory of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, except to say that the spirit of her amendment pleases me mightily. She speaks with vast experience of what actually goes on in court and of the proceedings before a case is heard.
What goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults should be a private matter into which the law does not peer. When urged by the Puritans to make adherence to the Act of Uniformity stiffer, Queen Elizabeth I said that she did not want to make windows into men's souls. We in our turn should not pry into the private lives of those who have reached the age of majority.
I recollect that, at the time of the late Lord Arran's Bill, Lord Dilhorne taunted the Archbishop of Canterbury by asking him whether, since he had supported Lord Arran's Bill and was in favour of legalising homosexual conduct between consulting adults, he approved of the act of buggery. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not deign to reply. But Lady Wootton of Abinger did. She turned to Lord Dilhorne and said:
"I ask myself: what are the opponents of this Bill afraid of? They cannot be afraid that these disgusting practices will be thrown upon their attention, because these acts are legalised only if they are performed in private … I can only suppose that the opponents of this Bill will be afraid that their imagination will be tormented by visions of what will be going on elsewhere. Surely, if that is so, that is their own private misfortune, and no reason for imposing their personal standards of taste and morality on the minority of their fellow citizens who can find sexual satisfaction only in relations with their own sex".—[Official Report, 13/7/67; cols. 1316-1317.]
Earl Russell: I intended to ask my noble friend Lord Mayhew how he supposed his amendment should be enforced. He stole my thunder and I am glad to let it go. He said that if the amendment became law it could not be enforced. He is telling us therefore that he is proposing to put on the statute book a law which could be broken with impunity. I call that bringing the law into disrepute.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment is much worse than that. It is not just that the law cannot be enforced; it is that the enactment of a law such as that proposed by the amendment would deny young people who need help—people aged 18 to 21—the advice and counselling which they could obtain from organisations available to give it. Unenforceability is the least of the defects of the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: As no one else is rising to speak perhaps I can take my turn to support the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in his amendment. I shall come to the question of unenforceability in a moment. It is

53
obvious that at the moment there is no enforceable law. I support the amendment in the manner of reform of the opinion of the other place. It is not a measure of rejection of what the Members of the other place proposed; it is a measure to protect our young from disease. That is the only way in which the amendment should be judged.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, pointed out that the subject of homosexuality had been known through the ages. Indeed it has. Different sexuality has been known throughout civilisations but it is a fact that rampant homosexuality was the forerunner of the decline of all civilisations which endorsed it.
My object in speaking is simply to make illegal the act of anal penetration and to allow both sexes to use their sexuality freely in any other way within the terms of Clause 139. The time was, even when the 1967 Act was passed—10 years after the Wolfenden Report—and the gay sub-culture began to develop in the 1970s, when the problem of AIDS was unknown. It did not arise until 1982; so the problem is only 12 years old. It was at that time of no major importance to the health of the nation and, because AIDS was not a danger, the age of consent could have been reduced.
That is no longer so. It is now established beyond doubt—as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, stated in an earlier debate —that 75 per cent, of deaths from AIDS result from homosexual activities. Indeed, the Eurostat estimate in respect of deaths by HIV infection is that 54 per cent. of Europeans were homosexual while the figure for the UK was 81 per cent. That figure comes from the SIGMA report. I should mention that the SIGMA organisation is funded by the Medical Research Council as an independent statutory body. It published a report in 1992 which examined in great detail and with great sympathy the. problem of homosexuals and how they could be helped and consulted. After quoting the report I received an extremely angry letter from the director who asked me, among other things, to point out that SIGMA objects most strongly to its money being used in this, "despicable, demeaning and utterly deplorable" way. Members of SIGMA are scientists and doctors. They are there to propose ideas; it is Parliament which decides the law. I readily accede to their request to be mentioned.
An awful lot of codswallop has been talked about discrimination with misleading theorising about young men's rights compared to the rights of young women. It is a modern fallacy of the politically correct world that men and boys or women and girls are comparable. Momentary reflection will explode that ridiculous theory. At Second Reading I pointed to the disparity in that a girl of 12 or legally 16 can conceive and bear a child and nurse it; but a father of the same age is incapable of performing the duties of parenthood. On the other hand, if we are simply discussing equal rights to promiscuity, we can hardly suggest that we are setting any sort of example or performing our duty as a reforming House.
Boys and young men will be experimenting and no doubt practising their sexuality in their formative years. It is then that they need guidance and advice from parents, teachers, and indeed the Church. I am glad that
54
the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York pointed out that need. It is especially important in today's open society where the flood of information and the welter of semi-professional theories from all sides compound confusion in the minds of young men.
I commend the amendment to the Committee. It will provide parents and children alike with a benchmark which simply says, "Whatever you do, don't get involved in buggery. It is dangerous, unhealthy and illegal". That is a simple, comprehensible and urgent instruction which is easily expressed and needs only the sanction of law to support it. It may be that the law is unenforceable, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, stated. But I suggest that we have an opportunity here where the family can make the law. The family can make the statement and pre-empt the law.
This simple, comprehensive and urgent instruction has the additional advantage that it will save those children from the scourge of AIDS. It is true that there may be a suggestion of the "nanny state" entering the argument. However, the 1992 SIGMA report makes illuminating reading. It is not often that I quote the Medical Research Council. When I do I am usually wearing my alternative medicine hat —we do not appear to be at one in our views on those matters either. However, its statements are relevant to the cause. The report states that the average age for first experience of anal intercourse is 20.9 years. The age of consent is already 21 years and all we are proposing is that that should be true in law. It is the promiscuous predatory male who is the greatest danger to our young. Again I quote the SIGMA report on the danger of AIDS-related infections in relation to anal intercourse It states:
"All the men who tested antibody positive had engaged in anal intercourse previously and no one who had not done so tested positive".
That is clear proof. Incidentally, the statement perhaps belies what I consider to be the most potent argument against the amendment; that is, that the disease can be spread equally easily through oral sex. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked about all those other methods whereby HIV can be spread via body fluids. That is the answer to his question. It is a clear statement from the SIGMA report that no other form of sexual intercourse is responsible for HIV infection. I find the SIGMA report conclusive, contrary to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and I look for the agreement of the Committee.
The amendment frees both sexes from discrimination in that they will be able to enjoy—or abuse, according to one's view—their sexuality in any manner except buggery, which has been shown by many Members of the Committee, as well as SIGMA, to be a danger to the health of the nation as well as to our youth.
As regards freedom, this amendment will in some sense at least increase that precious sense of freedom in one's daily life. It may be that the press will find greater difficulty, as no doubt the police will, in finding people in their bedrooms, as the noble Lord suggested. Our forebears in their wisdom were right. Clause 63 of the 1861 Act states that,

55
"to prove carnal Knowledge, it shall not be necessary to prove the actual Emission of Seed … but… shall be deemed complete upon Proof of Penetration only".
The original idea was to prevent anal penetration and that is the object of this amendment. Greater freedom will ensue if only because the proof that is required is extremely difficult to obtain, as has been said. And if that is an argument against this amendment, then it is equally difficult to prove an offence under the present circumstances. Certainly unenforceable rules make bad law but there will be less law to enforce than with the existing law and perhaps an opportunity for greater self-expression, if I may put it like that.
Finally, I have not referred to the Church's position but the right reverend Prelate has clearly made that clear. Perhaps he will be able to support the amendment.
I cannot end without some personal statement. I have many friends with a different sexual orientation. Among them are men of great taste and talent who have great achievements—and, as has already been said, many such people served with great valour in the last war—of which they are justly proud and who lead impeccable private lives. I hope that if they read this speech they will continue to regard me as a friend, for as much as I have valued it in the past I shall continue to value their friendship in the future.
The Earl of Dudley: If this amendment were incorporated into the law the only beneficiaries would be those who could command the price of silence. I am sure that no noble Lord in his right mind would wish for that.
Lord Mottistone: I greatly admire my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for putting forward the amendment because it seems to me that not enough noble Lords realise the great threat to health of AIDS. That is important and very relevant to what we are talking about. I am not saying that this is necessarily the right place to have this discussion but there is an important point to be made.
I was talking to a young man from the United States who is dealing with the problem of trying to control AIDS in the United States. He said that a thousand people a month in New York alone are getting AIDS and in due course are dying. It is too dangerous to allow this ailment to spread wider in this country. One of the reasons why we have to try to restrain these unnatural practices—and they are unnatural practices—is that we do not want our country to have a whole lot of people dying from AIDS at the rate they die in the United States. Whatever noble Lords may think about this amendment, they should go away from this debate saying to themselves, "AIDS must be stopped".
Lord Eatwell: I wish to oppose this amendment and to second the words with which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, finished his contribution. I am the chairman of Crusade, which is a charity devoted both to the education and care of people suffering from HIV and AIDS. One of the things we should notice in considering this amendment is the fact that everyone who is involved in looking after people with HIV and AIDS is opposed to the amendment. The people who are
56
involved in caring for sufferers oppose the amendment. We have been told by the proposers that the amendment is designed to protect people against the spread of HIV infection. Yet we are also told by the proposers that they recognise that the provision would be unenforceable. How is something which is unenforceable supposed to protect anyone?
Secondly, we have been told that outlawing anal intercourse would be a way of directly fighting AIDS, as if that were the only way AIDS could be transmitted. If that is so, how do the proposers of the amendment account for the fact that in this country AIDS infection is growing the fastest among women and children?
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I can tell the noble Lord exactly how it happens among women. A bisexual man becomes infected through a homosexual activity. He then has intercourse with a woman. He gives her AIDS and she bears a child who is born with AIDS.
Lord Eatwell: I am glad that the noble Earl has confirmed that he does not believe that anal intercourse is the sole means of transmitting AIDS.
Thirdly, and most importantly, all the organisations involved in fighting AIDS are opposed to the amendment because it would damage the educational work which is absolutely central to the fight against AIDS. The Government are to be congratulated on the educational campaign which they ran in the mid-1980s to attack AIDS. As a result, undoubtedly, of that successful campaign the rates of infection in this country are dramatically less than the rates of infection in France, Spain and Italy, where the same kind of effort was not put into education. It is vital that we do not create a situation in which educational activity could be seen as aiding and abetting a crime. This amendment would, I can assure the Committee as someone actively involved in the fight against AIDS, do great damage to that fight.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to the situation in the United States. Can he tell the Committee what is the law in the United States?
Lord Mottistone: No, because I did not ask my friend what the law is.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord's amendment offers a significantly different approach in this difficult area and I have no doubt that many noble Lords are in great sympathy with a great deal of what is proposed. However, these amendments are not quite as simple as they appear. The Government's principal concern is that there does not appear to be any good enough reason to differentiate between buggery and other homosexual acts so far as concerns the age of consent.
We are all horrified and alarmed by the spread of AIDS and we should do everything we can to prevent that. But in the Government's view the age of consent for homosexuals is difficult to justify on AIDS grounds. We do not think that criminalising consensual sexual activity between adults can be defended simply because it may reduce the risks which people choose to run when they engage in that kind of activity. There would be little dispute about the fact that buggery carries a

57
considerably higher risk of infection than do some other forms of sexual activity, but that fact alone is not a good enough reason to warrant what is inescapably an intrusion into a person's privacy and freedom. If it were, that would be an argument for criminalising buggery at any age. Much as though many of your Lordships might consider that desirable, I do not think it is a practical proposition.
We do not forbid people from travelling to parts of the world where AIDS is common throughout the heterosexual population and where they can contract the disease by heterosexual activity with some prostitute or other infected person and then, of course, risk infecting someone else back in this country. The fact is that people take risks with their own health and with that of others. Undesirable though that may be, it is a simple fact of life with which we have to deal in a practical way. It would be hard to see what a distinction between buggery and other kinds of sexual activity would achieve. A number of people have said that it would be a difficult law to enforce and that that would be a sound reason for not incorporating it into the law of the land.
If we are interested in deterring young men from homosexuality, we cannot seriously contemplate a three-year period when a young man who can legally engage in homosexual sex of a variety of different kinds, will nevertheless be expected to stop short of buggery, but that in three years' time it will be all right. I do not believe that is a realistic proposition. The law on homosexuality infringes the privacy of the individual. There is nothing inherently wrong in that; but we allow the law to impose this restriction because of society's disapproval of homosexuality in general and all which that implies for family life and the development of young men. The age at which young men should be free to pursue whatever homosexual preference they have should be a single age regardless of what the act in question actually is.
The age of consent for homosexual acts has been a matter for a free vote both in another place and in your Lordships' Chamber today. I am bound to tell the Committee that the Government consider that these amendments are flawed in principle. While we would not seek to impose our views on your Lordships, the Government as a whole would find it difficult to accept them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: I am grateful to those who have contributed to the debate. I correct my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who accused us of putting a provision on the statute book criminalising something. The purpose of this amend-ment and its effect would not be to increase the intervention of the law, and it would not lead to criminalising anything. It is to draw a line at not decriminalising buggery. That is the point.
I am very surprised by the reaction of the Committee. I am very surprised that it should be thought right to make buggery more acceptable. That is what Clause 139 does. To that extent, it makes buggery more readily practised. I can say without exaggeration that in the battle against AIDS this clause is on the wrong side. As
58
I say, I am surprised at the reaction of the Chamber. I correct my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Annan. We are not criminalising, but refusing to decriminalise buggery. At the same time: we are decriminalising safe sex. That is the effect of the amendment. It is to decriminalise safe sex but to keep the criminalisation of unsafe sex.
I agree that this is a new idea. I am hopeful that some day that view will prevail. I am disappointed at the response of the Government. I, and I believe a number of noble Lords will continue to argue that this clause needs amending. But for the moment, and without prejudicing our rights on any future occasion, I do not propose to call a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 161ZA, 161ZB, 161A, 162, 162A, 163B, 163 and 163A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 164 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 164ZA and 164A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to discuss the merits of this case because we have done so already. However, it might be helpful to the Committee if I offer some brief guidance. The fact is that as Amendment No. 160A, which was going to drop the age of consent from 18 to 16, was not agreed to, those Peers who wish the age to remain at 18 should vote that Clause 139 stands part of the Bill, and that those who wish it to go back to 21 as it was before, should vote that Clause 139 does not stand part of the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 176; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Addington, L.

Clinton-Davis, L

Addison, V.

Colwyn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cranborne, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Annan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

David, B.

Arran, E,

Davies, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Desai, L.

Astor, V.

Digby, L.

Attlee, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Balfour, E.

Donoughue, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Downshire, M.

Blackstone, B.

Dudley, E.

Blyth, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Ennals, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Byron, L.

Ezra, L.

Cadman, L.

Faithfull, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Finsberg, L.

Carter, L.

Flather, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V.

59

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Moyne, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Nelson, E.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Orkney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Palmer, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hardinge, V.

Peel, E.

Harlech, L.

Pender, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peston, L.

Harrowby, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Haskel, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Hayhoe, L.

Rea, L.

Henley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rees, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Holderness, L.

Renwick, L.

Hollick, L.

Richard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rodney, L.

Hood, V.

Russell, E.

Hothfield, L.

Seear, B.

Howe, E.

Selborne, E.

Hughes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Serota, B.

Inchyra, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Leigh, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stedman, B.

Listowel, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Teviot, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas, L.

Thurlow, L.

Lyell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord

Tugendhat, L.

Chancellor.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mancroft, L.

Weatherill, L.

Marsh, L.

Wharton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

White, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wigoder, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Melville, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Molloy, L.

Wynford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

York, Abp.

Monkswell, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Monson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Caldecote, V.

Aldington, L.

Carnock, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Annaly, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Coleridge, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Courtown, E.

Beloff, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Blatch, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cross, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brentford, V.

Diamond, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Donegall, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Burnham, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

60

Ferrers, E.

Nolan, L.

Forbes, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Northesk, E.

Gisborough, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Orr-Ewing, L. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gray, L.

Perth, E.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Reading, M.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ironside, L.

Romney, E.

Jakobovits, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Salisbury, M.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Savile, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Shannon, E.

Liverpool, E.

Sondes, E.

Longford, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lothian, M.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stewartby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strange, B.

Marlesford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tebbit, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tenby, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Torphichen, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Milverton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mishcon, L.

Vivian, L.

Moran, L.

Waverley, V.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Mountevans, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wise, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Munster, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B. [Teller]

Newall, L.

Clause 139 agreed to.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 164B:
After Clause 139, insert the following new clause:
("Revised punishment for gross indecency
.—(1) Section 3(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (revised punishment for gross indecency) is omitted.
(2) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 164B, I should like to speak to several other amendments which are grouped with it. These are: 164C, 164CD, 175DA to 175DB, 178ZZA, 178ZA and 178ZCC to 178ZE—
Lord Renton: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? We have not heard one single word that he has said so far.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am quite happy to repeat the grouping as briefly as possible. Shall I just proceed? In rising to move the first of the amendments standing in my name, I should like to assure your Lordships that I do not mean to detain you long tonight. I have three matters to raise, of which Amendment No. 164B is the briefest. I put them forward for your consideration, looking for agreement from all sides and particularly from the Government.
Given the adjustments to the law relating to homosexuality embodied in Clause 139, these problems and something like these solutions merit a place in the Bill. I am also mindful of the Home Secretary's warning

61
in another place—that this Bill should not become a general sexual offences Bill. The three matters that I wish to raise are broadly consequential on Clause 139. They provide a coherent package designed to deal with the offences which, in the real world, are likely to be committed under the law as it will stand when the Bill is enacted.
Amendment No. 164B is quite straightforward. The consequential amendment is No. 178ZD. It amends from five years' imprisonment to two years' imprisonment the penalty for gross indecency where the offence is committed with someone under the age of consent. It does so simply by repealing the revised penalty embodied in Section 3(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which covers offences committed between those over and under the age of 21. Under this amendment, there will not be a special category but the penalty originally set by the Sexual Offences Act 1956 will be restored. I suggest that the amendment is not merely broadly consequential on Clause 139 but that it is strictly so. Since the penalty embodied in the 1967 Act was based on an age of consent of 21, Section 3(2) is no longer appropriate. It covers an age group of 18 to 21 year-olds who are no longer criminalised. Yet if a man over 21 was held to have committed a consensual offence with one under 21 but over 18, for instance, because they breached the privacy provisions of Section 1(1) of the 1967 Act the older man would technically be liable to a higher sentence than the younger. That cannot be right.
To retain a maximum penalty of five years for offences relating to those just under the age of consent is, in any case, unjustifiably harsh. However, some Members of the Committee may, at first blush, wish to retain the higher penalty in relation to offences committed with 16 and 17 year-olds in order to signal the serious view that the law takes of those who have sex under the age of consent. I too take a serious view of that, but a two-year custodial sentence cannot be held to be a negligible penalty. I believe that an appropriate parallel is the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of 13 and 16.
Moreover, I remind the Committee that gross indecency is a consensual offence and that a 16 or 17 year-old can be held by the courts to have consented even though he is below the age of consent. If he has not consented, I suggest that the much more serious charge of indecent assault can be brought and on conviction that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Equally, in the case of an offence committed with a boy under the age of 16, a charge of indecent assault can be brought. In such an instance, Section 15(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 provides that the boy cannot in law consent and so there can be no argument about that case. In short, the amendment is not soft on homosexuals; it merely seeks to tidy up the law in this instance.
Amendment No. 164C is designed to protect those just under the age of consent, as girls under the age of consent are protected in the event that they have sex with anyone. As the law stands, if two men have sex and one is under the age prescribed in the Sexual Offences Act 1967 both parties are guilty of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. That includes the younger
62
under-age party. Under that same 1956 Act, if a. man and a girl under the age of consent have sex, only the man is guilty of an offence. The girl is treated, in my view, correctly as an innocent party; as a victim. My amendment would make that the position in relation to homosexual sex.
In the debate in another place, great stress was rightly laid on the need to protect the young. Indeed, that was the theme of our debate earlier today. The Home Secretary himself stated that we need to protect the vulnerable young men from activities which their lack of maturity might cause them to regret. Yet we do so by criminalising them. We plead their lack of maturity but if they make a mistake, their lack of maturity does not save them from criminality.
What effect does that have? I suggest that one effect is this: if there is an instance where a young man has been influenced by an older man to consent to have a sexual relationship with him, because that young man has thereby committed an offence he will be unwilling to seek the protection of the law as that will leave him open to prosecution.
It may be helpful if I briefly go through the amendment to explain its effect. It must be read in the context of Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. It provides that,
"a homosexual act in private shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of twenty-one years".
It is that provision which lays down what we have come to call "the homosexual age of consent". That provision is amended by Clause 139 to make 18 the relevant age.
In the amendment standing in my name, the provisions on the age of consent are, in effect, codified and refined as follows: paragraph (a) re-enacts the basic principle that 18 should be the age of consent; paragraph (b) provides in the alternative that a homosexual act shall not be an offence if both parties are over the age of 16 and close contemporaries; paragraph (c) provides that, in any event, anyone under the age of 18 but over the age of 16 does not commit an offence if he has consenting sex with an older man.
I freely admit that this amendment does not. cover all hard cases. Its scope is narrow. It acts only on the age group of those over the age of 16 and under the age of consent. It may surprise Members of the Committee to know that under the 1967 Act boys under the age of 16 who may have homosexual sex are technically criminals. The amendment will leave them so. This is not an artificial question; it is certainly a most disturbing question.
Periodically we are told that hard cases make bad law. That is why I have excluded from the amendment boys under the age of 16.I am acting on the generality of cases. It is agreed that research—research funded by the Department of Health-—shows that the average age of young homosexual men at the time of their first sexual experience is about 16, even granted the present age of consent. Therefore, 16 appears to be a watershed, as of course it is for heterosexuals.
I do not propose a free-for-all for those under age. For instance, a 19 year-old who had a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old will still be committing an offence

63
that a 16 year-old will not. In short, the amendment seeks to structure the law in what I believe to be a sensible fashion. I commend it to the Committee.
The third amendment standing in my name relates to male rape. It is Amendment No. 164CD and the consequential amendments are Nos. 175DAA and 178ZZA. The purpose of these amendments is to assimilate the offence of buggery without consent, which is usually referred to as male rape, with the offence of rape. It is to provide for the increased penalty of life imprisonment and to make the operation of the law in relation to the victim and to the accused the same as in the case of heterosexual rape. As part of this, and since under the existing law the offence of rape applies only to vaginal intercourse with a woman without her consent, the new clause will extend the definition of rape to include non-consensual buggery with a woman as well as with a man. All forms of non-consensual intercourse will therefore be treated in the same way and be subject to the same defences and penalties, which is a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
It may be helpful if I go through the clause in some detail. Subsection (1) (a) amends Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which creates the offence of rape, to make its language appropriate for both men and women. Paragraph (b) amends the penalties for buggery and attempted buggery contained in the 1956 Act since under this amendment most cases of non-consensual buggery, whether with a woman or a man, will be charged with rape. A charge of buggery would be appropriate only in less serious cases; for instance, where there was consent. It is therefore also appropriate that its penalty be reduced to reflect this.
Subsection (2) amends the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. That Act defines rape and provides certain defences as well as providing for the anonymity of complainants in rape cases and certain procedural matters. Paragraph (a) changes the definition of rape to include anal intercourse without consent with a woman or a man. Paragraphs (b) to (d) make consequential changes to the 1976 Act to reflect the revised definition of rape. Those changes do not alter the substance of the provision as amended but ensure only that they apply also to the new definition of rape.
Subsection (3) provides that the new clause and associated repeal in Schedule 11 should come into force on the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. The repeal referred to is of Section 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which introduced new penalties for buggery between men. That section would be superseded by the amendments made by Section 1(3) of the new clause.
The idea of male rape may well be unthinkable to many of your Lordships, as it is to me. But it has become clear from newspapers that it does happen. Indeed, the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended as long ago as 1984 that the problem should be dealt with by increasing the penalty for buggery without consent to life imprisonment. That recommendation was never implemented.
The difference between that recommendation and the reform which I now propose is that the amendment
64
would achieve the same objective by changing the definition of rape rather than increasing the penalty for buggery. In my view that has the advantage that the privacy provisions designed to protect the identity of rape victims would extend to the victims of this offence, both men and women. At present the provisions apply only in rape cases and that is almost certainly a factor in the under-reporting of that offence.
I must point out to the Committee that male rape should not be regarded as a homosexual offence. There are several extremely eminent reports which conclude that many of the men who commit that type of rape are heterosexuals. It is a disturbing fact that many of those who abuse boys are also heterosexuals. That offence can be seen as part of a larger pattern of violent attacks on members of the homosexual population.
Members of the Committee may be aware that a similar amendment was debated in another place during the passage of the Bill. At that time, it attracted all-party support. On that occasion the Government's attitude was that it was too important a problem to be embarked upon at that stage of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will feel that, to the contrary, this is such an important problem that we should use this occasion to embark upon and deal with the issue in this Bill.
I should point out that there is a certain overlap between the intention of this amendment and Amendment No. 164CA, which will be debated later, but I do not believe that there is any conflict. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to a number of different issues while dealing with the group of amendments and I shall try to take them in the same order.
First, Amendment No. 164B, which is the first amendment to which the noble Lord referred, might appear to be a logical consequence of a reduction in the age of consent for homosexuals. Certainly, Section 3(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 has a narrower application if the age of consent does fall to 18. But I would argue that it is not wholly redundant. Where the younger man is aged between 16 and 18, and the older man is over 21, if may be appropriate still to contemplate the higher penalty, even though there has been consent.
In any event, consent is not the only issue at stake. Consensual acts, which are performed in public, will continue to be illegal if they are grossly indecent, regardless of the age of the participants. The higher penalty reflects an anxiety about the particular risk that younger men may be unduly influenced by older men, and the greater expectation on older men that they should act responsibly. I do not think—and I say this with regard to all the noble Lord's amendments—that this is the time to consider embarking piecemeal on those very complicated matters.
I turn now to Amendment No. 164C, and to Amendment No. 178ZE, which is associated with it. The amendment goes a good deal of the way to providing an age of consent for homosexuals of 16. The Government have not sought either to support or to

65
oppose such a proposal. Nevertheless, I should point out that, in the Government's view, this amendment comes a good deal closer to the 16 option than it does to the 18 one. In effect, it would mean that no one aged between 16 and 18 could ever be liable to prosecution for a consensual homosexual act unless it were performed in public. What signals that sends to a 17 year-old is something which your Lordships may wish to consider and to judge. I merely point out that this amendment protects the younger party only by discouraging the older party.
I understand that the noble Lord seeks to address the fear of corruption by older men. He feels uneasy too about the prosecution of younger men when perhaps it is the older party who is really the more culpable. I can understand that. But at present, those anxieties are addressed through the way in which individual cases are dealt with by the prosecuting authorities. That is the best way in which to deal with them.
I turn now to Amendment No. 164CD and its associated amendments. The noble Lord has made a powerful case on behalf of victims of a dreadful crime. The victims of non-consensual buggery—whether they are male or female—suffer a terrible, and often life-lasting, experience.
The central question is whether it is right to call those crimes "rape". The Government have long taken the view that rape is well understand as a particular crime —one that can be committed only by a man who has intercourse with a woman without her consent. Both the Heilbron Committee in 1975 and the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1984 took that view.
It may be that public opinion is changing on this but, if that is so, there is still a difficult question as to what the new definition would be. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggests one definition, but others press for something wider still. Others will argue that we are right to leave the offence as it is, but that we should look, instead, at the offence of indecent assault and the sentence which is available for that offence.
The Government are not unsympathetic to the argument that the maximum penalty for the non-consensual buggery of a man is anomalous in being set at a lower level than that for rape. But simply increasing that penalty would create further anomalies, and it is not a solution which the noble Lord proposes. But what he proposes raises a profound question about the public understanding of the crime of rape.
His amendments would also reduce the penalty for all consensual buggery of men—when one or both are under 21 or when it is done in private—to two years. That would remove the law's current provision for a severer penalty where the older man in a homosexual relationship is over 21. As I have already explained in relation to the offence of gross indecency, that is not a proposal which the Government support, although it is a matter on which I am willing to reflect, as indeed I shall reflect upon all that has been said.
However, I do not think that the noble Lord has demonstrated that the law is generally inadequate in a practical sense, even if it is not in a form which could be considered ideal. I do not think that his proposals, well-intentioned though they are, are as straightforward
66
as they may seem, and this Bill would not be the Government's choice of vehicle for them. This is a criminal justice Bill. It is not a sexual offences Bill. The law dealing with sexual offences is chillingly complicated, and I really think that we shall have a tiger by the tail if we start trying to alter different facets of the law on sexual offences without considering the problem as a whole. But I shall certainly reflect carefully on what the noble Lord said about those very complicated matters.
Lord Monson: In my view it is a great pity that Amendments Nos. 164B and 164C have been grouped with Amendment No. KS4CD, which deals with a separate matter. I do not suppose for a moment that that is the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. However, I think that he made a very good case, at any rate in principle, for Amendment No. 164CD and I believe that the Minister acknowledged that fact in his reply. I hope that the noble Earl will realise that there is support from other parts of the Committee for at least the principle behind the amendment relating to male rape, if one may so call it. I hope that he will think very seriously on the matter and return with an alternative on Report.
Lord Swinfen: I should also like to say a few words on Amendment No. 164CD as my name is attached to it. Like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I am not sure that "male rape" or "rape" is the right description of the crime. Non-consensual buggery is perhaps more accurate. However, I believe that the penalty should he brought into line with that for the rape of a woman. Non-consensual buggery for a homosexual man would be an extremely traumatic experience. For a heterosexual man it would be an even greater trauma. However, if it happens to a woman it. could be more distressing still because not only is she being violated, but her total femininity is being destroyed at the same time as she would not be used in a natural manner that one might expect. I believe that we should look at the punishment for such a heinous crime.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand the Minister's reluctance to embark on full-scale sexual offences legislation in the context of what is supposed to be a criminal justice Bill. However, I was puzzled by the Minister's response to Amendment No. 164B. I believe that the issue raised by my noble friend's amendment is consequential on the changes made in Clause 139. Without some such amendment as that proposed by my noble friend, there will actually be an anomaly.
The present law makes a distinction as regards intercourse between a man over the permitted age and one under it and two men who are both under the permitted age. At present, the penalty for an over-21 year-old having intercourse with a man younger than 21 is five years. When the permitted age moves to 18, we will have the anomaly that that 21 year-old watershed will also move to 18. Therefore, a man of 18 having sex with a man of 17 crosses the new watershed. The penalty for that will, therefore, be five years; whereas, under existing legislation, where the watershed is not set at 18, the penalty is two years. So, paradoxically, the penalty for that particular offence is being increased.

67
That is strictly consequential on the existence of Clause 139.I wonder whether the Minister has anything more helpful to say about that amendment, although I concede that his answers on the other amendments were as helpful as he felt able to make them.
Earl Ferrers: I do not believe that I have anything further to add, other than to point out that I did say that we did not consider the proposal to be wholly redundant. Where the younger man is aged between 16 and 18 years of age and the older man is over 21 it may still be appropriate to contemplate the higher penalty, even though there might have been consent. However, as I said at the conclusion of my remarks on the group of amendments, I shall certainly consider what has been said and take it into account.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments, especially on Amendment No. 164CD. Obviously we are not dealing with a sexual offences Bill, but it is the practice of both Houses of Parliament to legislate in a piecemeal manner if there is a strength of feeling within both places that the matters concerned can be slotted in, so to speak, into the appropriate piece of legislation. Indeed, at an earlier stage of the Bill this Chamber decided to accept an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which stated that rape within marriage should become an offence. Therefore, there is no reason why the amendments which I have put forward cannot be accepted.
The broad approach of Amendments Nos. 164B and 164C is to equalise the penalties for under-age sex between heterosexuals and homosexuals even though the age of consent will be different. The Minister quite rightly pointed out some anomalies in the latter, but I believe that I accepted in my introductory remarks that there are indeed some anomalies. However, I am disappointed that the Minister did not go further and accept that there should be an equality of penalty.
As to the word "rape", I should like to point out as a matter of interest that The Shorter Oxford Dictionary dates the application of the word (regarding the act of buggering a man or boy against his will) back to the late 15th century. It is perhaps high time that the law caught up with the modern world. However, given the nature of the noble Earl's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Covenants to be implied on a disposition of property]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert:
("(2A) Sections 2 to 4 have effect subject to section 6 (no liability under covenants in certain cases); and sections 2 to 5 have effect subject to section 8(1) (limitation or extension of covenants by instrument effecting the disposition).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should like to say a few general words about the amendments before the House today. The amendments principally carry through or tighten up the wording of amendments accepted in the Public Bill Committee or, in two instances, give effect to the principle of amendments tabled in the Public Bill Committee but withdrawn to enable consideration to be given to the best way of putting the principle into effect. I think that I may say without fear of contradiction that the very detailed consideration which the Special Standing Committee was able to give to the Bill, with the assistance of some very full evidence, has enabled some very worthwhile improvement to be made to what was already, to borrow the Hansard Society's metaphor, a fully-baked legislative cake.
Amendment No. 1 is tabled in response to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Coleraine that the Bill should specifically draw the reader's attention to the fact that the implied covenants in Clause 2(1) (a), Clause 3 and Clause 4 are subject to the exclusions in Clause 6. Clause 6 excludes liability under those covenants for matters to which the disposition is already made subject—matters of which the covenantee actually knows, or matters which are the necessary consequence of something he actually knows. I quite agree with my noble friend's suggestion, and, indeed, consider that the logic behind it also requires that the effect of Clause 8, which enables the parties to vary the effect of the implied covenants in appropriate cases, should be flagged up in the same way.
I am grateful for my noble friend's forbearance in withdrawing his own amendments so that I might take the advice of parliamentary counsel as to the best way of bringing about the desired effect and table an amendment accordingly. Parliamentary counsel's ad-vice, which I accept, is that the insertion of a single provision in Clause 1 is the best drafting solution. It has the benefit of economy, since to insert the words "of subjection" in respect of each covenant affected would require amendments in five separate places and would run contrary to the aim of making the drafting of the covenants as straightforward as possible.
In addition, it is considered that the single provision will be no less effective than the five separate ones in bringing the effect of the later clauses to the reader's attention. This is because, in order to ascertain the full effect of the implied covenants, the reader must start with Clause 1, which not only provides definitions of

69
important terms which apply to all the covenants, but also sets out which covenants are to be implied according to the key words used in the disposition. This amendment inserts the necessary provision immediately after the existing provision in Clause 1 explaining which covenants are implied by the use of which key words, and that seems to be the ideal place for it. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for bringing forward this amendment which admirably meets the point which I made in Committee. As my noble and learned friend said, I had put the words "of subjection" at the beginning of the individual clauses but I agree with him that one cannot read the later clauses properly without having read the first clause and it is both economical and common sense to limit the words "of subjection" to their appearance, as now, in Clause 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [No liability under covenants in certain cases]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 36, after ("any") insert ("particular")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment tightens up the wording of an earlier amendment, which made it clear that there is to be no liability under certain of the implied covenants for anything to which the disposition is expressly made subject. There was some concern that vendors might attempt to water down these covenants by inserting blanket provisions in dispositions making them subject to all manner of undisclosed incumbrances.
As I mentioned in the Public Bill Committee, there is a well-established rule that the existing provision in the Law of Property Act whose wording that amendment followed does not permit such general exclusions. Parliamentary counsel has nevertheless re-examined the formulation, and the resulting insertion of this one word will, I hope, put the position beyond doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Passing of benefit of implied covenant]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 7 and insert the following new clause:
Annexation of benefit of covenants
(". The benefit of a covenant implied by virtue of this Part shall be annexed and incident to, and shall go with, the estate or interest of the person to whom the disposition is made, and shall be capable of being enforced by every person in whom that estate or interest is (in whole or in part) for the time being vested.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3,I should like, with the leave of the House, also to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. Amendment No. 3 removes Clause 7, which limits the passing of the benefit of the implied covenants for title to express assignment and certain exceptional cases where title passes by operation of law. It substitutes a new Clause 7 designed to continue expressly the position under the existing law, whereby the benefit of the covenants is annexed to the estate or interest of the person taking the disposition and runs with it so as to be capable of enforcement, within the limitation period, by any successor in title. This is a change of some
70
substance, but one overwhelmingly favoured by the Committee, which took the view that the provision recommended by the Law Commission, while having the advantage of simplicity of concept in line with the increasing prevalence of registered land, might have harsh results in some exceptional cases, and might also result in buyers routinely attempting to secure express assignment, which would thwart the very streamlining at which the provision was aimed.
This change was proposed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, and I am once again grateful for his graceful withdrawal of his own amendment so that I might take advice on how best to give effect to the principle. The amendment quite simply preserves the existing principle, presently contained in Section 76(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 but extending back to 1300 —therefore it is of respectable antiquity—that the benefit of the covenants for title is annexed to the estate or interest of the covenantee. It was considered appropriate to set out the provision on the face of the Bill rather than to incorporate it by reference to Section 76(6), in order to make the position as clear as possible to the reader. The new clause does the same as Section 76(6) has done since 1925 and its predecessors have done since the 14th century, but Parliamentary counsel has, in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, taken the opportunity to simplify and modernise the wording.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 are consequential on the deletion of the existing Clause 7. They remove from the transitional provisions in Clauses 10 and 11 subsections which apply the provisions of the existing Clause 7 in certain transitional cases. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think it should be known generally to the House that this was one of the matters upon which the Special Standing Committee differed from the Law Commission, as the noble and learned Lord has said. However, it did not differ from the Law Commission in one moment of speech—there was in fact a considerable debate. I remember that our chairman drew up a memorandum on this which was carefully considered by the Special Standing Committee. In that memorandum he put the arguments for and against very concisely. It was indeed after quite a bit of deliberation that the Standing Committee decided in this one major respect to differ from the recommendations of the Law Commission. I think the public should know and the legal profession should know that this was, as I said, very carefully considered. It is a maxim that I suppose weighed with the Special Standing Committee—that if one has something that works perfectly well, why alter it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think if would be right for me to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said about the care with which this matter was considered by the Committee. Certainly I would also wish very specially to say how much the Committee was indebted to the Chairman of the Special Standing Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, for the care that he took in marshalling the arguments on both sides of this question, as well as the care he took in bringing to our attention all the other points raised on the Bill by a variety of commentators.

71
I wish to mention one commentator in particular, Mr. Nugee, of senior counsel, who is extremely experienced in these matters, and who provided the Committee with very detailed memoranda. I think it would be fair to say that the main thrusts of these memoranda have been met by the two main changes that the Committee approved —as I hope your Lordships will, also—in the Law Commission's proposals; namely, to modify somewhat the terms of the full guarantee and also to go from the Law Commission's proposals of no running with the land for these covenants, to what is embodied in this amendment. I should like to acknowledge the help that we obtained from these memoranda as well as from all the other contributions by the Law Society and by a number of other distinguished commentators who have helped the Committee to see where the Law Commission was right, and also to see perhaps whether it would be wise to deviate to some extent—as we have done—from the detailed work of the Law Commission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Supplementary provisions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 31, after ("gwarant") insert ("teitl").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 8 and Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, and 15 to 19 inclusive.
These amendments complete the job begun by my noble friend Lord Coleraine in a series of amendments tabled in response to a suggestion by the Law Society to which I referred just a little while ago. The effect is to change the key words which will be employed to imply the new statutory covenants for title into a disposition. Instead of dispositions being expressed to be made "with full guarantee" or "with limited guarantee" they will be expressed to be made "with full title guarantee" or "with limited title guarantee" as appropriate, to make the purpose of the implied covenants entirely clear and avoid the possibility that a layman might believe the guarantee to involve matters other than title.
Parliamentary counsel has identified a further 12 places in the Bill, in the transitional provisions of Clauses 11 and 12 and the consequential amendments in Schedule 1, where the word "title" needs to be inserted, and Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, 10 to 13 and 15 to 19, and indeed also Amendment No. 20, take care of this.
To leave the matter at that would be to leave out an important aspect of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 arise out of the fact that the Bill provides for key words not only in English but also in Welsh. They ensure that those who carry out conveyancing in Welsh will also have the benefit of this important change, by inserting the word "teitl" in the appropriate places. I have it on the best authority that the result conveys the correct meaning. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 4, which has been fully explained to the House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The Welsh translation of the key words is a complete, and I believe accurate, translation.
I wish to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having alerted me to the changes to the original form of the key words. I am grateful for the amendments. I am sure that those who prepare documents in the Welsh language will be grateful that at long last we have the amendment, which we have been seeking for 20 or 30 years.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who always rises in this House in order to spread the glory of the Welsh tradition, as a distinguished Welsh solicitor would have wished to thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has done in regard to the Welsh insertion.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend and parliamentary counsel for completing in ample measure the work which I started in Committee. I believe that these words will be read a million times a year by people up and down the country. It is very good that people should be reading the words "title guarantee" rather than just "guarantee" because the word "guarantee" was unhelpful.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely glad that we have been able to improve the proposals of the Law Commission in this way. It illustrates that sometimes the practical aspects of these matters need further consideration, even after the cake has been fully baked with care by the Law Commission.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 33, after ("gwarant") insert ("teitl").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [General saving for covenants in old form]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Covenants in old form implied in certain cases]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments 7 to 9:
Page 5, line 25, after ("full") insert ("title").
Page 5, line 35, after ("full") insert ("title").
Page 5, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendments were spoken to with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Covenants in new form to be implied in other cases]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 13:
Page 6, line 9, after ("full") insert ("title").
Page 6, line 12, at end insert ("title").
Page 6, line 19, after ("limited") insert ("title").
Page 6, line 23, after ("full") insert ("title").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 28, at end insert:
("(6) Similarly, where-—

(a) this section applies, and

(b) any of the covenants implied by virtue of this Part on the intervening disposition referred to in subsection (1) took effect in a modified form,

the contract shall be construed as requiring (so far as possible in the circumstances) a corresponding modification of the covenants so implied on the disposition referred to in subsection (2), (3) or (4).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was intended to deal with a potential problem in the transitional provisions for certain exceptional cases in Clause 12. It arose out of a reconsideration of the Bill when the various amend-ments had been incorporated. The circumstances which were envisaged and which the amendment was intended to address would be very rare. However, it was considered worth dealing with the problem, however small, on the basis that the remedial provision had no undesirable side effects. In the event, however, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for identifying, once he had seen the amendment, just such a possible side effect.
The amendment concerned the very rare transitional cases where a contract entered into before commence-ment of Part I has effect after commencement, and between commencement and the eventual disposition required by the contract there is an intervening disposition made with full title guarantee to the person making the eventual disposition. Clause 12 has the effect, in those circumstances, of requiring the final disposition to be made either with full title guarantee or limited title guarantee according to the key words referred to in the contract. The amendment would cater for the possibility that the full title guarantee in the intervening disposition might have been varied to reduce its strength and would have ensured that the person making the final disposition would be required to pass on only the guarantee as modified.
That seemed a reasonable solution, but unfortunately in solving one potential problem the amendment might give rise to another; namely, that the intervening disposition might be made, for example to a nominee, expressed to be with full title guarantee but modified to an extent that would make it worthless to the person taking the eventual disposition.
That point was kindly brought to my attention by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and has led me to reconsider the need for the amendment. I am persuaded that the best way of handling the problem is for publicity to be given to the possibility at which the original amendment was aimed so that parties can make the necessary contractual arrangements to avoid any problems. In that event the amendment itself would not be necessary. It is
74
certainly possible to deal with the matter, so long as one knows of the problem, by the terms of an individual contract.
I have already committed myself to providing the publicity necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are known in advance of its commencement to those whom it will affect. That particular point will be highlighted.
Although I have indicated my ultimate view about the amendment, I believe that I ought to move it so that the matter is properly on the record and in order to give your Lordships an opportunity to comment on the matter. However, I certainly do not intend to press the amendment, for the reasons which I have given. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the notice that he took of the point which I put to his department. I believe that his solution to the problem is the correct one. I am grateful to him for the attention which he paid to the comments I made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 20:
Page 11, line 33, after ("limited") insert ("title").
Page 11, line 44, after ("limited") insert ("title").
Page 12, line 40, after ("full") insert ("title").
Page 13, line 26, after ("limited") insert ("title").
Page 13, line 40, after ("limited") insert ("title").
Page 14, line 3, after ("limited") insert ("title").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 4. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to move the amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.37 to 8.15 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 164C not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 164CA:
After Clause 139, insert the following new clause:
("Decriminalisation of heterosexual consensual buggery in private
.Notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision, it shall no longer be an offence for a man and a woman both over the age of 18 to commit buggery in private where both consent.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 164CA, I speak also to Amendment No 164CB.
This criminal justice Bill has been much criticised for creating new criminal offences. This first modest amendment takes, I hope, a small step towards redressing that balance by seeking to decriminalise an

75
activity which is far from uncommon, which many of the general public are astonished to learn is a criminal offence, and yet more are dumbfounded to learn still attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Anal sexual intercourse between an adult man and an adult woman conducted in private where both consent carries the maximum penalty permitted by our criminal law. Among those who know those facts, there is a widespread and erroneous belief that notwithstanding the law as it stands on the statute book no one in fact goes to prison for having anal intercourse in those circumstances. That is wrong. Cases do come before the courts and people are going to prison today for just that. In my experience it tends to happen in the following ways.
Most cases involving this sort of activity, of course, never see the light of day because no one complains and the two people concerned are the only two people who ever know about it. However, after the breakdown of a marriage, or a sexual relationship, there are times when a woman will make allegations of violence, sometimes of rape, and occasionally of buggery against her former partner. A trial may then follow. If the defendant admits buggery but claims that the woman consented he has no defence. If he insists on contesting the allegation on that basis, the jury are told by the judge that they have no alternative but to convict him as consent is no defence. If he is found guilty, or pleads guilty, whether or not the woman consented is a question for the judge alone to decide, not the jury, because it becomes purely a question of mitigation.
Where the sentencer decides that the buggery was non-consensual, that the woman did not consent, a period of some years' imprisonment akin to the sentence in a rape case, possibly one with aggravating features, is imposed, and rightly so in my judgment. However, where the sentencer decides that the offence either was or may have been consensual, the current edition of the Encyclopaedia of Sentencing gives advice to judges who have to sentence in those circumstances. It indicates that the proper sentence for consensual buggery between a man and a woman in private is one of an immediate custodial sentence of three months.
Perhaps I may refer to just two of the cases which that encyclopaedia cites to judges as being an indication of the approach that they should take and the reasoning behind it which may seem incredible to many Members of the Committee. The first of the cases to which I refer is R. v. Dixon, a case decided by the Court of Appeal in 1982. I simply quote from Lord Justice Lawson's judgment in dealing with that appeal, which involved a sentence for consensual buggery between a man and a woman who was aged 19. He said in the course of his judgment:
"In 1967 the law was changed in relation to homosexuality, and buggery between consenting males in private, provided that both parties were over 21, was no longer a criminal offence. Exempted from the mitigating provisions of that law were those who were under 21. It follows that so far as this court is concerned, the policy of the law is what it was when Parliament passed the 1967 Act, namely, that it is a criminal offence to commit buggery with anyone under the age of 21. Parliament in 1967 did not, as it could have done, say that buggering females in private, if they were over 21, was no longer to be a criminal offence. It follows
76
therefore that this court should approach buggery with females in the same way as Parliament did: namely, that it continues to be a criminal offence and a serious criminal offence".
He added:
"This is the kind of offence which should normally attract a custodial sentence".
A sentence of three months' immediate imprisonment was imposed in that case.
The second, more recent, example is the case of R. v. Bush in 1989. Perhaps I may indicate the circumstances of that offence because it may give the Committee some indication of the kind of cases which are still coming before the courts. The appellant pleaded guilty to buggery of a woman. She had been living with him for over a year before they separated. At the time the woman was pregnant and subsequently gave birth to a child; the appellant meanwhile married someone else. About three months after they had separated, the appellant visited the woman in her home and was admitted after he threatened to kick the door down. They spent the night together and sexual intercourse and buggery took place. The appellant was indicted for rape and buggery but was acquitted on the charge of rape. He was sentenced on the basis that the buggery took place with the consent of the woman who was 26, and he received an immediate sentence of nine months' imprisonment.
In giving judgment in the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Auld said:
"Counsel who appears on behalf of the appellant submits that in an appropriate case it is an offence which no longer requires a custodial sentence. We do not go that far. It would be difficult to do so in the light of Parliament having recently increased the maximum sentence for this offence from one of 14 years to one of life imprisonment".
He added:
"While we cannot accept counsel's submission that this offence should attract no custodial sentence, we feel it can be reduced from a figure of nine months".
Accordingly, the court substituted a sentence of three months' immediate imprisonment in its place.
A great deal has been said and written about the need for equality in law between the sexes. There have been many articulate pleas, not least in this Chamber in the four hours or so of the debate tonight, for sexual freedom for adult men over the age of 16, as in some cases Members of the Committee have argued, and in other cases, over the age of 18. The latter provision has found favour in another place and here tonight.
I ask the Committee: can it be right for a form of private sexual behaviour with consent, which is legitimate when it takes place between two men, to attract an immediate prison sentence when it involves a man and a woman? I suggest that it cannot. It may be said by the Minister that a change in the law of this nature would lead to the wrong message of approval for anal sexual intercourse being sent from Parliament at a time when we are all aware of the dangers in connection with AIDS. But I suggest that such an argument, if it were to be advanced, would be fanciful in the extreme.
The idea of anal sexual intercourse is, I suspect, repugnant to most people. Is it likely that those who feel that repugnance, as a result of any decision by the Committee of this House or indeed Parliament as a

77
whole, will cast aside that repugnance, change their minds, consent and take part in an activity in which they would not otherwise wish to engage?
Equally, can it really be right that it is the law which prevents people engaging in this activity when, among other things, the health risks of anal intercourse are well known and would themselves, one would have thought, provide a deterrent to those likely to be deterred? On the other hand —and I go back to the point I made at the beginning—many members of the public are wholly unaware of the legal position in relation to this matter.
It may be said, I suppose, as was said in relation to the immediately preceding amendments, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the Bill is not a sexual offences Bill. However, another place, like the Committee tonight, has considered the Bill a suitable conveyance for the decriminalisation of offences of this very nature in relation to young adult men. Surely, the argument that criminalisation of this kind of behaviour inhibits the participants from seeking medical attention where it may be necessary is every bit as valid, if not more so, for women as for men.
Perhaps the reason that the nettle of this matter was not grasped back in 1967 or subsequently is that there was no vociferous pressure group to argue for it, or perhaps Parliament was simply too mealy-mouthed to grasp a subject which many people find distasteful.
It is a matter of urgency because people are being sent to prison for the offence today. If the Government do not choose to take this opportunity to rationalise an area of legislation which is almost wholly unenforce-able, which is anachronistic, inequitable and draconian in its penalties, if the long arm of the law is still to try to reach behind the bedroom door to wave its finger of disapproval at adult men and women in this way, then those who say that the law is an ass will be right. I hope that in his reply the Minister will feel that he can accept the amendment.
The second amendment in the grouping, Amendment No. 164CB, is a very modest measure indeed. I hope that it will find favour with the Minister. All it does, or seeks to do, is to put the male complainant in a sexual offence in exactly the same position as the woman who makes a complaint of that nature. People were, I suppose, increasingly sickened by the way in which, in trials involving sexual allegations, a woman's past history was paraded in cross-examination as a means of discrediting her testimony and sometimes, I am afraid, perhaps intimidating her also. As a result, restrictions were imposed by the law on the extent to which cross-examination of that nature could take place without the leave of the judge. In practice, what happens is that after the complainant—the female complainant at present —has given her evidence in chief and before cross-examination in the absence of a jury, the defence counsel who wishes to ask such questions must seek the judge's leave. That normally involves giving an outline of the reasons why he wishes to do so, the relevance of those questions to the defence, and the extent of their scope. Having heard from defence counsel and the counsel for the Crown, the judge gives a ruling. I personally have never known a judge refuse to allow relevant questions to be asked in those circumstances.
There was anxiety, before that change in the law was made, that it might interfere with the ability of the defence to conduct the case properly. But that has not happened. What I am sure has happened is that some people with valid complaints have been encouraged to come forward when previously they might well have feared prying questions, unrelated to the trial, about their past sexual history. Surely there can be no justification for leaving a male complainant exposed when the law has accepted that a female complainant is entitled to, and should have, protection. All that the amendment does is to extend the present provisions in that way. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may put the other side of this argument—not for the sake of argument, but because I personally believe that the other side of the argument is right. I shall be brief. The object of the first amendment, Amendment No. 164CA, is to decriminalise a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for consensual anal intercourse. In practice, the man goes to prison for three months and the woman does not. But why should the man not go to prison? It cannot happen unless the man takes a certain initiative. It is a serious offence. The Committee may think that this is carrying so-called equality before the law a little too far. I think that a man owes a certain duty to a woman. I will not go into the matter, but I dissociate myself from what has been said this afternoon; namely, that the law has no moral role in setting the standards.
As to the second amendment, years ago when I first took silk my first brief was to defend an alleged member of a paedophile gang who preyed on the young at railway stations —a sort of "Cathy Come Home" affair. He was duly and rightly convicted at the Old Bailey But the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed his conviction on certain counts on the ground that similar fact evidence ought not to have been admitted because it was so prejudicial. In that case, in those circumstances (which are not those in the amendment) the judge, in the absence of the jury ruled that it was right to admit such evidence. But this is another situation. Other members of the gang in that case conducted what we call a cut-throat defence in which they sought to place the responsibility for the blame on my client. There is no doubt, notwithstanding the most careful directions in the summing up, that that had an effect.
The question arises on this amendment: where there is a multi-count indictment, where there are several defendants and where some of them are jointly charged, is it not unfair to the co-accused merely to allow the discretion to operate if it is unfair to the accused? Ought not the balance to be, as presently held, as to what is unfair, full-stop. Therefore, with respect to my noble friend—I must not call her my noble friend, she is my learned friend who has great experience of the courts, greater perhaps than mine in criminal matters—I have my doubts as to whether this amendment might not operate unfairly in favour of the accused but against another accused. For those reasons I oppose it.
Lord Ackner: I always sympathise with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he groans at the sight of lawyers disagreeing and he has to thread his way through the disagreement. I am bound to say that I commend the initiative of the noble Baroness Lady Mallalieu in bringing this matter before the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that buggery with a women is a serious offence. That is as the law stands. But it is totally unjustified if buggery between consenting males aged 18 or above in private is not. I respectfully submit that it is totally insupportable, with the law changed in that direction, and changed in that direction to a less wide extent some years ago, to maintain that sex discrimination.
The noble Baroness referred to the consequences in criminal law, a matter in which she is an expert. Perhaps I may refer, from my experience many years ago, to its relevance in civil law. One of the evils that was identified by the Wolfenden Commission was the opportunity given to blackmailers to blackmail the homosexual so long as the homosexual offence was a criminal one. Exactly the same situation occurred in my experience in a brief that I had as a young QC. A husband and wife indulged in this sexual activity, to the wife's satisfaction—indeed it was the only method of satisfaction which the wife enjoyed. They fell out some years later. She presented a petition making a series, according to my instructions, of unfounded allegations, including anal intercourse without her consent — knowing, of course, that that was an allegation of a criminal offence. He could not in that situation— because consent was no defence—contest that petition. He had to throw his hand in, and, on the basis that she did not persist in the allegations of the anal intercourse, pay her very sizeable maintenance, which was wholly unjustified. That is a civil consequence of the anomaly of the law in this situation.
I quite understand that the Government do not wish to extend further legislation on the subject matter of sexual offences. The Government's reluctance is wholly understandable because they were not responsible for the introduction of Clause 139. But being landed with Clause 139, a clause relating to homosexuality on which they said there was to be a free vote, this is one of the consequences. You cannot just drop a curtain and say, "Very well, this has been introduced; it is within the purview of the Act, a free vote, and we will do whatever you say", and then say that it has no further consequences. That seems to me to be a myopic approach to legislation in the important criminal legislation field.
With regard to the second amendment, again, all that the noble Baroness seeks to do is to say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If there are to be prosecutions in regard to homosexual offences, just as in rape cases, then this particular limit to cross-examination, which is unjustified and requires the protection of the court, should exist.
Again, having been obliged to let in the subject matter of Clause 139, this is all part of the inevitable consequences. If this opportunity is not taken, then these wholly absurd anomalies in the law will continue, and continue until when? —until there is a new sexual
80
offences Act? There have been so many references to sexual offences in this Bill in one form or another that one anticipates with a certain degree of relief the absence of sexual offences legislation for a little time to come. But to put off the day seems to me to be merely closing one's eyes to the inevitable, and continuing anomalies in the law which the legislation is intended to cure. Therefore I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I should like to support Amendment No. 164CB in particular. To a layman—I hesitate to rise among those of legal eminence who disagree on these matters—it seems to be a straightforward matter of common sense, although I realise that in this field common sense is not always the best guide. But we are speaking of someone—for example, a man —who has been indecently assaulted or assaulted with intent to commit buggery and the person who has been assaulted is clearly the complainant. It seems altogether appropriate that the complainant should not be subjected to cross-examination about other aspects of his personal life or past relationships. In just the same way—as the noble Baroness so effectively argued—we accept that, when a woman complains of being raped, it is not appropriate in this day and age to cast all kinds of aspersions on her past life. What is relevant is whether or not she has been raped. What is relevant here is whether or not the offences have been committed. I feel that the amendment is entirely coherent and is a piece of tidying up which, as the noble and learned Lord said, must follow upon the various other matters that we have been discussing.
With regard to Amendment No. 164CA, I have sometimes felt during the debates this afternoon that in 20 or 30 years' time people reading some aspects of the debate—about buggery, sodomy, consensual acts between males and so on (and we have not even discussed the distinctions between buggery and sodomy but no doubt that is a matter that we can leave to another occasion) and the different provisions with their different terminologies in the amendments before us, which relate to adults and adult behaviour and indeed consensual behaviour behind closed doors—will feel that it beggars belief to have debated such matters in such a manner.
I entirely agree with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. As a result of the matters which have now been agreed in the other place and in this Chamber, this legislation must follow logically. To take up the words of the noble and learned Lord, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am sure that many Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree. It would be extraordinary to leave this provision as an offence on the statute book when consensual acts of a comparable nature between males are no longer criminal. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to respond constructively to the amendment.
One can understand that my noble friend does not wish to grab the tiger by the tail. But the tiger is prowling round him and very difficult for him to avoid. One has every sympathy with the Minister in these

81
circumstances. But surely this is one piece of tidying up that must follow the provisions that have now been agreed by both this Chamber and the other place.
Lord Monson: Unlike my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, I am not a lawyer in the course of disagreeing with another lawyer. In fact, I am not a lawyer at all. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, should groan, it will be for a different reason. Whatever may be said about Amendment No. 164CA, it cannot be denied that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, most certainly has logic and consistency on her side, especially if one takes the view—as I have always done and as the Government apparently do now—that adults have a perfect right to take risks with their own health and safety.
It will be very interesting to see how the Government react to the amendment. Presumably they will support it, since the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in replying to the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, made it clear that the Government have no particular objection to buggery as such but merely disapprove (I hope that I have copied correctly the noble Earl's words) of homosexuality in general. Those words should be noted: not homosexual activity but homosexuality. So even chaste expressions of homosexual inclinations are disapproved of by the Government.
I repeat that the noble Earl said that the Government have no particular objection to buggery as such amid all the other forms of activity of which we have been talking. So, in logic, they should support the first amendment of the noble Baroness.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am opposed to Amendment No. 164CA. In the first place, I feel obliged to make a purely technical objection to it. The amendment states that:
"it shall no longer be an offence for a man and a woman both over the age of 18 to commit buggery".
In the nature of things a woman is incapable of committing buggery. She can be the passive agent in the act of buggery. She can aid and abet the offence. But she cannot commit it. Therefore, technically, it seems to me that the proposed new clause is wrong.
I want to go a little further. In the course of a long life my understanding has been that whatever men may feel about being the passive agents in buggery, women have the very strongest objection to it because of the pain it causes and because of its unnatural character. It would surprise me very much indeed to find that it is realistic to legislate in this way. Therefore, quite frankly, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press Amendment No. 164CA,
With regard to Amendment No. 164CB, I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Renton, sits down, is he aware that a month or so ago a women's magazine recommended buggery to its female readership on the grounds that it could be a very
82
pleasurable activity? I must say that that astonished me but presumably the editorial staff had done their homework and knew what they were talking about.
Lord Renton: All I can say is that it is the first time that I have heard of that being so.
Lord Wigoder: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, makes two points about the first amendment. One is that by the nature of their being, although a man can commit an act of buggery, a woman cannot do so. She can only be a party to it. Surely two men who commit an act of buggery with each other both commit the act of buggery. In those circumstances, I can see no difference between two men who commit the act and a man and a woman who commit it.
The other point made by the noble Lord is that many women object to the practice. There are many men who object to the practice. So far as the women who object are concerned, the amendment will not apply. It is only where the woman consents—which means freely consents—that this amendment applies.
I do not want to repeat any of the arguments used by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I think it sufficient to say from these Benches that it seems to me that on grounds of logic and fairness the case that they make out for the two amendments is quite overwhelming.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: One point that seems to have been lost at the moment is that the plain fact of life that we are talking about is anal intercourse. One can call it buggery but it remains anal intercourse. Whether one is male or female, there is one passage for faeces. If we are to talk about this subject, we must understand that the Government, as we have already heard this evening, have spent a lot of money, taxpayers' money, warning people of the difficulties that will ensue should they practise anal intercourse and should they be bisexual and pass on the disease called AIDS.
There cannot be any discrimination at all when it comes to anal intercourse. Both the male and the female have an anus. I do not feel that we should forget that it is the taxpayers' money that we are discussing at the moment and we are trying very hard to stop such a disease as AIDS spreading in this country.
Earl Ferrers: I am always deeply touched by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who sympathises with me and who says that I groan at the sight of lawyers disagreeing. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also said that I groan. I was not aware that groaned. I never groan at lawyers disagreeing with each other. I enjoy it enormously. It happens constantly because no two lawyers ever agree, not even when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is one of them. I am amazed by their silver tongues and how they all manage to produce perfect arguments in total disagreement with each other. I only wish that I had that facility. However, I am a layman and do not.
I wish the sympathy which the noble and learned Lord extended to me this evening had been extended to me last week when he moved the amendment on

83
criminal injuries compensation. There was not much sympathy then and perhaps he might like to extend a little of that to me later on.
Lord Ackner: The noble Earl overlooks that there was total agreement on that occasion and sympathy was therefore not called for.
Earl Ferrers: It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord is less than generous. If there was total agreement then that was the one occasion when sympathy was required.
I understand the position put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. As usual she made a forceful case and when she does it is sometimes difficult to think that there may be a contrary case. She is saying that it is absurd—a point underlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner —that buggery between consenting heterosexuals should be an offence when buggery between two homosexuals should, if not be acceptable, at least not be an offence. In that the noble Baroness has a forceful point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that he was amazed by the amount of sexual offence amendments which have cropped up in the Bill. So am I. He said that it would obviously result in it not being necessary to produce a sexual offences Bill later on. That is one view. However, the Government are often castigated for introducing legislation in a hurry and are told that not enough thought was given to it, that it is a knee-jerk reaction and so forth. Yet here we are producing some extensive amendments —we have had a range of them this evening—on a sensitive and deeply complicated subject at the end of the parliamentary process of the Bill. I suggest to the Committee that, important though these matters are—I would not for one moment diminish their importance—they need a little more thought given to them than the time available between now and when the Bill will require Royal Assent.
Amendment No. 164CA would make legal in England and Wales the buggery of a woman with her consent and that would be a significant change in the law. I do not believe it is an issue which has been the subject of wide debate outside this Chamber—no doubt it has been widely debated with vigour by the legal community who are the people who normally come up against these problems. There is clearly a great deal of force in the argument that as it stands the law can catch people who are not prosecuted and, it could be said, should not be prosecuted. But what form any reform should take is more difficult to decide.
The noble Baroness proposes an age of consent of 18. If your Lordships favoured an age of consent for homosexual acts of 21, that might have been the right age at which to allow the buggery of a woman with her consent. Others, including the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1984, have argued for the age of 16 because that is the age at which a young woman can consent in law to other sexual acts. If a woman can consent to a normal sexual act at the age of 16, it may be said that she ought to be able to consent to an unusual form of sexual act also at 16.
84
The problem is not as straightforward as it seems. As I explained on earlier occasions, the Government do not wish to see the Bill used as a vehicle for a change to a number of provisions in the sexual offences area. I should like to consider carefully the arguments put forward on both this amendment and the following one. The noble Baroness gave an eloquent exposition of the case for the male victim of a serious sexual assault. There is, of course, a good deal of force in her argument that cross-examination about a person's sexual history may be just as unpleasant for a man as it is for a woman. But the effect of her amendment would be to confer a protection on men which is considerably more extensive than that which the law allows for women, though the law applies only to victims in rape cases.
Some would argue that the protection of women is also too narrow. I certainly would not dismiss that argument. But any extension of the law in this way affects the defendant's right to make his defence in the way in which he chooses. The amendment would therefore restrict the evidence which can be placed before the jury.
I say again that it is a difficult and sensitive matter. These are substantial issues and require closer examination than they have so far received during the passage of the Bill and at such a late stage in its proceedings. I should like to consider what has been said. I cannot give the noble Baroness any undertakings at this stage, for the reasons I have given, to alter so many different facets of the law on sexual offences. However, I should like to give greater consideration to what has been said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I welcome the noble Earl's remarks. If he is prepared to look at the matter, that will give many of us a sense of gratification. But I am bound to say that I find it extremely difficult to see how an amendment on these lines can be resisted, given the presence in the Bill of Clause 139.
I understand the Government's difficulty. They would no doubt prefer to introduce a sexual offences Bill. Clause 139 is in the Bill because the Long Title was as broad as it was. The Table Office in the House of Commons accepted Mrs. Currie's amendments and other amendments to the Bill for their debate. The fact that we are discussing this issue therefore is due to the Government's Long Title. That being so, we should look at the question on its merits.
I find it immensely difficult to see how the principle behind the amendment can be resisted, given the clearly expressed decision of the House of Commons in the matter and the decision at which we arrived only an hour or so ago in relation to homosexual offences. I repeat that I welcome the fact that the noble Earl will look at the matter. No doubt many of us will wish to raise the matter again if he is unable to come forward with any proposal at Report stage.
Earl Ferrers: I can understand that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will recall that he and others —he is not alone in this—criticised the Government for taking decisions too quickly without enough thought and consideration. Yet here we are in June making major alterations to the law regarding sexual offences.

85
With respect to the noble Lord, because another place decided to alter the age of homosexual consent from 21 to 18—which your Lordships confirmed this evening —does not necessarily affect what happens in regard to the consensual agreement to heterosexual buggery. The two do not necessarily go together.
I shall certainly consider what has been said. But I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to think that I shall therefore come up with a wonderful answer in a few weeks' time which will solve all the problems. They go much deeper than one simple amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There is always a temptation to repeat one's own excellent arguments on this point and I shall do my best to avoid falling into that trap. However, the fact of the matter is that, given the decision the Committee has taken on Clause 139 and the decision taken by the House of Commons by a substantial majority in the same direction, it is an absolute absurdity to keep this offence on the statute book, particularly when it attracts a penalty of life imprisonment.
Lord Annan: I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to take this on a little further. It is an absurdity in the face of the very forceful arguments, as the noble Earl has been so good in saying, put forward by the noble Baroness. I took it that what he meant by that was that the argument is incapable of being controverted, but that he did not know whether he could swing it at the next stage of the Bill. We understand that there are difficulties which the Government might face; but I very much hope that he will be able to take it a little further.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am grateful for the support from noble Lords on all sides of the Committee and also for the limited encouragement which the noble Earl has given. I was troubled to hear him say that he thought that consideration of this proposal so far as concerns the first amendment might require more time than the passage of the Bill to the stage of Royal Assent would allow. When the noble Earl has had time to consider what has been said, I hope that that will not prove to be the case. For tonight I would propose to ask for the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment; but I make it clear that I shall return to it at the Report stage if the noble Earl does not have proposals of his own in relation to this and the subsequent amendment to bring before the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164CB and 164CD not moved.]
[Amendment No. 164CE had been withdrawn From the Marshalled List.]
Clause 140 [Extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy]:
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 164CF:
Page 113, line 20, at beginning insert:
("( ) The provisions of this section are subject to subsection (5A) below.").
The noble Lord said: I am in a perhaps happy position of moving an amendment the principle of
86
which I believe has the support of most of the Committee. In effect it says that homosexual conduct in the Armed Services and in the Merchant Navy—to condense my speech I shall not refer specifically to the Merchant Navy—will continue to be a ground for administrative discharge. Unfortunately, I have been unable to persuade the Government as to how this can best be done. To avoid misunderstanding, it is probably necessary and helpful if I briefly run through the procedure which exists at the present time.
Under the Sexual Offences Act 1967 homosexual conduct in private if someone is over 21 is not an offence. However, Section 1(5) says that subsection (1),
"shall not prevent an act from toeing an offence (other than a civil offence) under any provision of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957".
So the exemptions for homosexual conduct being an offence which were extended to private individuals in the 1967 Act were never extended to the Armed Services.
In 1992 the Select Committee on the Armed Forces made a recommendation that the criminal law for members of the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy should be changed so as to be the same as for civilians. In accepting that, the Minister then responsible said:
"It is not intended to alter the present disciplinary climate of service life".
The result is that since 1992 this has not made any difference to the administrative discharge procedure which had previously been adopted; but nor have mere been any criminal prosecutions. It may be helpful if I quote from what the Minister of State in another place said on 12th April 1994:
"Since then"—
referring to the Select Committee report—
"we have not been prosecuting in such circumstances It remains our policy, however, that homosexual activity is not compatible with the special conditions under which service personnel live and work. Service personnel found to be homosexual or who engage in homosexual activity will continue to be discharged from the services".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/94; col. 170.]
I agree, and that is what I am intending, by this amendment, to put on the face of the Bill.
We should address three questions in looking at the amendment. The first is whether the Armed Forces should continue to be able to discharge service personnel who are homosexual and those who engage in homosexual activities. I do not think there is any doubt there, bearing in mind the. Minister's statement that I have just read out, and I do not believe that there will be any argument from the Front Bench that that should not remain so. Homosexual conduct in the Armed Services is completely incompatible with working in service conditions and service life. The question is: how do we do it? One way would be to provide that Clause 140 should not stand part and thus keep the law as it is today whereby homosexual practices in the armed services are an offence which could lead to prosecution but preserving the right to have administrative discharge. However, I think that the pass on that has already been sold. The Government have accepted decriminalisation.
So what can we do? What I suggest we do is precisely what I am seeking to do in the amendment —to make it clear on the face of the Bill that although

87
this is no longer a criminal offence, it is conduct for which service personnel can be administratively discharged. Unless that is done and put clearly on the face of the Bill, then the first time that an administrative discharge is brought about after the criminal aspect has been repealed there will be a massive lobby saying in effect, "You cannot by Act of Parliament say such conduct is legal and then discharge a person for it. If you meant to do that you should have made it clear in the Act that such a change was not to affect the administrative powers to discharge." I am asking that it be made clear on the face of the Bill.
I accept that powers of administrative discharge relate to a great many causes, events and attitudes which are perfectly legal. A man can be administratively discharged for all sorts of things; I imagine that he can be discharged for having flat feet. But what is the difference here? We are repealing a section which says that this matter is a criminal offence. We are saying that it is no longer a criminal offence. We have never had a section of an Act saying that having flat feet is a criminal offence. We are repealing the provision with no reservation or qualification of the Bill itself.
It is reckoned that administrative powers of discharge can be exercised. That may or may not succeed when it is challenged, as I believe it will be, in the courts and perhaps in Europe. Somehow the matter will be challenged. I believe that the Government will have a difficult task to explain why—particularly if they reject this amendment—they were never prepared to put this provision on the face of the Bill. Did they really mean that they intended to go on with administrative discharges when they were not even prepared to say so on the face of the Bill?
I ask the Committee to recognise the problems that would exist. Why not say precisely what is intended; namely, that service personnel can be discharged for homosexual conduct but that they will not be prosecuted in the courts for such conduct? I believe that that is what my noble friend on the Front Bench wants to achieve. So why not be prepared to say so? If that is done, then everyone knows the position. It can be included in the terms of engagement for service personnel. It may well be said that that would create a precedent. I hope it would. It is time (is it not?) when we mean something to be put in an Act of Parliament that we say so. We should not leave it for people such as noble Lords or judges to try to interpret what is meant. We should say so clearly on the face of the Bill. We are not in any way adding to the obligations of the Government. The provision is saying specifically what I believe my noble friend wants to achieve.
There is one other point I wish to raise relating to the constitution. I have been irritated, as other noble Lords may have been, by the media challenging our right to make changes to the Bill. We in this House have a particular right to challenge parts of the Bill, nowhere more so than as regards the part now being debated. A very large proportion of Members of this House are of an age and maturity that means we served in the Armed Forces. In 1967, when the Bill was passed, the Armed
88
Services were exempted from the freedom for homosexual conduct given to private individuals. That is a section which it is now sought to repeal.
At that time, being closer to the war years, a very large proportion of the Members of that House had experience of the Armed Forces. No doubt for that reason they welcomed the exclusion of the Armed Forces from the freedom given elsewhere. Through no fault of theirs, today in the other place there are very few honourable Members who have had the experience which many of us in this House have had or who can be aware of the difficulties of service life such as those of discipline which would arise if homosexual conduct was allowed to go unchallenged.
We should look particularly at what happened as regards Clause 140. That was introduced by an Opposition Back-Bencher at Third Reading at 12.45 a.m. It has never been debated in the other place.
A noble Lord: Good heavens!
Lord Boardman: That is how this clause came in. It was 12.45 a.m. at Third Reading and here we are expected not to challenge it. There was only one question asked. That was whether anyone who was dismissed because of the change proposed to the Bill would be entitled to receive large damages from the European Court. The question was no doubt asked being mindful of what had happened in the case of the pregnant mums. That was the one question asked and it was not answered. I am sure that my noble friend would have a happy answer to it. Even so, it shows the cursory examination which this matter was given. Not only do we have a right but a duty in this House to challenge and examine this clause. I hope that, based on the collective experience of your Lordships to make amendments, we shall support the amendment I have tabled on what I believe to be a matter of the greatest importance: discipline and good conduct in Her Majesty's forces. I beg to move.
Baroness David: In view of what the noble Lord has just said, may I ask whether he would agree that some people were quite right to challenge Clause 138, which was brought in at about the same time of night by Dame Jill Knight?
Lord Boardman: I am sorry. I did not follow the noble Baroness's question. Perhaps she could put it again and I shall try to answer it.
Baroness David: Dame Jill Knight brought in an amendment—about midnight, I think—which is now Clause 138 of the Bill. It was about the use of foetuses, ovaries and so on. I presume the noble Lord would have supported this Committee in opposing and questioning that.
Lord Boardman: I have not considered Clause 138, nor have I read the debate on that clause. I really cannot answer the noble Baroness's question.
9.15 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to support the Motion that Clause 140 should not stand part of the Bill. Some months ago I had a letter from a neighbour in Scotland, who said:
"As a practising Christian and father of teenage children, I am totally opposed to this. When I was a teenager I was a Merchant Navy cadet and was constantly exposed to sexual harassment by homosexuals on board ships, railway stations, etc. Every day we read in the media of sexual harassment and the seduction of young boys by homosexual teachers, clergymen, youth leaders, etc. Lowering the age of consent from 21 to 18 will only put our children further at risk".
When young people are in a closed community, as happens in the Navy or the merchant navy on board ship, or in an army barracks or camp, or on an RAF station, they are much more vulnerable to unwanted attentions of this kind, particularly from persons senior to them in rank, than they would probably be in civilian life, although one can envisage situations in civilian life where this would not be the case. I shall not go into details of why I think it is important that they should be afforded a degree of protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, did all that for me in her splendid speech on the last group of amendments, but I think that protection for young members of the Armed Forces is very important.
Lord Craig of Radley: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. Some may choose to argue that it is not in the best interests of the Armed Forces to set themselves apart from the social and moral values which become fashionable and by and large acceptable, and legally so, in contemporary society. Indeed, if the services are not in step on such issues it is incumbent upon them to be able to defend their stance with the force of logic and with a conviction based on far more than mere emotion or prejudice. On these sensitive and highly charged issues we must try to follow such guidelines.
The Armed Forces do not lend themselves to the concept of freedom from discrimination. I am not referring to ethnic discrimination, as will become clear. For very good service reasons we discriminate against, for example, some human handicaps and disadvantages. We insist on certain minimum standards for eyesight, for hearing and for height. We require, depending on the field of employment, special capabilities, motor skills and intellectual attainments. It is thus not reasonable to insist, when it comes to sexual proclivity, a very human condition, that it is wrong for the Armed Forces to discriminate or that it is wrong for them not to adopt the perceived contemporary civilian norm.
The services, for sound operational reasons, can find no place, for example, within their ranks for the physically handicapped, the poorly sighted or the hard of hearing—gunners of maturer years perhaps apart. We judge these discriminations against the operational and other needs of the services. Obviously we must have fit and healthy men and women of courage and commitment to carry out a whole range of demanding and stressful activities, including conflict. Similar tests must surely be made on the issue we are addressing now. To the argument that it is not fair to discriminate
90
against homosexuals, all I would say is that if it is in the services' interests to discriminate, the law of the land and of the European Union should not stand in the way of such discrimination. It is and it should remain lawful for the services to be selective and restrictive in this area. I believe that over the years the services have, as with drugs and infidelity, dealt with these human issues in a sensitive and practical way. Cohesion and trust between individuals of a service unit or platoon are the bedrock of fighting capability, team spirit and morale. We cannot afford gratuitously to jeopardise these fundamental requirements of a fighting force. Decriminalisation of some aspects of homosexual activity per se is not the key issue for the services.
I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, because I am anxious to go as far as possible to ensure that what is current service practice in this area is given the force of law. As I understand it, while supporting the legality of administrative discharge, this amendment would in no way weaken the current ability of the Armed Forces to deal with any offence outside the parameters of age, consent and privacy as a criminal act, just as it would be seen and dealt with elsewhere. Secondly, a service disciplinary offence, which may include a homosexual act, may still be dealt with as such if it is likely, for example, to be conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline. The clearer this position can be made in legislation, as well as to the individual servicemen when they sign up, the better.
Finally, am I right in my concern that we no longer have complete confidence that European law may not one day attempt to rule that discharge on the grounds of homosexuality is discriminatory and illegal, and that this could apply whether discharge was by court martial or administratively and, even worse, be made retrospective and/or liable to compensation? The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, may not successfully deal with that eventuality but it strongly sets out to support existing practice. It puts down a firm marker and is thus better than the Bill's present approach, which does nothing positive to protect the services' essential requirement to remove a practising homosexual. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Vivian: I rise wholeheartedly to support my noble friend Lord Boardman in tabling these amendments. It is worth reminding the Committee that in the early hours of the morning at the end of the Report stage in another place an honourable member tabled the repeal of Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, thus, if passed, allowing homosexual acts in the Armed Forces. It was accepted with no public debate and without a vote. I therefore believe that we should debate fully the amendments that are now before us.
I understand that Her Majesty's Government have not opposed the repeal of that part of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which relates to homosexual acts in the Armed Forces because it is deemed prudent to narrow the gap between civil and military law. The Government have stated that in 1991–92 the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill 1991 considered the regulations dealing with homosexuality in the

91
Armed Forces and recommended that homosexual activity that is legal in civilian life should not in itself be an offence under military law. However, it has been and still is—and I very much hope that it will continue to be —Ministry of Defence policy that homosexuality is incompatible with service life.
Although in the Armed Forces Acts there is no specific service offence of homosexuality as such, offenders can be charged under provisions dealing with disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind, or conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, or possibly but very rarely, scandalous conduct by officers.
However, those formal military charges are seldom used. Normally, administrative discharge procedures are taken to release a homosexual from the services when required. That course is less damaging to an offender's future career than formal charges being preferred with an ensuing court martial.
The Ministry of Defence currently has no plans to change that policy. But once the bedrock of the law is removed from the Armed Forces Act by the repeal of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, before your Lordships in this Bill, the case to sustain administrative discharge for homosexuals will become very weak. It will be so weak that I believe that the intense and strong lobbying which can be expected from a large homosexual community will attempt to do away with the administrative discharge procedure if it is not backed up by law.
Until now, the services have not been particularly concerned that homosexual acts in the Armed Forces might become legal, because the administrative discharge system exists to remove homosexuals from the Armed Forces. At present, it has no reason to doubt that that system will continue. I believe that if it had been aware of what I have just said about the likely removal of the administrative discharge procedure, all three services would be very anxious about homosexual acts in the Armed Forces being made legal by the repeal of the Sexual Offences Act. The amendment now before the Committee should ensure that the administrative discharge procedure becomes law and thus will enable it to continue.
It has become well recognised through the ages that the Armed Forces require a special code of discipline backed by sound military law from which stem the high standards of integrity, loyalty, honour and morals which this country rightly expects from its services.
Like many other noble Lords, I have convened, reviewed and promulgated courts-martial proceedings, and have reviewed and confirmed administrative discharges as and when necessary. I believe that the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill 1991 made an unwise recommendation when it proposed that because homosexual activity is legal in civilian life, it should be legal also in the Armed Forces. It would have been far better if it had left matters as they stood and had not raised the issue for public debate.
I should now like to concentrate upon why homosexual activities are incompatible with service life. Members of the Armed Forces are often required to serve in conditions in which, both on and off duty, they are unavoidably living in closed communities,
92
sometimes under stress. Such conditions and the need for absolute trust and confidence between all ranks—an essential ingredient for successful operations—require that the potentially disruptive influence of homosexual practices should be excluded.
Homosexuality causes offence, polarises relation-ships, undermines military discipline and, as a consequence, damages morale and unit effectiveness. It can lead also to bullying—a serious matter which the services have been trying to stamp out. Above all, it is necessary to ensure that those in authority over younger or junior men do not use their position to coerce or persuade those in their charge to perform acts in which they would not otherwise engage.
As a general question, we should ask ourselves whether we should be happy to allow our children or grandchildren to enlist into an organisation within its own confined environment in which homosexual acts are legally permitted. I believe that all parents would be extremely unhappy with that situation, and it could well lead to difficulties with regard to recruitment.
Homosexual acts can lead also to the contraction of AIDS. If servicemen catch that disease, they are liable to be discharged from the Armed Forces. With the recent draconian cuts to services force levels, even one loss of that nature cannot really be afforded. The likelihood of servicemen contracting AIDS would be much reduced if Clauses 140 and 141 were amended in the proposed way.
My noble friend the Minister has informed me that the Bill confers no entitlement to compensation for services personnel administratively discharged by reasons of homosexual activity. However, if Clauses 140 and 141 are allowed to pass unamended, and as they stand in the Bill, anyone who might be discharged in the future could argue that discharge for a legalised activity cannot be sustained and that all service orders and MoD regulations should be changed to reflect the primary legislation. In this instance, I believe that those people would claim for large sums of money in compensation.
All those factors imply that if we wish to keep our Armed Services with the high traditional standards of discipline, honour, loyalty, integrity and morals, I have no doubt at all that Clauses 140 and 141 should be changed in accordance with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Boardman. I strongly urge noble Lords to give him their full support.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I did not intend to intervene in the debate. However, the previous two speakers have almost forced me to do so. The last speaker talked in terms of situations in which we would be happy for our children and grandchildren to be involved. He spoke about the possibility of homosexuals being members of the Armed Forces. I believe that we can all accept that the first experiences that most people in public schools get of homosexual activity is effectively in public schools.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry, that was not terribly well presented grammatically speaking. However,

93
perhaps I may put it this way. The homosexual experiences that have been the experience of most Members of this place who have had homosexual experiences will arise from their attendance at public schools.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Monkswell: Is the previous speaker saying that in order to protect our children and grandchildren we should actually stop them going to public schools? If he said that, I would welcome the idea for different reasons.
Before the previous speaker made that point—which, I must admit, I found rather bizarre—what concerned me was the contribution of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. He talked about the employment or the involvement of disabled people in the Armed Forces in the context of homosexuals being members of those forces. To start with, the concept of equating disability with homosexuality is, I believe, a little perverse, if one can use that rather curious expression.
However, the point that I should like to make to Members of the Committee and especially to the noble and gallant Lord is as follows. We have only to think of one the most heroic figures from the Second World War, Douglas Bader who was an air ace, a hero and very well respected member of the Armed Forces. What was his situation? He was legless; in other words he was disabled. But, by the reckoning of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, he should not have been a member of the Armed Forces because it is not right that a member of those forces should have any infirmity of eyesight, of height or, indeed, of hearing unless he is a gunner.
Lord Craig of Radley: I should just like to point out to the noble Lord that his referring to Douglas Bader as incapacitated after he had already learnt to fly and was a very skilful pilot is not quite fair.
Lord Monkswell: That exactly makes the point. How can one define someone as ineligible to be a member of the Armed Forces if he or she has some disability? By the reckoning of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, it appears that gunners can be deaf but every other member of the Armed Forces must be sound of wind, limb, eyesight and hearing. We know from our own practical experience that that is not necessarily true. I put it to the Committee that to think that members of the homosexual community are ineligible to be members of the Armed Forces is a palpable nonsense.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I totally support—
Noble Lords: Lord Campbell of Alloway!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I shall be brief. I wish to support this amendment which assumes that Clauses 140 and 141 stand part of the Bill. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord that it should be lawful for the services to remain selective. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Vivian, but I wish to try to allay one of his concerns, if I may, in a moment.
94
It simply is not possible—Members of the Committee have touched upon this—to predict the course or the nature of our future domestic legislation. It simply is not possible to do so for that of the European Community which is supranational, or indeed to predict the course of the decisions from Strasbourg on the Convention on Human Rights where there is no principle of precedent. So surely it is understood that the Government may wish—as it has been put—to close the gap between the civil and the military law, and that they may be unwilling to accept this amendment which I and other Members of the Committee have supported, having regard to what they see as a plethora of imponderables.
However, if my noble friend the Minister were able to give firm and satisfactory assurances from the Dispatch Box that to maintain discipline in our Armed Forces and merchant ships, the current practice of administrative discharge for various types of conduct will remain in place, and that the types of conduct relevant to administrative discharge will be fully explained on enlistment, that could conceivably be acceptable to the Committee because such assurances, as a matter of law—I come to the point of my noble friend Lord Vivian—in any proceedings would serve as an aid to clarification and interpretation of this clause in the UK, in Strasbourg or at Luxembourg. That is because the substance of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman would be subsumed. Since the stain of criminality would be removed, the gap would be closed without in practice putting the maintenance of discipline at hazard.
For my part, as I have said frankly to my noble friend the Minister, for the reasons fully explained by my noble friend Lord Boardman, I believe that the Government are mistaken in not having an amendment along these lines on the face of the Bill. I shall not weary the Committee with my reasons because I have given them to my noble friend the Minister.
However, I accept reluctantly that the distinction in law between the effect of the amendment or an amendment along these lines and such assurances as could be given, although real and of substance, could be not so great when put to the acid test in proceedings, which is what is worrying some Members of the Committee.
There are two aspects which are requisite. The terms of enlistment—which is the contract of employment —should explain not only the process of administrative discharge, on which there is crude entitlement but no compensation but also the full nature of all types of conduct relevant to that process. If that is done, at least there would be a measure of security. I accept that it is preferable that that should be put on the face of the Bill as proposed in the amendment, which I still support. However, there is a distinction which, depending on such assurances as are given, the Committee may be prepared to accept.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, has produced the

95
amendment. I am even more pleased that I follow my noble friend Lord Craig, who spoke so well on this subject.
In this so-called civilised society legislation has been enacted to eliminate discrimination and to encourage responsible behaviour. But where individuals fail in their responsibility to society there is an increasing tendency to attribute that to some broader social cause —to freedom of choice or, dare I say to the Minister, failure of government. That individual freedom has led to a decline in both individual and corporate responsibility, to an erosion of respect for the law. The promotion of individual rights has contributed to an ambivalent attitude towards an individual's responsibil-ity to society.
The aim of military service is to foster group cohesion, a decisive factor in countering terrorism and in battle conditions. Today we have more soldiers on active service duty than we had at the height of the Cold War in, say, 1989. In a group of young, robust, heterosexual people that cohesive factor can easily disappear where there is a loss of trust and confidence in those who lead or operate alongside you in warlike and stressful conditions. If the proposed legislation were to be approved, there would be an adverse effect on the efficiency of the Armed Forces. It would be detrimental to their role.
When joining the Armed Services, where operational duties are a likely possibility, self-sacrifice for one's fellow servicemen is accepted. That accepted code requires self-discipline. To arrive at that position, the Armed Forces insist on a more exacting code of discipline. Clauses 140 and 141 deliberately undermine such a code.
The Ministry of Defence accepts that servicemen and women are subject to both criminal law, applicable to civilians, and military law, which makes certain subjects an offence which may not be so in civilian life. Let us not fool ourselves. Servicemen have leave; they can walk out of barracks, but they have to return by a certain hour. The soldier leaves the barrack gates and automatically is in civvy street; he is subject to civilian law. He can put on an earring. He can be subject to taking drugs. Should Clauses 139 to 141 become effective he can be free to indulge in anal intercourse without fear of being discharged when he returns to barracks at 0800 the following morning.
We have heard, and I reiterate it, of appeals to the European Court. As a result of being rendered ineffective and not fighting fit through pregnancy, certain females serving within the Armed Services have lost their jobs. Subsequently they have been paid thousands of pounds in compensation. Next we shall see girls who join the Armed Services using pregnancy as an excuse to gain a quick buck, if noble Lords will excuse the expression. However, a far more frightening scenario may present itself should Clauses 140 and 141 be accepted. Soldiers infected by AIDS resulting from anal intercourse, whose blood is a river for that lethal, debilitating disease of AIDS, might cut themselves during training, going over an assault course, and subject all their fellow soldiers to the risk of infection
96
and to losing their careers. They would naturally claim compensation for the loss of their livelihood. Those servicemen could be "called out" at a moment's notice for a national or international emergency.
In the four years until 1993 a total of 22 army court martial cases related to homosexuality and 296 service personnel were administratively discharged, of whom 50 per cent. were women. "Administrative action", for noble Lords' information if they do not already know it, may be taken where an officer or another rank receives a civil or a military conviction, whereupon the officer must resign and the soldier will be discharged. Shall we not encourage favouritism, lack of trust—that essential bond in the Armed Forces—if Clauses 140 and 141 remain part of the criminal justice Bill?
I wish to quote from The Military Ethos, the Ministry of Defence Discipline and Standards Paper dated 21st August 1993, which states:
"Homosexuality, male or female, is incompatible with military service because of the close physical conditions in which soldiers often have to live and work. Homosexual behaviour can cause offence, polarise relationships, induce violence, and as a consequence morale and unit effectiveness suffer. Anyone who admits to, displays the orientation of, or indulges in homosexuality will be required to resign or be discharged. Homosexuality which is illegal under civil law or which has aggravating disciplinary features may also lead to prosecution".
Ideally, we all wish to live in peace, to love another, whether a person be of the same or the opposite sex. I recognise and would applaud males and females who may live together helpfully, in harmony. But I abhor the unnatural physical homoerotic relationships that add increasingly to a society physically diseased. Through lack of standards and self-discipline, those relationships lead our society to the same fate as its despotic predecessors, the mighty Greek and the powerful Roman empires, to crumble under the influence of sexually disorientated bureaucrats.
In truth, procreation is a God-given natural gift, the result of normal intercourse. The elected Members in the other place—I understand that in Her Majesty's Cabinet no member has ever been in the Armed Forces —should take note of a statement made by this year's winner of the Templeton prize. He said:
"Unfaithfulness to truth destroys dignity".
I shall add, "and destroys mankind". I support the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: The Army and the Air Force have had their say. Perhaps I may put in a few words on behalf of the Navy.
It is my practical experience of buggery occurring in warships that—and I am happy to say not in warships for which I was directly responsible, but indirectly—it is the most desperate situation when it occurs, even in the biggest of ships. It is a canker in the midst of a ship's company of people working closely together. It is desperate. It is extremely important that it should not be allowed to spread, and one has to deal with it good and fast.
This is not the time to say how desperate it is for the young sailors who are suborned by the older ones, those who were the subject of earlier debates—and that is why I did not speak then—but, by God!, that is terrible too. It is a terrible thing in a sea-going armed service,

97
particularly because people are thrown together for long periods of time. That would apply equally to those in merchant ships, which are the subject of other amendments and which I also support.
For that reason, I very much support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman; but I see it as a fallback position on getting rid of Clauses 140 and 141 altogether. It is dreadful to think that another place let them slip in when no one was looking. God knows what the Government were doing when that happened! I think they ought to be castigated and someone ought to resign. It is terrible to allow this canker to come into the Armed Forces. Look what happened in the United States! Silly little Mr. Clinton said that he would let in the queers, and he was quickly told not to do it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Is it really appropriate to make an attack on a foreign head of state with whom this country has the closest relationship? It seems to me highly questionable whether that is in accordance with the general way in which we conduct our business in this House.
Lord Mottistone: I am sure that the noble Lord is pompously correct. Let us return to the subject: whether we allow Clauses 140 and 141, which we are debating together, to remain part of the Bill. I implore Members of the Committee not to leave those clauses in the Bill. That would be the best course. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Boardman and other Members of the Committee. The trouble is that, whatever happens, if Clauses 140 and 141 remain, even if my noble friend's amendment is accepted, the provisions will be squeezed out by some hideous legislation from Europe or somewhere, possibly by a government who are not so determined to make sure that the Armed Forces are efficient. Therefore, we could find ourselves very hampered if we allowed the clauses to remain in the Bill. I therefore plead with the Committee as a first step to support my noble friend's amendment so that we have that in the Bill anyhow, and then, when it comes to voting on whether the clauses stand part, to vote them out.
Lord Aldington: I should just like to ask my noble friend one short question. What is it that has changed since 1967, when some of us were here, the Bill was debated and the settlement was agreed? It was agreed on the basis of the decriminalisation of homosexual acts, subject to age and the matters about which we have talked, and on the basis that that would not apply to the Armed Services. It would not apply to the Services in the sense that on the face of the Bill there was a specific reference to the powers of the Services through the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act to keep this as an offence. What has happened since then?
If something important has happened since then, why was it that Her Majesty's Government did not move an alteration of the law? Why did they have to wait until 12.45 one morning in the other place, when an honourable gentleman who speaks on home affairs for the Liberal Democrats moved an amendment which the Government at once accepted, with the extraordinary proposition that it is wrong that the Services should
98
have offences which are not civil offences? How did we fight in the war on that basis? It does not matter whether it was the Navy, the Army or the Air Force; looking back 50 years, we were together for six years, the same group of people. How could we have had the sort of situation that is now proposed in the Army and kept the high spirits and high efficiency of that time? Whether it was the Air Force, the Army or the Navy, that would have applied. To decriminalise demoralises in this sense. I beseech the noble Lord, whose grandfather was present when we discussed this matter in the famous debates in 1966–67, to tell us what has changed since those days.
Viscount Mountgarret: I wonder whether I might follow my noble friend Lord Mottistone in what he said. I entirely agree with him, and my noble friend Lord Boardman, except in just one area. I have to say that I do not think that it is quite right to refer to heads of state, on whom we depend so much, in quite such a way on this sort of matter. I am sorry to have heard him speak in that way.
I am getting just a little bit muddled here. So far as I can see, nobody has raised the matter of allowing Wrens on to naval ships. I think that to permit that was a most extraordinary decision on the part of their Lordships in the Admiralty.
Noble Lords: Not relevant!
Viscount Mountgarret: The result has been that it would appear to be incorrect and indeed a disciplinary offence for sailors to fraternise with Wrens; but here we are suggesting that it would be perfectly all right for sailors to fraternise with one another. That seems to me to be rather odd. I would rather have sailors fraternising with Wrens than sailors fraternising with sailors. I entirely support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Ashbourne: Perhaps I might remind the Committee that in the 1950s, long before I had the honour of being introduced into this Chamber, the late Lord Montgomery of Alamein, whenever the subject was being discussed, used to paint a picture of an aircraft carrier. In those days, as the Committee will appreciate, feelings and sentiments in the country at large about homosexuality were not the same as they are today. We seem to have slipped a long way down a rather desultory slope. The late Field Marshal used to say: "Imagine an aircraft carrier, a tin box, floating around in the Pacific Ocean with 3,000 men locked up inside it, if homosexuality were legalised". In those days, everybody realised that it would be a farcical situation and could not be tolerated.
Lest the Committee should think that I am digging too deeply into the past, yesterday by good fortune I had the opportunity to speak to a senior officer at present serving in one of our aircraft carriers. He told me the interesting statistic that the average age of personnel in the aircraft carrier in which he was serving was 21.7 years. The ship's company was very young. I said to the officer, "What will happen if homosexuality is legalised in the forces down to the age of 18?" He was appalled at the thought because obviously it would be legalised for a large proportion of the ship's company.

99
I tell the Committee those two anecdotal stories merely to try to show that in the balance of the past and present there is a strong move against homosexuality in the forces. The argument was made most effectively by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, with all the authority that he brings to the matter as a former Chief of the Defence Staff. I therefore urge the Committee to oppose the Questions that Clauses 140 and 141 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Forbes: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman. As one who sets value on moral standards and the Christian faith, I deplore the continual lowering of standards that is taking place. Very often it goes on under the guise of progress.
We are now engulfed by the tide of permissive times, which I believe has brought about many of our troubles and indeed has led to the spread of AIDS. The one bastion and pillar of strength for upholding standards is our Armed Forces. But now, not only is that priceless national asset being eroded by cuts in the Armed Forces but, by Clauses 140 and 141, the Government themselves are condoning the lowering of standards in the services.
If we believe in standards we should call a halt to the lowering of standards, especially in the Armed Forces. I support the amendment and urge the Committee to vote so that Clauses 140 and 141 do not stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel very strongly that this Chamber must never allow any legislation to pass which may appear to weaken the discipline and morale of the Armed Forces and our merchant navy.
When I was a merchant navy officer any sexual fraternisation of any kind, male or female, was forbidden. Therefore, I hope that Clauses 140 and 141 do not stand part of the Bill. I should like to add that what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said about young people going to sea is perfectly correct. It is possible for a person to go into the merchant navy as soon as he reaches school-leaving age. If either Clause 140 or Clause 141 stand part of the Bill, I very much hope that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman is accepted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne:) Perhaps the Committee will allow me to intervene at this stage. I am well aware from the number of Members who are still anxious to speak that the Committee would like to pursue the debate on this subject. I have been listening with keen attention to what has been said during these important exchanges. I hope that I am not being unfair when I say that I descry a number of assertions, particularly by several of my noble friends, on which I believe I can reassure them. It may help the remainder of the evening's proceedings if I put the Government's position as clearly as I am able. Therefore, with the Committee's permission, I should like to intervene now.
I recognise fully the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Boardman in this important matter. The amendment proposed to Clause 140 is designed to make it perfectly
100
clear that the repeal of Sections 1(5) and 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 and corresponding provisions for Scotland, will not prevent the continued discharge of homosexuals from the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy. I listened particularly keenly to Members' strictures in this matter. As my noble friend pointed out, there is probably a higher proportion of experienced noble Lords in this Chamber—I say immediately that I use the word "experienced" in the sense of their having served in the Armed Forces—particularly compared with the denizens of another place. And I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset that in relation to the Armed Forces the Government entirely agree with the aims implicit in the amendment of my noble friend. But Her Majesty's Government are equally clear that the amendments are not needed in order to achieve that aim. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain why.
My noble friend Lord Aldington asked what has changed. I can reassure my noble friend and a number of other Members who spoke—particularly the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, to whom the Committee rightly listens with keen attention, particularly on military matters—in respect of the Government's fundamental position. It is perhaps worth restating it. It derives from our clear acceptance two years ago of two recommendations by a Select Committee in another place—something which my noble friend Lord Boardman recognised during the course of his introduction. The first recommendation endorsed the long-standing policy that homosexuality is incompatible with service life. The Select Committee said clearly that the time had not yet come to require the Armed Forces to accept homosexuals or homosexual activity.
I can reassure my noble friend Lord Mountgarret that, although we agree with that, we would go further. I would add that we do not foresee any time when homosexual activity in the Armed Forces would be considered acceptable. I say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and to my noble friend Lord Vivian that it remains the view of the Government that the special conditions of service life preclude the acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual behaviour. As my noble friends repeatedly pointed out, service people must live in close proximity to others in single sex accommodation. At times they have to work under enormous stress and in close physical contact with their colleagues. As many Members of the Committee pointed out during the course of the debate, those factors and the need for absolute trust and confidence—a point specifically made by my noble friend Lord Vivian— within and between all ranks make the circumstances quite different from those in civilian life.
We are aware of the responsibility we have for the many young people who join the services—again a point made by many Members during the course of the debate. We have a clear responsibility to these young people and to their parents which would be undermined by accepting homosexual behaviour in the forces.
The second Select Committee recommendation was that homosexuality of a kind which is legal in civilian law should not constitute a criminal offence under service law. We consulted the three services with very considerable care and we decided that we could accept

101
that recommendation as well. Accordingly, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, as long ago as June 1992, announced that in another place. He announced that Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 would be repealed as soon as the legislative programme allowed. Indeed, I gave a similar undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in this very Chamber as long ago as 1993.I refer noble Lords to Hansard of 9th July last year.
In the meantime, service personnel, it was announced, would not normally be prosecuted if the homosexual act would have been legal in civilian life. My honourable friend's announcement was generally welcomed in another place. So when Clauses 140 and 141 were introduced in another place as amendments to the Bill before us the Government supported them in view of the fact that they were entirely consistent with announced government policy. The question of whether they were sneaked through has to be seen in that context. The amendments were down. They were considered; and they were considered not only by Her Majesty's Government but also by Members of another place. Therefore, the clauses are the means of enacting the 1992 announcement in respect of homosexuality in the Armed Forces and a subsequent similar announcement about the Merchant Navy. It is on that basis that I commend them to the Committee.
I think it is worth setting out again our basic position. Homosexual activity will no more be tolerated in the Armed Forces of the future than it is today or indeed has been in the past. But we do not normally intend to prosecute participants in such activity in cases where the activity would have been legal in civilian law. I have said that it has been the policy of the past two years not to initiate such prosecutions. In fact, it seems on closer research that this has been the general practice for rather longer even than that. In the period between 1987 and 1990 335 members of the services were required to leave because of homosexuality. Of those, 296 were discharged as a result of administrative action—that is to say, by the means we are using today and will use in the future to discharge homosexuals—and only 39 were dismissed as a result of a conviction under the service discipline Acts; in other words, about 10 per year. I understand that this relatively small number of convictions was mainly in respect of offences which the services would still intend to prosecute under criminal law, and if the Committee will allow me, I shall come back to that point in a few minutes.
I should particularly like to address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He made an extremely valuable contribution to our debate. In order to remove any doubts on the point I should like to emphasise that the repeal which we are considering does not prevent the services from prosecuting when there has been an offence under civilian law; for instance, where there has been no consent; where one of the participants is under lawful age; where the activity has not been carried out in private; or, in addition, where, because of the circumstances surrounding the hom-osexual act, a service offence has been committed—for example (I say this to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun) —abuse of rank or otherwise legal sexual activity
102
aboard one of Her Majesty's ships. Indeed, we would prosecute heterosexuals in those circumstances. In this respect there will be no change.
I should also like to stress, for the purposes of clarification, that we shall continue with the current policy and indeed the current practice that those who engage in homosexual activity will be discharged from the services. Normally, unless they have been convicted in the circumstances I have just described, they will be administratively discharged. Administrative discharge, as many Members of the Committee with more experience of the services will know, is used as the means of dispensing with the services of several hundred personnel each year, for a variety of reasons connected with the individual's unsuitability for continued service. It is not a novel weapon in the services' armoury of management devices. It is the way in which we have released the great majority of male homosexuals and lesbians for some years now; and it is the means by which we shall continue to do so.
I have laid emphasis on the continuity between past practice and policy and I believe it right that I have done so. It is indeed the practice and policy we shall be adopting in the future. I can therefore commend Clauses 140 and 141 not as legislative shots in the dark, or as some sort of experiment which Parliament is about to foist on three nervously apprehensive Armed Services. We are proposing to bring the law into line with practice, which the services have found to be perfectly workable. Therefore, it is worth considering that this is perhaps not a great new legislative initiative, but a very minor device indeed to bring these two matters into line.
I am conscious of the time, but perhaps I can now turn to the specifics of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman. As I have already said, of course I welcome the intention behind the amendment. I understand clearly that it is to underpin the services' policy on the discharge of homosexuals. Therefore, I am sorry that I must question the Committee on whether it is the right device for doing that; namely, to put the intention on the face of the Bill, as my noble friend suggested.
I believe it is clear that the amendment has to do with the employment relationship between the services and individual members of the Armed Forces. It is seeking to confirm at the same time the services' ability, which I believe derives from prerogative powers, to determine what constitutes grounds for discharge. It is in fact introducing a new concept into the criminal justice Bill which is concerned here with the disciplinary framework of the forces. I suspect that to confuse the disciplinary framework with the employment relation-ship is of itself undesirable and introduces a confusion.
I shall explain a little further what I mean by that. Clauses 140 and 141 concern service discipline—the military equivalent, one might say, of criminal justice and therefore within the scope of the present Bill. On the other hand, my noble friend's amendment is talking about discharge and that is a process which has nothing to do with service discipline. It is an administrative process for releasing unsuitable individuals and a quite separate process from the machinery of service discipline.

103
It is important that the two aspects should not become intertwined. Again, I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but I want to explain why I find it very difficult to accept my noble friend's amendment, much as I would like to do so. We do not want to be put into a position where every time in the future we create or abolish a military offence we would be expected to express a view in the statute—"on the face of the Bill", to use my noble friend's phrase—as regards the effect on employment relationships. I believe I am right in saying—and I say with due diffidence before so many distinguished lawyers—that never before have the two aspects been linked in service disciplinary legislation. We believe that it is a persuasive reason not to set a precedent now. I hope that, in particular, my noble friend will agree.
If that is not argument enough, perhaps I may also suggest to my noble friend that his amendment could perhaps have even the opposite effect of what he intends. The linkage that I have described could just conceivably lead to a future situation which I believe my noble friend and I would wish to avoid; namely, where our present freedom to determine what is tolerable behaviour and what behaviour gives grounds for discharge might be impaired. Because of that freedom we do not need the amendment to enable us to continue with the present policy.
As if I needed to reiterate it, that policy is that homosexual activity is incompatible with service life and that homosexuals will therefore be required to leave the services. In terms of interpretation, the repeal of Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 will be interpreted as just that and will not be read across to have implications for the employment relationship. Therefore I would suggest that we do not need the amendment. Perhaps if I may be impertinent to my noble friend, he is pushing at a door which is already fully open. I hope that that encapsulates reasonably clearly what our position is, and I hope that it gives some satisfaction to my noble friend.
However, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to mention two other points which have been raised and on which perhaps I can give some assistance and help, in particular to my noble friends. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Boardman were worried about possible European law which might oblige the Ministry of Defence to retain homosexuals in the Armed Forces. I cannot guarantee that the present position will remain because, as your Lordships know, there is no European directive actually in place at present which requires such a course of action. If there should be a change along the lines which my noble friend and the noble and gallant Lord have suggested, without any derogation for the British Armed Forces, we would have to recognise that, just as in the case of pregnant women, European law would override the terms of any domestic legislation on the matter, whatever intended safeguards the amendment might incorporate and indeed whether or not the law carried criminal penalties in terms of British law. There are a number of other matters which your Lordships have raised, but I hope I have said enough to convince my
104
noble friend that he and I are ad idem on our objectives although we may perhaps differ a little as to the most effective way of achieving what we want.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to cover briefly the merchant navy aspects. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has expressed considerable reservations about certain clauses. The clauses here, and in particular Clause 141, provide that members of the merchant navy should cease to be subject to any special and additional criminal liability for homosexual acts on British merchant ships. The decision to decriminalise homosexual acts by repealing Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 was announced in a Written Answer in another place last December. We believe that the clauses here achieve the purpose which was announced then and, as in the case of the Armed Forces, also amend the equivalent Scottish and Northern Irish legislation.
The basis of the decision was essentially to bring the merchant navy into line with the Armed Forces. The fact that the provision appears to have been used very little in the merchant navy is some encouragement to us. The shipping industry, including the unions, had been widely consulted before the announcement was made, and the general consensus within the shipping industry was clearly in favour of repeal. Again I look to my noble friend Lord Aldington when I say that unlike in 1967, the seamen's union—now the RMT —is now clearly in favour of repeal. The Department of Transport is taking steps, in consultation with employers and unions in the shipping industry, to amend the code of conduct for the merchant navy. The effect of these amendments will be to make it an offence against the code to demand or solicit sexual favours from another member of the crew or to make unwelcome sexual advances to another member of the crew. Such offences, which will apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual conduct, will be subject to the industrial disciplinary sanctions provided for in the code of conduct.
My noble friend's amendment seeks—
The Earl of Balfour: Would my noble friend forgive me for asking a question? In respect of ships, the expression has been used of a homosexual act being carried out in private. I would not like two people to engage in a sexual act in a locked cabin on board a ship, if I may put it like that. I should not like that sort of thing to take place.
Viscount Cranborne: I wholly understand what my noble friend says. For that reason we have taken a great deal of trouble over the code of conduct and have had it agreed with the British shipping industry in particular. It has expressed itself wholly satisfied with the code of conduct.
I wish once again to appeal to my noble friend. We want to achieve the same aim. At the same time, technical reasons, which I have endeavoured to explain perhaps at excessive length, make it difficult to accept the amendment, much as I would like to. He and I are ad idem about this. I am advised that it is unnecessary to put the provision on the face of the Bill. I wish also to point out that, under agreements and contracts, the Merchant Navy has sufficient powers of dismissal to meet the points raised by my noble friend.

105
I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that the amendments are not acceptable to the Government, whose policy to seek the repeal of Section 2 of the 1967 Act was announced last December. I hope that my noble friends will feel able to consider a while the effects of sending the Bill back to another place should they press the Division and persuade the Committee to accept their view rather than that of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Boardman: I am grateful to my noble friend. I must disappoint him by telling him that, while our objectives remain the same, he has not convinced me that I can let the matter pass. I have had tremendous backing from a great deal of military force. I refer to the noble and gallant Lord the former Chief of Defence Staff and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who had hoped to be here tonight. He had to leave earlier for a Lord Lieutenancy engagement but authorised me to say that he was fully supportive of my amendment. I have also had support from other Members of the Committee who have a great deal of military experience; for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Vivian, Lord Mottistone, Lord Aldington, and so on. They all agree that as the Bill now stands it gives the wrong message to our Armed Forces. I find it impossible to accept that.
My noble friend Lord Campbell suggested that a Statement from the Minister might help to alleviate the position. That cannot be so unless the Bill on the face of it is misleading. Noble and learned Lords will correct me if I am wrong but I understand that reference to Hansard or to Statements can be made only if the Bill is considered to be ambiguous. There is no ambiguity in the clause as it stands.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of what Clause 140 seeks to repeal. It is:
"Subsection (1) of this section",
that is the section of the 1967 Act which makes homosexual conduct legal if in private and over 21,
"shall not prevent an act from being an offence (other than a civil offence) under any provision of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957".
The clause seeks to repeal that measure and to provide that those acts shall no longer be offences. I accept fully my noble friend's remark that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that military discipline continues as in the past. However, it cannot be sustained against the challenge to come unless we put on the face of the Bill the words suggested in the amendment. They make it clear that military discipline will be maintained notwithstanding the repeal of that section.
I have not tabled a similar amendment to Clause 141. I hope that at a later stage of the Bill we can deal with that clause in the same way as we can now deal with Clause 140. I also understand that the amendment is grouped with the Motion to oppose that Clause 140 shall stand part of the Bill. If, as I hope, this amendment is agreed to, I believe that that will meet the objectives of those noble Lords who wish to oppose that Motion. I believe it should be made absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that military discipline and the requirements of
106
the services shall in no way be prejudiced. I have received a great deal of support, and, therefore, I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.
10.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 164CF) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 61.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hanson, L.

Aldington, L.

Harlech, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harrowby, E.

Balfour, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Beloff, L. [Teller]

Kimball, L.

Boardman, L. [Teller]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brightman, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Burnham, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cadman, L.

Moyne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Clanwilliam, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Palmer, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Coleridge, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Reading, M.

Courtown, E.

Renton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rodney, L.

Cross, V.

Saint Oswald, L

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Sharples, B.

Denham, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Stedman, B.

Donegall, M.

Strange, B.

Downshire, M.

Swaythling, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Tebbit, L.

Elton, L.

Torrington, V.

Faithfull, B.

Vivian, L.

Forbes, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Waverley, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Wharton, B.

Gray, L.

Wynford, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Addison, V.

Grey, E.

Annaly, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Astor, V.

Henley, L.

Avebury, L.

Hooper, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Howe, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Cranborne, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lawrence, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Long, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lucas, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Lyell, L.

Desai, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ennals, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Morns of Castle Morris, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Flather, B.

Pender, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goschen, V.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

107

Rix, L.

Teviot, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Trumpington, B.

Seear, B.

Tugendhat, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ullswater. V. [Teller.]

Stewartby, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Strathclyde, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

[Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.38 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 164CFA:
Page 113, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move the amendment as it has already been dealt with by the Minister.
[Amendment No. 164CFA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 164CFB not moved.]
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 164CG:
Page 113, line 30, at end insert:
("(5A) Nothing contained in this section shall limit or affect the right of the competent authority administratively to discharge any person serving in H.M. forces or on merchant ships who, but for this section, would have been guilty of a criminal offence.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 141 [Homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 164CH not moved.]
Clause 141 agreed to.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 164D:
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause:
(Promotion of tobacco products
Publication of advertisements for tobacco products.
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) and section (Defences in proceedings under section (Publication of advertisements for tobacco products)) below, if any person publishes or causes to be published an advertisement for a tobacco product, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to the publication of an advertisement inside a shop used for the retail sale of tobacco products if the advertisement is not capable of communicating directly with persons outside the shop and—

(a) the shop is used wholly or mainly for the retail sale of such products; or

(b) the advertisement—

(i) contains only information as to the price of tobacco products, a warning of the damage to health caused by the use of tobacco products and such other information as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations made by statutory instrument; and

(ii) complies with such other requirements as may be so prescribed;

and in relation to any case where only part of a shop is used for the sale of tobacco products or access to a shop ("the inner shop") can only be obtained by passing through another shop, references in this subsection to the shop shall be taken as references to that part or, as the case may be, to the inner shop.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both; or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

(4) In this section and sections (Defences in proceedings under section (Publication of advertisements for tobacco products)) to (Power to prohibit or restrict promotion of smoking or tobacco)
108
below "tobacco product" means a product made wholly or partly of tobacco for the purpose of being smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or otherwise used orally or nasally.
(5) In this section an "advertisement for a tobacco product" includes any form of communication which might reasonably be considered to promote the smoking or other use of a tobacco product or of tobacco products in general, whether directly or indirectly, other than a communication made by means of the packaging of such a product in a quantity available for retail sale.
(6) In determining for the purposes of subsection (5) above whether a communication might reasonably be considered to promote the smoking or other use of a tobacco product or of tobacco products in general, whether directly or indirectly, regard shall be had to all relevant considerations and, in particular, whether—

(a) the name of, or of the producer, supplier or sponsor of, the product, service or event the promotion of which is the ostensible purpose of the advertisement is the same as or similar to the name of, or of a person engaged in the business of manufacturing or otherwise dealing with, a tobacco product; and

(b) any word, sign, symbol, picture or other feature which appears in the advertisement or any use of a colour or combination of colours in the advertisement is the same as or similar to any word, sign, symbol, picture or other feature or any use of a colour or combination of colours which is associated with a tobacco product.

(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 164E to G, 178ZB, 178ZF, 179A and 180A. These amendments are designed to help prevent the uptake of smoking by children. When we debate the advertising of tobacco we must remember that tobacco is still responsible for about one-quarter of all the premature deaths in Britain. Each year almost 50,000 people in their sixties, their fifties, their forties and even in their thirties are killed by tobacco in Britain alone. That is about 1,000 premature deaths each week and these premature deaths from tobacco involve on average the loss of 20 years of life.
Several thousand different chemicals are found in cigarette smoke, 43 of which are known to cause cancer in humans. As the smoke goes into the mouth, throat, lungs and bloodstream these chemicals go all around the body, causing a great variety of different diseases, including cancers of the mouth, throat, larynx, bladder and lungs, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and important diseases of the arteries, including heart attacks, strokes and gangrene of the limbs. Overall, about half of all regular cigarette smokers will eventually be killed by their habit, one-quarter being killed before they reach the age of 70 and one-quarter being killed later on.
Professor Sir Leslie Turnberg, the President of the Royal College of Physicians, informs me that since 1962, when the college produced its first report on the dangers of smoking, over 4 million people have died in the UK because of diseases caused by smoking. This epidemic requires serious attention.
Some have claimed that we have the best record in Europe for reducing tobacco consumption but that does not mean much when one considers how far we are behind the best records in the world set by Canada, New Zealand and Australia. I am sure we all acknowledge the progress that has been made in reducing smoking by the efforts of parents, teachers, doctors, nurses, scientists, and in particular the Royal College of Physicians and by

109
the Government who have set ambitious targets for reducing the percentage of smokers from the current level of 28 per cent. today to a target of 20 per cent. in the year 2000. It is pleasing to note that many of the Government's targets are on course.
The problem is that we are failing to reduce smoking rates among children. The target of the Department of Health was to reduce smoking rates among 11 to 15 year-olds by one-third from 1988 to 1994, but there is no prospect of this being achieved. There has been no significant change in children's smoking rates for the past 10 years. Some 24 per cent. of 15 year-olds were smoking in 1982 and the figure for 1992 is virtually the same.
The problem is that the strategies which have proved effective in encouraging adults to give up smoking, such as price increases, education campaigns and restrictions on smoking in various workplaces, do not seem to be having the desired effect in reducing children's smoking rates.
The child who begins to smoke before the age of 15 is 18 times more likely to die of cancer of the lung compared with someone who has never smoked. However, it is worth pointing out that those who begin to smoke after the age of 25 are only five times more likely to die of lung cancer than non-smokers. So, if the uptake of smoking cannot be prevented altogether but delayed until adulthood, the incidence of lung cancer will be significantly reduced. It is important to emphasise that eight out of 10 regular adult smokers now start smoking before they are 16 years old. If they continue smoking throughout their lifetime half will be killed by diseases due to tobacco. What an appalling waste! We have no moral or practical alternative but to implement a ban both on tobacco advertising and on tobacco promotion in order to provide reasonable protection for our children.
I realise that we are up against the great battalions of the tobacco industry, but that should not deter us from looking carefully at the facts. Smoking causes death, and advertising encourages smoking. To pretend otherwise is absurd. Some have argued that advertising does not affect teenage smoking rates. That is untrue. The Royal Society, our most eminent scientific society, is in no doubt. Last week it issued a message of support saying:
"Tobacco advertising and related sponsorship are significant factors encouraging children to smoke, and the Royal Society welcomes steps which address this issue".
The president of the Royal College of Surgeons, Sir Norman Browse, said last week:
"A ban on tobacco advertising and related sponsorship would be a significant advance in the continuing campaign to achieve a reduction in smoking, a major cause of serious illness and premature death".
There is not one eminent medical or scientific society which does not support that initiative.
There is good evidence that a ban on tobacco advertising leads to a reduction in children's smoking. Not only is there a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research; there is real-life experience in countries where bans have been enacted. Twenty years ago in Norway tobacco advertising and sponsorship was banned and within a few years the smoking rates among
110
Norwegian 15 year-olds fell substantially. Advertising bans have been assessed in three other countries: New Zealand, Canada and Finland. The conclusion of our own Department of Health's review of all four countries indicates a significant fall in smoking which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors.
When we brief the jury in a British murder trial we ask it to decide whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt who caused the death. What is appropriate for one death is appropriate for thousands of deaths. We have proof beyond reasonable doubt that tobacco advertising promotes and maintains sales and encourages the uptake of smoking by children.
Many object to the ban on tobacco advertising as an infringement of freedom, and many believe that anything which is freely sold should be freely advertised. In this country we have had a ban on the advertising of cigarettes on television since 1965. We have accepted that because tobacco is so dangerous its commercial advertising and promotion should be limited. The argument that if it is legal to sell it should be legal to advertise was rejected in 1965. Moreover, it is not legal to sell tobacco products to children. There is ample evidence that children see tobacco advertise-ments and they respond to them.
If we are talking about freedom, why cannot we demand that our children be free from the constant bombardment of seductive advertising? It leads so many of them into smoking and premature death—death 20 years before their time.
Successive governments have bowed to pressure from many different sources to proceed carefully and slowly before introducing further bans. We have progressed very slowly indeed and if we now introduce a total ban after a mere 30 years of delay and 4 million unnecessary deaths, we cannot be accused of doing anything in a hurry.
A recent survey indicated that half of all smokers said, "Smoking can't be really dangerous or the Government would ban cigarette advertising". The Secretary of State for Health has said that her department's expert review of the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption, known as the Smee Report, found that,
"tobacco advertising does affect total tobacco consumption, not just brand share".
She stated that,
"further restrictions up to and including a ban could be expected to reduce smoking".
If this measure reduced tobacco consumption by only 1 per cent., it would in time prevent a thousand premature deaths per year.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has said:
"I wish tobacco advertising was banned—I think it is an absolute pest. It has only two supporters, the tobacco industry and the Treasury, both of whom benefit enormously from the sales of tobacco but I think it is a curse and I would like to see it discouraged and would welcome a ban on advertising".
I believe that several Members of the Cabinet share his view.
Many hundreds of organisations—medical, health, Church, community organisations, the National Consumer Council, the Royal Colleges, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the British Heart Foundation

111
and the Royal Society itself—are making a special plea that the Committee should agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: The noble Lord, my professional friend, Lord McColl, has outlined the overwhelming scientific evidence of the harm to health which can be caused by smoking. That is now even recognised by the tobacco industry, even if it tries to minimise the harm. Recently a new firm, The Ethical Tobacco Co, has started to market a brand of cigarettes called "Death" in a black packet, and "Death Lights" in a white packet. A recent full page advertisement in a number of newspapers states this to smokers:
"If you are honest with yourself, you will have to admit that you already smoke death cigarettes. They just happen to be called something else".
I understand that the major tobacco companies prevented that firm from advertising its products on billboard sites in the United Kingdom. I wonder why.
It has been said that as smokers choose to smoke products with a health warning on the packet, it is their fault it they suffer. But that argument ignores the fact that tobacco is highly addictive. Its attraction is that nicotine, its active ingredient, not only calms anxiety, making stress more tolerable, but also acts as a mild stimulus to mental function—a fairly unique combina-tion since most addictive substances which calm anxiety slow up mental activity. I refer to alcohol, marijuana, opiates and cocaine, although perhaps not cocaine because it stimulates but does not calm.
On giving up smoking, people feel stress even more acutely than before. Smoking provides an emotional shelter. Giving it up leaves a confirmed smoker feeling exposed, vulnerable and often very irritable. I do not have to describe how difficult it is to give up; many Members of the Committee will have experienced it for themselves or will have friends or relatives who tried many times to give it up before they finally succeeded. Many do not succeed.
This addictive quality, as much as its harm to health, is another strong reason, I submit, for banning tobacco advertising. The Catholic Church, it is said, claims that if it has a recruit by the age of seven it has him for life. If we add a decade, we could say the same for the tobacco industry. Most confirmed adult smokers started well before the age of 20.
As my noble friend said—and in this case he is my noble friend—23 per cent. of 15 year-olds smoke regularly an average of 50 cigarettes a week. Children notice advertising more acutely than adults. The industry knows it and slants its message to them. But selling tobacco products to children is illegal. In so far as advertising affects children—and it does—tobacco advertising is already promoting an illegal product.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley said in another place on 20th July 1990, when answering a debate on health promotion:
"There can be little doubt that if cigarettes were introduced today, their production and sale would probably be banned".— [Official Report, Commons, 20/7/90; col. 1340.]
112
The amendment does not attempt to do that; it merely prohibits the advertising and promotion of tobacco products.
Dr. Clive Smee's report, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, showed that banning tobacco advertising in other countries led to a reduction in smoking of from 4 per cent. to 9 per cent. when accompanied by appropriate health messages. But even if no immediate effect had been demonstrated, does the Committee not think that it is irresponsible to allow the continued promotion of a highly addictive substance which is also a slow but extremely dangerous poison?
The recent voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry, to which the noble Baroness will doubtless refer, moves billboard advertisements a little further away—200 yards —from schools and makes them a little smaller. But as with previous voluntary agreements, I submit that this is a pathetically weak response to the major public health problem of our time.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with great care to my noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I have the utmost admiration for my noble friend in his work as a surgeon: he is noted for his ability in a number of different fields. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is also a doctor and that he speaks from great personal experience of the difficulties caused to many of his patients, no doubt by smoking. I hope that both will forgive me if I say that I find this series of amendments to the Bill about as bizarre—I think that is not too strong a word—as any I have heard over the years in your Lordships' House.
The Bill with which we are dealing is concerned with a number of serious matters connected with the criminal law and public order; everything from secure training orders to rape, sexual offences and prevention of terrorism—a whole raft of different subjects. It deals with a number of issues which are widely regarded not only as offensive but also as dangerous, and a number that are already subject to penalties under the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the sale of tobacco to those under 16 as being illegal. Yes, it is. But smoking is not illegal. I therefore have to say to my noble friend that I find it quite extraordinary that, notwithstanding the strength of feeling that he brings to this subject, he should seek to introduce these amendments which, among other things, create a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment for someone who publishes or causes to be published an advertisement for a tobacco product.
I must declare a set of conflicting interests, and indeed responsibilities. At a personal level, I dislike smoking—a fact that is not unknown to a number of your Lordships, of whom, occasionally, I try to get upwind in various parts of this building. I have been a health Minister twice, and I am fully aware of the Government's wish to reduce smoking, especially among children which, as my noble friend indicated, is the main purport of his amendment. I very much support the efforts that they are making in this direction. And encouraging efforts they are, as my noble friend Lord McColl explained just now. As chairman of St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust I am, of course, fully aware of the

113
importance of educating for a reduction in smoking. But I am also alive to the fact that some members of society, be they patients in hospital or elsewhere, will wish to smoke; and I fervently defend their right to do so if they must. I also work for Hanson plc, which owns Imperial Tobacco. That company employs some 2,500 people and generates in excess of £3 billion—£3,000 million —a year for the Exchequer in both excise duty and VAT.
These responsibilities, both to Imperial Tobacco through Hanson and to St. Mary's, are very real and I take them very seriously. But this evening I have an even greater responsibility as a Member of your Lordships' House to state very plainly my very strong opposition to a series of amendments which at the very least simply do not fit the general tenor of the Bill that is before the Committee. Moreover, as I am sure others will say, the amendments are flawed in a number of practical ways.
During the latter stages in another place of the Tobacco Advertising Bill my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health announced a number of changes to the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising. That was as recently as 13th May. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to those amendments. But by saying that they cannot be expected to achieve anything like the sort of improvement that he would like to see is going a bit far. These changes can hardly be said to have stood the test of time. It seems to me wholly unjustified to make the claim that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has just made so soon after they were announced and that it should be part of an attempt to reintroduce the Bill by what some would judge as being the back door.
As well as those arguments of principle, the amendments introduce another very worrying aspect. There are advertisements for countless everyday activities which, if indulged in carelessly, can give rise to risk. What about motor cars? They are widely used and widely advertised, one type competing for market share with another, as is very much the case with tobacco. Yet they are all potentially lethal to third parties as well as to those who are in them. Is my noble friend to try to ban advertising for cars for those very same reasons? And what about alcohol? We know that alcohol abuse is damaging. But even members of my noble friend's profession are unsure where to draw the line, and the vast majority of us, of course, consume it in a responsible way.
Or coming even nearer to home, to a subject with which my noble friend is involved, what about the pharmaceutical industry? It regularly advertises to the medical profession and to others. Can my noble friend say that all those items which are advertised are wholly safe? What about the very large numbers of Pharmaceuticals advertised over the years which have subsequently been found to be not safe, and in some cases to be lethal? I shall largely leave it to others to point to the weaknesses in my noble friend's arguments, particularly his medical arguments. My own belief is that his anxieties—as seriously as he makes the point
114
—are overstated; but he has developed a certain fervour for his cause which I am sure is one to which he will stick.
I end simply by saying that we are all bombarded day in and day out by people who tell us how to live our lives in a more healthy way; and each bombardment is followed by a counter-bombardment, often from within the same profession. Of course we should take my noble friend's remarks seriously in many respects. Of course we should find ways of discouraging smokers. We are already doing so, and the Government have given voice to it. But we certainly should not be party to the kind of heavy-handed, busy-bodying legislation which, frankly, this amendment seeks to introduce, most especially through this Bill.
If the amendment is pressed to a Division, I hope that it is resoundingly defeated. But I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded in due course that the amendments are unsuitable and are out of keeping with the general purpose of the Bill, and that he will be persuaded to withdraw them.
Baroness Seear: I suppose that most, perhaps all, Members of the Committee grew up at a time when nobody had any idea that tobacco smoke was the danger that we now recognise. Therefore it was socially acceptable that we should smoke; and a great many of us smoked a small or large amount with no idea that it carried the health hazards that we now know that it does. If we were starting today from scratch, without that background of smoking as a socially acceptable activity, and with our present knowledge about what smoking does to health, we would find it very interesting to compare the health record of tobacco with the health consequences of drugs which we ban and which we imprison people for taking let alone selling.
I suggest that tobacco smoking does a great deal more harm to health than cannabis. But think of the difference with which we treat the two activities! Because we have been socially conditioned to accept tobacco, we refuse to recognise that it is such a serious hazard. We have to look at it in the light of the knowledge that we now have and not the attitudes with which we grew up when we lacked that knowledge. So I for one very strongly support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McColl.
Mention has been made of the loss to the Treasury. I have not done the sums of the cost to the National Health Service of looking after the very large number of people who are ill and have to be hospitalised and given medical treatment because of their response to tobacco advertising. But it must be a very heavy charge indeed. Surely, we are not so "departmentalised" that we cannot put the costs of the National Health Service borne by the Department of Health against the loss to the Treasury of the money that it receives from tobacco advertising.
We need to look at this matter in the light of today's knowledge, given to us by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It is backed by all the societies that know about the consequences of tobacco to health and the cost to this country in terms of money, lives cut short, consequent

115
family bereavements and all the other consequences, which must be clear to anybody who thinks about the matter.
I very much hope that the Committee will look at this issue not with the memories of tobacco as it was known and thought to be so harmless in the days of our youth, but in today's knowledge of the very dangerous drug that it is.
Lord Ennals: I rise to support Amendment No. 164D and also to support the noble Baroness. Of course it will not be the first time. I declare my interest that I too, as was the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was a Minister with some experience and a smoker with much too long an experience. As was hinted by the noble Baroness, I started to smoke when I was a young soldier. At that time no one argued, as we received our free cigarettes, that this was a danger to our health. We learn more about the danger to our health as every year passes. The figure that it is now possible for the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to bring out could not have been quoted 10 or 15 years ago. When I was a Minister 15 years ago the effect of passive smoking on other people was simply not known. So more and more evidence is being brought before us.
We do not need to convince Members of the Committee that smoking is the most dangerous form of addiction. It is very difficult to break the addiction. As one who has broken it, I know just how hard it is.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Does he think that smoking tobacco is more dangerous than taking heroin?
Lord Ennals: I shall answer that. The number of people who die as a result of tobacco addiction is much greater than the number of people who die from heroin addiction. The number of people who have been treated in hospital as a result of smoking-related conditions is much higher than the number of those suffering from heroin-related conditions. But this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, suggested, is not about alcohol; it is not about heroin; it is simply about the smoking of tobacco materials.
The only question before us is whether or not advertising encourages smoking. I am sure that all Members of the Committee would wish to see fewer people smoking, fewer youngsters and children picking up the habit so early in life. Because they pick it up early in life, they are much more likely, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, to continue as smokers and become totally addicted to the habit.
When the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, revealed his interest, it was a telling factor. Those who most strongly oppose the amendment are in fact in the tobacco industry. There is no question about that. I know the extent of the pressure.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope the noble Lord will allow me to correct him. I declared a series of interests, one of which was that I have a responsibility towards the health service as well. I hope the noble Lord will balance his
116
remarks—which I believe will go on to criticise the interests I declared—making that responsibility equal with the others.
Lord Ennals: I am glad that that assurance has been given. Certainly when I was Secretary of State—and I have seen it ever since—the tobacco industry was the most powerful influence and the most powerful lobby in trying to stop what the noble Lord is trying to introduce. If we really thought that stopping advertising would substantially reduce smoking, as it has in other countries which have experimented with this proposition— Norway in particular —we would all support the amendment. We must ask ourselves whether or not it would have that effect.
As I say, the evidence from other countries indicates that it does. This is an amendment which was properly accepted and should be properly debated—it is a long time since this Chamber had the opportunity to do so. I therefore support the amendment and the manner in which it was proposed. It would be a great blow against the rising number of youngsters who smoke. There is something illogical in a situation in which we decide we should ban advertising in the cinemas, but not on the public hoardings. What logic is that? If we ban it from the television, we should ban it across the board. I hope the amendment will be carried.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: Mention has been made of the freedom of the individual to smoke. What about the freedom of the individual who is physically distressed by the smoking of others? And if we are honest, how many smokers do we know who hate the addiction, who wish they had never started and who try so very hard to give it up? Why did they start?
There are all kinds of reasons but I suggest that two particular advertisements have had a profound effect on the young; the Marlboro man and Virginia Slims. The most distressing statistic that we have seen of late is of the increase in young women who smoke. You have to ask why. One reason has to be the widespread view that smoking keeps you slim. How many of us know people who moan that once they gave up smoking they put on weight? The whole fashion industry is slanted towards the image of the slim, trim and brim full of energy young lady. That was well recognised by Virginia Slims. The Virginia Slims advertising linked cigarette smoking to the young lady who excels at tennis and underlined that point by actually sponsoring tennis.
Those of us who have business experience in marketing know full well that advertising works. The late Lord Leverhulme said that only 50 per cent. of advertising works but the trick was to know which 50 per cent. He never, note, said that 100 per cent. of advertising did not work. If even 50 per cent. of current advertising encourages people to start smoking, we are supporting continuing health problems and untold distress to families who watch their loved ones suffer from strokes, heart disease and cancer. I declare my personal interest. I have experience in my close family

117
of all three—all brought about by smoking. The distress that this creates will continue. Why do we allow it? We must support this amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: It seems to me that we are in danger of falling into an emotional confusion between ends and means. I am in wholehearted support of the purposes of the amendment. I am not now a smoker myself but I was once. I have done my best to persuade my family of two children—and now grandchildren— not to take it up; and so far with some success although not single-handed in my persuasion of them. However, I think that the argument for this being the right way to achieve our end is, to put it mildly, shallow.
I should have thought that the consumption of unadvertised drugs is rising whereas the consumption among the young of advertised tobacco is at least declining. Therefore, I do not think one can say that getting rid of advertising will automatically lead to a decline. That is a point for argument. All I am saying is that there is no prima facie case for the suggestion.
We need to think about some of the effects. It is very easy—sometimes too easy—to take positions of principle in a free society, but there is all the difference in the world between the control of the amount and the medium of advertising, which has already taken place in tobacco advertising and which personally I strongly support, and actually abolishing it. There is a difference not of degree but of kind and we should be very wary before we embark upon it. It certainly will not stop smoking. It may speed up the decline, which in itself would be a good thing, but people will still be smoking.
What will they be smoking? We ought not to neglect altogether the safety element to the public in any product being supplied by brand names and reputable companies. You cannot support a brand name for any significant amount of time without some sort of advertising. Project yourselves ahead to, say, 10 years from its abolition. People will be smoking. But what sort of cigarettes will they be? With what might they be contaminated? I believe that what will be smoked will be much less safe than what is being smoked already, although that is pretty dangerous, and we should do all we can to discourage people from doing it.
I believe most strongly that intensifying our efforts of education and persuasion, including advertising in that education and persuading, is a better and less dangerous way ahead than just abolishing advertising because that could have side-effects which we do not foresee at the moment and which could be quite unpleasant. We might find that there are very nasty cigarettes indeed being smoked, perhaps in smaller numbers, but causing more deaths.
Lord Avebury: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has reflected on the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said in moving the amendment, that 100 per cent. of the professional organisations involved in looking after people who suffer from the effects of tobacco have made a recommendation that we should pass the amendment. They did not do so without any examination of the evidence. They see the evidence every day in their consulting rooms. If one is asking about statistical evidence, of course there cannot be any
118
from Great Britain. We can only look at the evidence from other countries where a total ban on advertising has resulted in some reduction in consumption. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption if we did the same we should achieve a similar proportionate reduction in the volume of consumption.
If the noble Lord asks what people will then be smoking and whether such substances will be more harmful to them than those being smoked at present, there is a simple answer. You can legislate to require more information to be put on the packs of those cigarettes which are still to be marketed and sold than there is at the moment. For example, I do not know whether there is an obligation for the total nicotine content to be shown on packs. If not, there ought to be. After this amendment is passed, as I hope it will be, let us proceed with the Department of Health in deciding, on the advice of the medical profession, what are the components of tobacco which cause the most harm and how that should be notified to the potential victims on the packs of cigarettes they buy.
I wish to address one of the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, put to the Committee— that is to say, that this is not the right place to insert an amendment of this sort into a Bill which is concerned with a number of other matters. Of course it is concerned with a lot of other matters; it is concerned with everything except the kitchen sink. In effect what the noble Lord is saying is that if you are walking along a towpath and you see someone drowning, you might not wish to fish him out of the canal because it is the wrong time of day. Someone has advised you that it is a difficult moment to do it.
Here we have an opportunity to rescue many thousands of people. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, gave the figures. He said that a total of 1 million people have been killed. When the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, began to speak, he talked about the "difficulties" caused by smoking. What a mealy-mouthed word to use when talking about the assassination of 1 million people by this wicked industry! I do not know how the noble Lord can reconcile the interests he declared. I have a great deal of respect for him. When he was a Minister at the Foreign Office I was very grateful to him for many replies which he gave me which were of mutual interest. But I cannot understand how, at one and the same time, he can be a director of a hospital trust and have a high position with a company which is selling poisonous products to members of the public.
Lord Glenarthur: I cannot let the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, get away with that. The fact is that all of us have many conflicting interests and responsibilities. I went on to say that one of the greater responsibilities which I felt I had was being a legislator in your Lordships' House. It is all very well for the noble Lord to quote an instance which I certainly did not. He referred, for example, to somebody like myself walking along a towpath and choosing whether it was inconvenient, or right or wrong, to go to help somebody who was perhaps drowning. That is way beyond the point. The fact is that my noble friend has introduced an

119
amendment dealing with one particular subject— tobacco advertising —in so far as it relates particularly to children. This Bill does not seem to make any mention of a number of other issues, of which I cited three examples, which are also dangerous to some degree. That is why I said I believed that this was a busy-bodying piece of legislation introduced by my noble friend and why I dismiss it in the way that I have.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord has to reconcile his own conscience with the fact that he is involved in the St. Mary's Hospital Trust and also in Hanson plc. I am quite certain that if he has asked for advice from medical experts at St. Mary's Hospital they will have given him the same recommendation as the professional organisa-tions which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, was talking about earlier. He has had to weigh the advice he has been given by the staff of St. Mary's Hospital Medical Trust with that given by the directors of Hanson plc, and the latter have obviously won. It is as simple as that.
Lord Glenarthur: I am sorry to come back once more. The fact is that there are no doubt a number of doctors at St. Mary's—I know of several—who smoke. I am simply trying to point to the fact that I do not believe that this piece of legislation is the right vehicle for my noble friend to pursue this particular angle. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is adding somewhat in a rather clever way to arguments which I certainly did not put forward.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is setting himself up as a home-made "Table Office" to tell us what we can and cannot put into Bills. If this amendment has been accepted it is a legitimate one, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has seized this opportunity which is now available to your Lordships to save very many thousands of lives. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do. I should like to quote from a letter I received from the President of the British Cardiac Society in which he said:
"The House of Lords now has a golden opportunity to make a sensible decision to improve the health of the nation."
He goes on to say that coronary heart disease is Britain's biggest killer and over 20 per cent of such deaths are attributable to smoking. There is no argument about that: the medical evidence is conclusive. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. He cannot set himself up as superior to the many tens of thousands of professionals who have been telling us these things for many years and whose advice is accepted even by the Ministry of Health. The right honourable Virginia Bottomley does not quarrel with the statistics of the harm that has been caused by smoking. All she is saying is that we have to approach the reduction of smoking by means other than a ban on advertising. Therefore, let all those other means be pursued but let us add the ban on advertising. Let us take the opportunity this evening, suggested by the British Cardiac Society, of saving many tens of thousands of lives.
Baroness Young: Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, one is only too conscious that having a debate about smoking generates more heat than light. I very
120
much regret that on this occasion I cannot support my noble friend Lord McColl in his amendment. I have admired very much his stand on almost every issue and I am certainly not going to quarrel about the statistics on smoking. The discovery of the link between smoking and cancer came some years ago from a Professor of Physiology at Oxford and I think the evidence is quite clear.
However, in this particular matter I must support the argument that has been put very well by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. The analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the man walking by the canal is irrelevant. If one were to argue like that one would argue that any piece of legislation considered by your Lordships could be added to because somebody had some idea that we should legislate on a particular issue. We are, after all, a responsible House of Parliament and whether or not one agrees with the principles of this criminal justice Bill it was put forward to meet a very real public concern about law and order in both town and country. Therefore, various provisions within the Bill are put there to deal with that.
Now we have tacked on to the Bill what is a Private Member's Bill in toto. It is brought into this Bill because it has been argued that it is just the opportunity. I am sorry to have to say to my noble friend that this is an abuse of parliamentary time—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Absolutely right!
Baroness Young: Thank you very much. Although, as my noble friend Lord Carr said, no one will argue about the dangers of smoking, this Bill is the wrong place to introduce the legislation.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when I was young everyone smoked and tried to persuade me to smoke. I tried it and thanks to good fortune I never liked it and never smoked. But almost everyone else certainly did. I have also had cancer so I am well qualified all round to talk on this subject.
The fact is that smoking is not illegal. To legislate to prevent someone from advertising something that is legal—whether one likes it or not—is to run down a very dangerous path. The doctors are always telling us that we should not drink and one might just as well say that for the same reason we should ban the advertising of drink. Members of the Committee might shake their heads but we have only to open a newspaper to read doctors stating that we should not eat butter and so forth. And frequently they change their opinions. I agree that they have not changed their opinions on smoking, but in a democracy it is a very dangerous path to go down. On those grounds too one should be most careful about this piece of legislation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the noble Baroness say what harm will be done if this amendment is passed?
Baroness Young: The harm is that we shall have tacked into a Bill a provision which does not belong there at all, and that would set a bad example for other pieces of legislation. Secondly, I believe that, as a matter of principle, in a free society if something is not illegal one should be able to advertise it. We have a

121
voluntary code. If the noble Lord agrees that anything he believes to be bad for our health should not be advertised when it is not illegal to take, that would be treading on a dangerous path—a rather illiberal one, if I may say so.
Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness continues to say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that these amendments do not belong in this Bill. But did they not get past the clerks and is it not for them to decide whether amendments fall within the Long Title? If they have so decided, it is of course legitimate for the Committee to pass these amendments and incorporate them in the Bill.
Baroness Young: The procedures of this House are so designed that we can have a great deal of freedom in debate—far more than we would ever have in another place—and therefore we can have a debate such as this today. However, that does not mean to say that I believe it right or particularly helpful. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord McColl will not press his amendment but will withdraw it. He has made his point and we should now leave the matter. He should introduce a Private Member's Bill and ban smoking, if that is what he really believes. I think that that is what those who support the amendment actually believe in but they do not quite have the courage to say so. If that is what my noble friend wants to do he should get on with it.
Baroness Seear: Does the noble Baroness really stand by her statement that anything which is not illegal should be allowed to be advertised? I think I am right in saying that prostitution is not illegal. Would she like to have that advertised?
Baroness Young: I hesitate to enter into a debate on prostitution at this time of night because I am not at all sure what the position is. I am saying that in the case of tobacco, smoking is legal and this measure relates to the banning of something which is legal. If I did not express myself well I apologise to the Committee but that was the point that I was trying to make.
Lord Rea: Members of the Committee may wish to know about the history of the amendment. Perhaps I may recount a conversation that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, with all his experience of the other place. He was commiserating with me with regard to the fate of the Private Member's Bill which this amendment incorporates and also the Civil Rights Bill. He said that he did not believe that Private Member's Bills were the right vehicles to use. He said that it would be better to tack the provision onto a piece of legislation passing through Parliament. He instanced the compul-sory seat belt legislation which, in its first year, saved 370 lives and 24,000 casualties. It has continued to provide a major benefit to the health of this country.
This Bill will save far more lives than that. A careful calculation has put the figure between 95,000 and 140,000 over a period.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I had not expected to intervene in the debate this evening, but we have reached an hour at which even my normally politically incorrect thoughts are at the point at which they are about to burst.

122
I listened with great care to the arguments advanced by my noble friends Lord McColl and Lord Rea. Indeed, they are most persuasive. I do not believe that anybody in this Chamber would quarrel about the known damage which smoking can cause. But we need to remember that the offence is smoking. It is not advertising but smoking. Therefore, I am afraid that those who have promoted the amendment are at best guilty of intellectual inconsistency; and at worst, they are guilty of something else. I should declare my interest in the matter. It is confined to one box of good cigars smoked over about a 12 month period. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amend-ments in the strongest possible way. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I speak from a personal point of view this evening.
Smoking has always been distasteful to me. As a child, I found that a great many people smoked during the war. My eyes would hurt and I would say how terrible it was. Nobody took any notice. So many children must feel the same today. When I was 18 years-old, I watched my father die of coronary thrombosis. He had been a heavy smoker with a cough. My father died aged 51. There was nothing that we could do.
As your Lordships will know, my noble kinsman, my husband, has smoked cigars for many years. When he developed a cough, I was able to get him off cigarettes. But he has now suffered a stroke and no doubt tobacco has been a contributory factor. A great friend of ours, a past Member of your Lordships' House, had cancer. When our friend left hospital, the first thing that he did was to ring my husband to implore him to give up smoking. He maintained that the tobacco juice from his pipe had run down his throat, contributing to cancer, which has now killed him.
The group which seems to be the most worrying comprises teenage girls and young women. They seem to smoke more than any other group. How can we continue to allow advertising when we know what tobacco does to human beings? Advertising is conducted in a very subtle way. I have no doubt that the argument will be that it is advertising the brand which counts. Whatever it does, it encourages a very dangerous habit which seems to be as addictive as any other dangerous drug. Surely we should do all that we can to discourage, and not promote, such a pastime.
Baroness Trumpington: I am well aware that this is the Committee stage of the Bill. I am well aware also that noble Lords can speak as often as they like and for as long as they like. I just wonder whether your Lordships might like to hear the Minister at this stage. However, I am entirely in your Lordships' hands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): The amendments proposed seek to make it a criminal offence to publish any sort of tobacco advertising except at the point of sale. I know that the noble Lords who tabled the amendment are motivated by the desire to reduce smoking and the diseases associated with it.

123
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government agree wholeheartedly with those objectives and that we are working fully towards them. It is also worth stating that the Government accept that tobacco advertising is one of the many factors which need to be considered in any strategy to reduce smoking—The Health of the Nation White Paper states that quite clearly.
The issue before the Committee is whether the amendments can be justified in terms of their impact on smoking; the restrictions that they would place on a legal product—a point very well put by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur; and the appropriateness of the amendments enacted on the face of the Bill. Those issues were explored very fully and skilfully by my noble friend Lady Young.
We should begin by recognising that Britain has a good record for reducing smoking—the second best in Europe. Only the Netherlands beat us, and of course they too favour a tough but voluntary approach towards controlling advertising. Twenty years ago, 45 per cent. of the UK population smoked; today it is down to 28 per cent. Although that is a good record, it is one which can be improved, as my noble friend Lord McColl said. In The Health of the Nation White Paper, we set out very ambitious targets for reducing smoking—reducing the number of smokers in the population to no more than a fifth by the end of the century.
This Government have always believed that we need to work on a broad front to meet and beat the targets that we have set ourselves. In February, we published our action plan, Smoke Free for Health which set out the essential elements of the Government's approach. They include: action on price; action on parental influence; action on effective health education; action to advise smokers who want to give up; and, lastly, action to control advertising and sponsorship.
We have heard a lot of evidence about the alleged impact that an advertising ban would have on cigarette consumption. I am bound to say that, for us in Britain, none of it is as convincing as the evidence about price and parental influence. Here the facts are clear.
On price, the research evidence shows that a 10 per cent. increase in the cost of tobacco products leads to a cut in smoking of between 3 per cent. and 6 per cent. The Government have an excellent record in that field. Last year alone, the two Budgets led to a 21p increase in a packet of cigarettes. Moreover, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a commitment to increase tobacco duties by at least an average of 3 per cent. in real terms in each subsequent Budget. That is unmatched in Europe.
The evidence also shows that children whose parents smoke are two-and-a-half-times more likely themselves to smoke than children of non-smoking parents. Children are seven times less likely to smoke if they perceive strong disapproval from their parents. I agree with my noble friend Lord McColl, we need to do more with 11 to 15 year-olds. However, we have already met the relevant target among children whose parents do not smoke. As we are discussing advertising, perhaps I

124
should also mention that I think that the worst form of advertisement is for children to see the adults in their daily lives—that is, parents and teachers—lighting up.
The Government are campaigning to make parents more aware of the damaging influence smoking has on their children. That message features heavily in our £12 million health education campaign which will run over the next three years. The national curriculum now requires children between the ages of seven and 16 to be taught about the harmful effects of smoking. That is excellent news; but the message has to be hammered home at home—both by explanation and by example.
Those who promote the banning of tobacco advertising frequently use the impact on children as one of their main —if not their central—argument. However, the existing voluntary agreement is specifically designed so that tobacco advertising is not directed at young people, either in its content or where it is displayed. For example, heroes of the young are not allowed in tobacco advertisements; no tobacco advertisements are allowed in magazines where more than 25 per cent. of the readership are young women aged between 15 and 24.
The Government believe that it is prudent to build on the strengths of the existing agreement, especially so far as concerns young people. So the new agreement includes, among other things, the removal of all poster advertisements from within a 200-metre radius of school gates; controls on the content of advertisements which might appeal to young people; and a total ban on advertisements on computer games.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the impact that advertising has on those who see it. The Government do not deny that there is a link between advertising and smoking. If we did not believe that to be the case, there would be little point in pursuing the voluntary controls which have served us so well with the industry. If we denied the link, then we would have an unregulated approach —advertisements on television; at the cinema; in children's magazines. That manifestly is not the case, nor has it been for many years.
The point at issue is whether the evidence justifies taking the further step as set out in these amendments —a total ban and the criminalisation of advertising. This is not a small step. It is a major and significant move which raises issues well beyond simple health matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord McColl drew the Committee's attention to the Smee Report, but that evidence shows that an advertising ban cannot be justified. Using data from 30 years ago, the Smee Report shows that the reduction in smoking associated with an advertising ban in the UK would be around 7 per cent. Studies using data from 20 years ago estimated that a ban would reduce smoking by around 3 to 5 per cent. However, the most recent studies, using data up to 1987, failed to find a significant effect on consumption of banning advertising. Of course, unlike the early studies, the most recent ones have taken into account the major reduction in smoking in Britain in the past 20 years, and the effect of increasingly strict voluntary controls on advertising. It leads to the conclusion that the payback on a ban is not justified and,

125
what is more, it is not supported by looking at the experience of other countries. My noble friend Lord McColl mentioned the international research which shows that in Norway, Finland, Canada—I think he mentioned Canada—and New Zealand bans on tobacco advertising were followed by falls in smoking. Like my noble friends, supporters of a ban have made much of this fact. They have suggested that it shows that a statutory ban would have a similar effect in the UK. But this is far too simplistic. If we look at the experience in Norway and Finland, the two countries where bans have been in place long enough to make sensible comparisons, we see that there were indeed reductions in smoking after the ban was introduced. But in both cases the reductions achieved in Britain over equivalent periods have been greater. In other words, the UK has a better record in reducing smoking using the broad strategy that we have adopted rather than other countries which have simply introduced an advertising ban.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the issue of the costs to the NHS of smoking. They are considerable —£160 million a year—but I agree with her that these costs are as nothing compared with the misery and the suffering of disablement and an early death—a point so well put and poignantly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. And that is why we are committed to reducing consumption by 40 per cent. by the year 2000.
My noble friend Lord Carr raised the interesting argument of the benefits that advertising can have on the purity of branded products. That is an interesting view and one which could well have validity, but I must say that at the moment I do not have the evidence on it. It was a point also pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who also urged greater information to consumers of the harmful constituents of cigarettes. Already we require tar and nicotine yields to be shown on cigarette packets. They are also required on advertisements. Furthermore, the Government have been working actively with the tobacco industry over the past 20 years to reduce the tar yield. It has been a highly successful policy. The average tar yield has come down from 21 grammes in 1972 to 13 in 1990. The new legal limit will be 12 grammes from the end of 1997.
I believe that Members on all sides of the Committee want to reduce ill health caused by smoking. But it is clear that what we need is a broad approach, which considers the whole range of influences on smoking. That is the approach that the Government have sought to adopt, and one which has been shown to work. It requires an effort from the whole community—parents, teachers, health professionals, retailers, managers of public places and so on. There is no quick fix to this challenge. But with our combined efforts we can drive smoking rates down and meet our targets.
The amendments before us look only at one aspect of this whole problem and invest it with an importance which is out of all proportion to its possible impact. The amendments represent a narrow approach carried too far. I put it to the Committee that the case for the measures set out in the amendments has simply not been made. I urge the Committee not to support them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: There has not yet been a speaker from this side of the Chamber against the amendments, and I think that I should put that matter right.
I very much regret that the amendments have been put down. It is intolerable that we should be discussing such an important issue on the basis of an amendment to a very large Bill at ten minutes before midnight. We should have had a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading. We should have had a proper Bill, and not an attempt to hijack a criminal justice Bill in this way.
Having said that, I shall try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, is very concerned about children who smoke. So are we all. However, research shows that advertising has very little to do with encouraging children to start smoking. Peer pressure? Certainly. Parental example? Certainly. But advertising? Certainly not. There is no evidence to show that that is the cause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, dealt with the Smee Report, so I do not need to mention that. However, I shall mention that in Russia they have always had an advertising ban, and they smoke a damn sight more in Russia than we smoke here. That is a point that the Committee may wish to take into consideration.
I received a letter from my noble friend Lord Rea. He is a great chap, except on matters relating to smoking. He tried to persuade me of a great many things. He said that banning tobacco advertising is not the thin end of any wedge. I can assure him that it is the thin end of many a wedge.
I am very concerned about alcohol abuse. I believe that alcohol abuse is the greatest social; evil in this country. It is certainly far worse than smoking. When people drink alcohol in excess they do not simply injure themselves, they injure others, sometimes very badly. People who smoke do not fight outside public houses and knife people to death. They do not go home and beat up their wives and children because they have had a cigarette. But people who drink to excess do exactly that. So when we talk of smokers and advertising bans we should think of drinkers too. Smokers do not go out and kill people on the roads, but people who drink and drive kill many people on the roads.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Has the noble Lord not heard of the saying "Two wrongs do not make a right"?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was dealing with the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. I was pointing out that if this proposal sets a precedent for banning substances which people believe are harmful, then the very next one could be alcohol.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is that not what the noble Lord wants?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am dealing with a letter I have received and trying to point out that the amendment could be the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. I am sure that that will be so. I now refer to air pollution.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before my noble friend leaves the subject of alcohol, is he aware that for many years, because of the high alcohol content of spirits, the advertising of spirits on television has been banned?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, as has the advertising of cigarettes on television. The amendment goes further than that. It seeks a ban on all advertising of cigarettes. I am suggesting that a ban on all alcoholic liquor could follow. I am sure that my noble friend would not be pleased with that.
I was about to speak on air pollution, in particular from diesel vehicles. I understand that the PM10s are carcinogens. Benzine from cars is also a hazard. The National Bus Company, London Transport, and others who operate public transport services ban smoking on their buses while belching out poisonous fumes, especially in cities.
Airlines which also have anti-smoking policies dump thousands of tonnes of pollutants every year, especially near airports. Should we ban the advertising of all those products? We had better think about that aspect.
Some people believe that pollution is a bigger enemy than smoking. I cite that from The Times of 12th January. Who was stating that? It was Dr. John Ayres, an adviser to the Department of Health and consultant physician in Birmingham. So some people believe that there are greater dangers than tobacco smoking.
In his letter my noble friend states that tobacco kills one in four users. That is a good statistic. But I also derive from that that three out of four die from something else. Indeed, the statement is contradicted by the next sentence in the letter which states that smoking kills 300 people a day. However, a total of 1,753 people die every day. As a percentage of 1,753, 300 is only 17.1 per cent. Since 30 per cent. of the population smoke, it would appear from the figures quoted by Professor Julian and my noble friend Lord Rea that those who smoke have a better chance of survival than those who do not. I merely quote from my noble friend's letter and the official statistics.
I put a number of questions to the noble Baroness. I went to see her because I was concerned that smokers were being denied treatment under the National Health Service. I therefore put down a number of questions. One of them asked:
"What proportion of those people who die each year from so-called smoking related diseases smoke tobacco?"
The Written Answer was very interesting; I must read it to the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, stated:
"There are a number of diseases where smoking is a risk factor. The proportion of deaths which are attributable to smoking for each disease or group of diseases varies. Epidemiological studies suggest that of the 360,000 people who die from diseases where smoking is a risk factor, approximately 110,000 die prematurely from diseases which can be attributed to their smoking behaviour".—[Official Report, 10/1/94; col. WA7].
One is almost not allowed to die of anything but a smoke-related disease in this country. There are only 640,000 deaths a year. If, again, one does one's arithmetic, one finds that 110,000 expressed as a percentage of 360,000 is 30 per cent. You would expect 30 per cent. of smokers to die since there are 30 per cent.

128
of smokers in the population. Once again, we must examine the figures closely. That is an official Written Answer. It comes from the Government, not from me.
It seems that we have now reached a situation where we are told by the Government that 56 per cent. of all deaths have been from smoking-related diseases. The figure is hard to believe; nevertheless, if the Government say it, I suppose it must be true.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I also asked another Question. I am sorry that this is taking so long, but we need the facts. On 19th January I asked the Minister how many of the 50 million working days per year which the Minister for Health had recently stated were lost due to smoking related diseases involved people who smoked tobacco. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, replied:
'The 50 million working days is an estimate from the Royal College of Physicians' Report Smoking or Health. A copy is available in the Library".—[Official Report, 19/1/94; col. WA 49.]
Those were interesting figures, so I checked to find out how many working days per year in total were lost through sickness. Unfortunately, the Government did not have the figures, so I had to go to the CBI. What did I find? The CBI published a report on 3rd June 1994. It had carried out a survey. I found that 171,400,000 days were lost through sickness in 1993. If 50 million days are lost through smoking, that represents 29 per cent. of all working days lost through sickness. Since 30 per cent. of the population smokes, those who smoke are rather better attenders at work than those who do not smoke.
Midnight
Baroness Cumberlege: This is very entertaining; I am thoroughly enjoying it. However, I should like to point out to the noble Lord that the figures he uses are not comparable as the Royal College of Physicians' survey occurred in 1977 and the CBI's in 1994.
Lord Rea: The noble Lord's statistics are drawn out of a hat to suit his argument and have no basis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I merely quoted from the Answer which the Minister gave me. There was nothing about 1977 in that Answer. Therefore, since the Question was asked on 19th January 1994, I expected that the figures given were at that date. In any event, let me go on about the CBI report.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: May I ask the noble Lord what his contribution has to do with the amendment before the Committee?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It has everything to do with it. The amendments are based on claims made against tobacco smoking. I am trying to put those claims into perspective. The noble Lord may not like it. Whether or not he likes it—and it does not matter what the time is—many statements have been made, not only tonight but on other occasions, and I shall ensure that

129
what I have to say goes on the record. It is about time it went on the record. It is going there tonight, however much noble Lords may object.
The CBI report, Absence Through Sickness, gives all sorts of causes of absenteeism through sickness. There is no mention of smoking as a serious cause. The report mentions drinking and drugs; stress at work in regard to manual workers; and poor motivation. What it does not mention is smoking. Indeed, the report says that in 1990 £964 million was the cost of sickness due to alcohol abuse.
Members of the Committee may not like what I shall say. The other assertion that is made relates to passive smoking. We are told that 300 people a year die from passive smoking. I put down another question for the noble Baroness on 19th January 1994. I asked:
"Upon what irrefutable evidence the Minister for Health made his recent assertion … that one non-smoker a day was dying from lung cancer caused by passive smoking".—[Official Report, 19/1/94; col. WA50.]
The reply, at col. WA50, was:
"In their Fourth Report (published in 1988) the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health estimated"—
there was no proof, no evidence—
"the numbers of lung cancer deaths in non-smokers in the United Kingdom exposed to environmental tobacco smoke over most of their lives as 'several hundred deaths per year'".
So we are now working, not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of supposition. It really is remarkable that a government Minister should make a statement of that sort, based not on evidence but on supposition. I could go on and on about the subject—
Lord Beloff: Will the noble Lord give way? Does he not know the difference between a scientific estimate and a supposition? They are two quite different things.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, indeed. I shall answer the noble Lord's point. The fact is that in the reports that are mentioned the word "supposition" appears. That is why I used the word. But there is absolutely no evidence that passive smoking causes death or injury to other people.
Lord Rea: Nonsense. That is wrong.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My noble friend says it is wrong. But he can produce no irrefutable evidence that 300 people a year die from so-called passive smoking. In any event, 11 people per day die—this is absolutely factual information—in road accidents. Why not demand an advertising ban on road vehicles?
Now let us turn to the cost to the health service, which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned. I shall tell the noble Baroness what the latest estimate is. It is £600 million a year. But smokers contribute tobacco taxes amounting to £8.25 billion a year, which represents 22 per cent. of the total cost of the National Health Service. I say in conclusion—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, it is useful, and I am very glad to have the support of the Committee. I am sure that Members of the Committee have been interested in what I have had to say and will not object to all that going on the record. The fact is that smokers

130
have been treated abysmally. They have been refused treatment under the National Health Service. They have been made social outcasts on the basis of very thin evidence indeed. If the Committee accepts this and the other amendments tonight, I believe that it will be doing a grave disservice to free speech and individual freedom in this country. I hope therefore that the Committee will reject them out of hand.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. It has been absolutely fascinating and I was riveted by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. It brought to mind that famous line of Shakespeare:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
What harm would it do to ban the advertising of smoking? It would not do any harm at all. What good would it do? It would save a great number of lives. That is the key.
I understand that the tobacco companies have a problem. My heart bleeds for them. They have to recruit 300 new smokers a day to take the place of the 300 who die every day. So they have a problem. I have to admit that tobacco is unique among commercially available products in that it kills nearly half of its consumers -provided, of course, that it is is used exactly as intended by its manufacturers.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Lord agree that his amendments go much further than banning the advertising of tobacco and tobacco products in this country? They would also ban the importation of certain newspapers and magazines from overseas in exactly the same way as British publications are banned in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I thank all Members of the Committee for their contributions. I am sorry that some speakers did not approve of putting the amendments on the back of the Bill. It was a perfectly reasonable device and it would have ensured that the subject was discussed and voted upon in another place. I believe in democracy. If a vote were to take place in another place, I can assure that Committee that the amendment would be passed.
I shall take very careful note of all that has been said. I thank the Minister very much indeed for her very careful contribution. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164E to 164F not moved.]
[Amendment No. 164H had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]
[Amendment No. 165 not moved. ]
Clause 142 agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 166:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
("Unauthorised parking of vehicles on private land in England and Wales
Parking on private land
. The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring local authorities to issue licences for the use of immobilisation devices on private land and these regulations shall include the criteria by which local authorities shall grant a licence.").
The noble Lord said: This is a different subject and I hope that I shall be able to deal with it quickly. The amendment invites the registration by local authorities of the use of immobilisation devices, otherwise called wheel-clamping.
I am advised on this matter by the Magistrates' Association. It is carried on from the point at which it was raised in the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. On that occasion the Minister, my honourable friend Mr Maclean, expressed sympathy for the amendment but thought that licensing would be too bureaucratic. I shall come back to that point in a minute. He went on to say that there was no easy way of finding a decision at the moment. The amendment was narrowly defeated on a Division in Committee.
One could give examples of the frustrations of people who are wheel-clamped, especially the elderly who might be inconvenienced or indeed fearful, or women who might feel vulnerable when they cannot take away their car. My car was wheel-clamped recently in Waterloo Station because I was inadvisedly doing a reconnaissance to see whether or not there was somewhere to park. A sign said one could park at the back of the station, and I left the car for five minutes while I made an inquiry. When I returned, the car had been clamped. I had no objection to that in principle; they released me fairly quickly and it did not cost much money. But it was extremely irritating and could have been very inconvenient.
I only quote that as an example because I can see why people become frustrated and why in due course that leads to trouble, in some cases in the magistrates' courts. The fact is that if my amendment had been in force, unquestionably British Rail—or whatever it is now called—would have obtained a licence and the whole thing would have been perfectly straightforward.
The other factor is that there are certainly cowboy clampers operating and they need to be controlled in some way. The Home Office told the Magistrates' Association in March that it was still considering the matter. Its aim was to ensure that any measure to prevent or deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheel-clamping on private land did not prevent landowners from taking sensible measures to control genuine parking problems. That is a wonderful statement to excuse somebody from doing nothing at all, even if it is thought that it is something which should be dealt with.
The Magistrates' Association thinks that the position should be clear and that there should be basic rules for clamping which the public understand and which magistrates can apply and apply fairly. The sort of suggestions they are making for rules are that every company or landowner must register with the local authority and have an operating certificate valid for 12 months, a copy of which is to be sent to the local police; every person who carries out wheel-clamping will have to be named and registered with the local authority and the police; every person involved with clamping should hold a certificate of identification, including a photograph, with the name and telephone number of the company or landowner, and actual clampers should wear a company uniform if they are operating for a

132
company; companies must legally keep a register of any complaints against the company and that register should be available to any court on request.
That is all quite simple. There will not be a great many people wanting to register in a given police area and I do not believe the Government are right when they say that the system would be excessively bureaucratic. Local authorities have to carry out many other activities which are certainly no more complicated and sometimes much simpler. There are many good reasons, therefore, why we should have a solution of this sort. Something must be done. The amendment was suggested by both the AA and the RAC at an earlier time and I hope that the Government will give the matter sympathetic consideration as the Bill finishes its passage through Parliament. We may then be able to include in the Bill something on these lines. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I support my noble friend in his amendment, to which my name is also attached. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is to reply to the debate. It was in Scotland, back in June 1992, that the Scottish courts judged that wheel-clamping on private land in Scotland constituted extortion and theft. That was a fairly strong judgment made by the courts in Scotland. Following that, and in reply to a debate on this subject in another place on 16th July 1992, the Minister of State for the Home Department said:
"I, too, am aware of the considerable concerns on the subject … It struck me that many of the attitudes displayed … are akin to acts of piracy".
He went on to say:
"I give him the assurance that we will look at the matter with all urgency".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/92; cols. 1260–62]
Eight months later—in other words, in February 1993 —no doubt acting "with all urgency", the best the Government could do was to publish a consultation document listing six options for addressing the problem of wheel clamping. In all, some 184 organisations responded to that consultation exercise.
The RAC—noble Lords may be aware that I am a member of its public policy committee although I have no financial interest in it whatsoever—and the AA recommended the statutory licensing of land where wheel-clamping is to be permitted. At the same time the RAC urged the introduction of a code of conduct for wheel-clampers, proposing that clamping on unlicensed land should be a criminal offence and offenders prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. The motoring organisations noted the Government's request to cost recommendations and advocated a self-financing operation—in other words, that licensing fees should be fully adequate to cover all operational overheads.
Following further representations from the motoring organisations about the deafening silence from the Government following the conclusion of the consulta-tion period in May 1993, the Government replied on 4th March 1994 that,
"the consultation did not produce a consensus of opinion on the six options canvassed. The Government are still considering what action it might be appropriate to take".

133
That was 21 months after giving an assurance to Parliament that they would look at the matter "with all urgency".
Further evidence of the masterful inactivity was given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office when he said during the Committee stage of this Bill on the proposed amendment to establish a licensing regime for wheel clamping:
"I am still giving thought to what action it might be appropriate for the Government to take. The issue has proved one of the most difficult with which I have had to deal and I have not found easy solutions".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 8/3/94; col. 1264.]
The Government have now taken almost two years to reach the conclusion:
"A local authority licensing regime is not the right solution and we must consider others".
The Minister went on to say:
"I cannot give… an assurance that I shall find the solution within the next few weeks".—[Col. 1264.]
We must now really begin to fear that the Government, having spent some 84 weeks getting nowhere, may continue to consider the matter "with all possible urgency". The Government rejected the licensing option on the grounds of bureaucracy. The motoring organisations believe that the Government exaggerate the bureaucracy involved. Regulation could be operated in a simple way and on the basis of a self-financing operation. It may be noted that during these two years local authorities have been given considerable powers in respect of parking. Now, off the main roads, local authorities are responsible for meters, parking wardens and so on. Why is it so difficult to add this aspect of parking—in other words, wheel-clamping on private land—to that regime? Has not the time now come for the Government to agree to cease considering the matter "with all urgency" and simply agree to regulate?
When the courts in Scotland judged wheel-clamping extortion and theft, in June 1992, the Lord Justice General stated:
"In my opinion, an activity as sensitive to abuse as wheel-clamping requires careful regulation under the law, and if it is to be continued this should only be done under the authority of Parliament, as it is already in the case of the police".
I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate what now is the position in Scotland. Has there been any wheel-clamping in Scotland since that judgment in 1992, or has it all ceased? If that is the case, why is the law so different in Scotland from what it is in England and Wales now? Surely the time has come when we have to come to a conclusion on this matter.
Clamping by the police on the public highway is a carefully regulated matter. For example, you are not allowed to clamp vehicles belonging to disabled owners which display an orange badge. That is not allowed. That can happen now because there is no regulation for clamping on private land. This amendment simply seeks to introduce a regime for the regulation of clamping. I urge my noble and learned friend to give it all consideration and to tell us when we can expect some conclusions from the Government on this matter.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may say a very brief word in support of this amendment, following
134
on what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has said. As a disabled driver who would have enormous problems getting unclamped, I am very grateful for the protection which the orange badge gives against clamping in the street and in public places. I hope that the criteria and the regulations will contain similar provisions. I hasten to say that I endeavour not to park in clampable spots, but we all know that that can happen. Therefore, I warmly support the amendment.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My noble friend Lord Mottistone has raised this matter which is obviously of concern to everybody who has occasion to drive a car or who finds that cars are parked unlawfully on their land. As has been remarked, the position is different in Scotland as the result of the Black case in 1992. Without going into the matter in detail, it is sufficient to say that as regards the general background of the law relating to extortion or blackmail on the one hand, or theft on the other, the law in England is sufficiently different. The Scottish courts have reached one view. I am happy to say that they have reached it since I had occasion to argue a particular case and they supported the view which I argued. They reached that view but the law in England is different. I would not want to say more on that because, as some Members of the Committee are aware, a case is pending before the courts in England and Wales on the matter.
As to whether there has been any wheel-clamping on private land since the Black decision, I cannot say that there has not, but certainly we have no reason to believe that the decision has not been salutary. It is true to say, as my noble friends have said, that consideration of this matter has taken a long time. That is because it is difficult. The question has been raised as to whether or not it would be desirable to have clarity in the matter. As always with the law, it is desirable to have clarity, but it is also true that this is not an entirely straightforward matter.
On the one hand, it is quite clear that the kind of threats to which in particular women motorists, perhaps late at night, have been subjected, are wholly intolerable. On the other hand, it is equally true that people who park unlawfully on other people's land are doing something which is unlawful and intolerable and for which they have a right to a remedy. So one has to balance the various interests. It is that which has caused the difficulty here.
My noble friends have referred to the consultation document which did indeed give rise to a large number of views. As a result, we have had to consider those views. As my noble friends have said, that has taken a considerable length of time. My noble friend Lord Mottistone gave a particular version of regulations which has been proposed by the Magistrates' Association, but other versions have been put forward by other people, with other solutions. The Government are not convinced that the kind of licensing system which has been proposed by my noble friend would actually bring relief to motorists in the kind of situations which cause the most problems to them, and that it would clear the cowboys off the streets.

135
Nonetheless, it is true to say that the Government have been considering this matter for some time. It is complex, and although I realise that in the light of the time it has taken it may not be entirely reassuring to my noble friends, I can say that the Government will put forward proposals in the near future on this matter. I cannot go further than that, but in the light of that undertaking I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his new clause.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: But what, I wonder, does "in the near future" mean? After all, we had the Minister of State at the Home Office saying that it was going to be looked at with great urgency many light years ago. Now it is "in the near future". Does that mean before the Summer Recess, before this Bill comes for consideration at Report stage or at Third Reading? Really there is considerable public disquiet about this, as I think the noble and learned Lord recognises. He has added that as a result of this decision in the Scottish courts the problem appears to have been eliminated. Why cannot we have similar progress in England and Wales?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is true that the question of wheel-clamping has been eliminated. Whether the question of unlawful parking has been regulated in an entirely satisfactory manner is a matter which is perhaps open to question, and certainly it has been questioned by some people. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the matter was raised not exactly light years ago but on the 8th March when the remark to which he referred was made. I cannot say—I would if I could—that it will be within the timescale of this Bill. I cannot go further than to say that it will be brought forward as soon as possible and in the near future.
Lord Mottistone: I am sorry that my noble and learned friend has no more guidance than Mr. Maclean had in the other place when he was debating the matter in March. It struck me as we debated this -I throw this out for my noble and learned friend to consider - that I shall probably put down an amendment on these lines for the Report stage to see whether we can push it further. If the Government want this to come into force, it might be helpful if we had in this Bill a little clause giving the Secretary of State powers to make an order relating to wheel-clamping on private land. It need not say any more than that, but that would give the Government the underwritten power to go ahead and issue an order as soon as they had made up their minds. They might make their minds up at the end of the Summer Recess—who knows? People do work during the Summer Recess and so they would have this waiting for them. I shall leave this now, with a view to putting down an amendment on those lines at Report. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 143 to 145 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 166A:
After Clause 145, insert the following new clause:
"Access to computer material by constables, etc.
Access to computer material by constables and other enforcement officers
. —(1) In section 10 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (offence of unauthorised access not to apply to exercise of law enforcement powers), after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the following words—

"and nothing designed to indicate a withholding of consent to access to any program or data from persons as enforcement officers shall have effect to make access unauthorised for the purposes of the said section 1(1).

In this section "enforcement officer" means a constable or other person charged with the duty of investigating offences and withholding consent from a person "as" an enforcement officer of any description includes the operation by the person entitled to control access of rules whereby enforcement officers of that description are, as such, disqualified from membership of a class of persons who are authorised to have access."

(2) In section 17(5) of that Act (when access is unauthorised), after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the following words—
"but this subsection is subject to section 10." ").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 166A and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 179AA at the same time. These amendments make it clear that any notice purporting to prevent a police officer from gaining access to a computer system does not in itself make access unauthorised under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
It is possible to gain access via the telephone network to stores of electronic information known as "bulletin boards". Telephone numbers are advertised in computer magazines and members of the public with the appropriate equipment can dial into these systems. Many of these bulletin boards are operated by private individuals for perfectly innocent purposes. Some bulletin boards, though, have been used to convey obscene material, including child pornography. The police have drawn our attention to a possible impediment to the investigation of this problem.
Some bulletin boards have built into them a notice purporting to deny access to law enforcement officers. Such notices are deliberately intended to attract the protection of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which makes it an offence to gain unauthorised access to a computer.
The notice would not of course have any effect where the police had obtained a search warrant and had entered the premises concerned. However, it may apply where police are monitoring these systems or where they are carrying out preliminary investigations remotely; for instance, in a police station. The police would like to be able to gain access to these systems—in the same way members of the public can—without the fear that they may be committing a criminal offence.
This amendment does not give the police special powers to access private computer systems. Members of the public will remain entitled to operate computer systems to which they control access. The amendment simply makes it clear that the computer system's owner cannot invoke the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act in order to deny access to police officers while allowing access to every other member of the public.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I took the Computer Misuse Act 1990 through this House. At the time I had

137
no idea that there would be a misuse of the Act, as referred to by the noble Earl. I am certain that it is correct to put the matter right. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 146 agreed to.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 167:
After Clause 146, insert the following new clause:
("The Parole Board
. —(1) The Board which at the commencement of this section is known as The Parole Board shall be, by that name, a body Corporate and as such shall be constituted in accordance with, and have the functions conferred by, this Act.
(2) Schedule (The Parole Board: Supplementary Provisions) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Board.").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments concerns two important matters which relate to the Parole Board, of which I was chairman for six years in the 1980s. I am pleased to see in the Chamber, even at this hour, my predecessor and my immediate successor. In view of the hour, I shall deal with the amendments as briefly as possible.
Two unconnected matters are raised in this series of amendments. The first relates to the proposal to establish the Parole Board as a non-departmental public body. Amendments Nos. 167, 170, 176 and 178 deal with that. The second matter, to which I shall speak separately, relates to a flaw that has emerged in the legislation relating to recalls to custody.
Amendment No. 167 is a paving amendment for the substantial proposal contained in Amendment No. 170. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 176 and 178, which are consequential. In the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Parliament conferred significant new powers on the Parole Board. The two most significant were the responsibility to review and to take final decisions on the release of life sentence prisoners serving discretionary sentences of life imprisonment. The board was also given the duty to decide whether to release on licence prisoners eligible for parole who are serving sentences of four to less than seven years.
Moreover, because the local review committees are being phased out, the Parole Board is taking responsibility for some 5,500 interviews each year— about 100 interviews a week—of prisoners applying for parole. As a result of these and other factors, it will be seen that the Parole Board is becoming less of an advisory body and more of a decision-taking body. At the same time, its work is becoming increasingly diverse.
These amendments would establish the board as an executive non-departmental public body. Noble Lords may feel that that status is appropriate. It would mark the independence of the Parole Board from ministerial action, which has always been a hallmark of the system of parole since its inception.
I should be the first to admit that the drafting of this series of amendments, and in particular the very detailed drafting of Amendment No. 170, which is a new schedule, may not be perfect. I shall understand completely if the Government wish to take away the amendments to consider them before the next stage of the Bill. But an indication of support in principle from the Front Bench would be very welcome. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the need for these new clauses and the new schedule. The first new clause and the new schedule appear to be intended to give the Parole Board status as a non-departmental public body. The Government accept the need for that.
Before the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Parole Board was a purely advisory body offering recommendations to the Home Secretary on the early release of determinate and life sentence prisoners. As a result of changes introduced by the 1991 Act, it has now become more of an executive body, taking decisions on the early release of certain categories of prisoner.
In view of those changes to the role of the Parole Board, the Government agree that it should now become a non-departmental public body reflecting fully its independence and accountability in decision making. I understand that the board itself welcomes the prospect of becoming a non-departmental public body.
The other new clause suggested by my noble friend is, I believe, an attempt to rectify the current unsatisfactory arrangements concerning the recall to prison of people on parole. We welcome that. Where offenders misbehave while on parole, there is discretion to revoke their licence and to recall them to prison.
Until recently decisions to recall people on parole to prison in out-of-office hours were taken by officials on behalf of the Home Secretary. However, because of the way in which the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was constructed, two systems of recall are now running in parallel: one by the Parole Board; and the other by my right honourable friend. That is obviously not satisfactory. It is clearly desirable that there should be clarity and simplicity over a matter of this nature, and it has therefore been decided, in agreement with the Parole Board, that the decision to recall any people on parole should rest with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
We therefore welcome the new clause which my noble friend has tabled to try to achieve that. Unfortunately, the drafting of the amendment is, as he suspected, not perfect. If my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendments, I shall ensure that the Government will consider the matter and will table suitable amendments to achieve those aims at Report stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As a former chairman of the board, I welcome what the noble Earl said. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, indicated, the Parole Board has changed in character very dramatically. When I was chairman, it was an advisory body. It now has clearly defined executive responsibilities. That being so, it is sensible for its constitution to be reviewed in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, which the Government have now accepted. Therefore, I welcome both what has been said and what is to be done in that regard.
The hour is now after 12.40 a.m. When this discussion began, there were 12 Members of the Committee in the Chamber, three of them former chairmen and one the current chairman of the Parole

139
Board. Later this morning, there are before us a whole series of other criminal offences proposed either by Members of the Committee or the Government. In my view, that is no way to conduct public business.
The reason for the problems is the Long Title of the Bill—over 450 words. As a result of that, so far as I can see we can have a debate on any issue in the general area of criminal justice policy. But it is the Government's Bill. As it stands at present, it has over 150 clauses. I do not believe that this is a responsible way in which to consider legislation.
We expect people outside to obey the law of this country when it has been passed and adopted by both Houses of Parliament. That being so, it behoves us to ensure that, when we are considering that legislation, we do so in a responsible fashion. I do not believe that we are doing so when we are sitting here in an almost deserted Chamber discussing major changes to the law of this country.
12.45 a.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I see that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is about to rise to speak, but perhaps I may just precede him for a moment as I did in another capacity. I presided over the transitional stage when the 1991 Act was being put into effect by the Parole Board. It appears to me that the logic of what is now being suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and accepted by the Government is overwhelming. I am extremely glad to see it being put on the statute book.
Lord Belstead: I have just a brief few words to say. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who are both in favour of two amendments in the group. I should, first, declare an interest in the matter as I am the present chairman of the Parole Board. Having heard the response of my noble friend the Minister in which, as I understand it, he was good enough to say that he accepts the first two amendments in principle, I feel that we must now prepare ourselves.
However, perhaps I may ask my noble friend just one question. I looked with some care through the schedule to which some of the amendments in the group refer. In that schedule there is provision for pensions for both members and employees of the Parole Board. As my noble friend has already said that he wishes to take the amendments away for consideration there is no need for him to answer me tonight, but perhaps I may put to him the following point. I wonder whether the pension provisions need to be spelt out more fully; for example, to state that no pension scheme to which employees or some of the members may transfer should leave them worse off than they were previously. Of course, that is the kind of subject about which argument has raged during the passage of many Bills that have passed through this Chamber. I simply question whether that part of the schedule to which some of the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Windlesham refer perhaps needs some fleshing out.

140
Having said that, I simply thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his reply. However, before I sit down I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Windlesham on, if I may say so, getting a first in managing to get a group of amendments accepted which, in fact, is the second group of amendments to which he has not actually spoken. That is a remarkable achievement and shows the strength of his quiet, persuasive powers.
Earl Ferrers: I am all for expediting things where it is possible. With regard to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Belstead regarding pension pro-visions, I must say that they are always very important matters. When there are changes, it is important to ensure that the kind of pensions that people had been anticipating do continue. That is the kind of matter that we shall have to consider. As I explained previously, the amendments are not perfect and I shall certainly bear in mind the remarks made by my noble friend.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The noble Lord said that there were only 12 people in the Chamber when the debate started, four of whom were previous members of the Parole Board. If I may say so, I believe that to be a very concentrated membership of people with an interest in the subject. The noble Lord then went on to complain vigorously about conducting the Government's business at this hour of night. All I can tell the noble Lord is that, if it is disagreeable for him, it is also disagreeable for a number of other people, including myself.
However, the noble Lord will realise that we have made arrangements, which were agreed through the usual channels, that the Bill should be continued and finished today. We had a fascinating debate a few hours ago on tobacco which went on for about one-and-a-half hours; and, indeed, we had an equally fascinating debate much earlier for about eight hours which concentrated on sex and all its capacities and varieties.
If Members of the Committee wish to speak upon these matters, no one can stop them, but the result is that it then makes it difficult for other people who speak later. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will agree that all governments must have their plans and the way that we deal with these is agreed through the usual channels. It was agreed to proceed in this manner and I think that we should continue in this manner. I only hope that Members of the Committee will be slightly more restrained in their contributions than possibly was the case earlier today because obviously the longer people talk, the longer the proceedings will last. However, I think we are right to continue.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have just two comments following that, the first of which is about pensions, which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised. If there is any question of moving towards a resolution of this particular problem before the Report stage, perhaps the noble Earl could write to a number of us indicating the Government's thoughts on the matter. Of course it is, as he rightly recognised, a matter of considerable importance.

141
As regards the hour at which we are sitting, the problem is not some agreement reached through the usual channels—my own Chief Whip has not in fact assented to this arrangement; let me make that quite clear—but the length of the Long Title of the Bill. Once the Government decide to legislate on such a broad area as they have chosen to do for their own reasons—that is a decision by the Government, not by this House—and to produce a Long Title of such immense complexity, it is inevitable that there will be a prolonged Committee stage, particularly if there are going to be 150 clauses to the Bill. I must make it quite clear that, in my view, this is wholly unreasonable. I wish to say no more tonight but if this goes to the Report stage, when we are discussing similarly important questions in the early hours some of us will complain most vigorously.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think the noble Lord has done too badly this evening by complaining and I do not think it is really fair that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should complain about the Long Title and say that, because we have been stupid enough to produce a Long Title, we have to take the blame for everything that has been added to it. The noble Lord will realise perfectly well that, for instance, the matter of the age of consent was never part of the Bill when it started. It was added in another place and Members of the Committee today have tried to add more things. The result is that the Bill has become longer and longer. Any business of the Chamber can be conducted only by mutual consent and by mutual restraint. I can only say to the noble Lord that if Members of the Committee speak at considerable length—that is their right—then of course that prolongs the proceedings for other people. I just hope that we will be more expeditious in our work.
Baroness Seear: I agree but I should point out to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that most of the people who spoke at great length have now gone and left it to those who did not speak at great length to carry the can. Is it really absolutely impossible to move some of this onto a Friday? It really is extremely difficult to deal in a Committee of this size with matters of this importance when a great many of us are practically asleep anyway.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness does not look as if she is asleep at all. I think she is very much awake. Of course that is what happens—people come in the earlier part of the day, make their great speeches at quite substantial length and then buzz off. That then makes it very difficult for everyone else. I understand the frustration of the noble Baroness, which I share, but one cannot control the Chamber. I think that if we were to try to move this business to a Friday that would cause as many complications as it would resolve.
Lord Windlesham: In view of the satisfactory nature of the reply given by the Minister on the Front Bench, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 168:
After Clause 146, insert the following new clause:
( "Amendments of the Criminal Justice Act 1991
.—(1) Subsection (4) of section 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (which provides for the transfer by Order of certain functions to the Parole Board) is hereby repealed.
(2) Schedule 5 to that Act (The Parole Board) is hereby repealed.").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, pointed out, the Minister was good enough to accept this amendment in principle before it had been moved. I am very grateful to him for that. I simply ask him to bear in mind when further consideration is given to the proposal that the purpose of Amendments Nos. 168 and 177 is to amend the procedural arrangements for the recall of prisoners who have been released on licence, particularly in emergencies—which are highly unsatisfactory as the result of an unintended provision in the 1991 Act—and not the substantive decision on whether to confirm or reject the actual decision, which properly belongs to the Parole Board. It is not proposed that that should be altered. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I offer my apologies if I have inconvenienced the Committee. I spoke to that amendment merely because the amendments wen; grouped together and I thought that that would be a convenient way of dealing with it. I apologise if I inconvenienced my noble friend.
Lord Windlesham: There is no need for my noble friend to apologise. I am delighted with the way he has handled the amendments. As a last word in relation to the Parole Board, perhaps I may point out that such is the interest and importance of the subject that the audience in the Chamber has been increasing steadily. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 168A:
After Clause 146, insert the following new clause
( "Visual recordings of public events
.—(1) Without prejudice to any power which they may exercise for those purposes under any other enactment, a local authority may take such of the following steps as they consider will, in relation to their area, promote the prevention of crime or the welfare of victims of crime—

(a) providing apparatus for recording visual images of events occurring on any land in their area;

(b) providing within their area a telecommunications system which, under Part II of the Telecommunications Act 1984, may be run without a licence;

(c) arranging for the provision of any other description of telecommunications system within their area or between any land in their area and any building occupied by a public authority.

(2) Any power to provide, or to arrange for the provision of, any apparatus includes the power to maintain, or operate, or, as the case may be, to arrange for the maintenance or o[>eratior, of, that apparatus.
(3) Before taking such a step under this section, a local authority shall consult the chief constable of the relevant police authority.
(4) In this section "local authority" means a county council or a district council.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very straightforward amendment. Its purpose is to provide local authorities with specific power to spend money on closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance schemes. The clause is designed to help prevent crime and anti-social behaviour, and it should also reduce fear of crime. As such it accords entirely with the purpose of the Bill.
There are no public expenditure implications. The amendment does not seek additional financial resources for local authorities. It seeks only to give local authorities throughout England and Wales a clear legal power to install and maintain the provision of CCTV surveillance in the council's area.
These schemes are often the product of partnerships between local authorities, the police and local businesses. However, local authorities are finding that they are restricted in the extent to which they can contribute to CCTV schemes, particularly comprehen-sive town centre schemes which provide protection for property and visitors on the streets of our towns. There are currently no specific legal powers under which local authorities may encourage expenditure on these schemes, which extend wider than protection of the council's property or functions.
A scheme which covers only a council's housing estate would be permitted as incidental to the council's housing management. Similarly, one restricted to its leisure centres or its car parks would be incidental to those functions. However, that does not extend to town centre surveillance. Those cities which have received funding under central government initiatives—for example, Safer Cities or City Challenge—have been able to fund CCTV from that source. Where CCTV is not strictly for the protection of the council's own property the only power under which a local authority can incur expenditure on such schemes is under the general power to help communities under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. Expenditure under that section is strictly cash limited to £1.90 per head of population, such that many authorities, particularly smaller district councils, are quite unable to use that power to fund CCTV schemes.
This clause is not a brand new innovation. It is modelled on a legislative provision in the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Act 1990, which the Government did not oppose during the passage of the Bill. In other words, the London boroughs already have the power that this clause seeks to give to our local authorities elsewhere in England and Wales.
As I have already said, the clause has no financial implications. It enables the council to choose to fund such a scheme within its overall budget considerations and reflecting its own local priorities. I hope that my noble friend will be able to take a generous view of the clause because it is causing some anxiety and the district councils outside London would like to be placed on the same footing as the London boroughs. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend asks me to take a generous view of the clause; and indeed I can tell her that I shall do that. The Government are sympathetic to the aims of the amendment which my noble friend has put down. I am bound to tell her that we could not accept the amendment at this stage. We could not accept that the new clause is necessarily the right way to remove the uncertainty which appears to exist. However, I can assure my noble friend that we shall consider the amendment. I shall report back to the House as a result of the considerations. I hope that on that basis my noble
144
friend will be good enough to withdraw her amendment in order to allow me to consider the points that she has made.
Baroness Flather: I thank the Minister for his words of hope and expectation. I look forward to the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 147 [Sale of tickets for designated football matches by unauthorised persons]:
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 168B:
Page 119, line 27, leave out from second ("a") to end of line 29 and insert ("sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 169ZA to 169ZD.
Clause 147 makes it an offence,
"for an unauthorised person to sell, or offer.… for sale, a ticket for a designated football match in any public place".
The proposed amendments seek to extend the coverage of that from just football to all sporting events where more than 6,000 tickets are offered for sale.
I begin, first, by praising the Minister and the Government for introducing in Clause 147 the ban on football touting. As a spokesman on sport, I should add that a number of measures have recently been implemented—restricting racial chanting, invading the pitches, and now the ticket touting—which have made football safer and more enjoyable to watch. Together with the excellent reforms on VAT for bloodstock and on Sunday racing, to which we look forward, the Government's record in relation to professional sport is really quite good. Most of the measures have been in response to pressure from the Opposition and Back-Benchers on all sides. I wish not only to congratulate the Government on their concessions, but to promise to keep up the pressure.
The amendments in my name are supported by noble Lords from the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and noble Lords from the Government Back Benches, the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. They will not themselves delay the Committee tonight. They fully support the amendment but do not wish to speak at this late hour.
We do not seek to criticise the Government's approach in the Bill, but simply to make a logical extension of the legislation to cover all sporting events at which more than 6,000 tickets are sold. That figure is not accidental. We do not wish to burden the police and authorities with regulating smaller events where there is normally no problem. But 6,000 is a number which covers both the No. 1 Court and the Centre Court at Wimbledon. It also clearly involves Twickenham, Cardiff Arms Park, Lord's, top golf, horse race and motor race venues. So it is targeted just to the areas where the problems exist.
I gather from previous discussions that some Ministers believe that ticket touting is a law and order problem only in football, and that elsewhere in sport it is simply a case of the free markets operating. That is deeply mistaken. There is much evidence that ticket touting has been taken over by professional criminals in

145
other sports. It does not mean that all other sports are identical to football; we are not saying that it is an identical problem. This problem takes a different form in different sports. But the common element is the criminal element. The sporting bodies have documented the tactics used by touts to get tickets. Their actions regularly include fraud, theft, deception, forgery and intimidation. Those involved are often organised into Mafia-style gangs; and to obtain tickets they steal in the post, they mug ticket-holders in the street and steal from the hands of children.
I have the support for this view and for these amendments from the relevant governing bodies of the various sports from the All England Lawn Tennis Club, from the Test and County Cricket Board, the MCC, the Rugby Football Association and the Professional Golfers' Association. I have plenty of material available.
If the Minister has doubts about the criminality of touting elsewhere than in football, he should go and look for himself: talk to the police at Wimbledon, go there this week and see the criminals in action. As a reward, he might drop in at the Centre Court as part of his observations.
Sporting bodies such as Wimbledon have been forced into self-policing, including making tickets non-transferable and invalidated if transferred. But this transfers the penalty to the customer, the ordinary tennis-lover, often a tourist, who pays a high price for a ticket which is then worthless. That is deception and fraud, but currently not clearly a pursuable offence. That is surely wrong.
Wimbledon has done what it can through self-policing, but now confesses that this cannot be enough. The club has stated:
"We now look for further protection. A senior official of the club has stated that there is clear evidence of organised crime moving into this area".
"We have every indication that the people who are involved in ticket-touting in New York, who had to be driven out by the authorities there, have moved their activities across the Atlantic because there are such large sums of money to be made".
Today a man was before the courts in Wimbledon charged with deception. He was in possession of 100 tickets. But it is much more effective to stop this if there is a clear offence of touting. The officer in charge of policing Wimbledon tennis championships, Chief Inspector Coates, last week publicly called for new laws against touting in all sports, not just football. He said:
"The ticket touts will operate anywhere where there is money to be made, not just at big football matches. I would like to see the Government take the opportunity to legislate against touting per se".
That is precisely what we are seeking.
Ticket touting is a public order issue, not just in relation to football. There is evidence from the Police Federation that the police are concerned at the growth of criminality, at the extent of public nuisance involved and that under the present law they can do little about it. The answer is not a jumble of self-regulation, growing up in various sports introduced by various governing bodies and backed by private security agents. That is not desirable and not effective.
The answer is to deal with this serious and growing law and order problem and to deal with the criminal

146
elements increasingly involved in it and to do so, I suggest, by these simple amendments. The Government have conceded the principle that ticket touting is a matter for criminal law, by applying it to football. There is in my view no logical or practical distinction between the criminals who tout tickets at Wembley and the gangs —so far legal—who tout at Wimbledon, Twickenham, Lord's or York Races. The amendment makes that logical improvement. I trust that the Minister will accept it in the positive and helpful spirit in which it is moved. I shall listen very closely to his reply. I beg to move.
1.15 a.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. In my view it does not go quite far enough. The noble Lord has shown how places like the All England Tennis Club, the cricket clubs, rugby football and so forth suffer badly from ticket touts in general and the illegal sale of tickets.
I should like to extend the: thought for one moment to the field of the theatre. As the Members of the Committee know, there are some excellent productions in London, and indeed elsewhere, for which tickets are extremely hard to come by. The sale price of such tickets is whatever is thought to be the right price. But in relation to, for instance, "Phantom of the Opera", for which I understand one cannot get tickets even now for some nine months ahead, it is possible for ticket touts to sell tickets at considerably more than face value.
The net effect is that if people are prepared to pay, say, £100 for a ticket which has a face value of some £25 or £30, then money which should go into the arts, the support of the theatre, the artistes taking part, and so on, will be diminished. Therefore it would be desirable if the principle of these amendments might perhaps be accepted. I ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether the question of the theatre and that sort of touting (not at sporting events) might perhaps be looked at.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Minister said earlier, in justified self-defence, that we had spent many hours discussing various sexual practices —most of which seemed to be buggery. Not having the same intense interest in buggery as some other Members of the Committee who were then present, I thought that I might productively occupy myself by looking at Clause 147(1). I took an example for myself: if I had a ticket for a football match for which I had paid £20 and was not able to go, and met the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in a public house and said: "My Lord, would you like this ticket for £25?" I believe I would be committing an offence under Clause 147(1). The serious point I make is that Clause 147(1) as presently drafted makes it,
"an offence for an unauthorised person"—
me in my example, because I am not,
"authorised in writing to sell tickets for the match by the home club or by the organisers"—
to sell to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate,
"or offer or expose for sale, a ticket for a designated football match"—

147
a designated football match of course being a match designated under the Football (Offences) Act 1991. Is this offence really intended to catch that sort of innocent activity? I rather doubt it.
Lord Burnham: Obviously at this hour of the morning I shall be brief. I find it extraordinary that a clause should be sent to us from another place with this very curious and inadequate wording. I have to confess that I have not read Section 1(1) of the Football (Offences) Act, but it seems curious that it would be an offence to offer for sale tickets for an association football match, a rugby football match, an American football match or the wall game, but not, on this the second day of Wimbledon, a ticket for Wimbledon. Therefore I ask my noble friend the Minister to look at this clause again. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret raised the question of theatrical events, but the amendment that we are debating, on which I give the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, my fullest support, talks about sporting events.
In asking my noble friend the Minister to look again at this matter, will he consider the question of 6,000 seats? I am not certain whether Wembley Arena, Olympia, Earl's Court, whatever the place is called in Sheffield, and the NEC in Birmingham have in fact more than 6,000 seats. I understand that they are on the borderline. However, at all of them events are conducted from which one would hope that ticket touts would be banned. Therefore, in support of the noble Lord, I ask that this clause be looked at in detail in order that it may cover a wider field of sporting events.
Earl Ferrers: I was very excited when the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, rose to move this amendment, as indeed I always am excited when the noble Lord gets to his feet. He started by praising the Government for what they had done about ticket touting and VAT on horses. He said that the Government had done very well for the sports part of the world. I am deeply grateful for that. He then claimed credit for all that had happened just because the Opposition had prodded the Government to do it. Well, he is entitled to obtain his credits where he can.
Lord Donoughue: Perhaps I may correct the noble Earl. I included Back-Benchers from all other sides. I do not wish to take away from them the great credit.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is always generous. He has been generous again this evening in claiming that not all the credit was due to him—which, of course, it was not. Quite a lot of it is due to the Government. He continued with the intriguing suggestion that perhaps we would like to go to Wimbledon this week to see what would happen. I should be delighted to do so. But noble Lords like to keep the Front Benches here until 1 o'clock in the morning and so we cannot always go to Wimbledon.
I appreciate that for quite a lot of people ticket touting is rather offensive and a disagreeable and unpleasant activity. People do not like it. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret suggested that tickets for "The Phantom of
148
the Opera" are very hard to come by and that the money that goes into the purchase of such tickets does not go to where it should; namely, on the arts.
I do not believe that that is true. I travelled in a taxi the other day and saw on the partition a note that there were two tickets for, I think, "The Phantom of the Opera", for £120 each. I was rather surprised to see it and asked the taxi driver about the tickets. He said that he, his wife and two friends intended to go to "The Phantom of the Opera" (if it was that show) and he had bought four tickets, not realising that his friend had also bought two tickets. So he was going to sell them. He had paid £120 each for them. Therefore he had two extra tickets which he wanted to get rid of. I cannot see anything basically wrong in that. The £120 for those tickets would not have gone to the theatre because the tickets were bought from the theatre at the original price. In that instance the market price was what people were prepared to pay. Therefore, from that point of view I do not feel that touting itself is wrong. If there is a market for a ticket for Wimbledon or a ticket for "The Phantom of the Opera", it is the same kind of market as there may be for a piece of antique furniture and it has to find its own level.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate to apply the criminal law to prohibit people reselling tickets which they had perfectly lawfully obtained. If people want to buy tickets from touts, they should be able to do so. After all, nobody is obliged to pay the price that the tout asks. But that is very different from tackling a public order and public safety problem when ticket touting is made an offence in relation to football. There is very little evidence that the same circumstances apply to other forms of sport or recreation as they do to football. The fact is that Lord Justice Taylor identified two evils over Hillsborough. He said first that the presence of ticket touts outside football grounds can act as a focus for disorder since it encourages those without tickets to travel to the ground hoping to obtain them which can sometimes result in unruly behaviour.
Secondly, he was concerned about the effect of the indiscriminate sale of tickets by touts. Ticket touts are in no way fastidious as to whom they sell their tickets. That can result in supporters of one team finding themselves propelled into the middle of the opposing team's fans with all the potential for mayhem and public disorder which that would have. Action was therefore necessary for reasons of public order and public safety.
That is the reason we introduced this part of the Bill. The conditions that apply to football matches do not apply, for instance, in the circumstances of Wimbledon, a cricket match or indeed Henley. Of course, should public disorder occur during the cricket week at Canterbury or the Henley Regatta, or for that matter the ice dancing championships, then we could take appropriate action. But frankly that is not very likely.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was perfectly correct. He said that if he met my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate in some place and my noble and learned friend offered him a football ticket at above the appropriate price, he would be touting and creating an offence. As one might expect of a lawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Mostyn, is perfectly correct; my

149
noble and learned friend would be indulging in an offence and I dare say that in accepting the ticket the noble Lord, Lord Mostyn, would be also. The fact is that that is touting of a football ticket and the reason one does not want touting of football tickets is because of the mayhem and public disorder which can result from such touting. But that does not apply in cases such as cricket matches, Henley, Wimbledon or anywhere else. That is the reason the Government do not feel moved to go along the road suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, because it is not a public order problem.
Viscount Mountgarret: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps he would be kind enough to explain to me —I seem to have very little brain at the moment—the difference between a tout for the sale of tickets at a football match and a person who touts the sale of tickets to the theatre, Ascot and so forth. Are they not all ticket touts?
Earl Ferrers: I can quite understand my noble friend finding that his brain cells are not working too well at this hour of the morning. I tried to explain the difference. Lord Justice Taylor indicated that a problem of public order may arise at a football match. At football matches sometimes the problem of fights and mayhem occur. That does not normally happen at Ascot—at least not while I have been there—or at "The Phantom of the Opera" or the ice dancing championships. That is the difference.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: When the noble Earl refers, for understandable reasons, to the report of Lord Justice Taylor, as he then was, and says that that is what differentiates football from any other sport, the obvious answer is that Lord Justice Taylor was invited to produce a report on Hillsborough; he was not asked to adjudicate on wider issues involving other sports. The implication therefore that Lord Justice Taylor was opposed to widening this area of concern is entirely mistaken.
Earl Ferrers: That is one of the most extraordinary interventions I think I have ever heard. Of course Lord Justice Taylor was not asked to look at the village cricket match; there was no outbreak of violence at the village cricket match. There was terrible violence at Hillsborough and that is why Lord Justice Taylor was asked to look at that specific problem. As a result of looking at it, he made various suggestions. He made suggestions for football in general because that is where the problems arise; they do not arise outside the theatre showing "The Phantom of the Opera".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: One must not get too excited. The fact that it is 1.25 a.m. is probably why the noble Earl is beginning to jump up and down. The point was clear. The noble Earl constantly said, "Lord Justice Taylor says this, that and the other", the implication being that he was making proposals in relation to football and was not making them in relation to other sports. The point is an obvious one: he was only asked to look at the situation involving football.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Is not the true explanation that what the Minister said was perfectly

150
correct; namely, that he is not objecting to the selling of tickets per se but to the consequences in a particular area? It seems to me—I am sorry to be helpful —that that is a sensible explanation. However—and now the barb—I seriously question, again seeking to be helpful, whether the Government want to make the kind of informal transaction to which I referred earlier a criminal offence. It is very similar to the example of the taxi driver with the two legitimate tickets that he wants to sell on reasonable grounds. If he was doing that in a place to which the public have access—namely, a taxi —and the noble Earl had been sufficiently misguided to yield to temptation and sufficiently in funds to be able to afford to yield, they would both have been committing an offence. I respectfully suggest that the provision does need looking at.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but is my noble friend really suggesting that we have to wait until there is a disturbance or unacceptable rowdyism at the All England Tennis Club, at the Marylebone Cricket Club, and so on, before Lord Justice Taylor or some other Lord Justice is invited to comment on that? We have the opportunity here in the format of these amendments to deal with the matter of touts in general. That is all I am trying to say. I ask my noble friend whether he would be kind enough to look at this rather more seriously as I and many others think it is a very serious matter.
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to keep on, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would say, jumping up and down., and I am not getting at all excited about it. I am just getting rather frustrated having to say the same thing time and time again because my noble friend does not seem to understand it. If people want to pay £120 for a ticket, they are entitled to pay £120 for a ticket. If my noble friend wishes to buy a pair of shoes from a shop, he can pay £50. If he wants to have them specially made, he can pay £1,500. The choice is his. If because he buys a ticket that is likely to cause a riot, as a result of which people will be hurt and damaged, we have to take other steps.
In all the instances which have been given—whether it is tickets for "The Phantom of the Opera", Wimbledon or any of these other places—there has been no evidence of public riot, public trouble or public mayhem, and therefore there is no point in introducing controls. In the case of Hillsborough, this matter was looked at. One forgets that when that happened football was going through a very dangerous time. Thank goodness it has become a lot better. One of the reasons for the problem was touting. People came to football matches because they hoped to buy a ticket, at some exorbitant price, and hoped to get in. If the touts were indiscriminate they might feed into one part of the football ground the supporters of the other side, and therefore there could be trouble. That is why it was suggested that touting should not take place.
I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that if one has a ban and one takes an absurd example like, if I may suggest so, the noble Lord did, of course one will produce an absurdity. But the point is that there should be a ban to prevent touting If he buys

151
a ticket from my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and that creates an offence, that by itself sounds absurd. But that is because the noble Lord takes an absurd example.
Lord Donoughue: I want the Minister to concentrate on the points which I made and which he has not focused on. He seems preprogrammed to focus on Hillsborough and public mayhem. I believe that the criminal law is not only concerned with public mayhem. We have a good deal of consideration of legislation here which is not wholly public mayhem. It may be between two young individuals.
I was quoting something for which there is evidence —criminal behaviour in relation to ticket touting. That includes deception, fraud, physical intimidation and theft. It is irrelevant whether there are not 500 people doing it. What is relevant is that there is criminal behaviour in relation to touting. In some areas it encourages corruption in the provision of tickets which, if there was not touting, there would not be the temptation to corruptly make tickets available.
The Minister has focused on one narrow area. He has focused on the Taylor Report. I agree wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that Taylor was not asked to look at anything else. Had he been asked to look at tennis and Wimbledon he might have come up with further shocking revelations and recommendations. The fact that he did not look at it and the fact that he was looking at public mayhem mean that it is fairly marginal to the points which I am raising.
There are serious issues here of concern to the Committee; of concern for public order and the criminal law. The evidence is available. AH the authorities in these sports have asked for something to be done. In my experience these are not wild bodies. I have in mind Wimbledon, the MCC and even the authorities of rugby football. They wish for something to be done because they feel that there is a matter of serious concern which requires the law to intervene. We are proposing a simple way. It is being done for football. We are simply saying that there is no logical distinction at this level between football and the other sports. It is quite simple to apply this proposal to the others.
I found the Minister's reply very unhelpful. He may underestimate the amount of support for these amendments. That would be demonstrated if it were a more reasonable hour. I would like the Minister to examine the points made.
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to prolong the matter much longer, but I must say this. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that I was pre-programmed on to Hillsborough and public mayhem. I can only say that at this hour I am glad that I have been pre-programmed on to something because otherwise I would be completely speechless.
The fact is that matters such as forgery, theft and fraud are already criminal offences. So too is misleading information about the face value of a ticket, which is an offence under the Consumer Protection Act. Those matters are already offences. My understanding is that Wimbledon has done a great deal over the past few years

152
to organise itself and its tickets so that there is as little touting as possible. I disagree with the noble Lord when he says that there is no logical distinction between football and other sports. I believe that there is, because it is only as regards football that there has been public order trouble. It has not occurred with rugger, cricket, rowing or tennis.
I shall consider all that has been said. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that the only reason why this measure is in the Bill is because of the public order part of it which does not appear in other forms of sport.
Baroness Seear: I do not want to prolong this matter. If it is to be considered any more I am on the side of the Minister on this occasion. Surely, we need a definition of touting. I can see a distinction between selling which arises out of illegal activity through fraud and stealing and so on and what is simply creating a market by having the foresight to buy up tickets and then sell them at a profit. It may not be a very nice habit but I see very great difficulty in banning it when other forms of making a market are perfectly legal.
Can we have a definition of touting, if we are to continue along this line, which distinguishes it from the straightforward process of forming a market and selling tickets at a profit because the middle man, so to speak, has anticipated a rise in price? That is how markets have always operated, is it not?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness is quite right. I do not know whether it would be particularly helpful to get a definition of touting. What happens is a perfectly acceptable transaction.
If the authorities, at Wimbledon, Henley or anywhere else, are prepared to sell tickets at £10 and somebody else then sells those tickets at £100, it is perfectly logical to conclude that possibly they should not be sold at £10 but at £100 if that is what the market takes. That is where one enters the area of what the market will sustain. I do not believe it would be helpful to have a definition of touting: it is not the definition that is important but what actually happens. I come back to the argument I have used previously. Where touting takes place at football matches, that is where you get public order trouble. It does not happen in other places. It may be disagreeable to some if people are walking around saying, "Would you like a ticket for Wimbledon for £200?" However, they would not do it if somebody was not prepared to pay £200.
Lord Donoughue: I am still not at all happy with the Minister's response. I have explained why. I do not think it is simply a market operating. If you were to go to Wimbledon and see the touts operating, or operating as they operate in some other places, it is not just some happy little country market. There is often physical intimidation and the cornering of the market. At this late hour I will not seek to take the opinion of the Committee but I shall come back to the matter again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 169 to 169ZD not moved.]
Clause 147 agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 169ZE:
After Clause 147, insert the following new clause:
Touting for hire car services
(" .—(1) Subject to the following provisions, it is an offence, in a public place, to solicit persons to hire vehicles to carry them as passengers.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not imply that the soliciting must refer to any particular vehicle nor is the mere display of a sign on a vehicle that the vehicle is for hire soliciting within that subsection.
(3) No offence is committed under this section where soliciting persons to hire licensed taxis is permitted by a scheme under section 10 of the Transport Act 1985 (schemes for shared taxis) whether or not supplemented by provision made under section 13 of that Act (modifications of the taxi code).
(4) It is a defence for the accused to show that he was soliciting for passengers for public service vehicles on behalf of the holder of a PSV operator's licence for those vehicles whose authority he had at the time of the alleged offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(6) In this section—
"public place" includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise); and
"public service vehicle" and "PSV operator's licence" have the same meaning as in Part II of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.
(7) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (i) inserted by section 137 of this Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(j) an offence under section (Touting for hire car services) (touting for hire car services);".").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 167ZE and 178ZEA are complementary and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall deal with them together. The purpose of the proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 147 is to enable the police to take effective action against the people who tout for passengers for vehicles acting as unlicensed taxis. This is a serious problem, particularly in London.
There are two aspects to the problem. The more serious is the tout who preys on strangers and tourists, especially at railway stations and at airports, in particular Heathrow. Such people set out to fleece their victims and if they protest about the charges that are eventually levied, then the passengers are likely to lose their luggage, if nothing worse. The police at the London stations and at Heathrow have struggled to deal with the problem. They have had a degree of success but it has been at a high cost in resources. The aim of the amendment is to focus on this activity and to simplify the procedure of dealing with the offence.
The other aspect is where the touts do not own the cars concerned but offer the services of minicabs or private hire vehicles in the street or where the vehicle drivers themselves offer their car services outside pubs and clubs at closing time. In those circumstances the car is being used as an unlicensed taxi and there is always a risk that the driver may have no valid insurance. If something goes wrong and the passenger is injured he may have no redress against a person who is not insured. That is clearly undesirable and the clause would seek to make it an offence. The complementary amendment,

154
Amendment No. 178ZEA, would mean that the new clause came into force immediately on the passing of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am in favour of the amendment. Undoubtedly, there is a great deal if dishonesty among a limited number of people who are involved in this trade. As the noble and learned Lord said, the problem is significant, in particular in London and at Heathrow. Such people prey upon visitors, whose knowledge of English is inadequate, and present them with bills of a monstrous size.
I am entirely persuaded of the desirability of the amendment, even though it has the effect of lengthening an already very long Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 148 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 169A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 170 not moved. ]
Schedule 9 [Minor Amendments]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 151, line 49, at end insert:
"Forfeiture of dogs.
4B.—(1) In section 4 above (provision as to seizure and forfeiture) there shall be added "any dog used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of the offence" to the list of items which a police constable may seize, and which a court may direct be forfeited.
(2) Where a dog has been used or was present at the commission of an offence, the court, on convicting the offender, may in addition or in substitution for any other punishment, make either or both of the following orders—

(a) an order for the destruction or other disposal of the dog;

(b) an order disqualifying the offender, for such period as it thinks fit, for having custody of a dog.

(3) Any dog which has been seized and removed by a constable under section 4 may be retained in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) below.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations regulating the retention and safe keeping of any dog seized under section 4, and may prescribe charges in respect of the removal, retention, disposal and destruction of dogs.
(5) Any authority shall be entitled to recover from a person from whom a dog has been seized such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the removal, retention, disposal and destruction of the dog by the authority.
(6) Any charges under subsection (5) above shall be recoverable as a simple contract debt.
(7) Any authority having custody of dogs under regulations under subsection (4) above shall be entitled to retain custody until any charges under subsection (5) are paid.
(8) Any person who has custody of a dog in contravention of an order under subsection (2) above is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: Sadly, many Members of the Committee will be only too familiar with the problems of poaching and illegal coursing and the violence associated with that. These poachers are not the charismatic characters that history portrays. They are ruthless, cruel and selfish. They damage property during their illegal activities. They inflict cruelty on the deer or the hare because they seldom kill cleanly. They are

155
particularly violent, often threatening and assaulting anyone attempting to control them, including the police. In fact, they disturb the peace.
The amendment would allow dogs, usually of the lurcher type, which have been used for poaching to be seized by the police and, if the court so rules, to be destroyed. That would be a real deterrent because the lurchers used are highly-prized, demanding high prices not least because large sums of money are waged on them. Therefore, large fines are a relatively small deterrent compared with the seizure of the dogs and the possible destruction of the prized lurchers.
Moreover, if the police have to hold the dogs that they seize the owners would be more than prepared to pay for their kennelling in order to try to gain repossession. The amendment to the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 would bring the law into line with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Section 13(1) (a) of that Act states that the court may make:
"an order for the destruction or other disposal of the dog".
I suggest that what is right for the badger is also right for the deer or the hare. The amendment is strongly supported by the NFU, the CLA and the RSPCA. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ferrers, if he were here, would find that the police support the amendment because it provides that they do not have to pay for the kennelling of the seized dog.
I realise that due to the earliness of the hour the Committee will not now wish to discuss the matter in detail. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger will be prepared to say that he will consider this increasingly serious problem. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley. I am sure that not many Members will speak on it tonight. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend realises that there is a strong belief that these provisions should be included in the Bill. Instead of digging in their toes, as I understand the Government have been inclined to do, it would be helpful if they would think more seriously about this matter between now and Report stage.
I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee by citing examples, but it must be obvious that where a fairly unpleasant animal is taken by somebody in order to commit an offence—whether it is a break-in, poaching or whatever—it has a direct effect on those activities. It is wrong that those people should not be penalised if caught. I hope that this amendment will receive a great deal of consideration.
1.45 a.m.
Earl Peel: I too support the amendment. I believe that my noble friend has identified a problem which is increasing at an alarming rate in rural areas. It is occurring not just in the urban conurbations; it is a problem which is reaching way into the countryside. There are far too many cases in which employers and employees, when confronting gangs of those people, are met with increasing levels of violence.
156
The laws on poaching in the Game Act are complicated and, in many cases, outdated. However, I believe that this amendment gives us the opportunity to put right what I would describe as an obvious error without opening a can of worms. It seems to me quite logical.
I should like to raise another point in connection with game management. That is an extremely precise business. The culling of deer is conducted indiscrimi-nately by those individuals with their dogs. That makes it extremely difficult for the owner of the land to manage his deer in a way which is sustainable both in terms of quantity and quality. That is a very important point which should be taken into account when considering this matter. The same also applies to hares. Although it has been demonstrated clearly that the demise of hares has been caused largely by road accidents and what I may describe as unsympathetic cropping, there are areas in which hare populations are very low indeed and where they should not be killed by any method whatever, whether through poaching or non-poaching.
My noble friend has identified a problem which needs to be dealt with. I am sure that the only effective way in which to prevent the problem is through the control of the dogs. The dogs are the mainstay of the poachers. Although we welcome the increase in fines for poaching provided by the Government, I do not believe that that will be enough. I am quite convinced that my noble friend is right and I urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Lord Kimball: I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will look favourably upon the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley. This is a particular problem throughout the eastern counties and Lincolnshire where there is a host of disused airfields to which those people drive their vehicles. They stage illegal coursing matches with illegal betting. A large number of police are needed to disperse them. By the time sufficient numbers have arrived to try to disperse them, they have finished their sport, killed their hares, paid their debts and vanished. Those people are extremely violent and intimidating, and it is a growing and serious problem.
Lord Mancroft: I support the amendment. Points have been made which cover the issue very well indeed. This is a serious problem; it is not a marginal problem. It is a growing problem and most important, the solution which my noble friend suggests—the confiscation of the dogs—could nip the problem in the bud.
It would be dreadful were we to miss the present opportunity to deal with the problem. In five or 10 years time it may become a major, serious problem and then we should have to look again at the matter. The present Bill provides us with an opportunity to deal with a problem which will obviously worsen if it is not dealt with. The amendment provides a sensible and easy solution. There is no break in principle and I hope that the Government will look very seriously at this amendment.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: I support my noble friend's amendment from the point of view that there is

157
a genus of the wolf coming into this country. It may be only 0.25 per cent. of the dogs breeding but the genus of the wolf must be controlled, not necessarily from the point of view of its containment but from the point of view of awareness. If that continues, we must be very aware of anything that happens in the future. We need the support of the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to forestall the Minister before his reply, but we have had a most interesting debate with many contributions. However, I wonder whether the amendment actually attacks the symptoms of a problem rather than its causes. During the course of the debate, we heard that poaching is a serious problem; that dogs are involved, and also that it is an increasing problem. But have Members of the Committee opposite considered why poaching is an increasing problem? I suggest that part of the reason is that the people involved in it have no other means of gainful employment.
As in so many spheres of illegal activity, part of the reason for the engagement of people in such activity is due, unfortunately, to the fact that we have mass unemployment and high levels of poverty in this country. It may be useful for noble Lords opposite to consider what could be done about those problems rather than just introduce new laws and penalties to tackle what I see as being the symptoms and not the causes of the problem with which we are beset.
Earl Peel: The noble Lord opposite may well have a point when he states the reasons for people wanting to go into the countryside and carry out such activities. However, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that poverty is really an issue in this question. Some of the prices that are paid for such dogs are very considerable. Moreover, the amount of betting that takes place between poachers is also at a very high level. Therefore, whereas the noble Lord may have a point about the reasons why some people cannot employ themselves in other matters, I can assure him that poverty is not a reason in this case.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I do not venture at this late hour into a deep, philosophical debate as to the causes of the matter, but simply address the particular issue raised by my noble friends in the amendment. As has been acknowledged, the position is that paragraphs 1 and 3 of Schedule 9 contain provisions which increase the penalties for poaching and also introduce powers in connection with the forfeiture of vehicles. It must be acknowledged that they are very substantial measures to deal with the kind of behaviour with which noble Lords are concerned.
The question is whether one should go further and introduce a particular provision such as that contained in the amendment. According to my information, I have to say that the police would not actually welcome the power of seizure contained in the amendment. In addition, a power exists at present in terms of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 to forfeit dogs if they are used for the commission of a crime. Therefore,

158
I believe that Members of the Committee would wish to reflect on whether it is necessary in the circumstances to introduce such an amendment.
The amendment contains other provisions—for example, to disqualify people from the ownership of a dog—which seem to go too far. It is one thing perhaps to disqualify someone from owning a dog if that person has been cruel to a dog; but to disqualify him from owning any dog in these particular circumstances seems, prima facie, to go too far. Nonetheless, I have heard what the Committee has said; and without giving any undertaking at all as to what the outcome of my reflection will be, I shall bear in mind what has been said and will reflect upon it between now and Report.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: First, I wish to thank all Members of the Committee for their support, particularly at this early hour of the morning. As my noble friends Lord Peel,, Lord Mancroft and Lord Kimball have said, the only way to deal with this problem is actually to seize the person who is committing the crime, which in this case is the dog. Very often a gun is being used, in which case it can be seized, but in this case one cannot seize the dog if it has acted incorrectly or outside the law. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, did not listen to my opening remarks—I understand how easy that is to do —but he was put right by my noble friend Lord Peel.
As regards my noble friend on the Front Bench, I must say that he did not answer the vital question, which is: if it was right for the Badgers Act in 1992 why was it not right for the game Act in 1960? My information is that the police would welcome this power provided they do not have to pay for it. The amendment deals with that. I shall certainly check (as I am sure my noble and learned friend will) with the police between now and Report. In the meantime, I am glad that my noble: and learned friend said he will look at the measure again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 170AA:
Page 153, leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert:
("(2) In Schedule 2 to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (punishment of offences under the Order)—

(a) in the entry for Article 6(1) (possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition), in the entry in column 4 specifying the punishment on conviction on indictment, for the words "5 years" there shall be substituted the words "10 years"; and

(b) in the entry for Article 6(1 A) (possessing or distributing other prohibited weapons)—

(i) in the entry in column 4 specifying the punishment on summary conviction, for the words "3 months" there shall be substituted the words "6 months"; and

(ii) in the entry in column 4 specifying the punishment on indictment, for the words "2 years" there shall be substituted the words "10 years".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment will ensure that offences relating to the possession or use of prohibited weapons in Northern Ireland continue to be dealt with on a similar basis to those offences in Great Britain. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, but we are talking about a remarkable acceleration in terms of the

159
penalties. Under heading (b) of this amendment a sentence of three months becomes six months; two years becomes 10 years. Under heading (a) the punishment for conviction on indictment goes up from five to 10 years. Certainly in the light of recent occurrences in Northern Ireland one is disposed to agree with propositions of this kind.
I apologise for being tediously repetitive, but I draw the attention of the Government Chief Whip, who is present, to the fact that it is now nearly two o'clock in the morning and we are doubling a whole series of criminal penalties. I say this to him in the most restrained tones—there are not 30 people here in the Chamber, I can assure him of that. If my noble friend and I now moved that the House be resumed, the business this evening would be suspended because there would not be a quorum present. He is sitting now entirely as a result of the restraint of those on these Benches who have not been consulted about the way in which the Government have made their business plans. This is wholly unacceptable behaviour for which he must accept a measure of responsibility. I hope he will reflect on this matter between now and the Report stage because if he does not in the future my noble friends and I will move that the House be resumed and he will find himself in a rather disagreeable situation.
We work together normally in this Chamber in a rather satisfactory manner. I hope that will continue but that will only continue if proper consultations take place, and on this occasion I am afraid they have not taken place. But coming back to the point of substance, I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would just respond to this because I am not in any sense challenging the desirability of this measure but I find the doubling of the penalties a matter which deserves slightly greater attention than it has so far received.
2 a.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The purpose is to keep this particular piece of legislation for Northern Ireland in line with the position which will obtain in the rest of Great Britain. This particular matter has not been dealt with appropriately for Northern Ireland, and therefore this amendment is put forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 170AB:
Page 154, line 10, at end insert:
"Anonymity of victims of certain offences
. In Section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (anonymity of victims in rape etc. cases), after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6A) For the purposes of this section, where it is alleged or there is an accusation that an offence of incitement to rape or conspiracy to rape has been committed, the woman who is alleged to have been the intended victim of the rape shall be regarded as the alleged victim of the incitement or conspiracy or, in the case of an accusation, as the complainant.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to extend the protection which is provided of anonymity for victims of rape to situations

160
where the person concerned is not actually a victim of rape but is the victim either of the crime of incitement to rape or of a conspiracy to rape. In those circumstances, where the crime itself is not rape but incitement or conspiracy to rape, it seems that the existing protection of anonymity afforded in cases of rape should be extended to people in that position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 170B:
Page 154, line 41, at end insert:
("The amendments made by this paragraph shall cease to have effect on the coming into force of the amendments made by paragraph 22 of Schedule 4 to this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 170B, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 170C. Both amendments are consequential on the provisions in Clause 40 and Schedule 4 to replace committal proceedings with a transfer for trial procedure. The substantive clause stands part of the Bill. I ask the Committee also to accept these essential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 170C:
Page 155, line 15, at end insert:
("The amendments made by this paragraph shall cease to have effect on the coming into force of the amendments made by paragraph 23 of Schedule 4 to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 170D:
Page 156, line 30, at end insert:
("Confiscation orders in drug trafficking cases: variation of sentences
. In Section 1A of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (inserted by Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993) (power of court to postpone determinations required before a confiscation order can be made), after subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(9A) Where the court has sentenced the defendant under subsection (7) above during the specified period it may, after the end of that period, vary the sentence by imposing a fine or making any such order as is mentioned in section 1(5) (b) (ii) or (iii) of this Act so long as it does so within a period corresponding to that allowed by section 47(2) or (3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (time allowed for varying a sentence) but beginning with the end of the specified period.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 170D, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 170E and 171G. Again, these are purely technical amendments. They rectify an unintended and unwanted consequence of the postpone-ment provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.
Unless the Members of the Committee wish, at this time of night I shall not detain the Committee with too much detail. In brief, the amendments ensure that the courts will be able to impose a fine or to make a forfeiture order in those cases where they decide to postpone the making of a confiscation order. There are various reasons why it may be appropriate to postpone the actual making of a confiscation order. The present terms of the legislation make it impossible for the courts

161
to impose, for example, a fine or an order of forfeiture. The purpose of the amendments is to enable the courts to impose a fine or order of forfeiture in those circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 170DA:
Page 157, line 5, at end insert:
("Competence of children
. In Section 33A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (inserted by Section 52(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—"(2A) A child's evidence shall be received unless it appears to the court that the child is incapable of giving intelligible testimony." ").
The noble Lord said: I declare an interest. I am a trustee of the NSPCC, which for a number of years has been seriously troubled by the difficulties of the admissibility of children's evidence, particularly when they are complainants in allegations of sexual abuse. I ought to say how grateful we are to the noble Earl the Minister, who has been helpfulness itself in assisting with the drafting of the amendment.
The short purpose of the amendment is virtually self-evident. It is to enable a court to hear a child's evidence where that child can give an intelligible account of relevant events. It is then up to the court to determine what weight to give that evidence in the light of that evidence and all other material before the court. In recent years there have been varying decisions by courts about the admissibility of children's evidence. With the assistance of the Minister, the amendment is designed to give children an appropriate opportunity to give their evidence. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am pleased to be able to accept the amendment which the noble Lord moved. It replaces an earlier attempt to put the meaning of Section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 beyond doubt. This version is an improvement and we are happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 170E:
Page 157, line 26, at end insert:
("Confiscation orders: variation of sentence
. In Section 72A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (inserted by Section 28 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993) (power of court to postpone determinations required before a confiscation order can be made), after subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(9A) Where the court has sentenced the defendant under subsection (7) above during the specified period it may, after the end of that period, vary the sentence by imposing a fine or making any such order as is mentioned in Section 72(5) (b) or (c) above so long as it does so within a period corresponding to that allowed by Section 47(2) or (3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (time allowed for varying a sentence) but beginning with the end of the specified period.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 170F:
Page 157, line 26, at end insert:
("Infringement of copyright: increase in powers of seizure
( ) After Section 109 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, there is inserted the following section—
"Infringement of copyright: increase in powers of seizure.
109A.—(1) The functions of a local weights and measures authority include the enforcement in their area of section 107 of this Act.
(2) The following provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 apply in relation to the enforcement of this section as in relation to the enforcement of that Act—

Section 27 (power to make test purchases),

Section 28 (power to enter premises and inspect and seize goods and documents),

Section 29 (obstruction of authorised officers).

Section 33 (compensation for loss &c. of goods seized under s. 28).

(3) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to the enforcement of Section 107 in Northern Ireland, but the functions of the Department of Economic Development include the enforcement of that section in Northern Ireland.
For that purpose the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 specified in subsection (2) apply as if for the references to a local weights and measures authority and any officer of such an authority there were substituted references to that Department and any of its officers.
(4) Any enactment which authorises the disclosure of information for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 shall apply as if section 107 was contained in that Act and as if the functions of any person in relation to the enforcement of these sections were functions under that Act." ").
The noble Lord said: I endorse what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said. It is ludicrous that at five past two in the morning we should be debating matters which although perhaps not of great criminal importance are of importance to parts of the industry of this country that I believed the Government were anxious to support.
I have to say that were rny late lamented friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran present he would have moved the amendment with a considerable amount of knowledge, which I do not have, and with much greater force. The Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 introduced criminal offences where copyright was infringed because the Government recognised how serious the offence was. Copyright infringement is a matter of grave concern to a number of companies and organisations in this country. Unfortunately, that Act gives powers only to the police to act, and it is proper that the police should act.
Until early this year the trading standards officers were able to rely on their powers under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to seize counterfeit goods. However, I understand that under a decision in Regina v. Price in the Divisional Court earlier this year the use by a trader of a disclaimer provides a defence under the Trade Descriptions Act. As a result, trading standards officers have been unable to take action under that Act.
That is not such a problem where trade mark goods are involved. They have a specific trade mark and it can be defended. But it is a problem with general packaging and art work which sells a number of goods—it applies to tapes and CDs—where the trade mark is routinely removed by traders. The content of the tape or compact disc is important.
If this important part of our trade in this country, in particular our export trade, is to prosper trading standards officers need to be empowered to search and to seize under Section 28 of the Trade Descriptions Act as they were before the Regina v. Price decision to which I have referred. No additional resources will be required if the amendment is accepted.
At this stage this is largely a probing amendment. However, I hope that the Government are prepared to accept that the principle is correct. If the amendment as drafted is not acceptable to the Government I hope that they will either put forward an amendment themselves or will give us assistance in putting forward a proper amendment at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The Government are sympathetic towards the concern underlying the noble Lord's amendment. We are aware of the importance of the battle against such crimes as he mentioned and that in some respects there is an anomaly. Some matters can be dealt with by trading standards officers and others, which are very close in kind, cannot. Therefore, we think this is a matter which is worth examination and we would wish to consider the amendment further. In the light of that, perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw it at this stage.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps we may have discussions before we reach the next stage and if the Government would come forward with an amendment, no one would be more delighted than I. In the light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 171 to 17IB not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 171BA:
Page 159, line 45, leave out paragraph 35.
The noble Lord said: The issue which is raised in this amendment relates to curfew orders. This part of Schedule 9, paragraph 35, relates to a power given to the Secretary of State to introduce the curfew orders when, as the schedule puts it:
"arrangements for monitoring the offender's whereabouts are available in the area".
That means electronic tagging. We discussed the matter during the passage of what became the Criminal Justice Act 1991. As I indicated on that occasion, I did not approach the issue in a particularly negative spirit, simply on the grounds that those of us who argue that the prison population is far too large should not immediately rule out some alternative proposal which could have the effect of limiting the size of the prison population.
However, the more one looked at the American experience which was argued by the enthusiasts for change, the more sceptical one became. The Florida case was perhaps the most relevant. When one considered the cases there where people had been tagged, it was clear from the outset that they were the kind of people who would not have been remanded in custody in this country. I cite the Florida experience as a simple example, it did not seem to me, when one examined the matter in detail, to provide a strong case for moving in that direction.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will have been told, the last Home Office experiment involved three courts: Tower Bridge, Tyneside and Nottingham. The Home Office hoped at that stage that there would be 150 tags. In fact, there were only

164
one-third that number. Forty-nine individuals were covered and one was tagged twice, making the number 50. In 29 of the cases, the individuals either breached their house arrest condition or they were charged with further offences. In all, there were 217 violations—in other words, more than four for every person who was tagged. There were 159 equipment failures or more than three for every person tagged. That seems to me a pretty high casualty rate. I look forward to the explanation that the noble and learned Lord will give us as to how, given this sad story, it would be appropriate to move further in this direction.
In the light of the experience that I have described the Home Office evaluation report used remarkably restrained language. It stated:
"Magistrates and judges did not seem to have much confidence in the applicability of electronic monitoring as an alternative to a remand in custody and commented on the difficulties of finding suitable candidates for it. They were willing to countenance a trial with a limited timespan, but if monitoring were to be introduced on any national basis then much greater confidence in the system on the part of both of these groups would be vital".
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will tell us that the situation has been transformed since that unhappy experience. He will assure us that the manufacturers have dramatically improved the quality of their tagging devices. Well, they would—wouldn't they?—because there are some potentially very lucrative contracts involved.
We can see remarkably little justification for this policy. So far it has involved a substantial waste of public money. It is seen by many to have been little more than an expensive folly. It seems to me that on good value-for-money grounds it should be rejected. I beg to move.
2.15 a.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he had not argued against this matter as a matter of principle when it came before your Lordships previously, but rather as a matter of practicality. Although with his remarkable powers of foresight he has predicted all that I have to say and has therefore perhaps made my remarks redundant, I think that nonetheless I should briefly give the position.
As the noble Lord will realise, the position is that the power to use curfew orders exists in legislation in the 1991 Act as it stands, so this Bill does not introduce that power. He will also of course recall that it was used, as he explained, in the previous experiment in connection with bail. The particular matter in the Act relates it not to bail but to a sentence. There is that difference.
We then come to the part that is all too predictable: that it is the case—however remarkable the noble Lord may find it—that technology has moved on in the intervening years. The position is that over those intervening years the technology has been used in the United States, not just in the jurisdiction to which the noble Lord referred. According to Home Office figures, as many as 200,000 offenders have been tagged over that period in the United States. During that time the technology has been developed. In those circumstances

165
it is anticipated that the technology is now much more satisfactory than, admittedly, it was on the previous occasion when the experiment was conducted.
It is for that reason that it is desired to proceed with testing the technology. It is also for that reason that this particular provision in paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 is contained in the Bill. As the Committee will see, it in fact allows the introduction of curfew orders over different parts of the country to be introduced at various times. That provision is designed in order to allow the use of the technology to be tested in different places.
It is anticipated that there will be three trial areas. One will be Manchester, because there is a high density of population there and rather a lot of high-rise building. That will be one particular aspect of the test. Another area is Reading, where again there is a high density of population, but low-rise building. The third area will be Norfolk, because it is a rural area. In that way it is anticipated that we shall have a representative sample.
So the purpose of this particular paragraph is to allow the matter to be tested in various areas and not to be introduced and used throughout the country at the one time. In the light of those experiments it will be seen whether this measure works—as we hope that it will work—efficiently. In that event, it will provide a sentence which will be useful and allow us to dispose of cases without necessarily using custody, which I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to do unnecessarily.
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could assist the Committee. I am no longer a member of your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee and I suspect that not many members of that committee are in the Chamber tonight. For the record, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could assist the Committee by telling us the way in which the technology has improved. This is a learned Chamber in these matters and just to say that it has improved is perhaps not adequate. Could we have a description of the way in which the technology has improved in this matter?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I do not think that I can give the Committee details of that. In America over the years it has been used. As a result, it has been found to be more reliable over that period. Its size has been reduced and in that way it has been found able to be used in a flexible way. For example, it is waterproof and so on and therefore people can wear it to the bath or in the shower and so on. In many ways it is more reliable. It does not need to send out a continuous signal and that kind of thing. In various ways it has been improved over the years. I cannot give the noble Lord the exact details, but if I can find any more detail on the matter I shall write to him.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am afraid that that does not persuade us that this is a sensible thing to do. The noble and learned Lord has said that the last experiment or project—call it what one will —took place in relation to bail. That is right. It was an abject failure. So, on the basis of an abject failure we are now to extend the scheme; on the basis of a rather less

166
adequate description (if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying so) of that huge advance in technology, which is supposed to have taken place, we are to extend it.
It seems to me that this is a piece of ideological nonsense. A junior Minister in the Home Office was the enthusiast for it. I certainly did not oppose the principle of an experiment. But the experiment was a failure. On the basis of the failure of the experiment, the Government have now decided to extend the scheme still further. That seems to me to be wholly wrong and I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
2.23 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill):The Question is, Whether the said amendment (No. 171BA) shall be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
I apologise to the Committee. Apparently I misread the note. I thought tellers for the Not-Contents were appointed and therefore I said the Not-Contents have it. The Not-Contents have it.
2.27 a.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 171BB:
Page 161, line 50, at end insert:
("Discretionary life prisoners
. —(1) In Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (duty to release discretionary life prisoners after they have served the relevant part of their sentence and the Parole Board has. directed their release)—

(a) in subsection (6), for the words after "sentence" there shall be substituted the following words—

"—

(a) account shall be taken of any corresponding relevant period; but

(b) no account shall be taken of any time during which the prisoner was unlawfully at large within the meaning of Section 49 of the Prison act 1952 ("the 1952 Act")."; and

(b) after that subsection, there shall be inserted the following subsection-

"(6A) In subsection (6) (a) above, "corresponding relevant period" means the. period corresponding to the period by which a determinate sentence of imprisonment imposed on the offender would fall to be reduced under Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (reduction of sentences to take account of police detention or remands in custody).".
(2) In paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 12 to that Act (application of early release provisions of the Act to existing life prisoners), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph, preceded by the word "and"—
"(c) in Section 34 of this Act, paragraph (a) of subsection (6) and subsection (6A) were omitted.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 171BB allows remand time to be taken into account when calculating the "relevant part" of a discretionary life sentence. Remand time counts towards determinate sentences and was always taken into account in

167
calculating tariffs in discretionary life sentence cases before the introduction of the new statutory arrange-ments governing these sentences in 1992. These arrangements, however, did not include any provision for that established practice to continue. It is desirable that it should continue and the amendment simply puts right that position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 171BC not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 17IC to 171E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 171F:
Page 162, line 42, leave out paragraph 44.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
2.30 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 171F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 2; Not-Contents, 14.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller]

[Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Burnham, L.

Goschen, V.

168

Harlech, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Chancellor.]

[Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Trumpington, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

The Chairman of Committees: Before announcing the result of this situation, I should report to the House that as regards Amendment No. 171BA, it was told to me first of all that Tellers for the "Not-Contents" had not been appointed and then that Tellers for the "Contents" had not been appointed. It seems that Tellers for both sides were appointed and therefore the matter has been unsatisfactorily resolved.
I now turn to Amendment No. 171F. It appears that fewer than 30 noble Lords have voted. In accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question not decided, and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.

State Hospitals (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment. The amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before three o'clock.

  SANDZAK, SERBIA: TRIAL OF MUSLIMS
  SANDZAK, SERBIA: TRIAL OF MUSLIMS
  NORTH KOREA: DISCHARGING OF REACTOR AND IAEA INSPECTION
  NORTH KOREA: DISCHARGING OF REACTOR AND IAEA INSPECTION
  KOREA: RUSSIAN SECURITY CONFERENCE PROPOSAL
  KOREA: RUSSIAN SECURITY CONFERENCE PROPOSAL
  CROWN ESTATES PAVING COMMISSION
  CROWN ESTATES PAVING COMMISSION
  BOSNIA: BROADCASTS TO BRITISH FORCES
  BOSNIA: BROADCASTS TO BRITISH FORCES
  STONEHENGE: A303 ROUTE
  STONEHENGE: A303 ROUTE
  MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE: REPORT
  MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE: REPORT
  FLA PROGRAMME
  FLA PROGRAMME
  EAST MIDLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
  EAST MIDLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
  TOKAI MURA PLANT, JAPAN: NUCLEAR MATERIALS
  TOKAI MURA PLANT, JAPAN: NUCLEAR MATERIALS
  BRITISH COAL PENSION SCHEMES
  BRITISH COAL PENSION SCHEMES
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 8th AND 9th JUNE
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 8th AND 9th JUNE
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
  MRS. SURINDER KAUR RAM
  MRS. SURINDER KAUR RAM
  NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD SCHEME
  NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD SCHEME
  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976, S. 69(2) CERTIFICATES
  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976, S. 69(2) CERTIFICATES
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER BILL: NEW OFFENCES
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER BILL: NEW OFFENCES
  CHILDREN DETAINED UNDER POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT
  CHILDREN DETAINED UNDER POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT